The 2013 PanSIG Proceedings

From Many, One: Collaboration, Cooperation,
and Community

The 12th Annual JALT PanSIG Conference
May 18-19, 2013 Nagoya, Japan

Edited & Published by JALT PanSIG
Proceedings Editor-in-Chief
Dr. Robert Chartrand
Kurume University

Editors
Gavin Brooks (Kwansei Gakuin University)
Mathew Porter (Hiroshima Bunkyo Women’s University)
Myles Grogan (Momoyama Gakuin University)

Layout and Design by
Gavin Brooks & Mathew Porter

Message from the editors:
The 12th Annual PanSIG Conference was held at Nanzan University on May 18 and 19,
2013. The theme of the conference was, “From Many, One: Collaboration, Cooperation, andCommunity.” This was a collaborative effort from 26 Special Interest Groups (SIGs) within
the Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT). The conference was highly successful as
approximately 400 participants attended about 200 presentations with a variety of topics andinterests from a wide spectrum in the field of language teaching.

The 2013 PanSIG Proceedings is a representative effort from the conference in Nagoya as
44 papers were accepted for publication in this year’s volume, as well as two papers from theconference Plenary Speakers. The quantity and quality of presentations and published papers
from the conference are increasing year by year and show the professional determination oftalented individuals who shared their thoughts and insights of teaching languages. We arehonored and proud to have been a part of this process.

We would like to thank all of the contributors for submitting their papers for this publication.
We are also very grateful for the readers of the papers who suggested changes to the authors andcontributed to the high quality of this volume. The success of these proceedings is a cumulative
effort from a large number of individuals. We hope that you will enjoy reading the papers inthese proceedings and that you can gain some insight for your professional development.

Robert Chartrand
Gavin Brooks
Mathew Porter
Myles Grogan
April 24, 2014

ii

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Message from the conference chair:Conferences are ephemeral things—many people work long hours over a long period oftime to create a good conference, the conference happens, more or less as planned, people
give presentations, people attend presentations (but not all they wanted to see), publishers
show their wares, everybody is busy networking, and then it is over. The staff cleans up, pateach other on the back, and everybody goes on with their lives, teaching their classes, going toother conferences, growing professionally. PanSIG2013 is no exception. I was proud to haveworked with such a dedicated and capable team of people. We hosted a good conference, andnow it is over.

However, that weekend of the conference there was so much good information in thepresentations we saw that we have since forgotten, there were so many presentations we wanted
to attend, but didn’t get to see, and there are so many gems of presentations that we overlookedin the busy PanSIG weekend. This is why the proceedings is so important. It is a way to makethe ephemeral permanent. It is a tool to help us with our profession. It is also a reminder of theimportance of the theme of the conference, “From Many, One: Collaboration, Cooperation,
and Community.”

A big thank you goes to Robert Chartrand, Gavin Brooks, Myles Grogan, and Mathew
Porter, and the entire Proceedings team. They have created a useful tool, and a sort of yearbookof the conference.

David Kluge
Conference Chair, PanSIG2013
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedingsiii

The 2013 PanSIG Proceedings
Editorial Advisory Board

Paul Aaloe

Dawn Kobayashi

Kwansei Gakuin University

Onomichi City University

Mutahar Al-MurtadhaBrandon Kramer

Kanazawa Institute of Technology

Momoyama Gakuin University

Lee Arnold

Tara McIlroy

Seigakuin University

Kanda University of International Studies

Jim Chapman

Charles Moore

Aichi Bunkyo University

Concordia University

Brian Cullen

Paul Nehls

Nagoya Institute of Technology

Yokohama City University

Nick DoranErina Ogawa

Rikkyo University

Toyo University

Tetsuya Fukuda

Marcus Otlowski

International Christian University

Kochi University

Tim Greer

Andre Scholler

Kobe University

Interac Ltd.

Mike Hadas

Raymond Stubbe

BBT University

Kyushu Sangyo University

Douglas Jarrell

Huei-Chun Teng

Nagoya Women’s University

National Taiwan University of Science andTechnology

Marybeth Kamibeppu
Toyo Eiwa University
David Kluge
Nanzan Universityiv

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Hideko Yano
Kurume University

ISBN 978-4-901352-42-0
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings
From Many, One: Collaboration, Cooperation, and Community
Nagoya, Japan
JALT Central OfficeUrban Edge Bldg 5F, 1-37-9 Taito, Taito-ku, Tokyo 110-0016, Japan
http://jalt.org/
http://www.pansig.org/

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedingsv

Table of Contents
Exploring Practitioner Perspectives on Collaboration, Cooperation and Community in the
Language Classroom
Judith Hanks

9

Ten Principles to Guide Researching Your Own Classroom
Robert Croker

19

A Study of Test-Taking Strategies Used by EFL Listeners
Huei-Chun Teng

27

A Taste of Teaching in Australia – The Great Adventure
Anthony Robins & Anthony Ryan

35

Adding Drama to Role-plays: The Road to Authentic Communication
Aya Kawakami

41

An Alternative Basis for Novice L2 Learner Oral Presentation Assessment and Development
Lee Arnold

46

An Interesting Project About Interest
Nick Doran53

Building the Four Skills through Documentary Films
Mark Koprowski

63Comparing Yes/No Test Correction Formula Predictions of Passive Recall Test Results
Raymond Stubbe & Shintaro Hoke

72

Connecting Group Identity to Motivation: A Preliminary Study
Tetsuya Fukuda

79

Creating a Community in the Writing Class Through Journal Sharing Activities
Wendy M. Gough86

Creating A Self-Access Classroom For First Year Non-English Majors
Tanja McCandie

91

Critical Thinking and TOEIC: Advanced Skills for Teachers and Test-Takers
Jim Chapman

102

Cross-Disciplinary Synthesis in Explicating Texts: Combining Literary Themes with Vocabulary
Neil Addison & Neil Conway

109

CT LiLT SDD Forum: Creativity, critical thinking and language learning
Tara McIlroy, David A. Gann, Dawn Kobayashi, & Jane Joritz-Nakagawa

115

Enriching Short-term Study Abroad Programs
Marcus Otlowski

124

Facilitating Learning Shifts through Milton Model Language Patterns
Brian Cullen , Brad Deacon , Ben Backwell , & Sarah Mulvey

130

vi

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Foregrounding Learner Research for TBL Activities
Matthew W. Turner & Robert James Lowe

138

Educational Manga Textbook Activity Preferences
Erina Ogawa

145

Identity in Intercultural Interaction: How Categories Do Things
Tim Greer , Adam Brandt & Yosuke Ogawa

155

Improving Students’ Conversational Competence with the Rules of Improvisation
Dawn Kobayashi

165

Instructional Design for Teachers of English as a Foreign Language
Megumi Kohyama

171Interactional Language and Head-Held Camcorders
Duane Kindt

177

Introducing student developed low-level listening materials into the EFL classroom
Mark Wright

188

Japanese University Classroom Behavior and Teacher Expectations: Non-Cooperative Behavior
in Context
Neil Conway

197

L1 in the EFL Class: Student Preferences and Teacher Beliefs
Eleanor Carson

203

Learning as Meaning-making in Communities of Practice
Akiko Nagao

214

The Quality of Life in the English as a Foreign Language University Classroom: A Case Studyof Three Departments of Kwansei Gakuin University
Alan Brady & Paul Aaloe

221

Literature Circles: Collaboration and Community
Kevin Michael Maher

227

Motivating Students by Talking about Novels: On Character-driven Novels and Plot-driven
NovelsStephen A. Shucart & Mamoru Takahashi

235

N/NEST Collaboration: A pipe dream or a possibility?
Kevin Kato

240

Online Language Learning Opportunities and Pitfalls: Content Development for Synchronous
Online Learning
Miroslav Michael Hadas

246

Performance, Literature, and Critical Thinking
David E. Kluge

252

The 2013 PanSIG Conference ProceedingsviiPragmatic Appropriateness of English Learners’ Refusals
Kimiko Koseki

260

Resources for Technology-Supported Learning in the EFL Classroom
Andrea Carlson

269

Responses to an Email Magazine: How Do Writers Grow?
Douglas Jarrell

275

Student Feedback on the Value of Impromptu Speeches
Paul Notebaart Nehls

280

Teacher’s Manuals: The Bridge Between Teachers and Authors
Azusa Sato

285

Teaching Speaking: Content and Methodology
John Campbell-Larsen

289

Testing People: A History of a Placement Test
Myles Grogan

295

The Effect of Vocabulary Use on EFL Learners’ Writing Fluency
Mutahar Al-Murtadha

301

The Value of Using Student Feedback in the Classroom
David Richard Evans

306

The World, the Language Learner, and Relationships
Jim Ronald, Andy Barfield, Seth Cervantes, Louise Haynes, Ian Hurrell, Marybeth Kamibeppu,
Eleanor Kelly, Kevin Mark, Rob Olson, Jane Nakagawa, Erina Ogawa, Donna Tatsuki, & Lori
Zenuk-Nishide

313

Utilizing Smartphones and Tablet Technology in CBI Courses to Enhance the Learning
Experience
Zane Ritchie & Richard Miller

323

What Great Teachers Do Differently
Andre Paul Scholler

331

Writing for Academic Publication: Participation and Collaboration
Paul A. Beaufait , Theron Muller & Loran Edwards

339

All materials in this publication are copyright © (2014) by JALT and their respective authors.

viii The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Exploring Practitioner Perspectives on
Collaboration, Cooperation and Community
in the Language Classroom

Judith Hanks
University of Leeds
J.I.Hanks@education.leeds.ac.uk
This paper discusses a form of practitioner research in language education, Exploratory Practice(EP), which invites teachers and learners to work collaboratively to investigate puzzles in their own
classrooms. A case study of practitioners working with EP in an English for Academic Purposescontext is presented and the challenges and opportunities that practitioners (teachers and learners)
faced are analyzed.
本稿では、言語教育における授業実践研究―探求的実践 (EP) について論じる。
この試みの中で、教師と学習者の恊働を通して、自分達の教室内で起こっている様々な複
雑な事象、現象を解き明かしていく。学術英語 (Academic English) のクラスでのEP事例研究を通し、教師と学習者が直面する様々な可能性や問題点を分析した。

Introduction*

Over the decades, practitioner research has been
increasingly recognised as a force for developing
understanding of language learning and teaching(Clandinin & Connelly, 1995; Cochran-Smith &Lytle, 1999, 2009; Stenhouse, 1975). Yet, as others
have argued (Borg, 2013; Johnson & Golombek, 2002;
Zeichner & Noffke, 2001), there is still a need for
greater understanding of the implications of, and for,practitioners wishing to engage in research into theirown educational practices. The form of practitioner
research under discussion here, Exploratory PracticeHanks, J. (2014). Exploring Practitioner Perspectives
on Collaboration, Cooperation and Community inthe Language Classroom. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 9-18). Nagoya, Japan:
JALT.

*

(Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Allwright & Miller, 2013;
Miller, 2009), provides an opportunity for examinationof such implications.
The EP framework prioritizes the notion of working
together for mutual development, and advocates
including learners as co-researchers alongside theirteachers as they cooperate to investigate their language
learning and teaching lives (Allwright, 1993, 2003;
Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Gieve & Miller, 2006b).
But what does this mean in practice?
In this paper I discuss the potential for collaborative
teaching, learning and research that EP offers. I argue
that EP harnesses this potential to enhance quality oflife for those in the language classroom. This, however,is not unproblematic. Based on a case study taken froma much larger research project (Hanks, 2013a, 2013b,
Forthcoming), I analyse the challenges as well as theopportunities that a group of learners and teachers
faced when they started to implement EP into their
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

9

Hanksown classroom practices. As I do so, I propose tolink the EP principles both implicitly and explicitlywith the themes of the JALT PAN-SIG conference:
community, cooperation and collaboration. I conclude
that although such themes may be problematic, they
are worth pursuing, leading as they do, to an enhanced
sense of ‘quality of life’ in the demanding, challenging
world of the language classroom.

Background
In order to address the divides frequently noted
between teachers, academics, researchers, and learners(Edge, 2011; Freeman, 1996), Exploratory Practiceadvocates a principled approach to practitioner
research (Allwright, 2001, 2005; Allwright & Hanks,
2009; Gieve & Miller, 2006a; Hanks, 1999, 2013b).
Two distinctive characteristics of EP are: (i) the notionof minimizing the workload on already overloaded
teachers and students by incorporating research into
pedagogy, not adding it on top, and (ii) positioning
learners as co-researchers (Allwright, 2003) alongside
their teachers. These principles for practitioner research
have been developed over twenty-five years of working
with teachers and learners and researchers. They
are fluid, and, as may be expected, have undergone anumber of changes over the years. However, a numberof themes remain constant:The ‘what’ issues
1. Focus on quality of life as the fundamental issue.
2. Work to understand it, before thinking aboutsolving problems.
The ‘who’ issues
3. Involve everybody as practitioners developing
their own understandings.
4. Work to bring people together in a common
enterprise.
5. Work cooperatively for mutual development.
The ‘how’ issues
6. Make it a continuous enterprise.
7. Minimise the burden by integrating the work forunderstanding into normal pedagogic practice.
(Allwright & Hanks, 2009, p260, original emphases)
Allwright (2001, 2003), Allwright & Hanks

10

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings(2009), and Allwright & Miller (2013) argue thatlearners and teachers working together, as equals, toresearch their own classroom language learning andteaching experiences, may develop their own, and our,understandings of the pedagogic process. Above all,the notion of ‘working for understanding’ should beprioritized over the more common approach in otherforms of practitioner research of problem-solving. In
addition, collaborative working, it is argued, can leadto mutual development, and a greater understandingof what it is to learn or teach a language. But theseprinciples, though ostensibly laudable, raise a numberof questions: Why should we work to bring people
together in a common enterprise? Why should wework cooperatively for mutual development? What
does integrating the work for understanding into
normal pedagogic practice really look like? The casestudy that follows will address these questions.
Before moving on to discuss the case study, though,it is worth pausing a moment to unpack the notionsof collaboration, cooperation and community in thelanguage classroom.
So what do we mean by ‘collaboration’?
Collaboration with whom, by whom, for whom?
According to EP principles 3, 4 and 5 above,
collaboration would include both teachers andlearners working together to understand what isgoing on in their classrooms. An optimistic viewof collaboration enumerates the benefits, as Tajino
argues: “student-teacher collaborative reflection
may contribute to better learning and teaching […] asharing of responsibility for achieving and sustaining
an educational quality of life among all practitioners”(2009: 128). Yet, as Tajino (2009) and Slimani-Rolls(2003; 2009) have acknowledged, collaboration
between individuals is rarely a smooth affair; people
bring their own assumptions, needs and demands tothe classroom.
Then what do we mean by ‘cooperation’? Central
to the EP principles above, is the notion of learners andteachers cooperating with each other and with othercolleagues (administrative staff, friends and family, as
well as academics and researchers) with the intention ofdeveloping understandings of what goes on in language
classrooms. The notion of ‘mutual development’ isExploring Practitioner Perspectives on Collaboration, pages 9-18
seen as crucial. But is this not an overly-idealistic
view of learners and teachers, let alone academics
and researchers? Cooperation, like collaboration, isnotoriously complex, involving different personalities,
egos, agendas.
And finally what do we mean by ‘community’?
For the purposes of this paper, I have used Wenger’s
early notion of a Community of Practice, in which
practitioners “act as resources to each other, exchanging
information, making sense of situations, sharing new
tricks and new ideas, as well as keeping each othercompany and spicing up each others’ working days”(Wenger, 1998 p47). This positive description of acommunity is uplifting. But might there be other,less attractive, sides? Who is defined as part of acommunity, who excluded, and why? The community
itself is not homogenous, it is made up of individuals.
Within a community there may be clashes between
individuals, attempts at dominance, sometimes
accepted, sometimes repulsed: ‘spice’ as chilli, bringing
tears as well as delight.

Why explore practitioner perspectives?
In 2009, Dick Allwright and I put forward fivepropositions about learners. We argued that:

Learners are both unique individuals and social
beings who are capable of taking learning
seriously, of taking independent decisions, and ofdeveloping as practitioners of learning.
(Allwright & Hanks, 2009, p15)
To us, this meant a re-evaluation of assumptions
about practitioner research, about learning, teaching
and research. By inviting learners to work alongsideteachers as “co-researchers” (Allwright, 2003, p129),
we wanted to broaden the definition of a ‘practitionerresearcher’ to incorporate both teacher and learnerperspectives. Learners, we felt, have much to offer
in terms of insights into the pedagogic processesof the language classroom. They are also frequently
overlooked as powerful actors in the drama of theclassroom, with opinions and ideas of their own. As aparticipant researcher myself, I was convinced of thebenefits to be had from including a range of voices inthe study, including the perspectives of both learners
and teachers. Consequently, I took care to include
learners’ narratives as well as those of the teachers in
my study.

The Case Study
Having been involved with Exploratory Practice since
the mid-1990s, I was intrigued by a conundrum. I
knew that EP was thriving in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
in a variety of contexts (private language schools, stateschools at primary as well as secondary level, and atuniversity level). Likewise, EP was clearly in evidencein China, Japan, Turkey, and the USA, to name but
a few. However, to my knowledge, there were nopractitioners engaging in EP in my own context ofteaching English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in the
UK at that time. I wondered: ‘Why don’t we do EP
in my situation?’ and then: ‘What happens if we try
it?’. For the purposes of this study, I re-framed these as
Research Questions:
1. What are the challenges faced by practitioners(teachers and learners) when they try to conduct
EP in an EAP context?
2. How do teachers and learners set about
initiating EP?
To investigate these questions, I took a qualitative,
interpretive approach, using a number of case studies,observing the implementation of EP in an EAPcontext. In working with colleagues (teachers andstudents) I was acutely aware of the ethical dilemmas
that any researcher faces. For example: how to ensure
confidentiality, while also honouring the contributionsof the various practitioners? How to ensure informed
consent, when the practitioners themselves were
but budding researchers, who may not have fully
understood all the implications? How to ensure thatpractitioners were not patronized, or their experiences
marginalized? Such knotty issues are faced by any
practitioner researcher wishing to include colleagues
as equal participants in the research process, rather
than positioning them as ‘subjects’ or even ‘objects’ of
study. My own approach was to follow the notion of
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

11

Hanksthe ‘virtuous researcher’ (Pring, 2001; Small, 2001)– in other words, to remain aware of the ethicalimplications of every step, to seek permission frommy institution’s ethics committee, and to do this in as
thoughtful manner as I could, and above all, to protect
the interests of the participants.
What follows is the story of the implementation of
EP for the first time on a long pre-sessional programme
preparing students for study at undergraduate level ina British university. This was an intensive 11-week
pre-sessional course, teaching English for Academic
Purposes (EAP) to a group of young international
students in the UK. In common with many othersimilar courses, this was a high stakes, goal-oriented
programme, with limited time available to the students
before they moved on to take up (if successful) places
either on an International Foundation Year, or on theirchosen undergraduate degree programmes.
A major issue for the teachers and myself was:
how to incorporate EP in such a context? Would thevery nature of such a programme clash with the EP

principles? How would the learners respond (or not)to the introduction of an exploratory mindset, which
invited them to investigate their own practices oflearning, alongside their teachers? In order to find out,
I observed as EP was implemented, and interviewed
the participants at regular intervals over the 11-weekprogramme.

What puzzled the practitioners?
A first step was to give a talk explaining the principles
of EP. This talk performed the dual purpose of (i)providing valuable listening and note-taking practice(an opportunity to listen to a live speaker for an
extended period is a typical activity in EAP, as it
replicates the experience of listening to lectures, andfocuses learners’ attention on the academic skills they
will need), and (ii) of introducing the EP framework.
The talk ended with an invitation to the class: ‘What
puzzles you about your language learning experiences?’
As the learners wrote down their puzzles, their

Table 1
Learner puzzles.

Name

Nationality

Length oftime in UK

No of people ingroup

Ahmad*

Saudi Arabian

6 months

4

Puzzle(s)Why don’t I like to learn another language from mymother tongue?
Why can’t I study in certain situations?

Ted

Japanese

6 months

4

Why do people learn bad words [= swear words]
more easily?

Chiho

Japanese

6 months

4

Why can’t I express my feelings?
Why can’t I speak like I think?

Yumi

Japanese

New arrival4

Why can’t I speak like I think?

Kai

Japanese

New arrival4

Why can’t I speak like I think?
Why when I read, I can’t understand quickly?

Kelly

Japanese

New arrival

2 (rising to 3
later)* Pseudonyms are used throughout this study.

12

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Why are Japanese good at writing and Saudi Arabians
good at speaking?

Exploring Practitioner Perspectives on Collaboration, pages 9-18
teachers were also invited to puzzle about their own
language teaching (or learning) experiences. I havedescribed the teachers’ EP journeys elsewhere (Hanks,
Forthcoming) so will concentrate here on the learners’
stories. Their puzzles covered a range of issues, runningfrom the social, to the practical, to the philosophical,
psychological aspects of learning a language (see Table
1).

So what did we do?
Six weeks of the 11-week course included an EP
strand. This meant in practice that between one andtwo 90-minute lessons (out of fifteen) were devoted to
EP per week. In the first class EP was introduced via
powerpoint presentation (as outlined above). The nextclass focused on the student puzzles, as they sharedquestions, and formed groups around topic areasthat interested them. Once the groups had formed,
the teacher, Jenny, encouraged them to think about
small-scale data collection. For example, those who
were interested in issues to do with speaking skills
worked on developing a set of questions for an openended interview with a teacher, while others produced
a questionnaire for students to fill in. In all, thistook five weeks, as the learners shared (and refined)puzzles, investigated what it was that had puzzled
them, read articles or chapters on the subject, collected
data, collated and analysed their data, and preparedposter presentations of their findings to date. These
presentations were delivered by the learners (in theirgroups), for the learners (and their teachers). Eachgroup consisted of between three and five students,and every student in the group spoke. In addition,
each presentation (again, to replicate the type ofacademic activity they might find during the course of
their degrees) was followed by a question-and-answer
session. As follow-up work, the students wrote up
their small-scale investigations in group ‘methodology’
assignments.
As they worked, the learners
1. Set their own research agendas (puzzles)
2. Worked together to explore their agendas
3. Worked together to collect/generate data,
analysed the data
4. Prepared presentations of their findings

5. Gave poster presentations to an audience who
asked searching questions
During the whole process, the learners practised key
language (question formation, negotiating meaning,listening, reading, speaking and writing skills) as wellas the academic skills they would need (questioning,
critical thinking, analysing, synthesising ideas andinformation). As they collaborated and cooperated intheir Community of (classroom) Practice, over the 11
weeks of the study, a sense of harmony developed withheightened motivation for all.

What were the learners’ perspectives?
Space does not allow a full analysis here of all the
responses from the learners, which were predictablycomplex, having elements in common, while also
individual, idiosyncratic. A few comments must sufficeto give a flavour of the rich and varied reactions theyexpressed.

Kelly’s puzzle: ‘Why are Japanese goodat writing and Saudi Arabians good atspeaking?’
Kelly (a Japanese student) explained the reason forher question comparing the relative proficiencies ofJapanese and Saudi Arabian students as follows:
Kelly: on the first week of this programme I wasvery shocked that Saudi Arabians […] speak
very fast and, yeah very fast, and many opinions
they have… they have many opinions. I can’tsay… I can’t speak anything(interview 1g)
Initially, on entering this newly formed community(her cohort of classmates), Kelly expressed a degree of
discomfort. She had assumed that the confidence andfluency of a particular group of students indicatedtheir level of English was somehow ‘better’, and wastherefore discouraged from speaking herself. However,as she puzzled over the question along with her group,
she found layers of complexity: it was not a simple
matter of one national group being better than another.
Kelly’s group had started as a pair of Japanese
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

13

Hanksstudents, with a late (Saudi Arabian) arrival joining
them. She was delighted by this addition, explainingthat having another nationality in the group allowed
her to compare the Japanese and Saudi experiencesmore fully. The group worked well together, using
questionnaires to ascertain the opinions of students
and teachers. They produced a poster, which Kelly
described with pride. Her group’s poster illustrated
the understandings that she and her fellow students
had reached regarding developing skills in spoken andwritten language. Motifs such as pie-charts, lists andnumerical information, and advice for learners were
presented.
Arguably, by collaborating (with other learners,
with teachers) she was able to more confidently takeher place in her new community:
Kelly: we have to discuss with other students in
the group and so lots of speaking, and also wehave to organise the – our information andalso maybe the designing. I, - we have to think
about the design how to write specifically […] somaybe I get, my ability get more and more well(interview 2g)
Interestingly, the group used the poster to consider
the processes learners go through when speaking,and identified heavy reliance on translation as an
impediment to fluent speech. They also found thatwhile many Japanese struggled with speaking, they
had not reckoned on the fact that many of their fellow,
Saudi Arabian, students were grappling with writing.
These are, of course, not ground-breaking findings– many teachers, and researchers, are aware of such
issues. However, crucially, these students had foundout for themselves, and thus their findings had a depthof personal meaning for them.
Moreover, Kelly’s story illustrated the shift awayfrom ‘how to…’ and beyond the assumption that theteacher holds the answer: her group moved towards
balancing the advice they received from teachers with
their own understandings of the difficulties learners
face when speaking and writing in a foreign language.
In carrying out the investigations, Kelly discovered forherself that an initial superficial impression hid many

14

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

complexities.

Chiho’s puzzle: ‘Why can’t I speak like I
think?’
Another group of students were also interested inoral communication, but this time from a more
introspective position: they considered their own
internal capacities in the language. One member ofthe group, Chiho, identified the complexity of theirpuzzle, separating the question about technique fromself-perception and psychological aspects of learning:
Chiho: It was very difficult to […] define ourpuzzlement […] because the… ‘why we can’t
speak English’ it is simple, but ‘as we think wecan’ it is… each of us in our group have diffdifficulties in our brain(interview 3e)
In her first interview, Chiho had noted the rolereversal offered by EP: teachers could learn fromstudents as much as the other way around:
Chiho: of course we can learn a lot of things fromthe lecture, but I think […] we are studying, theteachers are also studying, so interaction is very
beneficial to both teachers and students(interview 1e)
She was intrigued by the egalitarian approach toteaching and learning found in EP and highlighted thepotential for mutual development, and cooperationthat EP offered. This was echoed by one of the teachers,
Jenny, who pointed out at the end of the study that EP“makes them realise what they’re capable of […] andit helped me view them in a much more adult kind ofway” (interview 5b).

Ahmad’s puzzle: ‘Why can’t I study incertain situations?’
A third student, Ahmad, illustrates the complex
ecology (Tudor, 2001) of classroom work. He declined
the opportunity to work on his initial puzzle (‘Whydon’t I like to learn another language from my motherExploring Practitioner Perspectives on Collaboration, pages 9-18
tongue?’), choosing instead to work in a group. Thiswas despite a significant amount of encouragementfrom his teacher, who was interested in his initial
puzzle herself. He also rejected the option of working
individually on the puzzle, even though he claimed not
to enjoy group work:
Ahmad: usually in my life I prefer to work alone,that’s why I don’t like groups work because
I’m… naturally I don’t like participate in others((really?)) yes, but I think in this project I haveto work in groups because you know I needto make questionnaires, surveys and some…
interviews some people, that’s why I think I
need to work with other people(interview 1f )He displayed a pragmatic and mature attitude,
identifying the need to work with others, andexplaining this, while also stating that he preferred towork alone.
As time went on, though, Ahmad seemed to forget
his initial reluctance, enthusiastically relating theprocesses of delivering questionnaires and interviewing
people. Nevertheless, he later returned to his staunchly
individualistic stance. His teacher noticed thisdistancing as her class worked in their groups to writeup their EP work:
Jenny: as they started writing it, he just basically satapart from them, and they were […] sat at thecomputer writing it basically together sentenceby sentence, arguing about what sentence
should be what… and I thought it was quite
cooperative […] he physically kept away fromthem, and I was trying to say, you know, ‘Ahmad
are you OK, do you want to contribute, do
you feel that you’re being ignored?’ and we had
quite a deep discussion about his feelings aboutgroup work
(interview 5b)
Ahmad himself explained his position as follows:
Ahmad: generally everything in life I don’t like towork with group, I prefer to work alone […]when we start write our report we couldn’t findthe best way to divide the work between us(interview 3f )This difficulty in negotiating responsibilities andtasks within the group will be familiar to both learners
and teachers. There was no question about Ahmad’scommitment to the work: he was a serious student,
but found the social aspects of collaboration andcooperation tricky.
I wondered if this had implications for the EP
principles of collegial working. Perhaps working
together was not always desirable? But Ahmad
surprised me by continuing his story. When the course
was drawing to a close, he described the group writing
assignment as follows:
Ahmad: always in my essays I tried to use
complicated sentences long sentences […] but
what I found that some members of my group,
they have the same idea but maybe they arethey write the areas in different sentences but
they use connection words perfectly(interview 3f )he re-emphasised this point:
Ahmad: honestly I was really surprised ((Why? )I didn’t expect it to be that good, to be… thatclear, many opinions, but I found it very, veryclear. Specially using… connection words. And
I don’t know who wrote the conclusion but hewrote the conclusion in very, very good way
xxx include the main ideas. […] So I was very
surprised(interview 3f )His estimation of his partners increased and hefound a renewed respect for the contributions of hisclassmates.
Ahmad’s story is particularly interesting because
he had struggled with working collaboratively. Despite
choosing to work with others on a puzzle that was notof his own devising, Ahmad had become involved. He
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

15

Hankshad persevered, taking the mature view that working
with others is a necessary part of classroom language
learning. And in the end, he had found that hisclassmates did have something to offer him after all.
On being asked for his views on the Exploratory
Practice experience, he, like Chiho above, emphasized
the mutually beneficial aspect of the process. At thesame time he identified another aspect of collaborationand cooperation:
Ahmad: I think [EP]’s very important because
education is not just teaching it’s teaching fromone side and learning from other side
(interview 3f )So what does it all mean?
In the words and actions of the teachers and learners
in this study, there is a clear allegiance to notions oflearner autonomy, empowerment, and integration ofresearch and pedagogy. Freire (1973) argued many
years ago that the only person who can learn is the
person who appropriates learning for themselves. Evenso, there remains a general assumption that learners willlearn and teachers will teach, even when collaborating,cooperating. But the participants in this study showthat learners can learn from one-another; teachers canlearn from learners, and that this can be an enjoyable
and stimulating experience.
I have presented here a case study of EP, considering
the views of learners as they went about implementing
EP in their teaching and learning lives. As participants
worked together to investigate their puzzles, a new senseof mutual respect emerged. Through EP, the teachersbegan to understand the issues that their learners weregrappling with. Learners enjoyed the opportunity tocollaborate not only with other learners, but also with
their teachers as they investigated their puzzles about
language learning on an equal footing. Smith expresses
this eloquently: “One of the hidden resources in our
teaching worlds is the joy in the companionship of [a]few kindred spirits working together on projects thatthey believe in.” (2009, p112).
As demonstrated by the learners in this study,
collaboration, cooperation and community are both
motivating and complex. This is clearly not a simple

16

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

matter: not everyone enjoys collaboration; cooperation
frequently involves negotiation, compromise, andat times, conflict; within a community there may bedisagreement, jostling for position, in-fighting, andexclusion, as well as the joyful sharing of ideas andresources. These are convoluted concepts in a dynamic
and complex world.

The JALT community collaborating
and cooperating
Such complexity was writ large in the JALT PANSIG conference of 18-19 May 2013. In the vibrantatmosphere of the conference it was clear to me thatpeople are passionate about their teaching, theirstudents, their colleagues, their work. In those dealing
with the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, helping
learners in ordinary and extraordinary ways; in thosedealing with less traumatic, but nevertheless important
daily questions of what to teach, when, and why;of who teaches, who learns and how these groupsinteract, I saw many examples of committed teachers
dedicated to their learning and teaching community.
Most exciting to me, were the suggestions of inviting
learners to research and publish alongside teachers in
respected professional journals.
As an ‘outsider looking in’, a visitor and guest, myimpressions may seem overly idealistic, but I was also
aware that there are (inevitably) tensions between
individuals and within communities, many of which
may have been bubbling only just under the surface.
Those within the community are all too aware of this,and do not need an outsider to draw attention to them.
Despite such tensions, they continue to meet together
and share their experiences.
In the range of Special Interest Groups presenting
at the conference, I saw a huge variety within thecommunity of language teachers in Japan. Many of the
discussions were rooted in the Japanese context. And
yet in every one I found points of contact with issues inmy own and other situations in the UK and elsewhere:
how to encourage learners to speak confidently, how
to address notions of culture, learning and teaching,
how to incorporate egalitarian approaches to learningand teaching. In discussing issues that seem mostExploring Practitioner Perspectives on Collaboration, pages 9-18
relevant locally, it is perhaps easy to forget that weare all part of a much larger community of language
teachers who face similar dilemmas, struggles and joys
in our classrooms worldwide. JALT takes its place inthat global community, cooperating and collaboratingwith language teachers and learners around the world.
Battling the shared experiences of pedagogic questions,exhausting schedules, theoretical struggles, teachers
and learners draw on their community in conferencessuch as this to return to work with renewed energy,
enthusiasm and ideas.

Concluding remarks
Much has been written about the need for practitioner
research which positions learners as co-researchers(Allwright, 2003, 2005, 2009) and focuses on qualityof life in the classroom (Gieve & Miller, 2006). To date,however, there has been little evidence of what learners
themselves might think about engaging in such work.
This paper has merely scratched the surface of thewealth of experience that learners as well as teachers
can bring to the notions of collaboration, cooperationand community in language classrooms.
EP is about remembering that life can be joyful,tapping into the energy that this brings, rediscovering
an interest in learning and teaching, and incorporatingthat into our working lives. In other words ‘Quality oflife’.

References:
Allwright, D. (1993). Integrating ‘research’ and‘pedagogy’: Appropriate criteria and practicalpossibilities. In J. Edge & K. Richards (Eds.),
Teachers Develop Teachers Research (pp. 125-135).
Oxford, England: Heinemann.
Allwright, D. (2001). Three major processes ofteacher development and the design criteria fordeveloping and using them. In B. Johnston & S.
Irujo (Eds.), Research and Practice in Language
Teacher Education: Voices from the field (pp.
115-133). Minneapolis, USA: University of
Minnesota.
Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory Practice:
Rethinking practitioner research in language

teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113141.
Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles forpractitioner research: The case of Exploratory
Practice. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3),353-366.
Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The Developing
Language Learner: An introduction to Exploratory
Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Allwright, D., & Miller, I.K. (2013). Burnout and the
beginning teacher. In D. Soneson & E. Tarone(Eds.), Expanding our Horizons: Language teacher
education in the 21st century (pp. 101-115).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Borg, S. (2013). Teacher Research in Language
Teaching: A critical analysis. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Breen, M. P. (2006). Collegial development in ELT:The interface between global processes and local
understandings. In S. Gieve & I. K. Miller (Eds.),
Understanding the Language Classroom (pp.
200-225). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Clandinin, D.J., & Connelly, F.M. (1995). Teachers’
Professional Knowledge Landscapes. New York ;London, England: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1999). The teacher
research movement: A decade later. Educational
Researcher, 28(7), 15-25.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (2009). Inquiry
as Stance: Practitioner research for the next
generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Edge, J. (2011). The Reflexive Teacher Educator in
TESOL: Roots and wings. New York: Routledge.
Freeman, D. (1996). Redefining the relationshipbetween research and what teachers know. In
K.M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from theLanguage Classroom (pp. 88-115). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for Critical
Consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.
Gieve, S., & Miller, I.K. (2006a). What do we mean
by ‘Quality of Classroom Life’? In S. Gieve &I.K. Miller (Eds.), Understanding the Language
Classroom (pp. 18-46). Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

17

HanksGieve, S., & Miller, I.K. (Eds.). (2006b).
Understanding the Language Classroom.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hanks, J. (1999). Enthusiasm, puzzlement, andExploratory Practice. International House Journalof education and development(7), 14-16.
Hanks, J. (2013a). Exploratory Practice in English foracademic purposes: Puzzling over principles andpractices. (PhD Thesis), University of Leeds.
Hanks, J. (2013b). Inclusivity and trust in Exploratory
Practice: A case study of principles in practice. In
D. Soneson & E. Tarone (Eds.), Expanding our
Horizons: Language teacher education in the 21st
century (pp. 117-138). Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota.
Hanks, J. (Forthcoming). Language teachers making
sense of Exploratory Practice Language Teaching
Research.
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (Eds.). (2002).
Teachers’ Narrative Inquiry as Professional
Development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Miller, I.K. (2009). ‘Puzzle-driven’ Language Teacher
Development: The contribution of Exploratory
Practice. In T. Yoshida, H. Imai, Y. Nakata,
A. Tajino, O. Takeuchi & K. Tamai (Eds.),
Researching Language Teaching and Learning:
An integration of practice and theory (pp. 77-93).
Bern: Peter Lang.
Pring, R. (2001). The virtues and vices of an
educational researcher. Journal of Philosophy of
Education, 35(3), 407-421.
Slimani-Rolls, A. (2003). Exploring a world ofparadoxes: An investigation of group work.
Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 221-239.
Slimani-Rolls, A. (2009). Complexity andIdiosyncracy of Classroom Life. In T. Yoshida,18

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

H. Imai, Y. Nakata, A. Tajino, O. Takeuchi & K.
Tamai (Eds.), Researching Language Teachingand Learning: An integration of practice andtheory (pp. 57-75). Bern: Peter Lang.
Small, R. (2001). Codes are not enough: Whatphilosophy can contribute to the ethics of
educational research. Journal of Philosophy of
Education, 35(3), 387-406.
Smith, C. (2009). Developing a new English foracademic purposes course: Administratorteacher-student collaboration. In T. Yoshida, H.
Imai, Y. Nakata, A. Tajino, O. Takeuchi & K.
Tamai (Eds.), Researching Language Teachingand Learning: An integration of practice andtheory (pp. 95-113). Bern: Peter Lang.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum
Research and Development. London, England:
Heinemann.
Tajino, A. (2009). Understanding Life in the
Language Classroom: A systemic approach.
In T. Yoshida, H. Imai, Y. Nakata, A. Tajino,
O. Takeuchi & K. Tamai (Eds.), Researching
Language Teaching and Learning: An integrationof practice and theory (pp. 115-130). Bern: Peter
Lang.
Tudor, I. (2001). The Dynamics of the Language
Classroom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice:
Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Zeichner, K.M., & Noffke, S.E. (2001). Practitioner
Research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbookof Research on Teaching (4th ed., pp. 298-330).
Washington: American Educational Research
Association.

Ten Principles to Guide ResearchingYour Own Classroom

Robert Croker
Nanzan University
robertcroker@mac.com
For language teachers with little experience doing classroom research, beginning a research project
can seem a somewhat daunting endeavour. What to focus on, how to define terms, how to collectdata, and how to determine the research findings can all seem like huge tasks, each intimidating
in its own way. Unfortunately, there is no universal “research road map” that shows exactly how
to do a research project. This is because classroom research is not a set of mechanical steps to beblindly followed but rather a series of decisions guided by basic research principles. Knowing theseprinciples will help you complete research projects more quickly and effectively and also help you
create stronger research findings that are key to getting your research published. This paper describes
ten essential principles of research, each one illustrated with examples from classroom research.
教室での研究をしている経験が少ない語学教師たちは、研究プロジェクトを始めるにあたり、
やや困難な努力が必要だと思えるかもしれません。何に焦点を当てるべきなのか、用語を定義する方法、データを収集する方法など、研究成果を決定する際には、それぞれの方法が威圧で、大量な作業のように思えるかもしれません。残念ながら、研究プロジェクトをするにあたり、一般的な筋道を示す研究方法はありません。
それは、なぜかと言いますと、教室での研究は、盲目的に従うべき機械的な一連の手順ではなく、
むしろ、基礎研究の原則によって導かれる一連の決断力であるためです。以上、それらの原則を知っておくことにより、迅速かつ効果的に研究プロジェクトが行えて、また、研究成果を公開するにあたり、
それらは、強力な研究成果を作成するための重要なことにつながります。本論文では、研究するにあたり、
１０の基本的な原則を説明しております。各それぞれは、教室での研究からの実例で説明されてあります。

*

Introduction

There has been a steady increase in the number ofteachers researching their own classrooms over the
past two decades (Altrichter, Feldman, Posch, &Somekh, 2008; Burns, 2010; Henning, Stone, & Kelly,
Croker, R. (2014). Ten principles to guide researching
your own classroom. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 19-26). Nagoya, Japan:
JALT.

*

2009). Teacher research represents an important way
to bridge what teachers read in journal articles andresearch textbooks with their experience of teachingin classrooms. Many language teachers working inJapanese universities are also expected to research andpublish each year. Some teachers find this expectation
intimidating, as they might not have had theopportunity to take a research methods class for a very
long time, if ever. Also, published research may offer
little insight into the research process as it often does
not explain in a straightforward way how the research
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

19

Croker
was actually conducted (Croker & Stewart, 2013).
Research is not a mysterious practice but rather aprocess, a series of decisions guided by basic researchprinciples. These principles help you decide how toplan your research project, collect and analyze yourdata, and make your research claims. There are many
principles that guide classroom research; this paper
describes ten that are most useful for language teachers
researching their own classrooms:
1. have a clear research focus
2. do not decide your results before you begin
3. be careful of terms
4. collect your data in the most appropriate way
5. be realistic
6. choose your participants carefully
7. behave ethically
8. collect the best quality data you can
9. analyze your data honestly, both the positive
and the negative
10. make cautious and precise claims.

Principle Number One: Have a clear
research focus
The first step in any research project is to decide on abroad research topic; the next step is to narrow that
topic down and then to create your research questions.
Writing focused research questions is essential as they
guide the design of your entire study, helping you
decide which participants to include, what data tocollect, and how to analyse that data.
One common mistake is to write researchquestions that are too broad, making them difficult toanswer. When this happens, you might find that you
end up collecting a lot of data about your topic but notreally saying anything significant. In order to narrow
your research, you could ask yourself three focusing
questions: What am I looking at? When am I looking at
this? and Who am I looking at? Then, use the answers
to these three focusing questions to help you write
narrower research questions.
To help illustrate this first principle, let’s look at an
example of classroom research. Many language teachers
use group work in their classrooms so their students canpractice hearing and speaking the target language. An

20

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

initial, broad research question a language teacher may
have about group work is “How do students interact insmall groups?” This research question is too broad tobe answered in one classroom research project, so let’s
apply the three focusing questions to help tighten the
research focus and create narrower, more answerable
research questions:
Question one: What am I looking at? There aredifferent stages and types of interaction duringgroup work. Perhaps you have noticed that
before beginning actual learning tasks, mostgroups spend time interacting with each other toestablish some form of emotional connection or
positive rapport with each other, like people doin most social encounters. Moreover, perhaps you
have observed that groups with better rapport
tend to stay in the target language more and have
longer interactions. Realizing the importanceof establishing positive rapport, you decide to
narrow your focus and look at how students ingroups establish rapport with each other.
Question two: When am I looking at it?
Having decided what to look at, it is now
easier to determine when to focus on duringgroup interaction – when students are initiallyestablishing rapport when groups first meet.
Question three: Who am I looking at? Even in
the relatively short period of time when students
are initially establishing rapport, it would be
impossible to try and observe all of the students
in a class. So, focus your research on just someof the students, such as those students who only
have intermediate-level proficiency yet seem toprefer to use English to establish rapport. Thismight limit your observation to three to four
students in each class.
Considering the answers from these three focusing
questions you can now create a narrower researchquestion, “How do intermediate-level students use
English to establish rapport before beginning groupwork?” This research question is more easily answered
than the original “How do students interact in small

Ten Principles to Guide Research, pages 19-26
groups?” because it is more specific and concrete.
Another common mistake even experienced
researchers make is to have too many research questions.
Most research papers published in JALT publications
have only two or three research questions (Croker andStewart, 2013). More than that and you might find
it difficult to answer each one satisfactorily. If you dohave too many, prioritise them by deciding which ones
you would like to answer in your first project, and put
the others aside for future research projects.

Principle Number Two: Do not decide yourresults before you begin
One of the most basic, self-evident principles of any
empirical investigation is that you begin with an open
mind, allowing what you discover to determine yourresults. Even though you may agree with this principle,
it is easy to allow your hidden assumptions andexpectations to shape what you see. The first warning
signs of this may come in your research questions. For
example, you might have written the following researchquestion, “Why don’t Japanese university engineering
students like English?” You have clearly made one
major assumption: that all Japanese engineering
university students do not like English. This researchquestion can easily be written in a more open way:
“How do Japanese university engineering students feel
about English?”
Here is another example, this time based upon
our example of interaction during group work.
In accordance with the first principle, the initialbroad research question was rewritten as “How dointermediate-level students use English to establish
rapport before beginning group work?” However, thisresearch question has one important assumption: thatthese students always only use English. At times, they
may also use Japanese, for example when their partners
are not very proficient at English. To address thisassumption you could rewrite the research question,
breaking it into two separate questions:“How do intermediate-level students use English
to establish rapport before beginning group work?”“When do these students use Japanese?”
These more precise research questions require morecare and thought to write. It can be very difficult to see

your own assumptions, so consider asking a colleague
to look over your research questions with you.

Principle Number Three: Be careful ofterms
In research, terms are defined very carefully and should
always be used correctly. However, there are twopotential problems. The first one is that some words
used in classroom research have a general meaning in
English but a more specific meaning in our field. For
example, the general meaning of the word noticing is
to become aware of something (Oxford Dictionary ofEnglish, 2010). However, the more specific meaningof noticing in second language acquisition research isgiving your attention to a specific feature of language tomake it available for acquisition (Harmer, 2007). These
distinctions may seem small but they are important
ones. Other words to be careful of include acquisition,
input and output, learning, and motivation. As you
research, check the specific meaning of such terms anduse them accurately for the context.
The second potential problem is that althoughcertain terms are used only in the field of applied
linguistics numerous researchers have createddifferent definitions of them. For example, the terms
communicative language teaching and task-basedlearning are both often used when looking at group
work interaction. Both have been explored and debatedfor many years by a number of researchers, and a broad
range of definitions have emerged as a result. If you are
studying these processes, it would help your readers if
you explain which definition you are using and use thatdefinition consistently.

Principle Number Four: Collect your data inthe most appropriate way
Deciding how to collect data can be tricky, but inessence it can be broken down into two steps. The
first one is to decide what to focus on. In classroom
research, there are essentially five processes, and yourresearch will explore one or more of them:•• behavioural processes: what people do•• linguistic processes: what they say
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings21

Croker•• cognitive processes: what they think•• emotional processes: how they feel•• learning outcomes: what they have learned
These processes are not necessarily separate or
distinct. For example, what students learn (learning
outcomes) overlap with other processes, such as what
students do (behavioural processes) and what they say(linguistic processes), but to make it easier to collectdata it is often easier to separate these processes out.
Here are some examples of what you could lookfor in each of these processes, illustrated with the casestudy of using English to establish rapport before
beginning group work:•• behavioural processes: whether students look at
each other more or less when they speak in English
than when they speak in Japanese.
•• linguistic processes: what language students use to
begin to create rapport.
•• cognitive processes: what strategies students use toestablish rapport e.g. how they decide what topics
are suitable to raise.

•• emotional processes: how students feel about
working with students who do not want to use
English to establish rapport.
•• learning processes: which rapport-building
strategies students have learned from otherstudents.
The first step is to decide which of the five processes
you will focus on; the second step is to decide how you
will collect your data. That is, which processes you
focus on determines how you will collect your data.
For example, in basic classroom research, to find out
what people are doing it would be most productive tolook at their behaviour, and video-record them or makenotes on observation sheets. Possible data collection
methods are summarised in Table 1.
To illustrate this fourth principle, let’s look at our
example, intermediate-level students using English
to establish rapport before beginning group work. In
this case, you are primarily trying to understand what
students do and say. The most appropriate ways tocollect data would be to observe students interacting
during group work and make notes, and to audio-

Table 1
Two steps: Deciding what to focus on then how to collect your data
Step one: decide what to focus on

Step two: decide how to collect your data

Explore what
people are …

… by looking at their …

Collect data by …

by …

doing

behavioural processes.

looking

observing and making notes
video-recording.

sayinglinguistic processes.

listeningaudio-recording
analysing the transcripts.

thinking
and feelingcognitive andemotional processes.

askinggiving questionnaires
getting class feedback
interviewing people
collecting learning diaries
doing think-alouds*.

learning

learning processes andlearning outcomes.

evaluatingcollecting samples of student work
giving students written or spoken tests.

*Notes: In a think-aloud, the researcher asks a participant to explain what they are thinking and feeling as they do a task, suchas choosing a graded reader or reading a text.

22

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Ten Principles to Guide Research, pages 19-26
or video-record group work. However, if you also
wanted to understand what students are thinking
and feeling, you could add another research question,“How do students feel about using English to establish
rapport before beginning group work?” To answer thisquestion, you could interview a few students or givethe entire class a questionnaire.
Too often, teachers first decide how they are going
to collect their data (for example, using a questionnaire)
and then decide what they are going to focus on (suchas student behaviour), which is putting the cart before
the horse. The consequence is that teachers may not
be able to answer their research questions. The basic
principle is to do the opposite: first decide what you
want to focus on and then decide how you are going tocollect your data. Adopting this principle will help you
collect the right data to answer your research questions.

Principle Number Five: Be realistic
Teachers are often very busy with teaching andadministrative duties, and these duties take precedence
over classroom research activities. Yet research takes
time, and possibly a lot of time. Creating a researchtable to determine what data to collect and a researchschedule to decide when to collect those data will help
you manage your research project more effectively.
Doing so will also ensure that you collect the data thatyou need to answer your research questions and help
you complete your research project on time.
A research table presents your research questions
and explains how you will collect data to answer eachone. Such a table ties your data collection methods
to your research questions. Create it before you startcollecting data. See Table 2 for an example, on the
topic of establishing rapport before group work. The
first two questions can be answered collecting data inthe same way and so can be grouped together; the third
question is the new question exploring how students
feel about using English to establish rapport.
To be time efficient, only collect data that will

Table 2
An example research plan
research questions
1.
2.
3.

how to collect data

“How do intermediate-level students use English
to establish rapport before beginning group work?”“When do these students use Japanese?”video-record group worktranscribe what students say“How do students feel about using English toestablish rapport before beginning group work?”interview four students
give students a questionnaire

Table 3
An example research schedule

looking

Data Method

September

OctoberNovember

Decemberobservation

observe all of
the classobserve four
students

observe four
students

observe four
students

video or audio
record-record four
students-

record four
students

interviews

-

-

-

interview four
students

questionnaire

-

-

-

give a classquestionnaireasking

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings23

Croker
help you answer your research questions. Other data
are unnecessary no matter how interesting they might
appear, and time spent collecting them will be time thatyou cannot spend answering your research questions.
Creating a research schedule will help you to plan
when you will collect your data. By following it you
can avoid getting to the end of a course and suddenly
realizing that you do not have enough time to collectthe data that you need. See Table 3 for an example
research schedule, based on the group work case study.

Principle Number Six: Choose yourparticipants carefullyYour participants are key to the success of yourresearch project, so it is wise to choose them carefully.
In classroom research, the basic principle is to choose
the participants who will best help you answer yourresearch questions, by a process called purposive
sampling. This is essentially a two-step process. First,
choose the class (or classes) that you would like tocollect data from. This could be the class that is most
relevant to your research topic or that you have the best
relationship with. Then, from within that class choose
individual students or groups of students to focus on
more closely. You cannot observe everything that isgoing on in class or interview all of your students, so
having a limited focus is a practical solution to a lackof time. Furthermore, some students will simply not
be able to help you answer your research questions.
Focusing on students who can provide you with
relevant data is an effective strategy.
Looking at the rapport before group work example,
you might first choose a class in which you do a lot ofgroup work. Then, you might choose those students
in that class who establish and sustain interaction
very effectively using English, and closely observe andvideo-record them, and later interview them. Choosing
participants carefully like this will help you answer
your research questions more effectively and efficiently.

Principle Number Seven: Behave ethicallyYour classroom research might focus on yourself, more
broadly on your students, or even on other teachers.
If your research does involve other people, then there
is one golden rule that all researchers follow: do no24

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

harm. In its most basic sense, that is, do not put people
in a situation that might potentially make them feel
uncomfortable. It is sometimes difficult to anticipate
what these situations might be. Even seemingly
innocuous topics such as participants’ level of English
proficiency might intimidate English teachers who are
non-native speakers. Put yourself in the position of
the weakest or most vulnerable participants and see
your research from their point of view. Asking otherteachers or even potential participants to read overyour questionnaire or interview questions can help you
see how other people might respond to your research.
If you are in doubt, treat others the way that you would
like to be treated yourself.
It is also wise to get permission from yourinstitution to conduct the research. This might justinvolve informing the course coordinator, particularly
if you are only collecting data about what you yourself
are doing in your classroom. However, if you areplanning to give your students a questionnaire,interview them or collect comments from them thenthe institution might have more formal procedures forevaluating your research. This may include submitting
your research plan to an ethics committee (commonly
called an institutional review board or IRB in
universities overseas) that ensures your research will
not cause your participants any harm.
If you are going to obtain data from people orcreate data about them, then it is also essential toobtain their individual consent. This consent should
always be voluntary – your potential participants
have the right not to participate without any penalty
from you, such as lower grades. Informed consent
means explaining to your students, before they agree
to participate, the topic of your research and how you
will collect, manage, analyse, and share their data withother people. Before you make any promises to yourstudents make sure that you can keep them, and neverbreak them.
Two terms that you might be familiar with but
not sure exactly what they mean are anonymity andconfidentiality. Participation is anonymous when evenyou do not know who provided the data, such as inquestionnaires with no names on them. Participationis confidential when you know who the participants

Ten Principles to Guide Research, pages 19-26
are, such as in interviews or from class test scores, but
you do not identify them to other people.
Even though you obtain consent once, if you arecollecting data over the length of a course it would besensible to check from time to time that your students
still consent to participate, and give them further
opportunities to ask you any questions they might
have. Moreover, rather than thinking that you are doing
research on or about your students, imagine insteadthat you are doing research with them. Many teachers
use their research as a way of having a conversation
with their students about their experiences learningin their classrooms. For example, you could share theresults of a class questionnaire with your students, or
respond to their classroom feedback.

Principle Number Eight: Collect the best
quality data you can
In empirical research, the claims you make are based
entirely upon the data you collect. Poor quality datameans weaker, narrower, and less convincing claims.
The fourth principle helped you plan what data tocollect and how to do so; this eighth principle reminds
you to constantly check throughout your research
project that you are collecting the best quality data.
Asking yourself the following three questions can help
you do this:Am I collecting the right data? Collecting the rightdata is essential. To make sure you are doing so, regularly
ask yourself whether the data you are collecting helps
you answer your research questions. Try to use the data
you are collecting to answer your research questions; ifthey are not helpful, then perhaps you are not collecting
the right data, and need to collect other data instead.
Am I collecting data in the right way? Come backto this question from time to time to confirm that you
have chosen the best way to collect your data. Perhaps
there might be a more effective or efficient way tocollect them. For example, rather than interviewing
students one by one, you could give the whole class aquestionnaire, and save yourself a lot of time.
How am I affecting the data I collect? This is aparticular worry for classroom teachers researching
their own students. It is important to collect data thatreflects the real classroom situation, not a performance

your students put on only when you are observing them.
For example, if you are recording group work, consider
how the presence of a video-recorder might alter group
work routines. Try to minimize your impact by being
unobtrusive or putting the video camera on desks fora number of weeks before beginning to collect data so
your students become used to its presence.

Principle Number Nine: Analyse yourdata honestly, both the positive and thenegative.
There is always a temptation to put a positive spin on
things and only look at data that supports a particularperspective. For example, you might strongly believe
in using English to establish rapport before beginninggroup work. When you look at the data, however,you find that many of the students actually use more
Japanese than English. You could only focus on thestudents who stay in English and ignore these otherstudents, but in such data you may discover not only
how to improve your teaching but also the kernels ofyour next research project. There is value in actively
searching for and exploring such negative data, andyou also have an ethical obligation to your participants
to fully represent their experiences and opinions.

Principle Number Ten: Make cautious andprecise claims
The claims you make must be based firmly upon thedata you collect. Readers quickly notice when you
overstate your claims and may judge your research to
be untrustworthy. For example, you might claim thatintermediate students use an array of English strategies
to establish rapport. However, if in fact you found thatmost students only use two or three strategies but a few
students who have had the opportunity to live or study
overseas use a broader range, then you have overstatedyour claim. Communicate as precisely as possible, andunderstate rather than overstate your results.
Also, be careful not to overgeneralize your claim;that is, claim that your results are relevant to otherclassrooms when they might not be. For example,
it might be tempting to claim that group work is
an appropriate arrangement in Japanese university
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings25

Crokerclassrooms, suggesting that it would work in all suchlearning environments. However, a more precise claim
would be that group work is an appropriate learning
arrangement for those intermediate students who have
lived or studied abroad.
It is also tempting to write a grand title, such as‘Interaction in group work in Japanese Universities’,
suggesting either that you collected data in a number ofdifferent universities or that your results are applicable
to all universities in Japan. A more appropriate title
might be ‘Interaction in group work in a Japanese
University’. Being precise will impress careful readers.

Conclusion
If you are going to embark on a research project inyour classroom it is worthwhile doing the best possible
job that you can. These ten principles will guide you
to make sounder decisions throughout your project
and also help you to write more precise findings. This
will not only facilitate your becoming a better teacher
but also help you to get your research published moreeasily. The most important principle of researching
your own classroom, however, is to use your research
project as a way of establishing and sustaining better
relationships with your students. In that way, both theteacher and students can benefit from the experienceof classroom research.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank David Barker who provided
a number of examples to illustrate the principles.
The following readers also gave invaluable ideas andcomments on earlier drafts of this paper: David Barker,
Greg Goodmacher, Juanita Heigham, David Kluge,
Sharif Mebed, Michael Rector, Andre Scholler, andAlison Stewart.

References
Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P. & Somekh,
B. (2008). Teachers investigate their work:
An introduction to action research across theprofessions. London, England: Routledge.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English
language teaching: A guide for practitioners. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Croker, R. A. & Stewart, A. (2013). Recent trends inresearch in JALT publications. Paper presented atthe 39th annual JALT international conference on
language teaching and learning, Kobe, Japan.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language
teaching (4th ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson
Education.
Henning, J. E., Stone, J. M., & Kelly, J. L. (2009).
Using action research to improve instruction: An
interactive guide for teachers. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Oxford Dictionary of English. (2010). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.

Author’s Biography:
Robert Croker is interested in the process of classroom research, particularly action research,
qualitative research, and mixed methods. He is a professor in the Faculty of Policy Studies atNanzan University.

26

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

A Study of Test-Taking Strategies Used by EFL Listeners

Huei-Chun Teng
National Taiwan University of
Science and Technology
tenghc@mail.ntust.edu.tw
The study aims to investigate the test-taking strategies for an EFL listening test (GEPT). The
participants were 104 freshmen from a university in northern Taiwan. Results show that test-wise has
the highest average frequency among the five listening test-taking strategy categories. The strategy
most often used by the participants among the 42 test-taking strategies is “I used the process of
elimination.” Proficient EFL listeners used significantly more top-down and affective strategies thanless proficient listeners did. Through providing insights into the response behaviors prompted by
the listening tasks, the study can facilitate our understanding of EFL listeners’ test-taking strategies.
本研究は、EFLリスニングテストに対する受験ストラテジーについて調査することを目的とする。被験者は、台湾北部の大学の新入生104名であった。
その結果、リスニングテスト受
験ストラテジーに関する5つの範疇のうち、「テスト慣れ」に属する学生が平均利用回数がもっとも多いということがわかっている。42の受験ストラテジーのうち、被験者にもっとも多く用いられたストラテジーは「消去法」であった。能力の高いEFLリスナーは、
トップダウン
式の効果的なストラテジーを能力の低いリスナーよりも明らかに多く利用していた。本研究は、リスニングタスクによって引き起こされる反応態度についての洞察を提示することにより、EFLリスナーの受験ストラテジーに対する我々の理解を容易にしうるものである。

*

A Study of Test-Taking Strategies
Used by EFL Listeners

For the past decades, there has been growing interestin how second or foreign language learners solve theirlearning and communication problems. Research
into learning strategies has gained prominence in thefield of second language acquisition (SLA). However,
Vann and Abraham (1990) indicated that the way
strategies are used by learners in assessment tasksremains neglected. As claimed by Cohen (2006), little

Teng, H. (2014). A study of test-taking strategies
used by EFL listeners. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 27-34). Nagoya, Japan:
JALT.

*

is known about the methods used by test takers to
produce answers to questions. According to Nikolov(2006), test-taking strategies refer to the strategies
learners apply while solving language test tasks. Cohen(1998) suggested that test-taking strategies can be
regarded simply as learner strategies applied to the areaof assessment, and belong to a common set of strategies
activated for the task encountered (Cohen, 1998). In
his literature review of test-taking strategies, Cohen(2006) concluded that researchers are increasingly
aware that theory building in the area of test-taking
strategies is called for to develop a coherent body ofknowledge. Since strategic behavior has hardly been
explored in L2 listening tests (Macaro, Graham, &Vanderplank, 2007), it is worth investigating the issue
using a Taiwanese experience by examining how EFL
learners take the listening test.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

27

Teng

Research Questions
The purpose of the present research is to investigate
the test-taking strategies used by EFL listeners in
Taiwan. This study mainly addresses the following
research questions: (1) What strategies are used by
EFL learners when they take a listening test? (2) Are
there significant differences in the test-taking strategies
used by proficient and less proficient EFL listeners? (3)What are EFL listeners’ perceptions of their test-taking
strategies?

Literature Review
In accordance with the purpose of the current research,a number of studies examining the strategies used forlistening tasks were reviewed. The research literature
focused on the test-taking strategies used by EFL/ESL
listeners.
Teng (1998) investigated the EFL listening
comprehension strategies used by college freshmenin Taiwan. Findings showed that the strategy“translating” was most frequently used, followedby “repeating”. A study conducted by Yi’an (1998)
looked into the test-taking processes of Chinese EFL
listeners for taking a multiple-choice (MC) task.
Results showed that linguistic and non-linguisticknowledge was activated in a parallel manner with
input of various difficulty levels and that the MC
method posed threats to the construct validity of thetest. In Taguchi’s (2001) study, 54 Japanese college
EFL students took an English listening test andcompleted a strategy questionnaire immediately after
the test. Findings revealed a significant difference intheir perceived use of top-down strategies between
more proficient and less proficient listeners. Yoshizawa(2002) examined the text-processing strategies thatJapanese learners reported using when they were
engaged in reading or listening tasks in EFL classrooms
and testing situations. Three factors emerged from thetest-taking strategy data, including comprehension
and monitoring strategies, compensatory strategies(elaboration strategies in listening), and strategies
related to attention and task assessment.
Douglas and Hegelheimer (2007) investigated thestrategies and sources of knowledge test takers use to28

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

respond to New TOEFL listening test tasks. Results
revealed four types of strategies for approaching the
response task, including recalling elements of the test
input, reviewing the response options in order, making
a hypothesis about the likely answer, and referring
to notes before reviewing options. Chang (2008)
examined the listening strategies of Taiwanese EFL
college students with high and low levels of anxiety
under four listening tasks. Results indicated that
previewing questions had a greater impact on listening
strategy use than the other types of support. Anotherstudy by Chang (2009) found that participants’listening performance had a strong correlation withthe strategy used before the test-taking phase andthat they were able to adjust their strategy use basedon the change in task situations. Wagner (2010) has
examined how ESL test-takers interact with a video
listening test. He found that the test-takers viewed thevideo texts less than half of the time, and there was amoderate negative correlation between viewing rate
and test performance.
As suggested by Nikolov (2006), future research oftest-taking strategies should also include listening tasks
to explore similarities to and differences from otherskills. Since there have been limited number of studies
which investigate the test-taking strategies in the EFL
listening context, the current research aims to help fillthis void by examining the Taiwanese EFL listeners’
test-taking strategies.

Methodology
ParticipantsParticipants were 104 college students taking arequired freshman listening course in a university innorthern Taiwan. The participants, aged 18-20, havestudied English formally in school for at least eight
years. Since the study took listening proficiency into
account, the participants were divided into proficientand less proficient EFL listeners based on their scoresin the listening test of GEPT intermediate level, which
are elaborated on in the following section.

Instruments
The instruments used in the study included a listening

A Study of Test-Taking Strategies, pages 27-34
test, a questionnaire of test-taking strategies, andan interview guide. The first instrument was thelistening test of intermediate GEPT (General English
Proficiency Test) developed by LTTC (Language
Training & Testing Center) and based on the
English ability of high school graduates in Taiwan.
The listening test consisted of three parts (picture
description, answering questions, conversations). The
test included 45 items, and the total assessing time wasapproximately 30 minutes.
Another instrument was a questionnaire oflistening test-taking strategy, which included 42 Likertscaled items (see Appendix A). The questionnaire wasmainly based on the strategy questionnaires designed
by Taguchi (2001) and Cohen & Upton (2007). The
42 items were divided into six categories, i.e., topdown, bottom-up, repair, affective, test-wise strategies,
and difficulty elements (see Table 1). On a five-point
scale ranging from “strongly agree (5)” to “strongly
disagree (1)”, participants circled the response thatindicated what they did during the listening test. In
addition, an interview guide was developed based on
the questions in Cohen & Upton’s (2007) study andChang’s (2009) study (see Appendix B). There weremainly five questions to further explore participants’
perceptions of their listening test-taking strategies.
Table 1
Specifications of the Questionnaire
Strategies(42 items total)
I.

Item Number

Top-down

8, 12, 21, 24, 25, 34, 35

II. Bottom-up

6, 7, 11, 15, 17, 18, 23, 27

III. Repair

3, 10, 14, 22, 28, 29, 31, 33

IV. Affective

1, 2, 9, 19, 20, 26, 32, 36

V.

Test-wise39, 40, 41, 42

VI. Difficulty Elements

4, 5, 13, 16, 30, 37, 38

Procedures
The study was conducted in the freshman class English
Oral Practice. Before the test began, participants were
instructed how to take the listening test and how toanswer the strategy questionnaire. After the listening
test was played, participants were asked to complete thequestionnaire of listening test-taking strategies givenin the appendix. They were reminded to think about
the listening test they had just taken while responding
to the questionnaire items. Finally, an interview washeld with twelve of the participants to probe how they
perceived their test-taking strategies.

Data Analysis
The total score of the GEPT listening test is 120 andthe average for the whole sample was calculated. Those
who obtained scores above the mean were in the groupof proficient listeners, and those who scored below themean were the less proficient listeners. For the scoringof test-taking strategy questionnaires, the scale range
for each item was 1–5. Frequency counting and a t-test
were conducted to analyze participants’ responses tothe strategy questionnaire. As for participants’ answers
to the interview, they were transcribed and categorizedaccording to the five main questions in the interview
guide.

Results
Among the five strategy categories used by participants,“test-wise” had the highest average frequency.
“Affective” had the lowest average frequency. Table
2 lists the five strategies most often used by theparticipants among 42 listening test-taking strategies.
Results show that “I used the process of elimination” isthe most frequently used strategy.
In addition, Table 3 shows that proficient
EFL listeners used significantly more top-down
and affective strategies than less proficient listeners
did. Less proficient listeners employed slightly morebottom-up strategies.
Furthermore, results indicate that there are
significant differences in six strategies between
proficient and less proficient listeners. Among them,
the average frequencies of five strategies used byproficient listeners are significantly higher than thoseby less proficient listeners. On the other hand, there is
only one strategy adopted significantly more often byless proficient listeners than by proficient listeners, i.e.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

29

Teng
Table 2Five Listening Test-taking Strategies Most Often Used by Participants (N=52)
Category

Test-taking Strategies

Rank

Test-wise

I used the process of elimination.

1

RepairWhen I didn’t understand something, I guessed the meaning from the context.

2

Repair

While listening, I guessed the meaning from the vocabulary I know.

3

Test-wise

I used clues in other items to answer an item under consideration.

4

Bottom-up

While listening, I was trying to hear familiar vocabulary.

5

Table 3t-test for Test-taking Strategy Categories of Proficient and Less Proficient Listeners
Strategy

Proficient

Less Proficient

Mean

n

Mean

SD

n

Mean

SD

differencetp-value

Top-down

52

3.67

0.45

52

3.44

0.55

0.23

2.32

0.02*

Bottom-up

52

3.33

0.57

52

3.42

0.46

-0.09

-0.88

0.38

Repair

52

3.46

0.33

52

3.45

0.3

0.03

0.20

0.85

Affective

52

3.48

0.50

52

3.09

0.49

0.39

4.00

0.00**

Test-wise

52

3.97

0.39

52

3.7

0.38

0.01

0.00

1.00

*p<.05 **p<.01“I used Chinese partially (e.g., word translation).” The
test-taking strategy with the most significant difference
is “While listening, I did something special to relax.”

Discussion
In the current study, results indicate that “test-wise”
had the highest average frequency among the fivecategories of listening test-taking strategies. Basedon Allan (1992), test-wise strategies refer to thestrategies for using knowledge of test formats andother peripheral information to answer test items
without going through the expected linguistic andcognitive processes. Amer’s research (1993) foundthat the experimental group of EFL students who were
taught test-taking strategies outperformed the control
group. The research suggests support for training
EFL teachers to provide instruction in test-taking
strategy. Among the 42 strategy items, the participants
most often adopted the test-wise strategy, “I used the30

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

process of elimination” and employed the strategy“I used clues in other items to answer an item underconsideration” more often. The most frequent use of
test-wise strategies implies that the participants tend
to be more strongly motivated in a testing situation
and are concerned about the accuracy of their listening
comprehension. As a result, regardless of their EFL
listening proficiency levels, both the proficient andless proficient listeners chose to employ the most timeefficient test-wise strategies.
Among the five categories of test-taking
strategies, proficient EFL listeners used significantly
more top-down and affective strategies than lessproficient listeners did. The findings confirm Taguchi’s(2001), which revealed a significant difference between
proficient and less proficient listeners in their use of
top-down strategies. Moreover, the current study foundthat proficient listeners employed significantly more
affective strategies. Before and during the listening

A Study of Test-Taking Strategies, pages 27-34
test, they kept encouraging themselves, did something
special to relax, and listened to English in order to getmentally prepared for the test. On the other hand,the only test-taking strategy adopted significantly
more often by less proficient listeners is the bottomup strategy “I used Chinese partially.” With deficient
English linguistic knowledge, they can mainly make useof their L1, Chinese. These findings add to the limited
body of existing literature by suggesting that top-down
and affective strategies might be factors contributing
to effective EFL listening test performance.
With regard to interview responses, someparticipants answered that they would scan thequestions first so that it can be easier to predict what
the speaker would say. This result supports Chang’s
position (2008) proposing that previewing questions
had a greater impact on listening strategy use thanthe other types of support. Douglas and Hegelheimer(2007) also found that the New TOEFL listening
test takers approached the response task by making ahypothesis about the likely answers. The study result
confirms the facilitating effect of question preview on
taking EFL listening tests. By previewing the questions
at first, L2 listeners can focus on wh- words, then listen
carefully for the possible answers, and activate theirbackground knowledge to make assumptions to see if
the answer is appropriate and reasonable.
Finally, most of the interviewees reported that
listening test-taking strategies are useful for them. Testtaking strategies can let them feel more relaxed, andthey can answer questions more quickly because theyknow the test formats. When they take the listening
test, they will adopt some strategies to reduce theirlistening anxiety, and they can have more confidence
in the process of listening. Therefore, it seems that testtaking strategies can offer L2 listeners such affective
benefits as a sense of security and comfort besides theencoding and retaining functions.

Conclusion
Results of the current study show that ‘test-wise’ has
the highest average frequency among the five categories
of listening test-taking strategies. The strategy mostoften used by the participants among the 42 test-taking
strategy items is “I used the process of elimination.”

Proficient EFL listeners used significantly more topdown and affective strategies than less proficient
listeners did. In participants’ opinions, listening testtaking strategies benefit them a lot. Their listening
anxieties are reduced and they are more confident
when they take the listening test. The study results canprovide some empirical descriptions for the research
literature of listening test-taking strategies. This study
can also help college students effectively improvetheir performance in EFL listening tests through theunderstanding of their test-taking strategies. Last but
not least, since practice makes perfect, Taiwanesecollege students who want to get high scores on EFL
listening tests need to do more practice of test-taking
strategies by themselves.

References
Allan, A. (1992). Developing and validation of a scale
to measure test-wiseness in EFL/ESL reading
test-takers. Language Testing, 9(2), 101-122.
Amer, A. A. (1993). Teaching EFL students to use atest-taking strategy. Language Testing, 10, 71-77.
Chang, C-S. (2008). Listening strategies of L2
learners with varied test tasks. TESL Canada
Journal, 25(2), 1-26.
Chang, C-S. (2009). EFL listeners’ task-based
strategies and their relationship with listening
performance. The Electronic Journal for English asa Second Language, 13(2), 1-28.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies and processes intest taking and SLA. In L. F. Bachman & A. D.
Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language
acquisition and language testing research (pp.
90-111). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Cohen, A. D. (2006). The coming of age of researchon test-taking strategies. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 3(4), 307-331.
Cohen, A. D., & Upton, T. A. (2007). ‘I want togo back to the text’: Response strategies on thereading subtest of the new TOEFL. Language
Testing, 24(2), 209-250.
Douglas, D., & Hegelheimer, V. (2007). Cognitive
process and use of knowledge in performing
new TOEFL listening tasks. Final Report to
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

31

Teng
Educational Testing Service. Ames, IA: Iowa
State University.
Macaro, E., Graham, S. & Vanderplank, R. (2007).
A review of listening strategies: focus on sourcesof knowledge and on success. In A.D. Cohen &E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learning strategies:
30 years of research and practice, (pp. 165-185).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Nikolov, M. (2006). Test-taking strategies of 12- and13-year-old Hungarian learners of EFL: Why
whales have migraines. Language Testing, 56(1),1-51.
Taguchi, N. (2001). L2 learners’ strategic mental
processes during a listening test. JALT Journal,
23(2), 176-201.
Teng, H. (1998). An investigation of EFL listening
comprehension strategies. Paper presented at the32nd Annual Conference of Teachers of English

to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL ‘98),
Seattle, WA, March, 1998. (ERIC Clearinghouseon Languages and Linguistics, No. ED422745).
Vann, R., & Abraham, R. (1990). Strategies of
unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly,
24 (2), 177-198.
Wagner, E. (2010). Test-takers’ interaction with an L2
video listening test. System, 38, 280-291.
Yi’an, W. (1998). What do tests of listening
comprehension test?: A retrospective study of
EFL test-takers performing a multiple-choicetask. Language Testing, 15, 21-24.
Yoshizawa, K. (2002). Relationships among strategy
use, foreign language aptitude, and second language
proficiency: A structural equation modelingapproach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Author’s Biography:
Huei-Chun Teng is a professor in National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. Her
research interests mainly include L2 listening research and language assessment.

32

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

A Study of Test-Taking Strategies, pages 27-34

Appendix A
Questionnaire of Test-Taking Strategies for Listening Tests(Taguchi, 2001; Cohen & Upton, 2007)
Please circle the response on agreement to indicate what you do during the listening test.
1. During the test, I kept encouraging myself.
2. I tried to enjoy listening.
3. When I didn’t understand something, I tried not to worry about it so much.
4. It was difficult to understand the pronunciation of each word.
5. It was difficult to understand the main idea of each conversation.
6. While listening, I paid attention to the vocabulary that was repeatedly used in the conversation.
7. While listening, I was trying to hear familiar vocabulary.
8. I tried to predict the questions coming after each conversation.
9. During the test, I tried to forget I am taking the test.
10. When I didn’t understand something, I guessed the meaning from the context.
11. I used Chinese partially (e.g., word translation).
12. While listening, I tried to imagine the setting of each conversation.
13. It was difficult to keep up with the speed of the tape.
14. When I didn’t understand something, I gave up trying to comprehend.
15. While listening, I paid attention to particular parts of speech (verbs, nouns).
16. It was difficult to understand the combination of words into phrases.
17. I focused on understanding the details of the conversation.
18. I translated.
19. While listening, I did something special to relax.
20. I kept saying to myself, “I can pass the test.”
21. I focused on understanding the overall meaning of the conversation.
22. I lost my concentration when I didn’t understand something, but I recovered my concentration immediately.
23. I focused on the grammatical structures.
24. I paid attention to the speakers’ tone of voice and intonation.
25. While listening, I paid attention to the overall tone of the situation.
26. Before the test, I did something to relax.
27. I focused on understanding the meaning of each word.
28. When I didn’t understand something, I lost my concentration and couldn’t hear the rest of the conversation.
29. While listening, I guessed the meaning from the vocabulary I know.
30. It was difficult to understand the meaning of each word.
31. When I didn’t understand something, I guessed the meaning from the tone of the conversation.
32. I was thinking about doing something fun after the test.
33. When I didn’t understand something, I found myself stuck on the segment I didn’t understand.
34. I tried to relate each conversation to my own experience in order to understand the conversation.
35. While listening, I was thinking about the relationship between the speakers.
36. I listened to English before the test in order to get mentally prepared for the test.
37. When I heard a question, it was difficult to recall the content of the conversation.
38. While listening, it was difficult to know when I understood something and when I did not.
39. I took notes.
40. I used the process of elimination (i.e., selecting an option even though it was not understood, out of a vague sensethat the other options couldn’t be correct).
41. I used clues in other items to answer an item under consideration.
42. I selected the option because it appeared to have a word or phrase from the passage in it – possibly a key word.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

33

Teng

Appendix B
Interview Guide of Test-Taking Strategies for Listening Tests(Cohen & Upton, 2007; Chang, 2009)
1. What kinds of things were difficult for you while taking the listening test?
2. What did you do when you didn’t understand something during the listening test?
3. What did you focus on in order to compensate for limitations in your listening ability during the test?
4. Do you think listening test-taking strategies are useful? Why or why not?
5. Has anyone encouraged and/or given you instruction on how to take listening tests? If you received the
instruction, when and where did it take place? Please describe it.

34

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

A Taste of Teaching in Australia – The Great Adventure

Anthony Robins

Anthony Ryan

Aichi University of Education
anthonycrobins@yahoo.com

Aichi University of Educationryan@auecc.aichi-edu.ac.jp

This paper describes the organization and implementation of an overseas teaching practice programin Australia in Summer 2012, lasting three weeks with 21 university of education students studying
to be teachers of English at elementary, junior high or senior high school in Japan. The paper first
explains the background to the project and its aims, before describing why Australia was chosen
as the destination. The financial and logistical issues related to the project are then considered,as well as information as to how students were chosen to take part. The range of experiences thatparticipants could benefit from, both with regard to English exposure and teaching experience, arethen described, including relating how the geographically dispersed group could exchange opinionswith each other and with their supervisors by using a wiki. Finally, students’ reflections on theirexperiences are shown and changes for the future in this ongoing project are considered.
2012年夏期にオーストラリアにおいて行われた海外教育実習プログラムの構成および内容について記述します。このプログラムは小学校、中学校、高等学校での英語教育を志す
学生21名を対象に行われました。 なぜオーストラリアが目的地に選ばれたのかを説明す
る前に、最初にプロジェクトとその目的や背景について説明します。その後、プロジェクトに関係する費用や地域的な問題について、また参加学生がどのように選ばれたかに関する情報が述べられています。
このプログラムによって得られるであろう、参加者の英語との接触、および教職実習体験の両方での利点が記述されます。地理的に分散したグループが、どのように互いと、また彼らのスーパーバイザーとインターネットなどを使用して意見交換することができたのか、
そして最後に学生のそれらの経験に対する意見が示されます。
またこの進行中のプロジェクトにおける将来の改善、変更についても考慮されています。

A Taste of Teaching in Australia – The
Great Adventure*This paper describes a program, under the umbrellaof a wider MEXT financed project, to send students
studying to be teachers to do overseas teaching practice*Robins, A., Ryan, A. (2014). A taste of teaching inAustralia – The great adventure. In R. Chartrand,
G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The
2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp. 35-40).
Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

in Australia. The program is part of a wider projectfocusing on the issues involved in teachers adapting toongoing developments in Japanese English education,
particularly elementary school English and thechallenges of meshing it with English at junior highschool.

Aims of the “Taste of Teaching inAustralia” ProgramThis program, which first took place in 2012,
gives students planning to be English teachers the
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

35

Robins & Ryan
opportunity to spend three weeks in a primaryor secondary school in Australia, where they are
involved in teaching Japanese, as well as English andother classes. It attempts to address certain current
shortcomings in both teacher education and university
level English education in Japan. The most importantof these is to markedly increase the time spent by
students undertaking kyoiku jisshu (teaching practice),
which is currently short by international standards,
as described by Robins (2008). Apart from earlier
introductory class observations, students normally
undertake three to six weeks of teaching practice, tosatisfy part of their teaching license requirements. As
Obara, Takahashi, and Nakazawa (1993) indicate,
the Teacher Certification Law (1949) established fourweeks as the period for elementary school practiceand that remained the same in a revision in 1990.
However, teaching practice may be in two blocks,
to allow, for example, a period in both elementary
school and junior high school. Although it is naturalthat teaching practice primarily focuses on the futureteaching environment (the student’s home country),
it was also felt that exposure to a contrasting teaching
and learning environment would be valuable. Finally,
students would be exposed to an English environment
in a native speaking location. While a number ofprograms featuring study abroad have been instigatedat our university, particularly through sister university
relationships, there are still too many students goingon to become teachers of English without such
experience. They may not have the chance again
after graduating, given limited government support,teaching workloads, school club commitments, andparticularly, as described by Aspinall (2013), shortvacations in real terms. Thus, through this program, in
2012, some 21 students from two departments (2ndto 4th-years from English Education and 4th-years
from International Cultural Studies) were selected.
This process is described later in this paper.

Location
The initial program took place in Australia for several
reasons. Paramount among these was the range of
connections which one of the authors had with schools
there. Without such connections, the program would36

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

have been markedly more difficult to organize. Anotherfactor was its known attractiveness to students. In spiteof the high cost of living in Australia, a separate annual
language-learning program has long been popular andin Spring 2013 attracted no fewer than 69 students. A
further positive factor for students was a limited timedifference with reduced jet lag. Finally, the schools arelocated in a country with a well-developed educational
focus on Japanese language and culture. Section 6.2 ofa policy white paper entitled “Australia in the Asian
Century” indicates such a focus with the objective that,“All students will have access to at least one priority
Asian language; these will be Chinese (Mandarin),
Hindi, Indonesian, and Japanese.”

Financial and Logistical Issues
While Australia was chosen for the above reasons, itentailed both financial and logistical issues. As withmost potential locations for overseas teaching practice,or indeed language courses, inflation has continuallyraised costs (Robins, 2011, p. 216). At the time of the
program the Australian Dollar was strong, a situation
further exacerbated since, with its continual strength
combined with weakening of the yen. This means thatmoney had to be stretched to cover the four main
financial elements:
1. International flights from Japan to Australia,
plus domestic flights for some participants.
2. Supervisors’ accommodation and additionaltransport costs (public transport or car rental)
for school visits.
3. Payment to schools for supervising students (30Australian dollars a day per student, equating to
2,520 yen at that time).
4. Payment to host families (35 Australian dollars
a day per student, equating to 2,940 yen at thattime).
Given that finance was provided by MEXT, thesechallenges were not as great as the logistical challenges,
which can also be divided into four:
1. There was only a brief window for the program,
after 4th-year students finished teaching license
examinations and before 3rd-year students didearly autumn teaching practice in Japan itself.

A Taste of Teaching in Australia, pages 35-40
2. Finding the required number of suitable schools
to receive students.
3. Matching students to those schools, including
issues such as location (rural or urban), singlesex or co-educational schools, and level ofschool (primary or secondary).
4. Locations of schools, often necessitating an
end-to-end journey from their homes in Japanin excess of 30 hours and providing a challenge
to scheduling visits by supervisors, which will
be returned to later.

The Participants
As previously indicated, 21 students participated,
representing approximately 70% of students who
applied. The main reason for non-acceptance was thatthe student did not meet the key proviso of the funding,that they had taken, or were committed to taking, ateaching license examination (saiyo shiken) for a cityor prefecture. Another reason was that the student
was thought to be able to benefit from improving theirskills before joining the program in a subsequent year.
As to the process of selection, candidates had to initiallycomplete an application form, secondly to attend aninterview in a small group, and thirdly to agree to joinorientation sessions held between the latter and thetime of departure for Australia. Questions asked at theinterview were primarily of five types, as follows, withan example question:
Personality – “How would other people describe
you in terms of ‘initiative’ and ‘independence’”?
Teaching – “Why do you want to be aelementary/junior high/senior high teacher?”
Experience – “Tell us about your experiences todate overseas/on teaching practice in Japan.”
Ideas – “If you had to plan three 50 minutelessons around the theme ‘Introduction to Japan’,what would be the main topic of each of thelessons?”
Initiative – “How do you plan to spend your free

time?”
Perhaps a key dilemma was whether to select
only the most competent students, particularly thosewith previous experience or abroad, or whether toalso select less strong students to “push start” theirprogress, especially with final year students, given thatthey were intending to be teachers of English anyway.
The authors decided that the latter approach would be
beneficial, and the validity of the decision was borneout in student feedback. This feedback indicatedawareness of improvement and will be returned tolater in this paper. In addition, there was the questionof whether prioritizing students with previous overseas
experience might discriminate against students withlower financial resources. The generous funding
situation for this program, which only necessitatedstudents taking spending money, was seen as a way ofhelping such relatively disadvantaged students.

The Nature of the Experience
Having selected the students, groups departed on
two consecutive days due to other commitments, as
described above. This was the start of an experience
encompassing five main strands:
1. A homestay, providing an English-speaking
environment with a family associated with theirschool.
2. Teaching and assisting with Japanese language
and culture in classes and out of class clubs.
3. Giving teachers of Japanese at the schools(mostly non native speakers) the chance topractice and improve their language skills.
4. Involvement in other classes including English
and history.
5. Joining in the life of the school more generally,
including themed days (a feature of primaryschools).
As described above, the participants in thisprogram were intending to become teachers of English,
so teaching Japanese may not seem entirely compatible.
In fact, the university does have a course in teaching
Japanese to non-native speakers, but its students were
not included in this project. However, it appearedthat it was stimulating to be put in a kind of reverse
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

37

Robins & Ryansituation ( Japanese in Australia rather than English
in Japan) and see how another country approaches
second language education. It was also interesting
to see parallels with Japan, including a greater focus
on speaking the language in primary schools but on
speaking about the language and the use of translationin secondary schools. In Japan, this is often seen as aresult of the enduring power of yakudoku, or grammartranslation (see Gorsuch, 1998, and Nishino 2008).
However, probably the greatest benefit for participants
was seeing the contrasts between schools in Australia
and Japan. These will be returned to later in this paper.
Although the total number of students was not solarge, dispersal saw them at fourteen different schools
in nine cities or towns. While two were in Melbourne,
Victoria, the other nineteen were in Queensland, up
to 1,900 kilometers from the former. Even within
Queensland, 852 kilometers marked the greatest
geographical separation between students. Keeping
in touch involved the traditional (the visit), and thetechnological (the wiki). To reduce costs, just two
supervisors, the authors, went to Australia. One stayed
for the whole three weeks and one for two weeks.
Basically, the aim was to visit each school at least twice,with one supervisor covering Melbourne and Brisbane,
and the other covering schools in other locations
in central and southern Queensland. That was notwithout its travails, with the latter supervisor driving
no less than 3,576 kilometers in 21 days (equivalent
to driving from Sapporo to Naha and then back to
Nagoya). Such physical visits aimed to achieve four
objectives:
1. To show students that the supervisors wereinterested and supportive concerning theirprogress.
2. To take video of class activities as a record of the
program and for use in the orientation of future
participants.
3. To liaise with local teaching staff, bothconcerning the current stay and future
possibilities.
4. To familiarize the supervisors with the current
educational environment in Australia.
The importance of physical visits is indicated by
writers such as Stimpson, Lopez-Real, Bunton, Chan,

38

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Sivan, & Williams (2000), who state that, “Supervision
is an integral part of the teaching practice or teachingpracticum undertaken in schools by part-time and fulltime students seeking initial teaching qualifications”(p. 3).
The schools proved to be very accommodating
and supportive. The informal staffroom environments,
themselves something of an eye-opener to theparticipants, also very much helped give both theparticipants and the supervisors the opportunity to get
to know local staff and their teaching situations.

Communicating Across Distances
However, something more was needed to allow
communication both between supervisors andparticipants, and between participants. The method
chosen was a wiki, in the form of Wikispaces (http://
www.wikispaces.com). It was selected because it iseducation oriented and available either free or fora nominal cost if used for educational purposes.
Furthermore, it is intuitively easy to use and had beensuccessfully used by one of the writers previously.
Before departure, every student was introduced tothe site, signed up, and required to post at least one
trial message covering their aims and wishes fromthe program. Participants were not required to post
daily, but rather regularly, and although English was
encouraged, Japanese could be used. Content included
the following five types:
1. Reflections on their lessons and other school
activities.
2. Responses from other participants and thesupervisors.
3. Posting photos of classes and other activities.
4. Sharing Power Point presentations used inclasses.
5. Making arrangements, particularly for agathering of all the participants in Queensland
in Brisbane before returning to Japan.
Two examples of the first type of contribution
from one participant, two days apart, show the valueof using this kind of site in putting across progressachieved by a participant:“I am feeling that teaching is really hard. I presented
new Japanese grammar to year 10 students for 70

A Taste of Teaching in Australia, pages 35-40
minutes alone, which was not satisfying for me at all.
The students are not keen on studying Japanese so I
needed to inspire them to be interested and to tackle tolearn Japanese. Even if I told them that those grammar
points would be asked in the next test coming up next
week, they just temporarily showed their interest andstarted talking to other friends.” Student A (male), 5th
September“I did a presentation about Japanese culture to year
6 students which was good. In this time I told themthat they would be asked what were the interesting
things that you listen to so that they would focus on myclass. It worked very well. They were sometimes loud
but it was a good practice to keep students calm giving
instruction in English. Teachers in high school will beforced to speak English in English class from next year
so I am very happy to have had good opportunities topractice English in the class.” Student A (male), 7th
September
In his last sentence, it can be seen that he clearly
indicates his awareness of the useful relationship of
this program to his future teaching career. A further
example of reflection shows how one participantsummarized her overall experience:“Through this experience, I learned about
differences between Australian schools and Japaneseones, and Australian cultures. First, the atmosphereof the staff room was very friendly, and teachers often
laughed. In Japan, a teachers’ room is very quiet andteachers do their own work. I think Japanese teachers
are too busy. Second, every class had a teacher andan assistant teacher. They divided their roles andcooperated with each other. This system made thempossible to reduce their burden, and was better forchildren. Third, each class had about twenty-fivestudents. It is smaller than classes in Japan. It was
efficient to look after each child. Fourth, children
respected teachers and each other. They followed
what teachers said. I didn’t see any bullying for three
weeks. Fifth, children started to use computers fromprep (pre 1st-grade class). They learned how to type
capital letters, question mark and space, and they
inserted clip art. It was hard for them to match capitalletters and small letters, but I thought it was good forthem. And this school has computers in every class.

They used them to study math. Sixth, every class had
an interactive white board. It was very useful to teachsomething or show movies. But children didn’t copy
contents on their notebook, so I doubted whether they
could remember the contents or not. Seventh, children
had snacks for lunch. Firstly they had snacks, and thenthey had sandwiches. Sometimes they only had snacks,
so it was not good for children’s health. But I think it
was a part of Australian cultures.” Student B (female),
14th September

Benefits and Considerations for the
FutureParticipants can be seen as having both the opportunity
to improve their language skills and gain exposure
to a different educational environment. In a followup activity after the 2013 program, participants wereasked a number of questions. Their replies will be thesubject of a future paper, but one example here indicatesthe benefits of this program in allowing students tocontrast their experiences of teaching practice in Japanand in Australia:“While the teaching practice in Japan requires
us to play a certain role in each class very strictly, likethat we are not allowed to talk to students duringobservation, the Australian teaching practice gave me a
lot of opportunities to think what the teacher’s role was
and what the right thing was for each of the children.”Several changes were made to the program in 2013.
As the primary school curriculum appeared to be more
flexible than that at secondary schools, the balance
towards sending students to primary schools wasincreased. To deal with the time constraints indicatedabove, in 2013 students from different years went in
two distinct periods. This had the effect of avoiding
the supervision pressure referred to above, which was
the result of all the students doing the program at thesame time.
As we write, an application has been made forfunding to continue the program beyond this period.
This brings us to the final point: a program such as thisrequires a reasonably stable and long-term budget, sothat students can see it as an integral part of their courseand so taking part can be better planned for. Therefore,
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

39

Robins & Ryanbeing able to take part can become a future incentive to
study hard from the beginning of their course.
The writers realize that many readers may not be ina position, particularly financial, to organize a program
such as this. However, we would like to strongly
encourage you to consider what similar possibilities
you might be able to offer students to gain the kind of
benefits referred to in this paper.

Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support
provided by the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and the
support of our colleague, Professor Miyuki Takahashi,
the Coordinator of the overall project.

References
Aspinall, R.W. (2013). International education policy
in Japan in an age of globalization and risk.
Boston, MA: Global Oriental.
Commonwealth of Australia (2012). Australia in
the Asian century white paper. Retrieved from:http://www.asiaeducation.edu.au/verve/_
resources/australia-in-the-asian-century-whitepaper.pdf

Gorsuch, G. J. (1998). Yakudoku EFL instructionin Two Japanese high school classrooms: An
exploratory study. JALT Journal, 20(1), 6-32.
Nishino, T. (2008). Japanese secondary school
teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding
communicative language teaching: An
exploratory study. JALT Journal, 30(1), 27-50.
Obara, Y., Takahashi, Y., and Nakazawa, K. (1993).
How Japanese student teachers view practiceteaching: An analysis of critical incidents
summaries. Peabody Journal of Education, 68(4),34-46.
Robins, A. (2008). Coming back to their youth andacting as a man – teaching practice throughstudents’ eyes. Explorations in Teacher Education(JALT TED SIG), 16(3), 15-23.
Robins, A. (2011). Issues in enhancing opportunities
for international education through study abroad.
In T. Yasutake, N. Koizumi, T. Kawagishi, T. Imai
& S. Uchida (Eds.), A Forum on Languages andCommunication (pp. 209-222). Tokyo, Japan:
Kaitakusha.
Stimpson, P., Lopez-Real, F., Bunton, D., Chan, D.
W-K. Sivan, A., & Williams, M. (2000). Bettersupervision better teaching. Hong Kong, China:
Hong Kong University Press.

Author’s Biography:
Anthony Robins has taught in the U.K., Greece, and Japan. He currently teaches International
Cultural Studies students at Aichi University of Education.
Anthony Ryan has taught in Australia, China and Japan. He currently teaches English Education
students at Aichi University of Education.

40

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Adding Drama to Role-plays: The Road
to Authentic Communication

Aya Kawakami
Nanzan University
kawakami@nanzan-u.ac.jp
This paper examines the role-play--one of the standards of communication classes--and discusses
how the activity can be modified to provide more opportunities for meaningful and more authentic
types of communication in the L2. It provides practical examples of drama activities that can beused to enhance the role-play in the EFL classroom and discusses the benefits of incorporating suchactivities into the teaching repertoire.
英会話の授業でおなじみのロールプレー。
これなどは生徒を英語社会で無事にコミュニ
ケーションを取れる様に育てられるのか。役者などを育てるために使われている”drama
activity” をこのロールプレーに加える方法、
そして加える事により生徒が何を得る事が出来るかを理解していただけると思います。

*

Introduction

There is not an English teacher out there that is notfamiliar with role-play activities in the EFL classroom,
whether it is at an English conversation school oruniversity communication course. It is standardpractice for rehearsing dialogue, which is the basic
component of any type of language learning (Kao &O’Neil, 1998). It can be said, however, that due tothe commonplace nature of this activity, often little
thought is placed on trying to expand and improveupon this standard activity. This paper provides a fresh
look at role-plays and examines how the activity can beutilized to allow students to practice more authentic
forms of communication, in order to truly preparethem for the real world of the language. Through thispaper, I suggest that using drama activities can help to
Kawakami, A. (2014). Adding drama to roleplays: The road to authentic communication. In R.
Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan(Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp.
41-45). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

achieve this goal and will provide some practical drama
activities examples for setting up, implementing, andexpanding upon role-play activities.

What is a Drama Activity?
Drama means some type of performance to manyeducators (Gaudart, 1990; Royka, 2002) but in EFL,
performance is not necessarily the goal. The activities
that EFL educators interested in utilizing drama referto are those “that traditionally are used to develop
skills that actors need, and oddly enough, these matchthe skills needed by EFL learners” (Kawakami, 2012,
p. 134). A drama activity is any activity that “asks thestudent to portray himself in an imaginary situation;or to portray another person in an imaginary situation”(Gaudart, 1990, p. 230). Drama in the EFL classroom
focuses on honing skills that will help students toexpress themselves in the second language. Role-plays,
as can be seen from the definition, are themselves a typeof drama activity. Like many drama activities, it can be
expanded to incorporate learning opportunities formany different skills and provide unique experiences
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

41

Kawakamithat will benefit the EFL student. Like any other drama
activity, role-plays can be performed for other people
or can be done within a small group without others
observing. It is the process that is important and, as
will be discussed in a later section, the self and groupreflection of the activities that is the key.

The Authenticity of Traditional Roleplays as Communication PracticeEnglish conversation or communication classes at alllevels struggle with the balance of teaching form andproviding students with enough of an opportunity to
use the L2 to communicate in a spontaneous fashion.
Unfortunately, many model conversations in textbooks(a common starting point for classroom role-plays) arecreated specifically to introduce the content of each
unit. As Kao and O’Neil (1998) state, the goal is “toencourage students to perform particular linguistic
structures, practice particular idioms, or recite lines
according to pre-written scripts using certain items of
vocabulary” (p. 6). These types of conversation often do
not reflect the kind of language that is actually utilized
in daily life, and to the student, often seem devoid of
any significant meaning or purpose (Duff & Maley,
2001; Kao & O’Neil, 1998). Students often feel thatlearning to speak is about memorizing phrases fromthe textbook, which is hardly the goal that the teacher
is trying to achieve. What, then, are the key skills thatspeaking activities are aiming to teach? Duff and Maley(2001) seem to be on the right track with the following
list; students need to learn skills such as “adaptability(i.e. the ability to match one’s speech to the person
one is talking to), speed of reaction, sensitivity totone, insight, anticipation; in short, appropriateness”(p. 7). From this we can see the primary issue withmodel dialogue practice in terms of authenticity is that
there is little or nothing that is unexpected in theseconversation activities. The students are already awareof what their partner is going to say (Kao & O’Neil,
1998).

How Authentic a Communication Act are
Role-plays?
Traditional role-plays are certainly a step in the right42

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

direction. They allow students to participate insituations in a somewhat spontaneous fashion. Thereis no script and so the students must come up withwhat to say, for the most part, by themselves. Having
said this, however, teachers do often give opportunities
in class to prepare students with the brainstorming ofphrases, questions, and vocabulary a student mightneed in a given situation. Even if students are given
an opportunity to brainstorm and prepare for thescene, they are still actively listening and reacting towhat their partner(s) are saying, something that would
rarely occur if students were reading a pre-scripted
dialogue. In addition to this, by the very nature ofrole-plays, students are given ample opportunities toplay different roles, which is something that is vitalto the student broadening their experiences in the
EFL classroom. All too often, communication withina classroom can be limited to that between teacher
and students or students communicating with otherstudents (Kao & O’Neil, 1998), which means thatstudents will experience communicating with people
with whom they have a set dynamic and power position.
Having different roles allows a student to practice, forexample, being in a more powerful position than theteacher or fellow students. It is therefore clear that
there are many aspects of authentic communication in
the L2 in traditional role-play activities, as the students
must actively listen and react, to a greater or lesser
degree, spontaneously to others, whilst considering therelationship they have with the person (or people) they
are communicating with. Is it authentic enough? Is
there any way to add to or otherwise improve upon the
traditional activity? Can teachers find a way to makethis activity become even closer to real experiencesthat the student will encounter in the L2? The next
section will examine an example of a typical role-playand demonstrate how to add additional elements toenhance the students’ experience.

A Typical Role-play
In an EFL communication class, a typical role-play in a
textbook probably looks something like Figure 1.
A teacher seeing this would most likely envision alesson where, as mentioned previously, the class would
brainstorm possible phrases, questions, and vocabulary

Adding Drama to Role-plays, pages 41-45

Figure 1. A typical role-play situation.

needed to do the activity. The students would try doing
the role-play, either in front of the class or in small
groups, and then perhaps the teacher would introduce
one or more of the variations for the students to attempt
after the initial role-play. There may be some feedback
from the teacher about the role-play after the first try in
the form of advice or focus on a common error found in
the role-plays, and then the students would try again.
But what is missing? This next section examines someof the key aspects of authentic communication that are
missing from typical role-play activities.
One of the first missing components is depth ofthe characters and their relationships in the role-plays.
The relationship between the two friends, for example,
would greatly dictate how they would communicate
with each other and the waiter or waitress. Of
particular importance would be the power relationshipbetween the two customers, as this would dictate their
behavior. The same is true of the type of lifestyle theylead. The way that the staff would react and behave also
would be dictated by their age, their personality, theirjob satisfaction, and many other factors that are notmentioned.
Another factor missing, and one that is related tocharacter relationships, is emotion. Emotion is what

drives and motivates communication. It dictates how
a person would speak, the tone used, and the choiceof words speakers would make. In other words, true
drama is missing from the role-play. In the very basic
lesson plan mentioned, there is also no focus on
physicality. Our bodies are connected to how we feeland also how we communicate with others. Non-verbal
communication in the form of body language andfacial expressions is a key part of communicating withothers (Duff & Maley, 2001). Having a clear awarenessof the need to incorporate physicality will bring more
reality to the speech acts and aid in increasing thetools by which students can communicate with others(Winston, 2012).
Having looked at some of the things that could
be added to increase what the students will learn andexperience from role-plays, the next section will discuss
some drama activities that can help to achieve thesegoals.

Putting the Drama into Role-plays
The first crucial step is the set up of the role-play. Thiscan be done in many ways, but a simple visualization
exercise would help to set the scene. The teacher would
ask the students to close their eyes as the teacher
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

43

Kawakami
describes the restaurant, asking the students to try
to visualize in their mind what the teacher is saying.
The teacher should try to incorporate as much of thesenses as possible to describe the exterior and interiorof the restaurant, giving as much detail as possible. For
example, the teacher would say “As you open the dark,wooden door, you smell a wonderful warm smell ofgarlic toast and tomato sauce. The room is crowded,
full of customers chatting softly. The room is a little
dark with soft, warm lighting”. The teacher may want
to do a Q&A session, asking the students to recall as
much as they could of the description.
The teacher would then set up the situation:
Two friends are going to eat dinner at the restaurant
described. The teacher can provide the students withthe basic role cards of the two friends and the waiter
but tell the students that there are many details about
the characters that need to be added. For a first-timegroup, the teacher can put on the board some basic
questions such as, “How old is she or he? What is her or
his name? Where do they live? What is their job?” andhave the students come up with character backgrounds
in groups. An area that students often neglect in thisactivity is physicality. What do the characters look
like? How do they walk? The teacher can add this ideaof physicality here when developing characters.
An interesting alternative to this set-up is to doa drama activity called “hot seating”. The students
playing the characters are put in the middle of a circle ofstudents. The student in the circle will ask the student
in the middle questions about them and the student in
the middles would answer as if they were the character.
For example, a student in the circle would ask “Whatdo you do for a living?” and the student in the middle
would think as the character and answer, “I’m aninvestment banker. I make a pretty good salary”.
There are many ways to go about this activity, but
for the sake of this particular role-play, it may be wise
to put the two friends in the middle together so they
can create their back-story together. The waiter is a
stranger to the two friends and therefore should not bein the circle together. The friends knowing about thewaiter would compromise the opportunity for a moreauthentic situation.
While working in the groups, the teacher could

44

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

plant a surprise. For example, pull aside one of thefriends and tell them that they are secretly angry attheir friend for not paying back money owed andask the student to try to put that into the situation
where appropriate. The other friend being unaware
is a wonderful opportunity for spontaneous conflict
resolution, something that occurs often in real life.
It is important to mention here that one of thegreat benefits of drama activities such as hot seating isthat while the activity is a set up for trying to create
authentic communication, the very act of doing hot
seating is in itself a goal driven, authentic form ofcommunication. The students are asking questionsin the L2 to reach a common goal. The students will
also be very motivated and will ask questions actively
because the task’s goal is easily grasped and meaningful.
They will see using the L2 as an essential tool and thus
will be motivated to utilize it (Chang, 2012, Duff, A.,& Maley, A., 2001).
Once the students have had sufficient time todevelop the characters, they are ready to do therole-play. After the initial enactment, the students
performing will be asked to reflect on their scene. It isessential here that the students do not feel criticized,
but instead are given opportunities to process theirexperience and self assess, which is another key aspectof drama activities (Duff & Maley, 2001; Spolin, 1986).
It is important that physicality, tone of voice, and facial
expressions be a key part of this reflection. This is also
a key point to focus on form—students will be more
likely to pay attention to and see the need for learning
forms taught as it is easier to see a connection between
the forms they need and the goals they want to achieve.
They will be more likely to absorb and remember thecontent taught. After the reflection, students may be
given the opportunity to do the scene again. While
this is no longer spontaneous, it is an important way
for the students to learn from their experience and to
improve their communication skills.
One useful alternative is to add ruptures, sudden
conflicts that the teacher or students shout out for the
students in the role-plays to resolve spontaneously.
This alternative adds another layer of authenticity to
the role-plays, as it is often the case that people must
resolve sudden and unforeseen issues in the L2 asAdding Drama to Role-plays, pages 41-45
effectively as they can. By taking the time to develop
characters and (power) relationships and by adding“ruptures” that students must spontaneously react
to, students will have the opportunity to practicecommunicating in a safe environment in a style muchcloser to real L2 situations.

Conclusion
Drama activities do not create a perfectly authentic
situation for the students, but they do provide agood intermediate step that brings the students more
opportunities to work on their adaptability andspontaneous communication skills from an emotion
driven source. The students are not playing themselves,
but instead characters, which of course, is not what theywould do in real life. But, this is often what frees thestudent to experiment and take a step outside of their
comfort zone (Gaudart, 1990; Kawakami, 2012). The
experimenting and confidence building that will occur
from trying these activities in character will transfer
to the students using these skills in their own lives tocommunicate in the L2. Role-plays can be a wonderful
catalyst for many activities that motivate the student toparticipate actively in their L2 learning.

Acknowledgments
The Speech, Drama, and Debate SIG has been extremely
supportive in providing me with opportunities topresent on my field and to work collaboratively on
many events. I would like to thank the hard working
officers and members for helping to develop our SIG
into the organization it is today.

References
Chang, L. S. (2012). ‘Dramatic’ Language Learningin the Classroom. In J. Winston, (Ed.), Second
language learning through drama: Practicaltechniques and applications (1st ed., pp. 6-14).
New York, NY: Routledge
Duff, A., & Maley, A. (2001). Drama techniquesin language learning: A resource book ofcommunication activities for language teachers.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Gaudart, H. (1990). Using drama techniques inlanguage teaching. (Retrieved from the Eric
database. (ED366197)
Kao, S., & O’Neil, C. (1998). Words into worlds,
learning a second language through process drama.
Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation
Kawakami, A. (2012). Benefits of drama techniques
for literacy development in EFL. The 2012 PanSIG Proceedings, Literacy: SIGnals of Emergence.
(pp. 133-139).
Royka, J. G. (2002). Overcoming the fear of using
drama in English language teaching. The Internet
TESL Journal, 8(6). Retrieved from http://iteslj.
org/Articles/Royka-Drama.html
Spolin, V. (1986). Theater games for the classroom.
Evanston, Il: Northwestern University Press.
Winston, J. (2012). Introduction: Second andadditional language learning through drama. In
Winston, J. (Ed.), Second Language Learning
Through Drama: Practical Techniques andApplications (1st ed., pp. 1-5). New York, NY,
Routledge

Author’s Biography:
Aya Kawakami teaches at Nanzan University, judges for the Aichi E.S.S. Drama Festival, and is
program chair for the Speech, Drama, and Debate SIG.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

45

An Alternative Basis for Novice L2 Learner Oral
Presentation Assessment and Development

Lee Arnold
Seigakuin University
washizora@gmail.com
Oral presentations can be valuable tools for measurement of L2 learner spoken performance andenhancement of learner responsibility. Yet conventional focus of assessment that stresses oral delivery
over visual and written material may demotivate learners who are novice L2 presenters, especiallyfor those from the teacher-centric Japanese educational context. While presentation portfolios canshift the focus of assessment to display material, such shift may also compel novice presenters to
execute to the portfolio rather than their topics. It may therefore be better to trade conventional
assessment and portfolio creation for a valuation of creativity and effort in display with novices. This
may enable them to undertake their preparation with reduced stress, a greater sense of ownershipover the process, less pressured spoken output in delivery, and possibly reveal latent L2 presentation
ability.
口頭発表は、L２学習者のスピーキングの成果を評価する上で有用な方法と言える。
また、
それは同時に学習者の責任感を高める上でも役立つ。
しかし、従来の視覚・文字による作品よりも、口頭での発表に重きを置く評価方法は、
むしろ初級レベルの発表者のやる気を失わせてしまうことにもなりかねない。近年、プレゼンテーションのポートフォリオが、作品発表を主眼とする評価方法へのシフトを可能にした一方、初級学習者にとってそれは過重な負担にすらなりかねない。
そのため、初級学習者に関しては、
ポートフォリオよりむしろ、簡単な視覚・文字作品の製作とその努力を評価する方がむしろ妥当であると思われる。
そうすることで彼らはストレスの少ない状態で準備に取り組むことができ、また製作のプロセスを自分で管理する事で、プレッシャーの少ない状態で発表を行う事が可能となる。
そしてその結果、L2の潜在的発表能力を発揮することができるかもしれない。

*

Introduction

While a review of the literature on L2 learner oralpresentations demonstrates a preoccupation withspoken output as the measure of performance, reliablemeasures of such output have proven elusive. O’Malley
Arnold, L. (2014). An alternative basis for novice L2
learner oral presentation assessment and development.
In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan(Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings(pp. 46-52). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

46

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

and Valdez Pierce (1996) provide a qualitative basis
for oral performance assessment in terms of vocal
clarity, spoken coherence, and topical organization,
and Ortega (1999) details learner pre-planning for
greater success in oral task work. Others such as
Topping (1998), Falchikov and Goldfinch (2000),
and Cheng and Warren (2005), however, raise issues
in oral presentation assessment concerning assessor
subjectivity, evaluative variegation, and classroom
dynamics that may complicate oral presentation
performance measure.

An Alternative Basis for Novice L2 Learners, pages 46-52
Yet for learners new to L2 oral presentations,especially from the teacher-centric and test-oriented
educational system common to East Asian learning
cultures, the scheme can be a major challenge. King
(2002), in a Taiwanese study, states that “When ateacher moves from the traditional role of teacher as
an authoritative expert to the new role of facilitatorof learning, students may feel uncomfortable,” andlearners “need to be psychologically prepared forautonomy and responsibility” (p. 407). There is noquestion that in Japanese settings, some learners may
also feel discomfort over the new connection withteachers and learning that oral presentations suggest,and questions of assessment must take this possibility
into consideration.
As Otoshi and Heffernen (2008) nonethelessdemonstrate, the potential for more learner-centric
task involvement in oral presentations could lead toa greater sense of learner responsibility. Given suchpotential, it therefore begs the question as to what may
bridge the gap between what assessment calls for andthe realization of learner development the presentation
format may make possible.

Possibilities and Limitationsof Portfolios for Presentation
Assessment
In TEFL, such a bridge already exists in the form oflearner presentation portfolios. In the basic sense, apresentation portfolio is a collection of learner visual
artifacts for display as part of oral delivery. Originallyconceived within the scope of writing assessment,
portfolios have been defined and explicated by Moyaand O’Malley (1994), Gottlieb (1995), and HampLyons and Condon (1999), among others, as abroader basis for alternative assessment. According toHamayan (1995), portfolio-based assessment makes it“possible to focus on the process as well as the productof learning” (p. 216).
Among the studies involving presentation
portfolios in Japanese settings, Apple and Shimo (2004)
demonstrate that learners responded affirmatively tothe schema in the terms of project ownership, goal
setting, and extension of learning opportunities (pp.

55-56). Hensley (2009) explores the possibilities of
Web-uploaded presentation portfolios, stating that“the (virtual) portfolio exists as a record of what thelearner has accomplished in the L2 as well as language
growth” and that “the act of repeated performances forthe purpose of what a learner feels to be his or her best
would force the learner to self-evaluate immediately
and correct his or her perceived errors” (p. 36).
Burt and Keenan (1995) nonetheless find logisticalissues with portfolio management, along with warinesson the part of some administrators and learners to thealternative basis of evaluation that portfolios suggest.
Brown and Hudson (1998) echo similar concerns
over design, grading criteria, content and authenticity
with portfolios, in that teachers need “to read and rate
portfolios on a regular basis throughout the school
year while simultaneously helping students developthese portfolios” (p. 665). Apple and Shimo (2004)
concede that the schema may be difficult for somelearners as it involves aspects of goal setting and selfand peer-assessment they may need extensive directionin (p. 57).

Definition of Novice L2 Presenters
and Basis for Novice Assessment
Given these issues, it also begs the question as tohow learners may even step into L2 presentations
at all. It is here where the considerations of learners
new to L2 presentation, including written and visualdisplays, must come up front. For the purposes ofthis exploration, I shall define novice L2 presenters
as learners who are zero beginners with regard to L2
presentations, with no prior experience or perhaps evena frame of reference for what L2 presentations entail.
For such novices, criteria of evaluation must be
geared accordingly, and as a start, I will suggest that itis best not to task them with presentation portfolios
given the difficulties cited above. The breadth that such
schema call for, even with the affirmative findings thathave been demonstrated, may compel some novices toprepare and perform more to the portfolio rather thanto heartfelt explorations of their topics and themes,
further raising the possibility of greater anxiety anddemotivation.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

47

Arnold
On that basis, an evaluative focus for novice L2
presenters on visual and written coherence alone
may serve them better by lessening task anxiety andencouraging creativity in their displays. Such an
approach could in turn promote confidence in oraldelivery, and possibly reveal a latent ability to prepareand deliver effective presentations. From there asense of task investment, learner responsibility andownership of process may bear fruit.
It was with this focus in mind that I decided toinitiate group L2 presentation schemes involving
display material with five classes of novice L2 presenters
across three different institutions where I was employed
part-time in 2012-13.

A Review of Class Samples
Of the classes under review, three carried out theirpresentations in poster form, while two employedposter, OHP, and Power Point formats. All classes weremainly content-oriented, but differed greatly from one
another in degree majors and level of L2 proficiency.
When asked, all learners reported that none ofthem had previously undertaken oral presentations in
the L2, save for one learner in one class, who reported
having delivered a presentation in English once. Twoclasses had carried out L1 presentations within theircoursework, though they had never been required todeliver L2 presentations. All classes therefore essentiallyconsisted of novices with regard to L2 presenting, withthe sole learner mentioned above as a “false beginner.”
With each class, I de-emphasized spoken
performance in favor of coherence and creativity withinorganization of visual display and comprehension totheir level in delivery. While such an evaluative basis
seems loose, I felt it more vital to set a depressurized tonein order to encourage an acceptance of responsibility
to the process, wagering that their spoken output
might flow from their displays under such conditions.
Such a foundation would enable the learners more
comfortably to invest themselves into their projects intheir terms.

Methodology
In the beginning, I allowed all learners to form their48

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

own groups. While pairs or groups of three wereideal, I mandated that four members to a groupwould be the maximum I would allow, though in one
special case I later had to allow a fifth member in one
group. My rationale for group projects came from
Kobayashi’s (2003) findings that oral task learner
success emerges from an atmosphere of peer supportand encouragement, and that project investment andownership could develop when learners could choose
whom they wished to work with.
I handed out task sheets in which the groups were
free to determine how task preparation would be
divided among their membership. I also encouraged
the learners to view my TEFL blog, on which I had
uploaded posts for them on language of delivery,
samples of learner presentations, and information andtips on fine-tuning their displays.
To make the process more manageable for thelearners, topic selection and time for research were
given staggered deadlines, after which I would review
their progress. The process would then culminate in
one to two class sessions of final presentations withingroup schedules the learners could determine.
Towards the end of their preparation, I walked
them through the basic steps of spoken form, requiring
only that each group allot the delivery so that every
member would take a turn speaking on a particularsection in the presentation. I urged them to place key
words and ideas on note cards and to aim to speak fromthem rather than prepared scripts. I did not bar use of
the L1 for topical illustration or L2 errors in display ordelivery, allowing these points so long as neither posedsevere distractions in coherence or comprehension.

Sample Class 1: Background and Learner
Analysis
The first presentation sample for review came from anearly childhood education English communication
class at my current institution, when I was a part-timeteacher. The class consisted mostly of high beginnersecond- and third-year course majors, with a few bothof higher proficiency and in their fourth year.
The aim of the class was to further develop L2 skills
for use in the learners’ future work as kindergarten
teachers with childrens’ classes who may have someAn Alternative Basis for Novice L2 Learners, pages 46-52

Figure 1. Sample Material from Sample Class 1.

bilingual returnees, or children with parents who may
use English as an L1 at home. An additional goal wasfor my learners to build some ability to explain basic
kindergarten policies and procedures in the L2 to any
mixed Japanese-foreign parent English users among
their future students.
The class, while predominantly low in overall
spoken proficiency, was enthusiastic and cooperative.
I nonetheless ascertained that even low-level technicalissues with any equipment-based presenting vehicles
could potentially create enough disruption to weaken
the overall atmosphere for presentation. I therefore
felt that group poster presentations would work bestfor them, as the format would compel greater care innotation of written material while dealing with content
and design in team orientation.

Sample Classes 2 and 3: Background andLearner Analysis
The second and third presentation samples were madeup of two classes of second- and third-year engineeringmajors in an elective general English class at a technicaluniversity. The overall proficiency of both classes wasaround the intermediate level, and target content wasmade up of culturally oriented themes in a reading
textbook.
Both classes overall had demonstrated a highlevel of classroom participation in discussion andactivities in the first part of the term. As the learners
were engineering majors and routinely carried out
poster-scale hand plotting of mechanical schema intheir coursework, I saw poster presentations as naturalfor them. While the demands and pressures of theirengineering studies could potentially impact their L2
presentations, I determined that their plotting ability
could be channeled to yield latent strength in design
and meaning in content.

Sample Classes 4 and 5: Background andLearner Analysis
The fourth and fifth presentation samples weredrawn from two classes of third-year students at a
pharmaceutical science university. Both classes hadlearners of quite variable proficiency; advanced
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

49

Arnold
student laboratory research as a possible source for
their novice L2 presentations, and permitted theirchoice of formats, though I felt Power Point and OHPs
to be more ideal for those of higher proficiency while
posters might serve those of lower proficiency better,
given the freedom from technical distraction.

Discussion

Figure 2. Sample Material from Sample Class 2.

learners were sometimes side-by-side with learnersof low proficiency, with one of the advanced learners
as the sole student who, as previously mentioned,
reported having once delivered an L2 presentation. The
target content was identical between both classes andcentered on a reading textbook of themes and researchin pharmaceutical sciences drawn from authentic
sources.
I saw the learners’ L1 presentation experience inFigure 3. Sample Material from Sample Class 3.

50

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Overall, each class across the board took some care invisual design, with great effort among some groups.
Indeed, a number of the classes appeared to enjoy theprocess and invested their time into it.
Such enjoyment and investment was often evincedin the care and creativity that the groups brought totheir displays.
The fourth and fifth classes of novice L2 presenters
appeared to reach the highest degree of achievementin their group presentations in overall proficiency
in spoken delivery, execution in visual display, andteamwork. This indicated that their seasoning in
L1 presentations was a viable foundation for their

An Alternative Basis for Novice L2 Learners, pages 46-52

Figure 4. Sample Material from Sample Class 4 & 5.

novice L2 presenting. Furthermore, they appeared
to bring the high level of diligence and discipline
necessary in their pharmaceutical coursework to their
L2 presentation efforts. The first class of novice L2
presenters nonetheless also rated well in the level of
their group cooperation, though somewhat lower interms of spoken output and content of display.
The second and third classes of novice presentersdisplayed somewhat variable results. Some of thegroups in each class demonstrated a high level of oral
proficiency and ability in display content, as well asgroup cooperation. Yet some other groups did notappear to show quite the same reach in either delivery
or display.
What was most noteworthy among all the classes
was the maximization of L2 use with minimum
employment of the L1. I had expected at least a few
of the groups to employ the L1 to perhaps more than
judicious levels, particularly among those in the firstclass. Yet all groups in every class strived for delivery
entirely in the L2 to the best of their level.
The only major drawback of their output wasthat several of the groups across the board relied onsome scripted speech, particularly among those oflower proficiency. Wherever their L2 errors did not
detract in coherence and content, I did not severely
downgrade them, as they had written many of thesenotes themselves.
In a similar vein, groups with a mixture of lowerand higher levels of proficiency tended towards
shorter presentations. Yet a dynamic of teamwork
came through in these groups, and allowed learners ofhigher proficiency to showcase their speaking ability.
Indeed, all groups in every class accepted responsibility
for their preparation and delivery, and I weighed
individual learner task acceptance as equal to delivery
and display in my evaluation of their roles in theirgroups’ presentations.
Despite the promising signs I found, more studies
are needed with novice L2 presenters, as I cannot
conclude that my approach is definitive. My assessmentof my novices weighed what admittedly are subjective
factors of group and learner effort, to a degree that
qualitative scrutiny may dismiss as a lowering of thebar. Yet I take the stance that my approach positioned
the learners to step up to the occasion, and on that basis
I found an emergence of learner task responsibility inall classes.

Conclusion
While learner oral presentations may provide showcasesof L2 learner performance, novice L2 presenters inJapanese settings must be defined in literal terms andpositioned to the task with their complete inexperiencein mind. Assessment for such novices should set aside
portfolio requirements or precision in spoken output
in favor of an evaluative focus on creativity and effort.
This could more reasonably allow them a greater
sense of learner task ownership and inculcation of
responsibility, as well as enhance oral performance.
This approach may also prepare such learners better for
more thorough assessment, as well as portfolio schema,in future L2 presenting.

References
Apple, M., & Shimo, E. (2004). Learners to teacher:portfolios, please! Perceptions of portfolio
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

51

Arnold
assessment in EFL classrooms. Proceedings of the
3rd Annual JALT Pan-SIG Conference, 53-58.
Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives
in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4),653-675.
Burt, M., & Keenan, F. (1995). Adult ESL learnerassessment: purposes and tools (Report No.
EDO-LE-9508). Washington, DC: Centerof Applied Linguistics. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 386 962).
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment oflanguage proficiency. Language Testing, 22(1),93-121.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer
assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis
comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of
Educational Research, 70, 287–322.
Gottlieb, M. (1995). Nurturing student learning
through portfolios. TESOL Journal, 5(1), 12-14.
Hamayan, E. (1995). Approaches to alternative
assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
15, 212–226.
Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (1999). Assessing
the portfolio: principles for practice, theory andresearch. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Hensley, J. (2009). Using virtual portfolios to improve
presentations in an EFL setting. Journal of theFaculty of Global Communication, University ofNagasaki, 9, 32–39.
King, J. (2002). Preparing EFL learners for oralpresentations. Dong Hwa Journal of Humanistic
Studies, 4, 401–418.
Kobayashi, M. (2003). The role of peer support in
ESL students’ accomplishment of oral academic
tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3),337–369.
Moya, S., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). A portfolio
assessment model for ESL. The Journal of
Educational Issues of Language Minority Students,
13, 13–36.
O’Malley, J. M., & Valdez Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic
assessment for English language learners: practical
approaches for teachers. New York, NY: AddisonWesley.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus in L2 oral
performance. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 21(1), 109–148.
Otoshi, J., & Heffernen, N. (2008). Factors predicting
effective oral presentations in EFL classrooms.
The Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 65–78.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between
students in colleges and universities. Review of
Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.

Author’s Biography:
Lee Arnold holds an M.Ed (Honours) in TESOL from the University of Tasmania and is a
Seigakuin University English Communication Arts program special assigned lecturer.

52

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

An Interesting Project About Interest

Nick DoranRikkyo University
5047749@rikkyo.ac.jp
Creating interesting lessons is often a goal for teachers that can remain elusive, despite our best
efforts. This paper will provide insights from psychological research into what exactly interest is, andwhat makes something interesting, by examining novelty-complexity appraisals. Subsequently, theresults of a survey of learners’ attitudes are given to help determine which lesson activities in English
Discussion Classes learners find interesting or otherwise. The various strategies which learners inthese classes employ to cope with uninteresting activities (Interest-Enhancing Strategies) will also
be investigated. Finally, suggestions for how to make activities more interesting will then be made byfocusing on survey findings and insights from research.
学習者が興味を持つ授業を作り出すことは多くの場合教師にとって明白な目標であるが、最善を尽くしても達成し得ないこともある。本論文では心理学的観点から興味とは何であるか、またどうすれば興味を持たせることができるのかを新奇性、複雑性の評価の検討により洞察する。次に、学習者の態度に関する調査を行い、英語ディスカッションクラスの学習者が興味を持つ授業活動と持たない授業活動について検討する。学習者が興味の持てない活動に対処するために取るさまざまな方策（Interest-Enhancing Strategies）についても考察する。最後に、これらの調査結果および洞察から授業活動をより興味の持てるものにするための提言を行う。

Introduction*

As teachers we constantly attempt to engage ourlearners with interesting lesson activities so that they
can have an enjoyable learning experience and learn
effectively. The pedagogical benefits for learnersof interesting lessons are manifold and include
greater persistence in learning tasks, longer periods
spent studying, reading more deeply, getting better
grades, and remembering more of what they haveread (Silvia, 2008). It may, therefore, be worthwhile
to conduct some preliminary research to examine

Doran, N. (2014). An interesting project about
interest. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter, &M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference
Proceedings (pp. 53-62). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

learners’ interest in learning EFL and to investigate
the behaviors learners employ to deal with activities
they find uninteresting. A previous examination into
interest has been provided by Wiśniewska (2013), whosurveyed adolescent learners and discovered they were“moderately interested” in learning English. Various
activities were rated by students. “Singing” rated as
the most interesting activity, with “Group Work” and“speaking” also rated highly. Conversely, “homework”
was rated as the least interesting part of English classes
with “Grammar” and “Testing” also rated as some of
the least interesting classroom activities for students.
Although an insightful study, it is unclear what
specific types of activity consist of (e.g. a grammar
activity or a group work activity). This is particularly
true when comparing classes, as different teachers
may have had different approaches, influencing the
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

53

Doranstudents’ survey responses. The survey undertakenin this paper examines learner attitudes to activities
similar to Wiśniewska’s study in the context of English
Discussion Classes at Rikkyo University to ascertain
which activities students are interested in. Although
the students of two different teachers were surveyed,
the activities undertaken by students in these classes
are highly similar between different teachers. Several
practical ideas to make activities more interesting
will also be suggested, which, it is hoped, will provide
guidelines for teachers to consider when teaching EFL
classes.

Research questions
How do learners perceive English Discussion Class
activities in terms of their interest?
What strategies do learners employ to deal with
uninteresting activities?

Literature Review
In the field of psychology, where considerable research
into emotions has been conducted, interest is defined
as “a feeling of wanting to investigate, become
involved, or extend or expand the self by incorporating
new information and having new experiences withthe person or object that has stimulated the interest”(Thoman, Sansone, & Pasupathi, 2007, p. 338). The
connection between the individual and the objectof their interest is a recurrent theme in literature on
interest, as Dewey (1913, p. 17) in one of the earliest
works on interest and education explains: “Interest
marks the annihilation of the distance between the
person and the materials and results of his action;
it is the sign of their organic union.” The “union”
could be with ideas, objects, other people, and events(Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). Interest develops
when individuals have a positive affective experience(Thoman, Sansone, & Pasupathi, 2007) and where theobject of interest is considered to hold value (Dewey,1917). Our interests, therefore, are attached to objects
that are perceived as important to our concept of self.
What we personally value and consider interesting
can be influenced by a range of variables, such as ourperceived strengths and weaknesses (Schiefele, 2009),

54

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

gender (Kohlberg, 1966), and affiliation with a socialgroup (Todt, 1990). As our view of ourselves develop
over time so do our interests as we both take on new
interests and discard those that no longer hold any
value for us (Silvia, 2008).

Personal and Situational Interest
Two typologies of interest--situational interest andpersonal interest--can be helpful to explain how
interests develop and form. Situational interest is
spontaneous and environmentally activated (Schraw,
Flowerday, & Lehman, 2001; Hidi & Harackiewicz,
2000). It can be triggered suddenly by external stimuli(triggered situational interest), such as a teacher
providing engaging lessons (Wigfield & Cambria,
2010). If a person deems something interestingenough they may devote further attention to it andmaintained situational interest occurs. If our interests
are sustained for long enough, they can eventuallydevelop into personal interest, representing a strong
personal preference for a particular topic or domain.
Personal interest signifies a state where individuals seek
to expand knowledge themselves, and is associatedwith positive feelings, increased knowledge andvalue (Schiefele, 1999). As situational interest ismore susceptible to change and manipulation by theclassroom environment, this study will attempt toprovide suggestions for enhancing this form of interest.

What is Interesting?
Although intuition informs us that there isconsiderable variation in what individuals findinteresting or otherwise, it is possible to explain interms of novelty-complexity appraisals and withinsights from text-based interest research. Novelty
appraisals involve the individual evaluating “an eventas new, unexpected, surprising, mysterious, or obscure”(Silvia, 2008, p. 58). If something is new, it naturally
arouses our curiosity, which can impact our interests.
However, the degree of newness is subject to variation
between individuals. Novelty appraisals relate to how
new we view objects or events to be, with something
appraised as new regarded as more interesting thansomething familiar. In the classroom environment,

An Interesting Project About Interest, pages 53-62
new student groupings or the introduction of a newactivity type may therefore be regarded as interestingin this way. It is important to note, however, thatteachers need not continually devise novel activities
to generate learner interest. Instead, activities canbe repeated if learners have had a positive affective
experience with activities. Complexity appraisals
relate to our ability to understand events appraised
beyond our understanding considered to be confusing
and less interesting. For example, people reported an
abstract poem as more interesting after receiving a hint
to help them understand it (Silvia, 2005). It does notnecessarily follow that interest is adversely affectedby the level of difficulty. If an event is appraised as
potentially understandable it could trigger interest.

Interest-Enhancing Strategies
If activities are uninteresting, yet individuals have goodreasons to take part in these activities, then Interesting
Enhancing Strategies (IESs) can be employed. Sansone,
Weir, Harpster, and Morgan, (1992) proposed that
individuals have implicit knowledge of IESs and utilize
them to enhance interest. Research into this area islimited. Based on experimental studies in the field ofsports psychology four IESs have been proposed:
Challenge enhancement: attempting moredemanding tasks that are above current ability
levels.
Exploitation of stimuli outside own task
performance: using cues from outside the activity
itself, such as watching others carry out anactivity.
Introduction of variety within the task: changing
the task type or content by switching tasks before
becoming bored.
Provision of self-relevant rationales: creating
reasons for participating in an activity, forexample to get a good grade.
(Sansone, Weir, Harpster, & Morgan, 1992;
Green-Demers, Pelletier, Stewart, & Gushue,

1998)
The survey of IESs used by students in English
Discussion Classes reported in this paper have beendeveloped from both Wiśniewska (2013) and frompersonal observation of IESs that students appear toemploy in these classes.

English Discussion Class
English Discussion Classes (EDC) are compulsory
for all first-year students at Rikkyo University, Tokyo.
Lessons are held weekly and duration is 90 minutes.
Class size is generally limited to eight, and students
have multiple opportunities to communicate inEnglish as classes involve minimal teacher instruction
and intervention. Guidelines suggest that students
engage in direct student-student interaction foraround 55 minutes, which means a variety of pairwork
and groupwork activities. EDC primarily focuseson improving English speaking ability and fluency.
All teachers on the EDC program receive explicit
instruction on EDC teaching methodology and are
frequently observed to ensure that they are adheringto this methodology. EDC teachers generally follow
a standard lesson plan for every class (see Table 1).
Overall, satisfaction ratings for EDC are high asreported by a student survey, which showed that 92%
of students were happy with this class.

Methodology
A questionnaire (Appendix A) was administered to
73 EDC students in semester one, after students had
become familiar with EDC activities. The methodology
employed questionnaires with attitudinal questions, todetermine which activities students were interested in,and behavioral questions about IESs students employed(Wiśniewska, 2013). Both parts of the questionnaire
used a 5-point Likert scale for measuring students’
responses. Questionnaires are advantageous because
they can collect data efficiently and in a standardized
manner (Dorynei, 2007). One drawback is that they
have a tendency to produce superficial responses. In
order to provide greater depth of response, for the firstpart of the questionnaire, students were asked to discuss
their responses together. Some of these responses were
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

55

Doranrecorded in field notes. Acquiescence bias (in which the
respondents answer questions according to how they
think the researcher, in this case their teacher, would
like them to respond) was also an issue. Questionnaires
were therefore kept anonymous and students weretold their responses would not affect their classroom
grades. The second part of the questionnaire required
students to consider which IESs they employed to deal
with uninteresting classroom activities. Due to time
constraints in some classes where the questionnaire
was administered, not all students were able to respondto the second part of the questionnaire (Appendix B,
n=41). The questionnaire could be problematic in thatstudents may not be consciously aware of IESs they
employed. Nevertheless, the responses provided in thequestionnaire were useful in providing suggestions tomake activities more engaging.

Results
The results of students’ reported levels of interest indifferent EDC activities showed that they generally
rated activities as “interesting” with one activity(homework readings) rated as “neither interesting or
boring”. Overall, students’ reported levels of interest
in different EDC activities (See table 2) did not vary
appreciably, with activities rated from 4.07 for learning
function phrases to 3.01 for homework readings.

The relationship between interest and theperceived difficulty of different EDC activities wasoften used a reason to explain students’ variability ininterest ratings. Learning function phrases was rated
as most interesting, with several students remarking
that these phrases were both useful and not difficult tolearn. The relation between complexity appraisals andinterest was also used to explain why some students
rated 3-2-1 activities as one of the least interesting
activities. Students reported that this activity typewas most challenging, requiring them to speak at
length. One student complained of this activity thatthey “were not fluent in English,” which they saw as
the main hindrance for completing this activity typesuccessfully. Students also noted that they did not havesufficient vocabulary, signifying that preparation could
be advantageous in raising interest levels. The relation
between complexity appraisals and interest was further
highlighted by one student who reported that English
was generally difficult for them as the reason why
they checked “neither interesting nor boring” for all
activities.
Both discussions activities in a standard lesson
were rated highly by most students, with a negligible
difference in interest between the first and second
discussions. For discussions, students reported
feelings of interest and enjoyment when working with

Table 1
Structure of English Discussion lessons.
Stage

Activity

1. Quiz

Students do homework reading quiz.

2. Fluency

Students do a 3-2-1 fluency activity.

3. Function presentation

Teacher presents function phrases (giving reasons, giving examples...).

4. Function practiceStudents practice function phrases.

5. Discussion preparation #1

Students generate ideas for discussions.

6. Discussion #1

Students have a topic-based discussion for 10/12 minutes.

7. Teacher Feedback

Teacher gives students feedback on performance.

8. Discussion preparation #2
9. Discussion #2

56

16-minute discussion.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

An Interesting Project About Interest, pages 53-62
Table 2Student Interest Ratings of EDC Activities.
Mean Value

Standard Deviation

Learning function phrases is...

4.07

0.653

The second discussion is...

4.04

0.848

The first discussion is...

4.03

0.721

Practice activities with the function phrases are...

4

0.745

Receiving feedback from the teacher after the first discussion is...

3.93

0.643

Preparation activities (before the discussion) are...

3.79

0.726

3-2-1 fluency activities are...

3.6

0.812

In general, I think the homework readings are...

3.01

0.905

n=73
Table 3
IESs Employed by Students in EDC Activities
Modal
response

Percentage of
respondents

I think about how I will use what I am learning in the future.

330%

I try to make the activity interesting by asking interesting questions.

345%

I try to make the activity interesting by disagreeing with other students’opinions.

3

41%

I make an effort if other students are also making an effort.

3

37.5%

I tell myself that it is important to learn English.

3

37.5%

I tell myself that my English level will improve if I do the activity.

3

37.5%

I tell myself that I have to do the activity if it is interesting or not.

3

37.5%

I sit quietly and wait for the activity to finish.

240%

I tell myself that the teacher will be happy if I make an effort.

230%

I do the activity in order to get a good grade.

2

35%

I daydream/think of something else (my boyfriend/girlfriend, other classes...)2

37%

When I find topics/activities boringn=41

one another, and sharing experiences and opinions
together. In contrast, the majority of students wereindifferent towards homework readings, with somestudents reporting that the content of the reading texts
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

57

Doranwas often uninteresting.
Results of the IESs employed by students (seeTable 3) showed a wide variance as a result of students’
differing motivations for learning English, varying
attitudes towards EDC, and differences in individual
student behaviors. Therefore, for analytical purposes
the modal value was used. Overall, students showeda tendency to employ strategies that dealt with theprovision of self-relevant rationales (thinking about
the usefulness of an activity for their future), as wellas introducing variety within a task (asking questions
or disagreeing with other students’ ideas). Students
reported that strategies that dealt with the exploitationof stimuli outside task performance (daydreaming,
consideration of how the teacher will respond to theirefforts) were employed less frequently.

Recommendations for Increasing
Levels of Situational Interest
This study has focused on a specific EFL class typeand learning environment. Using the results togive suggestions on how to make EFL activities
more interesting in general could be problematic.
Nevertheless, preliminary suggestions will be put
forward to provide teachers with guidelines for making
lessons more interesting, which it is hoped teachers
will implement with careful consideration of their own
teaching circumstance.
The first point to consider is that, however
negligible, there is variation in students’ interest levels
for different activities. The teacher, therefore, should
not make a priori assumptions about what activities areinteresting but instead take measures to find out thisinformation. Once uninteresting activities have been
identified, it is then necessary to consider ways to deal
with them.
The students surveyed reported that interest canbe adversely affected by overly difficult activities.
Therefore allowing more support, either from theteacher or from their peers, by providing backgroundinformation or lexical items could be beneficial (Schraw
et al., 2001). Alternatively, topics could be chosen withwhich the majority of learners will be familiar. Those
topics which are wholly unfamiliar to students may be

58

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

difficult and consequently lack interest.
When faced with an uninteresting activities,
students employed IESs whereby they justified reasonsfor participating. Explanation and emphasis of activity
goals and learner outcomes should therefore be apriority for teachers, in order to motivate students toengage in an activity even when it is not personallyinteresting for specific students. Once activities arecompleted the teacher could also provide feedback
on whether these goals were achieved and provide
suggestions for students to make improvements. In
addition, activity types and topics that are personally
relevant for students could be exploited, in particular
for motivating low-interest groups of students (Means,
Jonassen & Dwyer, 1997).
Research has shown that for some individuals,
working with others resulted in increased interest(Isaac, Sansone & Smith, 1999), which the interest
ratings reported for EDC groupwork activities appear
to confirm. Although working together with otherstudents should be encouraged, consideration should
be given to what groupings of students are mosteffective. That is to say, students may only employ
IESs if they see that other students are interested andare making an effort. Conversely grouping together
uninterested students should be avoided.
Allowing students to make choices about how they
carry out activities can result in students employing
IES to adapt an activity to make it more interesting
personally. Allowing students some flexibility incarrying out activities is therefore worth considering,as is providing students with a degree of meaningful
choices (Schraw et al., 2001; Cordova & Lepper,
1996). Providing students with choice, no matter how
arbitrary, appears to increase individuals’ overall levelsof both satisfaction and interest (Flowerday & Schraw,2000). Choice is important, as individuals tend to makechoices based on what they like or are curious about. In
addition, choices are made for topics and activities thatthey may have some prior knowledge of. Having someprior knowledge allows students to appraise something
as comprehensible thereby enhancing interest.
Finally, if activities continually lack interest,
either abandoning an activity altogether, reducing theduration, or considering experimenting with a newAn Interesting Project About Interest, pages 53-62
activity type should be considered.

Conclusion
The aim of this paper has been to gain insights into
learner interest by focusing on what students findmost interesting about EDC activities. It has also
provided general recommendations to make lessons
more interesting. Further research to determine if
these recommendations are effective in enhancing
learner interest is necessary. Although this study has
made a case for making lessons interesting for learners,
teachers should note that despite their best efforts
and hard work, it may be difficult to engage learners
who have negative perceptions of English. Individuals
may simply have fully formed personal interests which
could exclude learning EFL. As teachers, we should,
nevertheless strive to make our lessons interesting andenjoyable, but not be discouraged if these efforts are
not entirely successful.

References
Ainley, M. (2006). Connecting with learning:
Motivation, affect and cognition in interest
processes. Educational Psychology Review, 18,391-405.
Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education.
Cambridge, MA: Riverside Educational
Monographs.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language
research: Construction, administration andprocessing. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Cordova, D. L., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic
motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial
effects of contextualization, personalization, andchoice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4),715-730.
Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2000). Teacher beliefs
about instructional choice: A phenomenologicalstudy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4),634-645.
Green-Demers, I., Pelletier, L. G., Stewart, D. G.,& Gushue, N. R. (1998). Coping with theless interesting aspects of training: Toward amodel of interest and motivation enhancement
in individual sports. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 20(4), 251-261.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M., (2000). Motivating
the academically unmotivated: A critical issue forthe 21st century. Review of Educational Research,
70(2), 151-179.
Isaac, J., Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (1999). Other
people as a source of interest in an activity.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35,
239-265.
Kohlberg, L. A. (1966). Cognitive-development
analysis of children’s sex-role concepts
and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The
development of sex differences, (pp. 72–81).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Means, T. B., Jonassen, D. H., & Dwyer, F. M.
(1997). Enhancing relevance: Embedded ARCS
strategies vs. purpose. Educational Technology
Research Review Development, 45(1), 5-17.
Sansone, C., Weir, C., Harpster, L., & Morgan, C.
(1992). Once a boring task always a boring task?
Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 379-390.
Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 257-280
Schiefele, U. (2009) Situational and individualinterest. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation in school, (pp. 197–
223). New York, NY: Taylor Francis.
Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001).
Increasing situational interest in the classroom.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211-224.
Silvia, P. (2008). Interest - The curious emotion.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1),57-60.
Thoman, D. B., Sansone, C., & Pasupathi, M. (2007).
Talking about interest: Exploring the role ofsocial interaction for regulating motivation andthe interest experience. Journal of HappinessStudies, 8, 335-370.
Todt, E. (1990). Development of interest. In H.
Hetzer (Ed.), Applied developmental psychology ofchildren and youth. Wiesbaden, Germany: Quelle& Meyer.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

59

DoranWigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’achievement values, goal orientations, andinterest: Definitions, development, and relations
to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review,30(1), 1-35.
Wiśniewska, D. (2013). Interest and interestenhancing strategies of adolescent EFL learners.
ELT Journal, 67(2), 210-219.

Author’s Biography:
Nick Doran has taught EFL in Eastern Europe, Turkey and Japan where he works as a lecturer
at Rikkyo University in Tokyo. His current research interests include feedback, motivation andinterest.

60

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

8. The second discussion is...

7. Receiving feedback from the teacher
after the first discussion is...

6. The first discussion is...

5. Preparation activities (before thediscussion) are...

4. Practice activities with the function
phrases are...

3. Learning function phrases is...

2. 3-2-1 fluency activities are...

1. In general, I think the homework
readings are...

interesting

VeryInteresting

interesting or boring

NeitherinterestingNot very
BoringI am a boy / a girl 								My major is ...
Sometimes learning English is interesting and we enjoy taking part in activities but sometimes it is not very interesting and some of the activities we do in class can seem boring.
Mark (X) your opinions of the following EDC activities...

An Interesting Project About Interest, pages 53-62

Appendix A

61

62

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Is there anything more you want to say? Please write...

11. I daydream/think of something else (my boyfriend/girlfriend, other classes...)10. I make an effort if other students are also making an effort.

9. I tell myself that my English level will improve if I do the activity.

8. I think about how I will use what I am learning in the future.

7. I do the activity in order to get a good grade.

6. I tell myself that the teacher will be happy if I make an effort.

5. I sit quietly and wait for the activity to finish.

4. I try to make the activity interesting by asking interesting questions.

3. I try to make the activity interesting by disagreeing with other students’ opinions.

2. I tell myself that I have to do the activity if it is interesting or not.

1. I tell myself that it is important to learn English.

When I find topics/activities boring

Never

RarelyWhen some topics and activities are not interesting to you, what do you do? Mark (X) in the table below what you do...

Sometimes

Often

AlwaysDoranAppendix BBuilding the Four Skills through Documentary Films
Mark Koprowski
Meiji University
markkoprowski@yahoo.com
Documentary films have the power to engage learning and transform lives. Based on a course taught
at Meiji University, this paper describes the methodology for teaching an integrated skills course
through the medium of documentary film. The university course draws upon a range of compelling
English-language films dealing with real-world environmental, political, and social issues urgently
affecting society today. Students have regular opportunities to enhance speaking, listening, andwriting skills through viewings, guided discussion, and critical reflection.
ドキュメントフィルムは、習得する力・生活を変化する力を持っている。明治大学で学んだコースに基づきこのペーパーは、ドキュメントフィルムという媒体を通して、一貫した熟練のコースを指導するための方法論を記述している。大学のコースは、ある幅を持った納得性のある真の環境世界に関連するフィルム・今日の社会に影響を及ぼしている緊急性がある
政治など、納得性を持つ英語のフィルムをあてにしている。学生は常に、会話・聞き取り・討論の導き方・批評への影響・見ることを通して書く技術を高める機会を 持っている。

The use of English-language documentary films in
the university classroom can serve not only as anentertaining and motivating source of authentic
English but as a profoundly engaging tool for raisingawareness of vital issues impacting the world today.
What follows is a comprehensive description of a 15week English language course based around featurelength documentary films. The description includes
the course content, materials, lesson sequence, andmethod of assessment. In addition to its informationrich content, one of the main pedagogic aims of thecours is to use and develop the four basic language skills:
speaking, listening, reading and writing. An integrated
approach allows learners to comprehensively develop
and practice basic language skills around particular*

Koprowski, M. (2014). Building the four skills throughdocumentary films. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 63-71). Nagoya, Japan:
JALT.

*

themes and, as such, offers excellent preparation forwhat students are most likely to expect in the realworld outside the walls of their classroom.

Background
This documentary-based elective course was initiallyoffered at Meiji University in the spring of 2010
within the School of Global Japanese Studies. The
15-week course met for two 90-minute lessons per
week. The total lesson time was approximately 45
hours. Enrollment for the course averaged aroundten students. Eight full-length English-language
documentary films, all screened in class, comprised
the main content of the course. Although eight films
may be beyond the scope or duration of any standard
university course, it is believed that this article will
still be of pedagogic merit for the use of any type of
documentary films or non-fiction video in an Englishlanguage teaching context.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

63

Koprowski

Why Use Documentary Films?
Documentary films offer a rich source of pedagogic
and educational benefits. Providing a rich andintensive source of contextualized authentic English,
they can also entertain while broadening one’s
knowledge, awareness, and interest in a variety ofcontemporary issues. Documentaries can also open aunique and fascinating window into different cultures.
Controversially-themed documentaries, in particular,
can stimulate classroom discussion, debate, andexpression of personal opinion. Finally, documentaries
can serve as a potent linguistic resource for thedevelopment of language skills and vocabulary.

Why Use Feature-length
Documentary Films?
While many fine short documentary films are available,
the decision was made to use primarily full-lengthfilms. Feature length documentaries, such as Super
Size Me, An Inconvenient Truth or The Cove, tend tohave higher name recognition value and will likely
motivate learners more than lesser-known or obscureshort films. It is also believed that watching andsuccessfully comprehending a full-length movie will
impart a greater sense of learner achievement or pride,
as opposed to a short film or single scene. Moreover,screening a full-length movie may also boost student
motivation and confidence, as students will realize thatcomprehending a film is not as challenging as they had
expected (King, 2002). It is also likely that, in a longer
film, exposure to repeated vocabulary and language
related to a particular theme will lead to a greater
likelihood of vocabulary acquisition. A full-length film
also serves as a richer and more varied source of content
by which to exploit for discussion, analysis, and otheractivities. In general, it is believed that the overall
educational experience is deeper and more satisfying.

Selection CriteriaWith the bewildering number of English-language
documentary films available at the outset, choosing asuitable film may seem like a daunting task. A numberof practical questions can be addressed that will help
facilitate the selection process. (1) Is the film relevant to64

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

the lives of young adults? In other words, will learners
have a personal stake in the message of the film? (2) Is
the film linguistically comprehensible? If the language
is overly complex or technical, learners may quickly
become discouraged and lose interest. (3) Is the film
fast-paced, visual, and sufficiently entertaining? (4)Is the film reasonably short? Documentaries that
extend beyond two hours will require considerable
class time and may start to challenge the attention
span of learners. (5) Is the film recent? Movies older
than 15 years may risk exposing learners to outdated
facts and information. (6) Is the film well-made oraward-winning? Any notable accolades will serve as areliable litmus test of quality. (7) Is it emotionally or
psychologically safe? Some documentaries may include
footage of graphic or gratuitous violence, mistreatment
to humans or animals, profanity, or sex. As such, they
may not likely be appropriate for the classroom. Fulllength documentary films that meet the above criteria
and have been successfully used in this course include
Super Size Me, Food, Inc., An Inconvenient Truth, No
Impact Man, The Cove, Happy, and Out of the Blue: The
Definitive Investigation of the UFO Phenomenon.
The recommended length of movie for the
documentary-based course would be approximately
90 minutes or less. In each 90-minute lesson, a thirdof the film (or around 30 minutes) was viewed in class.
This permitted one hour for other activities, such as
pre-viewing and post-viewing pair work and group
activities.

Using English-language Subtitles(Closed Captioning)
In the course, English-language subtitles (closed
captioning) were typically used during the in-classviewing of each film. Although regarded as perhaps
a considerable crutch for learners, it was seen asa necessary one. Unless learners are at a highly
advanced level, much of the authentic input would
not likely get processed, resulting in demotivation anddisengagement. However, studies in this area suggestthat the use of subtitling in the target language does
indeed offer a host of pedagogic benefits. Subtitles
make the language more salient, allowing the learners

Building the Four Skills through Documentaries, pages 63-71
to better concentrate and process the language.
Subtitles also help students recognize and learn the
pronunciation of words, expressions, and idioms. They
can also help viewers to better understand jokes orhumor (King, 2002). In addition, because there is adeeper processing of language through two modes (bothlistening and reading), there is a stronger reinforcementof vocabulary (Winke, Gass, & Sydorenko, 2010).
In terms of helping and building general listening
comprehension skills, captioned movies also tend to
be more effective than non-captioned movies (Huang& Eskey, 1999; Kikuchi, 1997). In short, less able
students receive greater linguistic support, anxiety is
reduced, and this allows for greater enjoyment andprocessing of the film’s message.

Materials
As stated previously, each documentary movie wasroughly divided into three 30-minute segments. One
30-minute part was screened in each 90-minute lesson.
There was a special worksheet that accompanied
each part of the movie, which students completed as
homework prior to each lesson. There were typicallythree worksheets per movie. The worksheet included
three main sections: Focus Questions, Pre-Viewing
Vocabulary, and Comprehension Questions. A
worksheet for the part one of Super Size Me appears
in Appendix A.

Focus questions
There were usually three to four pre-viewing questions
given as a warm-up, related to the particular part of
the film the students would watch that day. Students
were asked to prepare their answers in advance, andshare their answers in class with a partner. This was aneasy and practical way to get learners interested in andthinking about the film, while activating any relevant
schemata related to the topic. In theory, at least, thispreparation would help support comprehension of thevideo segment to be watched that day.

Pre-viewing vocabulary
Following the focus questions was a list of 25 English
vocabulary items (words, phrases, or expressions)that would appear in that lesson’s documentary
segment. The vocabulary was also listed in the orderin which it appeared in the film. It is generally a goodidea that unknown words be pre-taught if knowing
these vocabulary items is important for successful
comprehension. This makes it more likely that learners
will understand the passage; moreover, it will givelearners a greater sense of confidence (Wilson, 2008,
p. 76). It will also help learners make predictions as towhat to expect in the particular video segment, whichshould further aid comprehension.
The 25 vocabulary items were chosen in advanceby the instructor and generally adhered to four main
criteria: (1) Was the item likely to be new or unfamiliar
to learners? (2) Was it likely that learners would havetrouble inferring the meaning of each item in context?
(3) Was the item essential for decoding the meaningof the segment to be viewed? (4) Was the item used
repeatedly throughout the film? Prior to the lesson,
students were asked to use dictionaries to check themeaning of each item themselves or translate it into
their first language. In addition, students were asked
to find and mark the accent of each word; this would
help in the recognition of the item while viewing thefilm. Optionally, students may also be asked to record
an example sentence of each vocabulary item showing
its typical usage.

Comprehension Questions
The third section of the worksheet contained
approximately 10 to 15 comprehension questions
related to the section of the film to be viewed that day.
As learners watched the film, they tried to answer thequestions. There are two good reasons why students
should be given a listening task as opposed to simply
watching the film. First, comprehension activities
encourage learners to pay attention and understandthe film. Secondly, it’s important that students “showevidence of understanding or non-understanding”, sothat teachers can provide additional practice activities
or clarification, if necessary (Wilson, 2008, p. 82-83).
The comprehension questions were all objective innature and were deliberately designed to be answered
relatively quickly while viewing. There were three maintypes of comprehension questions: true/false, multipleThe 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

65

Koprowski
choice, and fill-in-the-blank. These recognition-type
responses are easier to deal with and are less distracting
than other types of exercises. (Wilson, 2008, p. 82). To
help minimize the burden of reading and answering
the questions in real-time, students were requested to
pre-read the comprehension questions for homeworkin advance and guess the answers. While viewing thefilm in class, students could quickly confirm theiranswers or make any relevant changes.

Lesson Sequence
Each 90-minute lesson was typically divided into three
general stages: the before-viewing stage, the whileviewing stage, and the after-viewing stage.

Before Viewing
The before-viewing stage would typically last from30 to 45 minutes. If a new documentary was being
presented, the teacher would spend a few minutes
introducing the film. This may have included thefilm’s general thesis, the director, budget, its box
office performance, prizes or awards, critical or public
reaction, controversies, discussion of the official poster,and so on. Following this, students, in pairs, would
spend up to ten minutes sharing their answers to the
Focus Questions that they had prepared in advance.
This was followed by a whole class discussion of one,some, or all of the questions. Students then compared
their list of Pre-viewing Vocabulary with a partner.
If they had trouble understanding the meaning ofa particular item or its pronunciation, they could
consult with their partner. To familiarize learners withthe phonological features of new vocabulary, it may
also be useful for the teacher to lead a choral drill of
the vocabulary (Thornbury, 2002, p. 85). Students cancheck that they have identified the stressed syllable
correctly. If time permits, students can also go to theComprehension Questions and compare their guesses
with a classmate.

While Viewing
One-third of the film (approximately 30 minutes)
was screened in class (the first, second, or third part).
While watching the film, students answered the66

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Comprehension Questions. However, they were also
encouraged to take additional notes of any interesting
information.

After Viewing
Following the video segment, students spenta few minutes comparing their answers to theComprehension Questions with a partner. While pairwork obviously allows students to speak longer, it also
helps them sort out any differing interpretations of thematerial (Wilson, 2008, p. 97). The teacher monitored
the discussion, then went over the Comprehension
Questions, eliciting and confirming answers from theclass and answering questions. If there was time, theteacher led a whole class discussion, inviting generalreactions to the segment just viewed.

Homework
Homework for the documentary course consistedof two regular activities: the film worksheet and thereaction journal.

Film Worksheet
Students needed to complete the film worksheet(Focus Questions, Pre-Viewing Vocabulary, andComprehension Questions) for the segment of thefilm that would be screened in the next lesson.

Reaction Journal
With any interesting or controversial input, students
will naturally want to know if the message correlates
or conflicts with their own views on the issue. This will
likely prompt classroom debate, discussion, or somepersonal response (Wilson, 2008, p. 99). Apart fromdiscussion opportunities, students also had a chance
to react to the input in writing by keeping a journal,
in which they composed a personal response (150words or more) to the segment of the film viewed
in the previous lesson. Some recommended areas of
discussion included:•• What did you learn that you didn’t know before?
•• What did you like? What didn’t you like?
•• Has the movie affected your opinions? beliefs?

Building the Four Skills through Documentaries, pages 63-71
Table 1
Summary of skills used in the course.

SPEAKING•• Focus Questions (pair work)•• Guided whole class discussion

LISTENING•• Documentary narration/speakers•• Pair work discussion•• Guided whole class discussion

READING•• English subtitles•• Lesson worksheets•• Supplementary materials

WRITING•• Focus questions (written answers)•• Reaction journal (150+words)

lifestyle? If so, how?
•• What was the most interesting/funniest/
surprising/shocking/disturbing part?
•• Do you strongly agree or disagree with any of thepoints made in the movie? Why?
•• Was the movie easy/difficult for you to understand?
Explain.
The reaction journal was a valuable component of
the course for numerous reasons. It served as a generalcheck that students were indeed paying close attention
to the movie. It gave learners valuable writing practiceand a platform in which to carefully consider andexpress their views. Since the mid-term examinationand final exam were composition-based, a writing
journal would help prepare learners for this method ofassessment.

The Four Skills
One of the fundamental course goals was to use anddevelop speaking, listening, reading and writing.
Table 1 summarizes the course activities beneath its
associated macro-skill.

Assessment Procedures
How the final grade is usually determined issummarized in Table 2.

Homework Assignments
A homework assignment score was mainly based on thecompletion of the film worksheets (Focus Questions,Pre-viewing Vocabulary, and Comprehension
Questions).

Class Participation
A class participation score was based on how
communicatively active students were during pairwork activities and whole class discussion and whether
students were giving their full attention duringviewings of the documentary film.

Reaction Journal
A grade was assigned based mainly on regularcompletion of the journal entries. As previously
noted, each entry should be a minimum of 150 words.
Optionally, and depending on the class size, the teacher
collected the journals and provided written feedbackon the content of all or part of the journal.

Vocabulary Quizzes
Following the completion of each documentary
film (eight quizzes in total), a short recognition-based
vocabulary quiz was administered to encourage thestudy and retention of new vocabulary items associatedwith the theme of each film. The quiz was based on thePre-viewing Vocabulary items. There were 10-items on
Table 2
Assessment plan.
Component

Grade

Homework assignments

10%

Class participation

20%

Reaction journal

20%

Vocabulary quizzes

10%

Mid-Term assessment

20%

Final Assessment

20%

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

67

Koprowski
each quiz, with each quiz testing up to 75 vocabulary
items. Each quiz adhered to a conventional testing
format, in which students had to choose a suitable
word or phrase from a box and properly contextualize
them in a “fill-in-the-blank” sentence. A vocabulary
quiz for Super Size Me appears in Appendix B.
However, to offer a greater and appropriate challenge
for this level, it was decided that 15 vocabulary choices
would appear in the box, yet five of them would serve
as distractors—attractive yet incorrect answers.

Mid-Term & Final Assessment
The mid-term and final examinations were one-hourin-class composition-based tests and each adhered tothe same format. Both the mid-term exam and final
exam were administered following four documentaryfilms. For each of the four films viewed, there were two
essay questions. One question was information-based(the answer expects facts, details, and examples fromthe film); the other question was opinion-based (theanswer expects the learner’s well-supported opinion).
In the exam, the student chose either the informationbased or opinion-based question, and wrote a short
but well-organized response of at least 120 words. For
the film Super Size Me, for example, the learner would
choose question (a) or (b):(a) In what ways did eating McDonald’s food for
30 days affect Morgan Spurlock?
(b) Do you think fast food companies should beheld responsible for the obesity problem in the US?

Conclusion
Documentary films can serve as an ideal resource for
fostering awareness of important global and social
issues and for developing valuable language skills
and vocabulary. An impressive array of compelling

and award-winning contemporary films is waiting to
be explored and exploited for the English language
classroom. Learners can be given the opportunity
to enhance their speaking, listening, reading, andwriting skills through regular viewings, classroom
discussion, vocabulary analysis, and critical reflectionof contemporary issues. Although the process ofchoosing films and designing materials may discourageteachers from a labor standpoint, the educational andpedagogic payoff is certainly worth the effort. In theend, learners will be met with a uniquely enjoyable andeducationally-rewarding experience.

References
Huang, H., & Eskey, D. (1999). The effects ofclosed-captioned television on the listening
comprehension of intermediate English as asecond language (ESL) students. J. Educational
Technology Systems, 28(1), 75-96.
Kikuchi, T. (1997). A review of research on the
education use of English captioned materials inJapan. Caption Central. Retrieved from http://
www.robon.org/gary/ captioning/kikuchi.html
King, J. (2002). Using DVD feature films in the EFL
classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning.
1(5), 509-523.
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary.
Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Wilson, J. J. (2008). How to teach listening. Harlow,
England: Pearson Education
Winke, P., Gass, S., & Sydorenko, T. (2010). The
effects of captioning videos used for foreign
language listening activities. Language Learning& Technology, 14(1), 65–86. Retrieved
from http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num1/
winkegasssydorenko.pdf

Author’s Biography:
Mark Koprowski has taught English in Switzerland, Turkey, England, the United States, andJapan. He currently resides in Tokyo and teaches English at a number of universities.

68

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Building the Four Skills through Documentaries, pages 63-71

Appendix A
Worksheet for Super Size Me
Super Size Me
Dir. Morgan Spurlock. Sony Pictures, 2004.
FOCUS QUESTIONS
1. How often do you eat fast food? What’s your favorite fast food restaurant?
2. What kind of people do you think eat fast food?
3. Do you think fast food is healthy for you? Why or why not?
4. How would you feel about eating fast food every day for a month?

PRE-VIEWING VOCABULARYEnglishTranslation / Meaning

obese
obesity crisis
waistline
overweightsue (the bastards)
lawsuitblame
corporate responsibility
fatiguebinge
thoroughglucosecholesterol (level)
heart disease
body mass index (BMI)
ridiculous
judge
epidemiclure (in)appeal
nasty
puke
toxic
chore
hectorThe 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

69

Koprowski

COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS
1. America is the most dangerous / richest / fattest nation in the world.

2. 20% / 40% / 60% of all adults in the US are overweight or obese.

3. Minnesota / Mississippi / Texas is the fattest state in the US.

4. The two main causes of preventable death in America are ____________ and ____________.

5. 10% / 25% / 40% of Americans visit a fast food restaurant every day.

6. Morgan is a smoker. True / False

7. Morgan’s current health is poor / OK / excellent.

8. More than 30% / 40% / 60% of Americans get no exercise.

9. There are 44 / 83 / 99 McDonald’s in Manhattan.

10. Morgan’s girlfriend is a doctor / teacher / vegan chef.

11. Morgan’s first meal at McDonald’s is a Big Mac / an Egg McMuffin / a McFish.

12. John Banzhof is a law professor / a doctor / a cook.

13. Banzhof says it’s fair to criticize McDonald’s because they’re big and they try to attract kids / overweightpeople / low-income people.

14. Fast food restaurants used to offer only one size of French fries or drinks. True / False

70

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Building the Four Skills through Documentaries, pages 63-71

Appendix B
Vocabulary quiz for Super Size Me
Super Size Me
Vocabulary Quiz 10 Points
NAME ______________________________ STUDENT ID NO. ________________________
obese

go blind

vice

ban

crave

judge

lobbyistcholesterol

consumeresilientnutritionist

appeaseblame

drastic

sue

Directions: Complete each sentence with a suitable word from the box above.
1. You can’t _______________ all your problems on your parents.
2. He smokes on occasion, but that’s his only _______________.
3. I got really sick after I ate at that restaurant, so I’m going to _______________ them for $10,000.

4. People with a BMI of 30 or higher are _______________.
5. In 2005, Hong Kong decided to _______________ smoking in bars, restaurants, and officebuildings.

6. If _______________ action isn’t taken, global warming will only get worse.
7. Most children should reduce the amount of sugar they _______________ each day.
8. I became a vegetarian last year, but I still _______________ the taste of meat.
9. Children are often very _______________. Even after a difficult situation, they’re able to become
happy and healthy again.

10. Some people who have severe diabetes might _______________.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

71Comparing Yes/No Test Correction FormulaPredictions of Passive Recall Test Results

Raymond Stubbe

Shintaro Hoke

Kyushu Sangyo University
raymondstubbe@gmail.com

Kyushu Sangyo University

One weakness of the convenient Yes/No vocabulary test is that of students claiming knowledgeof words they do not truly know. To overcome this, pseudowords were introduced to the format
and a number of correction for guessing formulas were devised. Four such formulas were comparedin Huibregtse, Admiraal, and Meara (2002). The simplest of these was h - f; and the others, inincreasing complexity, were cfg (correction for guessing); Meara’s Δm; and Isdt. This study will
determine which of these correction formulas best adjusts Yes/No test scores to predict scores on asubsequently taken passive recall translation (L2 to L1) test.
便利なYes/No語彙テストにおける弱点の一つは、学生が実際には知らない単語の理解を主張することである。
これを克服するために、疑似語がテスト形式に導入され、多くの推測公式の補正が考案された。
その公式のうちの4つがHuibregtse, Admiraal and Meara(2002) によって比較された。4つのうちもっとも単純なものはh – fであり、cfg、MearaのΔm、Isdtとなるにつれ、より複雑になった。
この研究では、後に学生に受けてもらう受動型の回想式翻訳テスト (L2からL1) のスコアを予測するために、4つのうちどの補正公式がYes/No語彙テストに最も適応するかを判定する。

Introduction*

Yes/No vocabulary tests present learners with a list ofwords, usually selected from word frequency lists, andask them to signify their knowledge of each item byeither checking that word, or by selecting either “yes”
or “no”. Read (2007, pp. 112-113) notes that “Despite
its simplicity, the Yes/No format has proved to be an
informative and cost-effective means of assessing thestate of learners’ vocabulary knowledge, particularly
for placement and diagnostic purposes.” As Yes/No(YN) tests rely solely on self-reporting, the actual
Stubbe, R., Hoke, S. (2014). Comparing Yes/No
test correction formula predictions of passive recall
test results. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter,& M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference
Proceedings (pp. 72-78). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*72

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

lexical knowledge of the students cannot be verified.
One concern with the YN format is whether test
results accurately reflect the test takers’ knowledge ofthe selected items, or if the results over-estimate thenumber of words actually known (Read, 1993, 2000).
To compensate for the potential of students claiming
knowledge of words they actually do not know themeaning of (over-estimation), pseudowords, or nonreal words, were introduced to the vocabulary checklist
test by Anderson and Freebody (1983). Pseudowords
were introduced to the field of second language
acquisition by Meara and Buxton (1987).
This use of pseudowords in YN tests has remainedwidespread through present-day versions. In thesetests, knowledge of a real word is known as a hit, while
claiming knowledge of a pseudoword is a false alarm(FA). Not claiming knowledge of a real word is labeledComparing Yes/No Test Correction Formulas, pages 72-78
a miss and not claiming knowledge of a pseudoword isa correct rejection. Claiming knowledge of words that
do not exist is seen as an indication of falsely claiming
knowledge of real words (overestimation).
There are two approaches to utilizing YN test
pseudowords data (Schmitt, 2010). One common use
is to set a maximum acceptable number of pseudowords
beyond which “the data are discarded as unreliable”(Schmidt, 2010, p. 201). Schmitt, Jiang, and Grabe(2011) set their acceptance limit at three (10% of
their 30 pseudowords). Barrow, Nakanishi and Ishino,(1999) set the same cut-off point. Stubbe (2012a)
demonstrated that a cut-off point of four (12.5% of the
32 pseudowords) better suited those YN test results.
The other use of YN pseudowords is to adjust theYN scores, using a correction for guessing formula. The
test results from learners checking pseudowords areadjusted using a variety of formulae, to better reflect
their actual vocabulary size. Four such establishedformulas were compared in Huibregtse, Admiraal, andMeara (2002): h - f, cfg, Δm and Isdt.
Huibregtse, et al. (2002) found that their Isdt
formula had the best prediction ability of the four
correction formulas, but that the simpler h - f formula(Anderson & Freebody, 1983) worked just as wellunder most conditions. They also reported that theΔm formula (Meara, 1992) returned negative scores
when a low hit rate was met with a high FA rate.
Mochida and Harrington (2006) and Stubbe (2012b)
similarly report that Isdt had the highest correlation of
the four correction formulas with a second multiplechoice test of the same items, while YN raw hits had
the lowest correlation. Eyckmans (2004) however,comparing Yes/No test results with a passive recall (L2to L1 translation) test reported that the cfg formula(Anderson & Freebody, 1983) had higher correlations
than Isdt. Eight years following the Huibregtse et al.
(2002) study, Schmitt (2010, p. 201) noted that “it isstill unclear how well the various adjustment formulas
work.”Aims
The aim of the present study is to determine which of
the four correction for guessing formulas best predicts
passive recall ability (as measured by an L2 to L1

translation test) from Yes/No test real-word scores andpseudoword false alarm (FA) counts.
This project will also attempt to determine whether
the above ranking of the four correction for guessing
formulas is affected by false alarm counts.

MethodThis study uses data from another, larger study
conducted by the author. For this larger study a YN
test was prepared consisting of 96 real-words (half ofwhich were English loanwords in Japanese) plus 32
pseudowords. Forty-four of the 96 real-words includedin the YN test were from the pilot to the larger study(Stubbe & Yokomitsu, 2012), as were the nine best
pseudowords, all identified in Stubbe and Stewart(2012). The remaining 52 real-words were randomly
selected as required from the various JACET 8000
levels ( JACET Basic Word Revision Committee,2003), and the 23 additional pseudowords wererandomly selected from Tests 101-106 of the EFL
Vocabulary Tests (Meara, 2010). Both real-words andpseudowords were randomly distributed throughout
the Yes/No test.
A passive recall (L2 to L1) test of the same 96
real-words (all randomly distributed) was also created.
The passive recall test format (as defined in Laufer &Goldstein, 2004) was selected over the more common
multiple-choice (M.C.) format because there exists
little chance of correctly guessing the correct answer
when translating. Stewart and White (2011), on theother hand, demonstrated that M.C. tests do sufferfrom guessing effects. Eyckmans (2004) also opted
for the passive recall test format because “asking theparticipants to provide mother-tongue equivalents oftarget language words was the most univocal way ofverifying recognition” (Eyckmans, 2004, p. 77).
Participants first took the YN test at the beginningof one class in July or August, 2012. This was a paper
test in which the students signaled whether theyknew a word by filling in either a yes bubble or a nobubble beside each item. The same students thentook the paper translation test towards the end ofthat same class in order to maximize test pairings. The
YN test was scored by means of an optical scanner;
the translation test was hand-marked by three raters.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings73

Stubbe & Hoke
Table 1
Summary of YN and PR tests
Test

Mean

SD

Reliability

YN hits

48.82

17.23

0.96

YN FAs

2.17

3.16

n/a

PR score

27.06

12.16

0.92

Note: Reliability = Cronbach’s alpha; n = 455; k = 96
real-words and 32 pseudowords on the YN test and 96
real-words on the translation tests.

Inter-rater reliability was 92%, and FACET analysis(Linacre, 2012) revealed that the raters were basicallyequal with overall measures of .02, .02 and -.04 logits.
Participants were all students enrolled in one of fourJapanese universities, with TOEIC scores ranging
from about 200 through 450 (n = 455).

Results
Means and standard deviations (SDs) for the YN test
as well as the passive recall (PR) test are presented inTable 1. The nearly 45% drop in item mean (48.82

versus 27.06, YN and PR tests respectively) can beinterpreted as students overestimating their lexical
knowledge on the YN test. However, Eyckmans(2004) reported YN results that also exceeded
results on the subsequent translation test of the same
items (82.4% versus 69.4%, respectively). Laufer andGoldstein (2004) explained and demonstrated thatrecalling a word’s form or meaning is considerably
more difficult than recognizing its form or meaning.
Nation and Webb (2011) further suggest that partial
word knowledge may also contribute to such a gap.
Means, standard deviations (SDs), ranges,
correlations with the passive recall test scores (r),and residuals for YN hits and FAs as well as the four
correction formulas for the full 455 participants arepresented in Table 2. Of the four correction formulas
Δm had the closest mean to the passive recall mean
(33.11 and 27.05, respectively), the highest SD (26.57)
as well as the greatest range, with a low predicted scoreof -71.1. In fact, 40 of this formula’s 455 calculations
were below zero, rendering its predictions basicallyuseless as knowing less than zero words is not realistic.
Only this formula returned negative scores. Residuals,
in the final column, were calculated by squaring theTable 2Means, SDs, range, correlations and residuals of applying the four correction formula (n = 455, FA count = 22).
mean

SD

range

r

residual

PR Score

27.05

12.16

3 - 581-

YN hits

48.82

17.23

7 - 78

0.721

24.82

FA Counts

2.17

3.16

0 - 22-0.142

-

h–f

42.29

16.53

2 - 77

0.833

17.84

cfg

45.46

17.50

2.1 – 82.1

0.807

21.19

Δm

33.11

26.57

-71.1 – 76.0

0.739

20.31

Isdt

50.02

13.55

6.7 – 77.9

0.775

24.56

Note: r = correlation (Pearson Product-Moment) with translation test scores, range = lowest and highest score. Closest
mean (to translation score mean), highest correlation and smallest residual are in bold.

74

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Comparing Yes/No Test Correction Formulas, pages 72-78
differences between each passive recall test score andeach matching YN prediction (YN hits, h - f, cfg, Δm
and Isdt) summing those squares, calculating the mean,
and finally acquiring the square root. It can be noticed
that the simplest correction formula, h - f, had thehighest correlation with passive recall scores as well as
the lowest residual. Using Chen and Popovich’s (2002,
p. 23) t (difference) formula for paired t-tests as adapted
by Field (2009, p. 192), the difference between the h - fcorrelation and the second highest cfg (.833 and .807,
respectively) was statistically significant (t = 3.453, df= 452, p = .0006).

Table 3 breaks down the above correlations byfalse alarm count. The h - f formula maintained thehighest correlation position for all but zero and one
FA counts. At an FA count of one the cfg formula had
the highest correlation (.841), and at zero FAs the first
three correction formulas (h - f, cfg and Δm) were tied
at .867, while Isdt had a correlation of .866.
Table 4 breaks down the residuals for each FA
count. Between 1 and 10 FAs h - f had the second
lowest residuals, with Δm having the lowest, likely due
to its tendency to produce negative scores when hits
are low and FAs are high. The 40 negative predictions

Table 3
Correction Formula Correlations (Pearson Product-Moment) with Passive Recall Scores by FA CountFA Countn

FA n*

YN hitsh – f rates

cfg

Δm

Isdt

22

455

1

0.721

0.833

0.807

0.739

0.775

20

454

1

0.728

0.832

0.805

0.741

0.776

16

453

2

0.731

0.835

0.805

0.747

0.780

15

451

4

0.735

0.836

0.807

0.749

0.783

14

447

3

0.749

0.837

0.812

0.756

0.787

13

444

1

0.757

0.838

0.815

0.759

0.791

11

443

5

0.759

0.837

0.814

0.759

0.790

10

438

3

0.765

0.838

0.815

0.773

0.799

9

435

4

0.767

0.837

0.813

0.779

0.801

8

431

4

0.776

0.838

0.816

0.780

0.803

7

427

11

0.786

0.837

0.819

0.779

0.801

6

416

7

0.797

0.837

0.823

0.791

0.807

5

409

10

0.812

0.841

0.833

0.793

0.809

4

399

25

0.820

0.841

0.837

0.792

0.809

3

374

29

0.827

0.840

0.837

0.794

0.810

2

345

76

0.833

0.839

0.838

0.798

0.812

1

269

139

0.841

0.838

0.841

0.800

0.808

0

130

130

0.867

0.867

0.867

0.867

0.867

Note: * FA n denotes number of participants with that FA count. Italics denotes highest correlation for that formula(bottom), bold denotes highest correlation for each FA count.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

75

Stubbe & Hoke
Table 4
Residuals by FA CountFA Countn

FA n*

YN hitsh – f rates

cfg

Δm

Isdt

22

455

1

24.81

17.84

21.19

20.31

24.56

20

454

1

24.67

17.86

21.22

19.89

24.58

16

453

2

24.59

17.87

21.23

19.69

24.61

15

451

4

24.40

17.91

21.12

19.69

24.66

14

447

3

24.03

17.95

20.99

19.11

24.73

13

444

1

23.75

17.99

20.82

19.15

24.80

11

443

5

23.69

18.01

20.84

18.88

24.82

10

438

3

23.51

18.09

20.87

18.06

24.95

9

435

4

23.40

18.14

20.87

17.59

25.03

8

431

4

23.16

18.16

20.78

17.61

25.09

7

427

11

22.92

18.15

20.69

17.44

25.14

6

416

7

22.51

18.21

20.54

16.86

25.33

5

409

10

22.05

18.09

20.22

16.82

25.33

4

399

25

21.64

18.04

19.96

16.95

25.43

3

374

29

21.13

18.10

19.76

16.80

25.76

2

345

76

20.56

18.06

19.45

16.73

26.06

1

269

139

18.81

17.40

18.14

16.60

26.53

0

130

130

17.32

17.32

17.32

17.32

28.82

Note: * FA n denotes number of participants with that FA count. Italics denotes smallest residual for that formula. Bold
denotes smallest residual at that FA count..

were spread throughout all the FA counts except 0, 5,
14, and 16. It can also be seen that Isdt had the highest
residual for each FA count, especially at zero FAs
where the other formula predictions equaled YN hits.
Answering the second research question, it does appear
as if the ranking of the four correction for guessing
formula predictions is affected by false alarm counts.

Conclusion
This study set out to determine which of the four
correction for guessing formulas featured in Huibregtse,
et al. (2002) best predicted passive recall test scores from76

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Yes/No real-word (identical items) and pseudoword
results. It was found that at all false alarm counts above
one, the h - f formula had the highest correlations
with passive recall test scores. It was also found that
this formula had the second smallest residuals, only
behind Δm, whose small residuals were partially due toits negative score predictions, which in reality are notpossible. As h - f had lower residuals than the other twocorrection formulas, and the highest correlations of all,it has been concluded that h - f is the best predictor of
passive recall translation scores.
This study suffers from a number of weaknesses.

Comparing Yes/No Test Correction Formulas, pages 72-78
The inter-rater reliability (.92) could have been higher,
and may have adversely affected the correction formulapredictions. Further, the university classes used in thisstudy were a convenience sampling, as opposed to arandom sampling, and so these finding must be treatedwith caution and cannot be extrapolated beyond theinstitutions involved. Directions for future research
include replicating this study with different university
classes to determine if these findings can be replicated,
as well as comparing the h­ - f predictions with theregression formula proposed in Stubbe and Stewart(2012).

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Kyushu Sangyo
University Language Education and Research (LERC)
staff for their assistance with marking the translation
test.

References
Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1983). Reading
comprehension and the assessment andacquisition of word knowledge. In B.A. Hutson(Ed.), Advances in Reading/Language Research,
Vol. 2 (pp. 231 – 256). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Barrow, J., Nakanishi, Y., & Ishino, H. (1999).
Assessing Japanese college students’ vocabu­lary
knowledge with a self-checking familiarity survey.
System, 27(2), 223–247. doi: 10.1016/S0346251X(99)00018-4
Chen, P., & Popovich, P. (2002) Correlation:
Parametric and non-parametric measures.
Sage University Papers Series on Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–139.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eyckmans, J. (2004). Measuring receptive vocabulary
size. Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT (Landelijke
Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap).
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rded.). London, England: Sage Publications.
Huibregtse, I., Admiraal, W., & Meara, P. (2002).
Scores on a yes-no vocabulary test: Correction forguessing and response style. Language Testing, 19,

227–245. doi: 10.1191/0265532202lt229oa
JACET Basic Word Revision Committee (2003).
JACET List of 8000 Basic Words. Tokyo, Japan:
Japan Association of Language Teachers.
Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabularyknowledge: Size, strength, and computer
adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54(3), 339–
436. 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2004.00260.x
Linacre, J. M. (2012). Facets computer program for
many-facet Rasch measurement, version 3.70.0.
Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com. Retrieved from:http://www.winsteps.com//index.htm
Meara, P. 1992: New approaches to testing vocabularyknowledge. Draft paper. Swansea: Centre forApplied Language Studies, University College
Swansea.
Meara, P. (2010) EFL vocabulary tests. Unpublishedmanuscript, Center for Applied Language
Studies, University College, Swansea, UK.
Retrieved from http://www.lognostics.co.uk/
vlibrary/meara1992z.pdf
Meara, P., & Buxton, B. (1987). An alternative to
multiple choice vocabulary tests. Language
Testing, 4(2), 142–154.
Mochida, A., & Harrington, M. (2006). Yes/
No test as a measure of receptive vocabulary.
Language Testing, 23, 73–98. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1191/0265532206lt321oa
Nation, I. S. P., & Webb, S. (2011). Researching andanalyzing vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of
L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 10,335–371. doi: 10.1177/026553229301000308
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press. doi:
10.1017/CBO9780511732942
Read, J. (2007). Second language vocabularyassessment: Current practices and new directions.
International Journal of English Studies, 7(2),105–125.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary:
A vocabulary research manual. New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:
10.1057/9780230293977
Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

77

Stubbe & Hoke
percentage of words known in a text and reading
comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 95,
26–43. 10.1111/j1540-4781.01146x
Stewart, J., & White, D. (2011) Estimating guessing
effects on the vocabulary levels test for differing
degrees of word knowledge. TESOL Quarterly
45(2), 370–380.
Stubbe, R (2012a). Searching for an acceptablefalse alarm maximum. Vocabulary Education& Research Bulletin 1(2), 7–9. Retrieved fromhttp://jaltvocab.weebly.com/publications.html
Stubbe, R. (2012b) Do pseudoword false alarm rates

and overestimation rates in Yes/No vocabulary
tests change with Japanese university students’English ability levels? Language Testing, 29,
471–488. doi: 10.1177/0265532211433033
Stubbe, R., & Stewart, J. (2012) Optimizing scoring
formulas for yes/no vocabulary checklists using
linear models. Shiken Research Bulletin, 16(2),
2–7.
Stubbe, R., & Yokomitsu, H. (2012). English
loanwords in Japanese and the JACET 8000.
Vocabulary Education & Research Bulletin, 1(1),
10–11.

Authors’ Biographies:
Raymond Stubbe holds an M.A. in Applied Linguistics and TESOL and a B.Ed. As alecturer at Kyushu Sangyo University his research interests include vocabulary acquisition.
<raymondstubbe@gmail.com>
Shintaro Hoke received his Master of Education from Fukuoka University of Education. As alecturer at Kyushu Sangyo University, his research interests include developmental education.
<hoke@ip.kyusan-u.ac.jp>.

78

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Connecting Group Identity to
Motivation: A Preliminary Study

Tetsuya Fukuda
International Christian University
tfukuda@icu.ac.jp
It has been known that belongingness is one of the most important factors in learning and thatmany different factors are involved in motivating L2 learners. However, the relationship between
L2 learners’ group identity and motivation to study English seems to have been under-researched.
As the first step to investigate this issue, 176 Japanese university students in Tokyo participated ina survey to see the correlation between group identity and L2 motivation. The result indicates that
there is a moderate correlation between them, and most of the one-to-one correlations were also
statistically significant. Further prospects include incorporating qualitative data, and a longitudinal
analysis across time and place.
学習においては集団への帰属意識が重要な要素であり，第二言語習得には多様な要素が働いていることはよく知られている。
しかし集団への帰属意識と第二言語習得における意欲の関係については，十分な研究が行われていないように思われる。
この問題を探求する端緒として帰属意識と第二言語の学習意欲の相関関係を見るために，東京の176名の大学生が調査に参加した。
その結果によれば二者の間には中程度の関係性があり，項目ごとでもほとんどの組み合わせに統計的に有意な相関性が見られた。今後は質的データを組み入れ，時間的にも空間的にも多様なデータを取ることが展望される。

*

Introduction

This paper is an attempt to analyze the relationshipbetween group identity and motivation. Moreprecisely, what I am trying to examine in this researchis how images of groups are related to motivation in
the second language (L2) learning. For that purpose,
I will review the key concepts behind this research,
namely belonging, motivation, and classmates. Then, I
will describe the research design and discuss the resultsof the questionnaire.
Fukuda, T. (2014). Connecting group identity tomotivation: A preliminary study. In R. Chartrand,
G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The
2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp. 79-85).
Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

It is widely known that the feeling of belonging toa group plays a huge role in learning. In Communities
of Practice (1998), Etienne Wenger says, “At home, atwork, at school, in our hobbies—we belong to several
communities of practice at any given time” (p. 6).
He also says that there are four “components” thatcharacterize social activities in learning: meaning,practice, community, and identity, and attached tocommunity is a notion of “learning as belonging” (seeFigure 1), which I will focus on in this paper.
In terms of motivation, a variety of factors havebeen reported to be involved in motivating people tolearn, including teachers, classrooms, textbooks, andeven music. For example, Carpenter, Falout, Fukuda,
Trovela, and Murphey (2009) found that teachers
played the most important role in motivating and
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

79

FukudaFigure 1. Belongingness in learning, adapted from Wenger (1998, p. 5).

demotivating learners. Their research was innovativein pointing out that learners not only get motivated orlose motivation, but they also regain their motivation,
most significantly because of teachers.
Those factors are not limited to physical existencein learners’ environment. Recently, attention has been
paid to Dörnyei’s Ideal L2 Self (Dörnyei & Ushioda,2009), which refers to learners’ visualized future
images. If learners have images of themselves using
English in their career and their everyday lives, thenthey tend to study English harder. Ideal classmates
proposed by Murphey (2012) is a concept inspired by
Ideal L2 Self, conceptualizing the notion that students
get motivated or get demotivated depending on withwhom they are learning English. It is reported thatstudents’ perceptions of general importance of ideal
behavior, the actual behavior of their classmates, and theactual behavior of themselves correlate with each other(Murphey, Falout, Fukuda, & Fukada, in progress).
Classmates as important players in motivation are
also empirically analyzed by Kozaki and Ross (2011).
They proposed a three-level model of learning: theunconditional level, where they only see a general
growth; learner-level factors (e.g., career aspiration);and contextual factors, such as learners’ perceptions of

80

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

their classmates (Kozaki & Ross, 2011, p. 1334). Theirfindings suggest that classes play an important role inL2 proficiency development. My own perception ofEnglish learning as a learner and a teacher supports theidea that teachers, self-images projected towards the
future, and classmates with whom learners are studying
are among important factors that influence learners to
get motivated.
So far, I have discussed previous literature about
belonging in learning and factors in motivation. Herearose my research question. How is group identity
connected to motivation? In our everyday life, we often
talk about school or university, especially in our setting,Japan. We say, “I want to get into that university,” or“I feel I am a part of this university.” How does the
feeling of belonging affect students’ motivation level?
How can we use this idea in our classes? These large
questions should only be answered after a longitudinal
study, and in the present research, the following
hypothesis is dealt with:

Research hypothesis
Group identity of students is related to their motivation
to study English.

Connecting Group Identity to Motivation, pages 79-85

MethodParticipants
In order to answer the research question of whether
students’ group identity is related to motivation tolearn English, a survey was conducted in April 2013. A
total of 176 students from two well-known universities
in Tokyo participated in this study: 120 students fromone university and 56 from the other. The participants
mostly consisted of freshmen (89.77%, n=158), whowere taking English courses as compulsory subjects.
Most of the participants (67%) were male students.
TOEIC scores were obtained from 73.30% (n=129)
of the participants, and the mean score was 444, whichis quite close to the general mean score of university
students, 445 (The Institute for International BusinessCommunication, 2012).

Instruments
The data were collected through a questionnaire (seeAppendix), which comprised two categories: the group
identity set and the motivation set. More precisely, thefirst set of items tried to measure how much students
liked being students of the university, and the second
set was intended to examine their general motivationlevel of studying English. All the items were 6-point
Likert scale questions, from 1 (Not at all) to 6 (Yes,very much). The questionnaire was translated into
Japanese, so that students with low proficiency levels
could answer the questions easily.

Procedures
The questionnaire was administered to five classes
at two universities. In four classes, I only gave them
instructions in class and asked them to answer them athome. In one class, the students answered the questionsin class. In both cases, participants were given ample
explanations and could ask questions whenever they
had them. The survey was conducted in the beginningof the spring semester, and more than 90 percent of theparticipants answered them within the first two weeksof the semester, but a few students who were absent in
the class when instructions were given or who joined
the class later answered them in the third week.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Group Identity Items and Motivation Items.
Item

Mean

SD

N

A. I wanted to get into this university.

4.88

1.31

176

B. I am happy to be studying at this university.

4.93

1.21

176

C. I am happy to be studying English at this university.

4.47

1.33

175

D. I like to be a student of this university.

5.03

1.26

174

E. I feel belongingness to this university.

4.13

1.36

173

1. Generally, I think that I enjoy learning English in class.

4.23

1.19

175

2. Generally, I think that I enjoy learning English out of class.

3.60

1.38

174

3. I like studying English now.

3.89

1.34

173

4. Even if English was not a compulsory subject, I would choose to study it.

4.48

1.55

174

Group identity

Motivation

Note: SD = Standard Deviation; N = Number

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

81

FukudaData Analysis
After the collection of the data, empirical analysis was
conducted with SPSS. Table 1 shows the descriptive
statistics of all the question items. It is easily seen that
there were no large differences among the items in eachset. In the first set, for example, the means of A and
B were almost the same. The mean of E, however, waslower, which will be discussed later. The means of thesecond set of question items were generally lower than
the first set. These are a part of a large questionnairethat has been conducted since 2008 for other research
projects (Fukada, Fukuda, Falout, & Murphey, 2011;
Murphey, Falout, Fukada, & Fukuda, 2012), and theresults from the current research are not very muchdifferent from the previous years.
The means of the group identity items weregenerally high. For example, the mean of Item A(I wanted to get into this university) was 4.88, andconsidering it was a 6-point Likert scale question item,
it was quite high. Table 2 shows that most participants
thought they really wanted to get into their present
school. However, it may not be common for Japanese
university students to answer this way. In the future, itwill be interesting to conduct this survey at different
universities where more students may have mixed
feelings about attending their current school.
Before conducting correlations analysis, thedimensionality of the items was analyzed using
maximum likelihood factor analysis. Three criteria
were used to determine the number of factors toTable 2Frequencies of Item A (I wanted to get into this university.)Frequency

Percent

1. Not at all.

6

3.4

2. No.

8

4.5

3. Not very much.

8

4.5

4. Yes, to some extent.

30

17.0

5. Yes.

52

29.5

6. Yes, very much.

72

40.9

Total

176

100.0

82

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

rotate: the a priori hypothesis that the measure wasunidimensional, the scree test, and the interpretabilityof the factor solution. The scree plot indicated that our
initial hypothesis of unidimensionality was incorrect.
Based on the plot, two factors were rotated using a
Varimax rotation procedure. The rotated solution, as
shown in Table 3, yielded two interpretable factors:
group identity and motivation. Only one item (C. I am
happy to be studying English at this university) loaded
on both factors, and it was eliminated from further
analysis. After this procedure, four items were left ineach category.

Results and Discussion
The overall correlation between the group identity
category and the motivation category was moderate(.47) and it was statistically significant (p < .001). The
correlation was not particularly strong, but it is possible
to say that belonging and motivation have something
to do with each other. Table 4 shows the one to one
correlations between the items in the group identity
and the items in the motivation. Most of the pairs are
statistically significant, and moderately correlated.
However, item B and item D are strongly correlatedwith item 1, .58 and .53 respectively. Those strong
correlations may be because items B and D asked about
the enjoyment that students felt. The only statisticallyinsignificant correlation was the one between item E
on feeling belonging to school and item 4 on choosing
English as a subject.

Conclusion and Future Directions
In this research, a moderate relationship was foundbetween group identity and motivation. However,since this paper is the first report of a longitudinal
study, there are several limitations to the present study
and implications for future research. One obvious
limitation of the present research is that no qualitative
data is shown. From the quantitative data already shown,
it can be said that learners’ feelings of belongingness
has certain relationships with their motivation, but
why and how it does should be investigated further.
In order to do so, qualitative data, such as interviews,
should be collected and analyzed. In fact, I haveConnecting Group Identity to Motivation, pages 79-85
Table 3
Correlations between the Group Identity Items and the Motivation Factors.
Factors
Items

Group Identity

Motivation

A. I wanted to get into this university.

.79

.17

B. I am happy to be studying at this university.

.86

.30

D. I like to be a student of this university.

.86

.22

E. I feel belongingness to this university.

.58

.17

1. Generally, I think that I enjoy learning English in class.

.41

.69

2. Generally, I think that I enjoy learning English out of class.

.16

.67

3. I like studying English now.

.24

.81

4. Even if English was not a compulsory subject, I would choose to study it.

.12

.69

Group Identity

Motivation

already collected autobiographies from more than
one hundred of the participants of the current study,
and I have also interviewed three of them. If I adopt
methodological triangulation, involving questionnaire,
autobiographies, and interviews, the relationship will
be investigated more in depth.
Another future possibility is to compare the data
across time. Individuals and institutions do not staythe same. They are changing all the time. Motivation
analysis has recently been focusing on this approach,trying to incorporate dynamic systems theory into
motivation research (e.g., Dörnyei & Macintyre,2013). Perceptions of students cannot be thought of as
stable, and it is necessary to keep doing research on thesame groups and the same participants. For example, as
can be seen in Table 1, the mean for item E was lower

Table 4
One to One Correlations among Variables in Group Identity and Motivation.
Item

1

2

3

4

A. I wanted to get into this university.

.41***(n=175).22**(n=174).34***(n=173).22**(n=173)

B. I am happy to be studying at this university.

.58***(n=175).34***(n=174).42***(n=174).32***(n=173)

D. I like to be a student of this university.

.53***(n=173).25**(n=172).37***(n=172).27***(n=172)

E. I feel belongingness to this university.

.45***(n=172).28***(n=171).27***(n=171).09(n=171)

Note. *** p < .001; ** p < .01

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

83

Fukudathan the other items in the group identity category.
The question directly asked the learners about theirbelongingness to the university, and it is understandable
that some students felt lack of belongingness only
because they were asked about this statement in thefirst month of their university life. If they are asked
the same questions at the end of the semester or at theend of the school year, they may answer differently.
Then, we can investigate how the change will affect therelationships between belongingness and motivation.

Acknowledgment
I would like to give thanks to Joe Falout, who helped
me with the theoretical background, and also gave me
insightful feedback.

References
Carpenter, C., Falout, J., Fukuda, T., Trovela, M., &Murphey, T. (2009). Helping students repack forremotivation and agency. JALT2008 conference
proceedings, 259–274.
Dörnyei, Z., & Macintyre, P. (2013). Motivational
dynamics in second language acquisition.
Symposium conducted at the conference ofAmerican Association of Applied Linguistics,
Dallas, TX.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2009). Motivation,

language identity and the L2 self. Bristol, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Fukada, Y., Fukuda, T., Falout, J., & Murphey, T.
(2011). Increasing motivation with possible
selves. JALT2010 Conference Proceedings, 337349.
Kozaki, Y., & Ross, S. J. (2011). Contextual Dynamics
in Foreign Language Learning Motivation.
Language Learning, 61, 1328–1354.
Murphey, T. (2012). Ideal classmates research notes.
PeerSpectives, 9, 24–26.
Murphey, T., Falout, J., Fukada, Y., & Fukuda, T.
(2012). Group dynamics: collaborative agency inpresent communities of imagination. In Mercer,
S., Ryan, S., & Williams, M. (Eds.) Psychology for
Language Learning: Insights form research, theory
and practice (pp. 220–238). Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Murphey, T., Faout, J., Fukuda, T., & Fukada, Y. (inprogress). Socio-dynamic motivating throughidealizing classmates.
The Institute for International BusinessCommunication. (2012). TOEIC TEST DATA& ANALYSIS: Number of examinees and averagescores in FY2011.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.

Author’s Biography:
Tetsuya Fukuda teaches at International Christian University in Tokyo. His research interests
include socio-cultural aspects of English learning, especially how motivation gets involved inlearning.

84

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Connecting Group Identity to Motivation, pages 79-85

Appendix
Motivation Survey 2013 Spring
選択肢は、
1 (Not at all), 2 (No), 3 (Not very much), 4 (Yes to some extent), 5 (Yes), 6 (Yes, very much)の６つです。
A. I wanted to get into this university.
私はこの大学に入りたかった。
B. I am happy to be studying at this university.
私はこの大学で学んでいることに幸せを感じる。
C. I am happy to be studying English at this university.
私はこの大学で英語を学んでいることに幸せを感じる。
D. I like to be a student of this university.
私はこの大学の学生であることが好きだ。
E. I feel belongingness to this university.
私はこの大学に帰属意識を感じる。
Generally, I think that I enjoy learning English in class.
私はたいてい、授業中には楽しく英語を学んでいると思う。
Generally, I think that I enjoy learning English out of class.
私はたいてい、授業以外で楽しく英語を学んでいると思う。
I like studying English now.
私は現在、英語学習が好きだ。
Even if English was not a compulsory subject, I would choose to study it.
私は英語が必修科目でなくても、英語を学ぶ選択をするだろう。

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

85

Creating a Community in the Writing Class
Through Journal Sharing Activities

Wendy M. Gough
St. Mary College/
Nunoike Gaigo Senmon Gakko
gisellenolet@gmail.com
Journal writing can positively impact student attitudes toward English as well as create apersonalised student-teacher dialogue while helping students build confidence in their writing in a
non-threatening context (Yoshihara, 2008). Warm-up activities in which students provide writtencomments on their classmates’ journals broaden the audience while creating a sense of community
and autonomy. This frank peer interaction results in a broader range of vocabulary, more detailed
journal entries, and a shared sense of purpose for other collaborative activities in the class. The
presentation will discuss the implementation and outcome of the activity among students in two
academic writing classes.
ジャーナルライティングは、学生へa non-threatening context (Yoshihara, 2008)の文
章作成への自信をつけさせ、また学生と先生との独特な対話を生み出すと同時に、必ず学生の英語学習の姿勢に影響を与えます。学生が自分のクラスメイトの記事にコメントを書くというウォームアップアクティビティーは社会性と自律性を築くと同時に、自分の読者を広げることができます。
この率直な仲間内での相互関係が、
ボキャブラリーの幅を広げ、記事をさらに詳細にし、クラス内の他の共同作業への意欲を分かち合うことに繋がります。
このプレゼンテーションにより、二つのアカデミックライティングクラスにおける学生の間でアクティビティーの手段や結果を話し合うことになるでしょう。

Introduction*

Journal writing is a type of written interaction between
teachers and students that focuses on meaning rather
than form and is a means of developing students’
linguistic competence through writing. Journals arealso useful in the EFL writing class as instructors can
support the students’ learning as well as gain accessto their worlds as individuals (Castellanos, 2008).
Gough, W. (2014). Creating a community in thewriting class through journal sharing activities. In
R. Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan(Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp.
86-90). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*86

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Journals are typically considered a “private affair”
with only the student and teacher having access to thecontents. This makes it possible for students to develop
a “frank and candid interaction with their teacher”
that builds a trusting relationship between student
and teacher (Yoshihara, 2008). In my experience withjournal writing in EFL classes, the sense of security
provided in journals evokes a tendency for many
students to write about more personal topics than theymight write about in an essay or discuss in a speaking
class. When students express and analyze their feelingsin their journal and then receive personalized feedback,they often become more confident about themselves
and their writing in general. Boud (2001) notes that

Creating a Community in the Writing Class, pages 86-90…the more journal writing moves into the realmof critical reflection, that is, the questioning of
taken-for-granted assumptions about oneself,
one’s group, or the conditions in which one
operates, the more it is necessary to consider the
inhibiting gaze of others. (p. 15)
He points out that while journals provide occasions
for reflection, the prospect of others reading one’s
journal can be a primary inhibitor to this reflection.
Considering the personalized nature of a journal,
students should feel free to write about any topic or
explore individual opinions. Yet, it seems that with alimited audience giving feedback, i.e., the instructor,
students are not provided with a variety of perspectives
on the topics at hand. Therefore, the limited audiencecan constrain the overall the effectiveness of journal
writing as it does little to help students question theirassumptions or world views.
The principal goals of my advanced writing classes
are to create a community of writers in which students
are exposed to other points of view and broaden theirperspectives. In lower-level classes, I often find thatstudents tend to have limited points of view, perhaps
due to their age (primarily late teens and early twenties)
or lack of experience. This creates a situation in which
the students have difficulty developing well thoughtout opinions about topics. With that in mind, I began
to contemplate different approaches to community
building in these classes. This exploration led to thecreation of a journal sharing and commenting project.
For the project, the students read and provided
written comments on their classmates’ journals, thencompleted an online survey at the end of the year.
The idea behind the project was that by reading andreflecting on classmates’ journals, the students could
find connections between similar ways of thinking or
learn to look at issues or topics from other perspectives.
I hoped the project would lead to expansion of theirworld view and create an atmosphere of camaraderie
in the writing classroom. In short, I wanted to explore
whether reading and commenting on classmates’
journals helps students become more engaged withwriting, willing to collaborate on other writing
activities in the class, and foster trusting relationships

within the writing classroom.

The Journal-Sharing Project
The project was done with two writing classes:
one intermediate (Eiken level 2) and one higher–intermediate (Ekien level 2 and pre-1, TOEIC
500-600) at a two year college that has an intensive
English program in Nagoya, Japan. The total numberof participating students was 33, including 25 female
and 8 male students. The project was done in weekly
90-minute classes that combined first and second year
students and covering the course of one school year.
Students wrote three journal entries per week as
homework and then brought their journals to classeach week. The students were instructed to write four
to five sentences per journal entry, focusing on contents
rather than form, at the beginning of the school year
and expand the length as they gained competence withwriting over the course of the year. They were free towrite about any topic, but were given a list of suggested
topics to fall back on if they had no ideas. While thetopics for the lower-level class included discussing daily
activities and opinions, the higher-level class, which
focused more on academic writing skills, was given alist of TOEFL writing prompts. Most students choseto write about their own topics, which included (butwere not limited to) school life, daily activities, parttime jobs, boyfriends or girlfriends, and family or social
troubles.
Each week in the first 10 minutes of class thestudents traded journals with a partner. After reading
one or two of the partner’s journal entries the students
then wrote comments or questions about the contents.
They were open to comment on any aspect of thejournal entry. The classmates could share their opinion
about the topic, add their ideas, or ask a question. While
there was no length requirement on the comments, they
were typically one to two sentences in length. At the
beginning of the year, students were asked to find new
partners each week as a way to get to know a broader
range of class members. Later on they chose to sharewith people sitting nearby. As the students read eachother’s journals, they often began a conversation about
the topics. They asked questions about the contents
or vocabulary used, as well as sharing their own ideas
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

87GoughTable 1Student responses to Items 1-7.
Highly
Agree

Agree

No
OpinionDisagreeHighlyDisagree

I like writing in my journal.

5

9

0

0

0

I like reading my classmates’ journals.

8

6

0

0

0

Reading my classmates’ journals helped me become
friends with them easily.

2

7

3

1

1

Reading my classmates’ journals helped me feel more
comfortable sharing ideas when we did other activities(textbook, reading their brainstorming ideas, etc.) inwriting class.

2

9

2

1

0

I liked my classmates’ opinions about my journals morethan Wendy`s comments.

1

1

8

3

2

2

10

0

2

0

12

2

0

0

0

Statements

Reading my classmates’ journals made me more interested
in journal writing.
Journal writing helped improve my essay writing skills.

about the journal entries. When the journal was given
back, students tended to immediately check what
their partners had written and often continued their
discussion for another few minutes. I also collected
the journals once a month and added comments on
the contents and suggestions about using grammar andsentence structures learned in class.

Results
At the end of the school year, the students were asked
to answer an online survey based around the following
seven statements and one question about journal
writing and the journal-sharing project.
1. I like writing in my journal.
2. I like reading my classmates’ journals.
3. Reading my classmates’ journals helped me
become friends with them easily.
4. Reading my classmates’ journals helped me
feel more comfortable sharing ideas when we
did other activities (textbook, reading theirbrainstorming ideas, etc.) in writing class.

88

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

5. I liked my classmates’ opinions about myjournals more than Wendy`s comments.
6. Reading my classmates’ journals made me moreinterested in journal writing.
7. Journal writing helped improve my essay writing
skills.
8. What did you like or dislike the most about
reading your classmates` journals?
The seven items were based on a Likert scale of 1-5,
and the final question was in text form asking for an
opinion about the journal-sharing project.
Only 14 students, mostly from the lower-level classanswered the questionnaire. This could be due to lackof computer access, or the higher-level students being
busy finishing final projects for other classes. In thetable of responses (See Table 1), we can see positive
reactions. With the small number of respondents,
however, this cannot be considered definitive evidenceof the effectiveness of the project. The students highly
agreed or agreed that they liked writing in theirjournals. They also highly agreed or agreed that they
enjoyed reading their classmates’ journals. In general,

Creating a Community in the Writing Class, pages 86-90
Table 2
Sample comments from students in response to Item 8.
I liked that because I could know what kind of things classmates were writing in journal. It sometimes could be hint of
my idea.
I like knowing classmates' writing style because it is useful to learn how to write.
I liked reading classmates’ journals. Because, I could estimate other person's English degree that made me a good
ambition.
The point I like journals is that my classmates always check my journals so that I ask them their opinion toward it anderrors of my grammers when I want to ask.
My writing skill have been improving since I came that class by journal. I appreciate their idea and advising!
Reading my classmates' journal helped my essay skill I could learn other ideas, opinions and other way of writing.

the students felt that reading their classmates’ journals
helped them become more interested in journal
writing. The students also highly agreed or agreed
that journal writing helped them improve their essay
writing skills.
As an instructor, these answers made me feel the
project was successful. These answers also confirmed
my feeling that the students in the lower-level classwere more engaged with the class contents than inprevious years. They tended to ask more questions
about the writing styles we covered and developed morethoughtful insights into the topics than in the past. At
the same time, the items about whether the journal
sharing activity helped them become friends withclassmates and whether reading each others’ journals
helped them feel more comfortable sharing their ideas
in class had mixed reactions. The students’ reactions
could be due to the fact that most of the lower-levelclass were first-year students and at first, unused to theWestern style of teaching at the college. As a result, we
can see that in general the students enjoyed the journal
writing process, although the results in Table 1 showthat some students did not feel the journal reading
and commenting project to be helpful in fostering
relationships with their classmates.
Sample responses to the final question are given
in Table 2. This question, in which the students wereasked to share their opinion in text form, showed
the students’ feelings about working together, as well

as how the journal reading and responding activity
helped them improve their own writing skills. The only
negative comment about the project was from an older
student, relating to the difficulty she had relating tothe other students’ experiences rather than the project
itself. For this reason, it is not given in Table 2.

Conclusion
I feel the journal sharing activity proved effective inopening the students’ minds and motivating themto improve the contents of their essays. Throughseeing their classmates’ candid ideas and opinions intheir journals, the students were exposed to different
perspectives. At the same time, by comparing writing
styles and skills, they gained confidence in theirwriting. As the students got to know each other theywrote more comments in their partner’s journals thatreflected their own opinions whether in agreement or
disagreement. Sometimes students gave advice about
personal issues or suggestions about how to add moredetails to the entries.
When checking the journals each month, I foundthat it took the students less time than in previous years
to begin to write more detailed entries. I also did not
notice any hesitation to express personal feelings or to
critically explore issues when the journals were givena broader audience. In fact, understanding that theirclassmates had similar experiences, ideas, or feelings
seemed to help the students become more comfortable
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

89Goughwriting about various issues. The journal reading andcommenting project was designed with the aim to give
my writing students a broader audience and open theirminds to a variety of world views. While the students’
writing mechanics did not improve substantiallycompared to previous years, there was a noticeable
difference in their overall attitude toward journal
writing and writing class in general. Overall I feel the
project accomplished its goal and I believe journal
reading and commenting will prove successful with

References
Boud, D. (2001). Using journal writing to enhancereflective practice. New Directions in Adult andContinuing Education, 90, 9–18.
Castellanos, J. (2008). Journal writing and its benefits
in an upper intermediate EFL class. Profile, 9,111–128.
Yoshihara, R. (2008). The bridge between students
and teachers: The effect of dialogue journal
writing. The Language Teacher, 32(11), 3–7.

future writing classes as well.

Author’s Biography:
Wendy M. Gough is the writing coordinator and a full time instructor at St. Mary College/
Nunoike Gaigo Senmon Gakko in Nagoya, Japan.

90

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Creating A Self-Access Classroom For
First Year Non-English Majors

Tanja McCandie
Nanzan University
mccandie@hotmail.com
In recent years English language university teachers in Japan have begun to focus more on student
centered activities and autonomous learning. With this upward trend self-access centers at Japanese
universities have flourished and teachers are promoting independent learning to students. This
article examines how learner autonomy and self-access learning can be incorporated into university
classes for first year non-English major students. The paper will also address student needs,
curriculum design and development, program implementation, and student assessment for a selfaccess program.
近年、日本の大学の英語教師は学生の自主性を重んじた活動や学習方法に注目し始めた。
こうした機運の高まりとともに日本の多くの大学で自律学習センターが設置されるようになり、教師も学生に自主的な学習を促している。
この記事では、学習者の自主性や自律学習法を英語を主専攻としない大学1年生の授業にいかに取り入れるかを調査する。
さらに学生のニーズやカリキュラムの構成や改良、
プロ
グラムの導入と自律学習プログラムに対する学生の評価についても論じる。

Introduction*

The concepts of self-access and learner autonomy havebeen gaining recognition within the English language
teaching (ELT) community worldwide and, morenotably, in Japan. Universities in Japan are taking moreof an interest in self-access learning as demonstrated
by the recent increase in number of self-access centersalready up and running or currently being developed
at campuses across the country. While there is a great
deal of focus on self-access centers, a growing numberof teachers would like their students to take more
control of their language learning in the classroom
McCandie, T. (2014). Creating a self-access classroom
for first year non-English majors. In R. Chartrand,
G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp. 91-101).
Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

environment, not just in these language centers. How
can university teachers in Japan foster growth anddevelopment in the classroom while asking students
to become more autonomous? This paper focuses on
how to start up a self-access classroom and design acurriculum for non-English majors.
What exactly is learner autonomy? Researchersand educators have widely varying opinions on this,and learner autonomy continues to be a topic of debate.
Dickinson suggests that autonomy is when learners
are totally responsible for all the decisions concernedwith their learning and the implementation of thosedecisions (Dickinson, 1987). Others suggest it is whenlearners take charge of their education and learning(Benson & Voller, 1997). While definitions differ indegree, most would agree that learner autonomy isabout empowering students to take an active role inmaking decisions about their language learning.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

91

McCandie
In the past decade, many universities in Japan haveaddressed learner autonomy and independent learning
by opening self-access centers or having access to gradedreading libraries. Unfortunately, there is no national
database on the number of self-access centers or gradedreading libraries, but judging from word of mouth andthe number of presentations by teachers at conferences,such as the 2013 JALT Learner’s Development SIG
in Tokyo, it seems that these numbers are increasing
yearly. There also is not much information available
coming out of Japan in terms of research papers andpresentations to indicate if and how teachers are
addressing the recent interest in self-access within theirown classrooms. A lack of research may be hindering
the implementation of self-access classrooms andcurriculum. While there have been articles written
about creating self-access centers in Japan (Ashurova& Ssali, 2008), little has been written on creating selfaccess classrooms at the university level.

What is a Self-Access Classroom?
A self-access classroom is not a 100% learnerautonomous environment and is not the same as a selfaccess center. In a self-access classroom, the teacher, notstudents, selects or develops appropriate material andmakes most of the decisions with regards to the topics
and skills that will be the focus of the curriculum.
While this may be contrary to some with regards towhat true learner autonomy is, the writer feels that any
student empowerment to take charge of their learning
is indeed autonomous learning. A self-access classroom
does indeed support the notion that students shouldtake control over their learning (Benson, 2011) but it
does so in a controlled environment where the teacher
is the one who decides what activities are available andhow students are assessed. The teacher decides on the
textbook, the language focus, curriculum goals, thesyllabus, and the assessment criteria to be used forthe course. The students have autonomy in deciding
which available activities they would like to complete,
the speed at which they complete them, the graded
readers they select and which essay topics they write
about. Sheerin (1989) suggests that teachers play
an important role in helping learners become moreautonomous; a self-access classroom can be the catalyst

92

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedingsthat offers that autonomy.
The self-access classroom created by this teacher
is an average Japanese university classroom with a
traditional classroom layout: the desks are apart,
arranged in rows, students are often sitting alone, andthe teacher’s desk is at the front. When the class begins,students arrange their desks so they are sitting ingroups of two or three. Activity sheets for vocabulary
and speaking are placed around the room, while graded
readers and writing activities are solely decided by thestudents. Students go to the worksheet locations andpick up their materials and return to their desks towork on the activities either alone or in groups. In a
more ideal setting, such as a larger classroom withtables instead of desks, students would be able to sit inareas dedicated to whatever task they are working on,
but due to limited space, students use their own desks
to complete the tasks.

Getting Started
What kind of activities you select and create will
depend on what you want your students to focus onwhen developing their language skills in the classroom.
In most cases, teachers will only know the kind of classthey are expected to teach and the students’ majors.
In any event, teachers should consider the following
before designing their self-access classes:•• What kind of class will you be teaching? Reading?
Oral communication? Four skills?
•• What are the students majoring in and what kindof English will they need in future employment?
•• What kind of students are they? Are they likely tobe highly motivated?
•• Are they streamed or are the classes mixed levels
and abilities?
•• What are the university’s educational goals withregards to English development?
•• What are your educational philosophies? Do you
usually focus on vocabulary development, gradedreading, grammar translation…?
The above questions will help ensure that yourstudents’ goals and needs are better met while alsoadhering to the instructor’s personal teaching beliefs

Creating A Self-Access Classroom, pages 91-101
and philosophies.
Once you have decided what skill(s) and goals tohave your students focus on, you can start to think
about the types of activities you will offer your students.
This article focuses on a vocabulary-based curriculum
because the author feels that students must develop
their vocabulary to significantly improve their overall
English abilities. Since vocabulary development was
identified as the most urgent student need, the majority
of self-access activities in my classroom revolve around
vocabulary development, usage, and recycling.
There are four main “centers” of activities:
vocabulary, speaking, graded reading, and writing.
All vocabulary and speaking activities center around“Vocabulary in Use Elementary 2nd Edition”(McCarthy & O’Dell, 2010) by Cambridge University.
Each week the class focuses on a different unit andtherefore students complete activities focused on a
specific selection of vocabulary. Students are free tochoose their own graded readers and write about topics
they have decided on their own. Other teachers may
want to focus on different language skills and should
adapt their self-access program to suit those skills andinterests.

Four Centers and the Activity Check
List
There are four main centers to my self-access class:vocabulary, speaking, graded reading, and writing.
Activities for each center are evenly weighted forassessment regardless of the time it takes to complete
those activities. The number and types of activities arerecorded on the “Activity Checklist” (see AppendixA) and students must complete a minimum numberof activities for each center to pass the course. In
the case of the writer’s class, students are required tocomplete a minimum of seven activities for each centerof the course over a 15-week term. Students are able
to decide which activities and centers they will focus
on each class, but in order to pass, they must meet theminimum requirement of seven activities successfullycompleted for each center.
When students have completed an activity, theytake their activity sheet and checklist to the teacher.

The teacher will then ensure the activity has been
completed to satisfaction and will sign the activity
check list section for the chosen activity. Activities
are either given a signature on the activity checklist
or students are asked to improve and resubmit theassignment if what they have done is not satisfactory.
Students have the option to not resubmit a task, andin that case would receive no credit for the previous
submission.
The “Test” section is included so students can keep
track of their weekly test scores. With their weekly
vocabulary test scores recorded and the number ofsignatures clearly visible for each component, thechecklist serves both as a record of the tasks completed,and helps raise awareness of their vocabularydevelopment and total mark.

Vocabulary
Vocabulary is the main focus of this instructor’s selfaccess curriculum and the vocabulary activities eachweek focus on the vocabulary highlighted in units fromthe textbook. There is a minimum of four activities
each week for students to choose from and they mustsatisfactorily complete at least two of these activities inorder to receive a signature for the vocabulary section
on their activity checklist. Vocabulary activities (seeAppendix B) are corrected and returned to students sothey can use the worksheets as a study aid before their
final exam.

Speaking
Speaking plays an integral role in the self-accessclassroom and students are encouraged to use English
as much as possible. All speaking activities (seeAppendix C) are created by the teacher to ensure thatstudents are speaking to one another and using the
vocabulary covered in the textbook. Once students are
comfortable with the speaking activity outline, students
take a greater role and create their own questions to
use in the speaking activities, contributing to question
formation and more learner autonomy. If the teacher
feels that too much Japanese is being used, students
will be reminded to try and keep things in English. If
the teacher feels that the students are continuing to use
too much Japanese, credit is not given for the activity.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

93

McCandie

Writing
The writing component requires that students write
a single-spaced B5 page about a topic of their choice.
If students have large handwriting, the teacher will
suggest that such students write more to ensure
writing tasks are approximately the same number ofwords. There is no word count limit and if students
would like to write more, they are able to, but receive
no extra credit for longer writing submissions. A list ofsuggested topics is given to students on the first day ofclass in case they have difficulties in thinking of a topic
on their own. If students write less than a full B5 page,
they are not given credit and will be asked to resubmit.
Writing activities are not corrected for format or small
grammatical mistakes, such as articles, since vocabulary
is the focus of my self-access course. However, if theteacher is unable to easily understand the writing task,
students are asked to redo it. Writing tasks are selfdirected and allow for more learning autonomy thanother activities.

Reading
Students are required to bring an appropriate level
graded reader of their choice to class each week.
Teachers need to ensure that students have access tograded readers either through a university library or
by setting up a small graded reader library system inthe class. It is suggested that teachers spend time withstudents talking about book selection in the first class.
Students are expected to read their selected books andcomplete short book reports in English (see Appendix
D).

A Typical 90-Minute Self-Access ClassAt the beginning of every class students are given a
short quiz on the vocabulary they covered in their
textbook the previous week. While the students are
doing their quizzes, the teacher is putting out the
day’s materials around the classroom. Once the quiz isfinished, the students put their desks together in groupsof two or three and listen to the worksheet options
for the day. The students can either individually orcollectively (if doing speaking or vocabulary activities)
decide what they would like to do. Then they collect94

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

the needed materials and begin working. While thestudents work, the teacher monitors the class, answers
questions, looks over activities, signs activity checklists,and gives assistance where needed. When activities
are completed and activity checklists signed, students
begin the process again of deciding what they would
like to do for the remainder of the class.
Students only have class time to complete andpresent the vocabulary and speaking activities to theteacher for a checklist signature. Writing and reading
activities may be done outside of class. Twenty minutes
before the end of the class, the teacher gives thema five-minute warning to complete any unfinishedtasks. Fifteen minutes before the class ends, students
are instructed to close their books, put away theirpapers and take out their graded readers for fifteen
minutes of Silent Sustained Reading (SSR). As thecurriculum focuses on vocabulary development, I
included extensive reading to help students learn,
retain, and reinforce vocabulary (Waring & Takaki,2003). Students are not allowed to fill out reading
reports or complete unfinished worksheets during SSR
time. When class is over, the desks are put back to their
original places and the self-access classroom disappears.

Assessment
Assessment for the course is divided into threecomponents. Activities completed from the four
centers are worth 40% of the student’s mark, weekly
vocabulary tests account for 30%, and a final exam at
the end of the term is the final 30%. The minimum
number of completed activities for each center is seven.
Students who finish ten tasks for each component will
be given the full value of 40%. Students are responsible
for holding onto their checklist and presenting it to theteacher when activities are complete. These sheets arecollected at the end of the term and the teacher cancalculate their in class mark based on the number ofsignatures on their checklist.

Material Creation and Development
The most time consuming and difficult componentof creating a self-access classroom is material
development. If you are focusing on a particularCreating A Self-Access Classroom, pages 91-101
theme, materials need to match this theme, or if you
use a textbook, activities need to mirror it. Students
also need to have plenty of choice with regards to thenumber of activities on offer each week so they do not
become uninterested in task options. Students choose
their reading or writing activities, but vocabulary andspeaking activities need to be developed by the teacher.
Directions must be clear and concise so that students
can successfully complete the tasks on their own. The
ultimate role of the teacher in a self-access class is to bea guide and facilitator. If students are unsure of what
they need to do, the teacher will spend more timeanswering questions about activity directions thanhelping students and facilitating learning. Therefore,
when creating materials for your class, it is of thehighest importance that students be able to understandand complete the tasks on their own.
The speaking component is always done as pairwork (see Appendix C) and activity sheets are designed
so that students can record each other’s responses inwriting. This format helps to keep students on task
and assists the teacher in verifying that the speaking
activities are being done primarily in English. As theterm develops, students are able to create their own
questions, making them more autonomous and active
in materials development.
With regards to reading, as previously mentioned,
students need to have access to graded readers. In
addition, teachers need to develop a graded reading
report, book review, or worksheets to both reinforce
vocabulary development and ensure that students haveread the book.
Students are encouraged to write about the themes
covered in the textbook but teachers should also
provide a list of writing topics that students may feel
more confident in writing about. Topics such as family,
friends, school, and holidays are highly suggested as
students are more likely to write about topics theyknow well and feel comfortable writing about. Please
see Appendix E for resources.

Areas of Concern from Workshop
Attendees
During the presentation, many attendees hadquestions about how well students responded to being“left to their own devices”. Self-access classes are notstandard teacher-centered classes and this does cause
confusion for some students who expect the teacher
to direct students in what to do throughout classtime. However, after a few weeks, students become
more comfortable and confident in selecting activities,
taking the initiative in finding a speaking partner andworking with other students. In time, most students
seem to enjoy the freedom of being able to pick theiractivities and work at their own pace which hopefully
will lead to students taking even more control overtheir language learning in the future.

Conclusion
The biggest drawback of a self-access curriculum iscreating and developing materials. It is time consuming.
However, if teachers could collaborate, they could
share ideas, create activities, develop materials and theworkload could greatly be reduced. It is this instructor’s
hope that teachers will create and develop more selfaccess classrooms and that teachers will work together
and develop this area of facilitating and develop evengreater student autonomy.

References
Ashurova, U., & Ssali, V. (2007). Creating an L2
community in an L1 environment. JALT 2006
Conference Proceedings, 65-71.
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy(2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education
Limited.
Benson, P., & Voller, P. (1997). Autonomy andindependence in language learning. London,
England: Longman.
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language
learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
McCarthy M., & O’Dell F., (2010). English
vocabulary in use: Elementary (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Sheerin, S. (1989). Self-access. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

95

McCandie
Waring. R. & Takaki. M. (2003). At what rate learners
learn and retain vocabulary from reading a graded

reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2),130-163.

Author’s Biography:
Tanja McCandie has taught English in Canada, England, and Japan and is currently
teaching at Nanzan University in Nagoya.

96

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Creating A Self-Access Classroom, pages 91-101

Appendix A
Activity Checklist
Student Name:

Week #
2

Vocabulary

Speaking

Student #:Writing

Reading

Tests
X

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Total

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

97

McCandie

Appendix B
Unit 25 Countries and Nationalities
Vocabulary 1
Name________________________
Student number ____________________
Instructions
Fill in the blanks with the correct answers.
Country

Nationality

Language/Languages

Japan
China
Portugal
TaiwanThe USA
Korea
MexicoIndia
South Africa
Colombia
Italy
Germany
Australia
RussiaCanadaIndonesia
BrazilEnglandSpain
FranceThailand
New Zealand98

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Continent

Capital City

Creating A Self-Access Classroom, pages 91-101

Appendix C
Unit 25 Countries and Nationalities
Speaking Activity 1
Name________________________
Student number ____________________
Instructions
1. Work with your partner and make three questions using words from Unit 25.
2. Write your answers for all these questions in the “Your Answers” box.
3. Interview you partner and write their answers in the “Partner’s Answers” box.

QuestionsYour answers

Partner’s answers

Have you ever traveled to a different
country? If yes, where?
What country would you like to visit?
Why?
What is your favorite country? Why is it
your favorite country?
What country do you think is beautiful?
Why do you think it is beautiful?
What country do you think has good
food? What food do you like from there?

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

99

McCandie

Appendix D
Example Book ReportBook Report
Name: 				Student Number:Class:					Day and period:
Book Title:
Level and Publisher:
Main Characters’ Names:

Summary of the story (What was the book about?)

Did you like this book? Why or why not? Would you suggest this book to your friends?
Why or why not?

100 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Creating A Self-Access Classroom, pages 91-101

Appendix E
Material Resources and Helpful Websites

Developing vocabulary activities has been made much easier with free online activity and gamedevelopment websites.
•• The Discovery Education website (http://www.discoveryeducation.com/free-puzzlemaker/) is
excellent with regards to making activities that the students find fun and interesting. Crossword
puzzles, word searches and double puzzles (word scrambles) ensure that students have lots of options
to chose for their vocabulary component.
•• JALT also has a Material Writers SIG that readers may be interested in joining to help create activities
for their classes (http://jalt.org/groups/materials-writers)•• JALT also has the Learner’s Development SIG that focuses on autonomous and self-access learning.
(http://ld-sig.org/)•• “The How’s and Why’s of Graded Reading” focuses on the benefits of extensive reading programs
and how to chose the correct level reader. (http://extensivereading.net/docs/tebiki_GREng.pdf )•• The “Graded Reading Programs: The Experience of Schools and Universities in Japan” looks at
all the different types of graded reading programs in Japan and gives many suggestions on how
extensive reading can be incorporated into classes and curriculum. (http://www.robwaring.org/er/
ER_programs/gradedreadersprograms_en.pdf )•• The Japan Association of Self-Access Learning has a website that contains information about SelfAccess Centers (SAC) in Japan and self-access learning. (http://jasalorg.wordpress.com/)

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings101

Critical Thinking and TOEIC: Advanced
Skills for Teachers and Test-Takers

Jim Chapman
Aichi Bunkyo University
jchapman@abu.ac.jp
A Critical Thinking (CT) approach to the Test of English for International Communication(TOEIC) can be effective for advanced test-takers; students familiar with the test layout,
instructions, and basic strategies commonly taught for each part of the test, and who are readyfor further skill development. Four advanced skills for the TOEIC based on CT are introducedin this paper; answering critically, guessing critically, pattern recognition, and time management.
However, CT can be time consuming, so methods of addressing this issue are discussed in the paper,
including reading ahead, pre-determined guessing, allocating time critically, habitual actions, andautomatization. By employing these advanced skills, test-takers can be given a greater chance ofscoring well on TOEIC.
TOEICテストの上級受験者にとって、批判的思考法は効果的な方法となりえる。
テスト対策として本稿では、批判的思考法に基づく４つのテクニック（批判的解答方法・批判的推測・パターンの認識・時間管理）を紹介する。
また、批判的思考法には時間がかかるという側面もあるため、それを軽減するテクニック（設問の先読み・設問の跳び越し・時間配分・設問への慣れなど）も紹介する。
これらのテクニックにより、テストで高得点を取る可能性は高まり、
キャリアアップにつなげることができるであろう。

*

Introduction

The Test of English for International Communication(TOEIC) is an international standardized test used
for determining “English proficiency of non-native
English speakers” (www.ets.org) in order to evaluate
staff for promotion, transfer overseas, or simply for
individuals to gauge their English ability. The test
contains both listening and reading components that
evaluate English ability in a wide variety of situations
and accents, including those from the UK, Australia,

and the US. This report introduces four advanced skills
based on Critical Thinking (CT) for approaching thetest: answering critically, guessing critically, patternrecognition, and time management. As with learning
any new skill, initial attempts may be frustrating
and time consuming so the paper concludes with
implications for teachers for addressing concerns
regarding the significant time required by students toimplement advanced CT skills during the TOEIC test.

Literature Review
Chapman, J. (2014). Critical thinking and TOEIC:
Advanced skills for teachers and test-takers. In R.
Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan(Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp.
102-108). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

102 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Critical Thinking (CT) has been given many
definitions, but Cottrell (2005) offers a definition
that most closely aligns with the skills introduced inthis paper, “(CT is) a cognitive activity associatedwith using the mind. Learning to think in criticallyCritical Thinking and TOEIC, pages 102-108
analytical and evaluative ways means using mental
processes such as attention, categorization, selection,and judgement” (p. 1). For test-takers who havemastered basic skills such as the layout of the test andthe question styles, the next step for achieving higherscores is to utilize CT skills (such as judgment) inorder to answer questions that require the test-taker
to choose the “most appropriate word to fill in theblank”, a common instruction given in the TOEIC
test (McKinnon, 2012, p. 13).
The purpose of this paper is not to focus on
generally taught basic TOEIC test skills and strategies
available in most mainstream TOEIC textbooks, butrather advanced skills for students who are sufficiently
familiar with the test to handle further instruction andskill development. Each of the skills in this report is
closely aligned with the definition of critical thinking(see Cottrell, 2005), specifically employing analysis,
evaluation, and judgement when answering the test
questions. The rationale behind the introductionof critical thinking skills can be found in Charlin,
Boshuizen, Custers, and Feltovich (2007) in their
discussion of the development of expertise, whichstates that
we use goal-directed knowledge structures
adapted to perform tasks efﬁciently. These
integrated networks of prior knowledge lead to
expectations, as well as to inferences and actions.
Expectations and actions … allow subjects to

Figure 1. Example item from Section 1.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

103

Chapmanmake predictions … interpret … the situation, andto act appropriately. (p. 1178)
Analysis, evaluation, and judgement are establishedcritical thinking skills (see Cottrell, 2005) so to thisdefinition, let us also add expectation, inference, andinterpretation. Finally, for the purposes of this report,
one further skill is even more critical–anticipation.
Atherton (2011) states that strategy “involves the
anticipation of possibilities and the developmentof plans to deal with them” (Atherton, 2011 - See“Strategy” section, para. 2) and this seems an apt
phrase for a final addition to the definition of CT.
This paper suggests that students approaching
the TOEIC test with CT skills in the forefront will
significantly improve their chances for higher scoreson the TOEIC test. However, according to Ellwood(2000), critical thinking may be an area in which
Japanese students are in need of development; “. . . ourJapanese students do tend to fit the stereotypes of being
passive and non-participatory, with little ability in thetype of critical enquiry which is so valued by the western
academy” (p. 181). In addition, Howe commentsthat Japanese people tend to follow instructions very
carefully (Howe, 2000), and this can be detrimental
in TOEIC, a timed test with no penalty for guessing.
For example, instead of listening to the well-known
instructions for each section or part, test-takers should
be reading ahead and anticipating upcoming questions.
Most Japanese test-takers, in this author’s experience,
tend to consider every answer choice for each question
regardless of whether they have already determinedan answer to be correct. Instead, students should trust
their instincts and use all possible time saved in orderto preview future questions and to employ CT to aid
in answering more effectively. In short, students shouldtake a CT approach to the TOEIC and “critically”
think their way through the test.

The Advanced Skills
Skill 1: Answering CriticallyStudents must be trained to trust their instincts inrecognizing the correct answers when they see (or hear)them, marking the answer immediately, and moving onto the next question. This critical answering approach

104 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

can generate time necessary for students to employ CT
approaches to later questions.
Example: The following question in Figure 1 is an
example of how questions can sometimes be answered
without considering all of the answer choices.
After hearing statement (B), “He is wearing ajacket”, students should be able to recognize the correct
answer, mark it quickly and move on to the next pictureor section immediately. Alternatively, if the first three
answers are incorrect, students should be marking(D), the only available answer, on their answer sheets
immediately after hearing Statement (C) and moving
on to the next question. Answering critically can andshould be employed whenever possible during the test.

Skill 2: Guessing Critically (Primarily
Listening Parts 3 & 4 and Reading Part 7)
i. Students should not guess the first question foreach reading in Part 7
The first question for each reading in Part 7 isusually related to the overall theme of the reading andis often worded “What is the passage about?” or “Whatis the main idea of the article?” By anticipating thesequestions, students can be prepared and approach thereading by first skimming the title and key words fromeach paragraph in order to more effectively answer
this predictable first question. Quickly skimmingand scanning often provides information sufficient toanswer the first question of each reading in this section.
ii. It’s OK to guess the “Which one is not true?”question in Reading Part 7
In my classroom experience, one of the mostdifficult reading questions is one that asks which of
the answers is NOT correct or NOT true. It is difficult
because, unlike other question types where the testtaker must find a single piece of data, for these negative
question types the reader must find three pieces ofdata and then determine which of the answers to thequestion is “incorrect”, “not true “ or “not in the story.”
Should students need to skip questions to make time,these types of questions are the good ones to choose.

Critical Thinking and TOEIC, pages 102-108

Figure 2. Example item from Listening Part 3.

iii. Students may use pre-determined guessing to
generate time to “invest” elsewhere
Another technique available to test-takers
struggling to complete the test in the allotted time isthat of pre-planning to guess questions (perhaps every
5th question) in order to create time to read ahead
and increase the chance of scoring well on following
questions. Alternatively, students may consider
skipping an entire set of questions (each conversationin Parts 3 & 4 contains three questions) and guessing
those answers in order to generate time available toemploy CT skills on subsequent questions. In thePart 3 of the listening section there are 30 questions
made up of 10 sets. The time required from the startof the dialogue to the end of the available time formarking the third question in each set is approximately
90 seconds. If the student chooses to skip this set ofquestions, then 90 seconds could be used to employ
CT skills such as pattern recognition on several otherquestions to enhance the student’s chances of scoring
well.

Skill 3: Pattern Recognition (Listening Parts
3 & 4 and Reading Part 7)
Finding patterns among the questions and answers
can aid students on the test by creating an image ofthe question situation. Although Listening sections

Parts 3 and 4 are among the most difficult for students(Trew, 2007), they also offer the greatest opportunity
to prepare before listening since both the questions
and answers (three per dialogue) are written in the test
book. When reading ahead, test-takers should look
for patterns in the set of questions and answers andimagine the situation. Students who approach these
sections critically, by anticipating patterns, may beable to answer several, if not all questions, even before
listening to the recordings.
Example: Consider the following sample
questions (Figure 2.) from Listening Part 3 – Short
Conversations:Students must first skim all of the information(key words only) while looking for patterns. Consider
Q. 71, “Where is this announcement?” Most people
are familiar with announcements at an airport ortrain station while announcements at a coffee shop
are possible but unlikely. When the information fromQ. 72 is also considered, “What is the weather like?”
students should start to consider that the answer to
Q. 71 is probably “airport” since announcements
about weather are common at the airport. Students
should also subsequently eliminate Q. 71 (A), since
weather announcements of this type are possible
but not common at a train station and are unlikely
to have a sufficient impact on rail travel to merit anannouncement to passengers. Further, if there is anannouncement at an airport about weather, one can
expect it to be bad weather and probably prefacing adelay announcement about a flight. Therefore, Q. 72
answers (B) and (C) seem unreasonable since clear
weather and “light snow” are probably unlikely todelay most flights. Students should then anticipate theanswer to Q. 72 to be (A) “foggy” or (D) “stormy”.
The results of a pattern analysis on questions 7173 have been illustrated below in Figure 3. For the
purposes of this report, key words are underlined.
Single strikethrough (travel agent’s) represents obvious
answers eliminated after the student’s first pass, double
strikethrough (train station) represents answers
eliminated when critically considering all the datausing pattern recognition. The circled answer below
indicates an answer that is probably correct while thetriangles indicate possible correct answers based on
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

105

ChapmanFigure 3. Results of a pattern analysis on a sample item.

anticipation and inference using pattern recognition.
In this example, the students have yet to listen to theannouncement and have already found one probablecorrect answer and have eliminated others simply bythinking critically and finding patterns.
Pattern recognition is time consuming but canbe very effective. Therefore it is critical that students
carefully manage time and create opportunities to readahead whenever possible.

Skill 4: Time Management
The test is roughly 120 minutes (45 minutes for listening

Table 1
Critical approach to timing.
Section

Listening Section

Reading Section

Part

Questions

Traditional timing

Recommended timing

1

10

2

30

Determined by recording(around 45 minutes)

Determined by recording(around 45 minutes)

3

30

4

30

5

40

45 sec. each (30 min)

30 sec. each (20 min)6

12

45 sec. each (9 min)

30 sec. each (6 min)748

45 sec. each (36 min)

1 minute each (48 min)

120 minutes

119 minutes

TOTAL

106 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Critical Thinking and TOEIC, pages 102-108
and 75 minutes for reading) and students must manage
time throughout. However, in the reading section,
decisions with respect to time allotted per question
can be made by students before taking the test. For thereading section, most students divide the number ofquestions (100) by the available time (75 minutes) andbudget 45 seconds per question. However, due to thequestion styles of Parts 5 and 6, there is little reason tospend 45 seconds for each question in these sections
since the answers are grammar or knowledge-basedand cannot be found given additional time. AlthoughPart 6 involves a longer text, a maximum of 30 seconds
should be sufficient for each question. Remaining time
can be better utilized in Part 7, where searching foranswers in the longer readings can be more effective. A
recommended time plan is listed in Table 1.

Implications for Teachers
Creating time for students to employ these CT skills
is a very real concern. In order to address this issue,
there are two ways to generate additional time forthe application of CT skills during the TOEIC test.
The first is to create time during the test. Several timesaving techniques have been outlined in this paper:
reading ahead during instructions, pre-determined
guessing, and allocating time critically. The second isto encourage automaticity through practice. This will
be dealt with next.

Automaticity
There are time advantages to developing habits into
automatic actions. Tony Dungy, a championship coachstates that “Champions don’t do extraordinary things… they do ordinary things, but they do them without
thinking, too fast for the other team to react. They
follow the habits they’ve learned” (from Duhigg, 2012,
p. 61). Much like learning any new habit, the first few
attempts with any new skill can be awkward and time
consuming but with practice, these actions will become
automatic. The skills introduced in this paper are nodifferent and will require extensive practice. Oncemastered, according to Bargh (1994), students will also
benefit from better focus during the test;

The automatization of routine thought processes
frees one’s limited attentional resources for nonroutine matters, and enables a reduction of themassive amount of stimulation and information
bombarding one at any given moment into a
more manageable subset of important objects,
events and appraisals. (p. 31)
The instructor’s role should be to provide
opportunities for practicing these routines, offering
feedback, timing exercises, and reinforcing theimportance of working quickly. Developing criticalthinking approaches as good habits and training
students to employ them automatically is another key
to helping students achieve success in the TOEIC test.
Moving quickly is an important skill required
throughout the TOEIC test. Completing the test intime is a challenge for almost every student, so thecritical skills for TOEIC (and indeed all TOEIC
skills) introduced in this report must become habitualand automatic in order to be applied without theneed (and time) for thought. In other words, students
should, eventually, not need to tell themselves toread ahead nor to look for patterns; they should bedoing so without thinking and doing so quickly. In
order to perform these actions quickly, students need
to be trained in these habits until the habits become
automatic.

Conclusion
Critical thinking involves analysis, evaluation,
judgment, and anticipation (see Cottrell, 2005). An
advanced approach to TOEIC requires an analysis ofquestions and answers, of the difficulty of individual
sections, judgement of how to approach timing, and an
anticipation of patterns in questions and answers. This
report recommends CT-based skills, such as answering
critically, guessing critically, pattern recognition, andthe need for time management as the next step forstudents who are familiar with the test and seeking
improvements in their scores. Critical thinking is anadvanced and challenging approach to TOEIC, butwith practice and the development of effective habits,
it can become an effective tool to assist students intheir journey to higher scores on the TOEIC test.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings107Chapman

References
Atherton, J. S. (2011). Competence, proficiency,
and beyond. Retrieved from http://www.doceo.
co.uk/background/expertise.htm
Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of
automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency,
and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer &T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of Social Cognition
Vol. 1, 1-40. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Charlin, B., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Custers, E. J.,& Feltovich, P. J. (2007). Scripts and clinicalreasoning. Medical Education, 41(12), 1178–
1184.
Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical thinking skills.
Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Duhigg, C. (2012). The power of habit. New York,
NY: Random House.
Ellwood, C. (2001). Dissolving and resolving cultural
expectations: Socio-cultural approaches toprogram development for international students.
In Chanock, K. (Ed.) Refereed Proceedings of
the National Language and Academic Skills
Conference held at La Trobe University (pp. 180186). Retrieved from http:/​/​aall.org.au/​sites/​default/​files/​2001%20Proceedings.doc
Howe, E.R. (2000). Secondary school teachers’
conceptions of critical thinking in British
Columbia and Japan. A comparative study.
Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/
handle/2429/10626/ubc_2000-0430.
pdf ?sequence=1
McKinnon, N. (2012). Taking the TOEIC 2: Skills
and strategies. Tokyo, Japan: Compass.
Trew, G. (2007). A teacher’s guide to TOEIC
listening and reading test. Preparing your students
for success. Retrieved from http://elt.oup.com/
elt/students/exams//pdf/elt/toeic_teachers_
guide_international.pdf

Author’s Biography:
Jim Chapman is a full-time lecturer at Aichi Bunkyo University. His interests include the TOEIC
test, critical thinking, and using technology to enhance learning.

108 The 2013 PanSIG Conference ProceedingsCross-Disciplinary Synthesis in Explicating Texts:
Combining Literary Themes with Vocabulary

Neil Addison

Neil Conway

Meiji Gakuin University
naddison34@yahoo.co.uk

Musashino University

Literary texts are products of, and negotiated responses to, their cultural communities. Whilst English
for academic purposes (EAP) teachers may place primacy on vocabulary acquisition when teachingauthentic literature, there also needs to be some focus on scaffolding the important thematic aspects
which underpin texts. This paper outlines a coordinated EAP reading course design, which sought
to explicate these themes through an interpolated vocabulary and visual media based approach.
Classroom practice undertaken by two teachers at two separate institutions is also discussed andassessed with reference to student vocabulary scores and quantitative and collaborative response
data gathered from the 2013 academic year.
文学は地域社会の人々によって創造され、そしてまた人々の地域社会に対する文書の反応でもある。文学の教師は語彙を教えることが重要だと考えるかもしれないが、テーマや文学の中の文化に注目することも重要であり必要である。本論文は2名の教師が別々の大学で語彙と視覚媒体からのアプローチを組み合わせ使用し、テーマを教えたリーディングコー
ス案をご紹介する。
これらの２クラスより語彙の成績や学生の反応のデータは収集されている。

Literature and its Discontents*

Whilst English students can gain many new vocabulary
skills and insights when reading authentic literature,they will also face difficulties in progressing from abasic decoding of texts towards appropriate levels of
fluency. Such obstacles may include a lack of textual
and cultural background knowledge. This knowledge
is often glossed over in the English reading classroom,
where primacy is placed upon teaching information
retrieval skills that “exclude the cultural values andAddison, N. & Conway, N. (2014). Cross-disciplinary
synthesis in explicating texts: Combining literary
themes with vocabulary. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 109-114). Nagoya,Japan: JALT.

*

identities, or expressive and aesthetic characteristics…
quite simply because these are now seen as surplus topractical requirement” (Howatt & Widdowson, 2004,
p. 357).

Why Teach Literature?
Reading authentic English literature presents English
for academic purposes (EAP) students with theopportunity to understand how the English language
is used in a variety of specific contexts. Whereas
traditional English teaching classroom practice focuses
on repeatedly practicing a number of high frequency
words, and whilst materials used for extensive reading
such as graded readers contain a number of recycled
headwords that can gradually boost students’ ability
to remember vocabulary, reading authentic literature
can afford students valuable examples of how words
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings109Addison & Conway
collocate and fit together naturally in lexical chunks,
clauses and sentences.
Literature can also convey genuine, authentic
cultural enrichment whilst training the mind andsensibility (Parkinson & Reid Thomas, 2000, p.
9-11). Reading literature can open new cultural vistas,affording English language students the chance tounderstand other cultures at a more profound level.
The best literary works possess subtlety, richness anduniqueness (Brumfit, 2001, p. 91) that might not
be found in English language textbooks, and classic
authentic texts dating from centuries past can often
connect old themes with new, and broaden and deepen
our students’ understanding both of previous ages andof subjects related to the present time.

students were first taught the mechanics of metaphor
and simile and were required to construct their own
poetic sentences using these devices before identifying
examples in the selections of poetry that they read.
Teaching poetic language, however, and the underlying
thematical concepts behind it, also required ascaffolded, visual approach. Many types and styles ofvisual presentation media are useful for the language
learner, as Lonergan (1995) argues: “video in theclassroom offers exciting possibilities for language
teaching and learning” (p. 1). It was hoped that thiskind of visual approach, taught in conjunction withvocabulary gap-fill activities and vocabulary reading
handouts, would aid English reading students inimproving their cultural and linguistic competence.

Approaching Literature

Characteristics of the Learners

A literary competence syllabus was designed, whichplaced equal importance on the teaching of textual
background in tandem with focus on vocabulary.
Our study was inspired by the Content andLanguage Integrated Learning Approach (CLIL), a
methodology that aims to integrate the teaching ofcontent with language teaching skills (Coyle, Hood
& Marsh, 2010). Language and cultural skills were
not taught in isolation, but instead in an integrated
way. The students read short selections of poetry on a
weekly basis for homework, which they then reviewed
and discussed in more detail in the following class.
Each piece of poetry chosen was linked with theweekly conversational and vocabulary based thematic
demands of each class. For example, romantic poetry,such as selections of Wordsworth’s nature sonnets,
which criticize the growing industrial materialism ofearly 19th century Britain, added a deeper historicaland critical perspective to discussion classes whichcentered on modern phenomena such as globalization.

Our learners were second year students enrolled at two
private Japanese universities. Group A were English
majors , whilst group B were engineering majors .
The group A students studied at an institution which
employed the TOEFL testing system to decide classgroupings, and the students had been placed in theirclass through achieving an average TOEFL score of450. In contrast, the group B students studied at an
institution that assessed and arranged them according
to their TOEIC scores, and these particular students
had achieved a mean class score of 400 on the TOEIC
scale. ETS reports a reasonably strong relationshipbetween the TOEIC and TOEFL tests (r = .75),(Aberystwyth University International English Centre,2013) and for the purposes of the present study, thetwo groups are considered to be of roughly the samelevel: CEFR B1. Whilst some members of group A
had some previous experience of reading literature

Teaching Poetic Language and
Theme
This study therefore applied a culturally centeredapproach to scaffold underlying textual meanings inshort pieces of literature such as poetry. However, toaid their awareness of underlying themes in poetry,

110 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Table 1.
An Equivalency Table of TOEIC and TOEFL Score Bands(Aberystwyth University International English Centre,
2013)

TOEIC
500 - 550
450 - 500
400 - 450
350 - 400

TOEFL
450 – 470
430 - 450
410 – 430
390 – 410

Cross-Disciplinary Synthesis in Explicating Texts, pages 109-114
before embarking on our course, group B had no priorexperience. It was felt that this contrast in student
background and study interests would add more depth
and contrast to our study, having a bearing on discreteor notable differences in our data sets.

Examples of Poetry Taught in
Reading Classes
We chose to teach 18th century Romantic poetry to
our students during the first semester of the course,
as it was felt that Romanticism would connect with
contemporary concerns familiar to our students
such as global warming and pollution. Examples are
given below of how William Wordsworth’s Daffodils(1996/1807) and The world is too much with us(1996/1807) were taught in this way. Students werefirst asked to discuss some of the main recurring
themes found in Studio Ghibli animated films, suchas animals versus humans and science and industry
versus nature. They were then shown the J.W.M Turner
painting The Fighting Temeraire (1839), and wereinvited to guess and discuss the themes at play within
the image (tradition vs. modern industrialisation), andto try and draw parallels with the earlier discussion.
Having identified the thematic tension between theelements of the image, the students were then given
two different Wordsworth poems that separately
addressed these oppositional themes.
Students were required to perform a gap-fill reading
activity for Wordsworth’s Daffodils, (1996/1807)
placing a selection of missing descriptive words inthe correct empty spaces by consulting a teacherdistributed poetry word list, and then discussing which
descriptions were pejorative, such as the simile “lonely
as a cloud” (p. 281) and lying upon a couch in “vacant
or in pensive mood” (p. 282) and which were positive,
such as the metaphorical “host of dancing daffodils”(p. 281) and “that inward eye which is the bliss ofsolitude” (p. 282). A successive poetry reading exercise

then demanded that the students perform a descriptive
gap-fill reading exercise for the Wordsworth poem The
world is too much with us (1996/1807, p274) and thistime identify how the growing industrialized world
was described in terms such as “lay waste” (p. 274) and“a sordid boon” (p. 274), and then further discuss thisin direct relation to the previous poem, which dealt
with the theme of encountering nature in solitude andexperiencing deep thoughts and sensations.

Research Methods
In order to evaluate the general success of thisclassroom approach towards scaffolding a criticalcomprehension of poetry, some statistical research wasundertaken. This research incorporated distributing
jointly quantitative and qualitative student response
questionnaires, whilst also undertaking an examinationof student vocabulary results. Poetry pre-reading andpost-reading questionnaires were given to a total of 19
students from group A and 20 students from group B.
It was hoped that by measuring the students’ attitudes
towards these poems, and comparing their pre- andpost-reading responses, an overall barometer of theeffectiveness of the materials used could be established.

Student Quantitative questions
The six quantitative questions were based on the Likert
close-ended question model, but with five response
options (Dornyei, 2010). Students were asked toanswer questions on their impressions of poetry both
before reading in class and after reading in class. An
example question is given in Table 3.
In the above example, interesting was assigned ascore of 5 points, and easy a score of 4 points. These were
the two positive responses. Okay was given a midpoint
response score of 3, difficult was given a score of 2, andboring a score of 1. The latter two were the two negative
responses. Students were also asked to identify what
areas of language poetry helped them with, such as
grammar, vocabulary, reading comprehension, writing

Table 2.
An example of one of the six quantitative close-ended questions asked to students in the survey.

What was your opinion of the poetry used?
a) interestingb) easyc) okayd) difficulte) boring

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

111

Addison & Conway
and speaking.

Student Qualitative Questions
Both groups of students were asked two qualitative
questions during the post-reading section of theresearch. Whilst it has been noted that such qualitative
questions possess inherent limitations, Dornyei (2010)
observes that they also enjoy specific merits such asproviding greater graphic and illustrative richness
to pure quantitative data. Such data was therefore
employed to facilitate and potentially deepen ourquantitative questionnaire measures, and our students
were given qualitative questions which asked if they
had changed their minds about poetry after performing
the readings in class, and if so, why.

Multiple Choice Vocabulary Test
Students were tested at the end of the semester on
adjectival vocabulary from the distributed poetry
gap-fill reading handouts. The examination tested thestudents on their ability to remember the descriptive
words by supplying them with a selection choiceof four simplified synonyms and requiring them tosuccessfully match the correct synonyms with theauthentic words from the poems.

Findings
Quantitative Questionnaire Findings
The pre- and post-reading quantitative data gatheredfrom both groups indicated a rise in attitudes towards
poetry. Whilst the data collected from group A saw
opinions rise from a pre-reading score of 2.7 to 3.6,
group B’s data was particularly marked, rising from 2.4
to 3.7. This marked rise may well be attributed to thefact that group B was comprised of mainly engineering
students who had no prior exposure to poetry, whilst
many in group A had prior experience with literarytexts. However, pre-reading and post-reading dataalso provided evidence of a rise in attitudes towards
poetry’s use in all the five language categories ofgrammar, vocabulary, reading comprehension, writing
and speaking (see Table 3).
Our primary interest was in striving to use poetry
to aid improvement in student reading comprehension,

112 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Table 3.
Comparison of Pre-Course and Post-Course Student
Opinion Data

Grammar
Vocabulary
Reading Comp.
Writing
Speaking

Group A
PrePost3.3
3.4
3.9
4.1
3.8
4.3
2.9
3.5
3.0
3.1

Group B
PrePost2.1
3.0
3.5
4
2.5
4.1
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.8

so of particular interest was the students’ perception of
poetry’s ability to aid this specific skill, with both groups
allocating it a score in excess of 4 points. However,
although this data was very pleasing it is believed thatwith further improvements to questionnaire designand data collection procedures, such results can be
improved in the future.

Qualitative Questionnaire Findings
The qualitative data results illustrated that a significant
number of students had changed their minds about
poetry thanks to our teaching methods. Sixty-three
percent of group A replied in the affirmative, whilst a
striking 84% of group B replied that they had changed
their minds. When asked more specifically why thiswas the case the students in both groups gave a numberof different reasons. Twenty-one percent of group A
wrote that this was due to teaching emphasis on simile
and metaphor, whilst 31% wrote that they found thevisual experience to be fun, whilst in group B 52% notedthat the use of images was interesting and 11% that itwas enjoyable. The qualitative percentage differences
between Groups A and B in changing attitudes towards
poetry (and the fact that more students from Group B
were seen to change their mind about poetry) may be
symptomatic of their prior exposure to such texts.

Vocabulary Examination Findings
Our students achieved an average vocabulary
recognition score of 76%, with group A achieving
78% and group B achieving 74%. This suggested thatthey had acquired many of the poetry content-specificwords taught during our course. Once again, the higherscore achieved by group A is likely to be indicative of

Cross-Disciplinary Synthesis in Explicating Texts, pages 109-114
the more literary-suited nature of the class.

Conclusion and Directions for Future
Research
In summary, our triangulated data demonstrated thatthe overall student response to the poetry taught inour course was very positive. However, future research
projects which seek to advance student perceptionof poetry’s ability to improve their language progressshould consider Young and Ohata’s (2005) observations
that student language anxiety can arise through “a lackof self confidence in language proficiency” (Ohata,
2005, p. 14). Student lack of self confidence in thetarget language is a deeply significant factor whenemploying student self assessment quantitative andqualitative scores as a measurement of poetry’s worth
as a tool for improving reading, writing, speaking,grammar and vocabulary acquisition. Subsequent
poetry-related research projects should therefore aim
to distribute poetry post-reading questionnaires atthe beginning of the second semester, after students
have already received their semester 1 poetry-related
vocabulary results and overall reading grades.

References
Aberystwyth University International English
Centre. (2013). Aberystwyth University.
Retrieved from: http://aber.ac.uk/en/media/
departmental/internationalenglishcentre/
englishlanguagerequirements/Compare-IELTS,TOEFL-andTOEIC.pdf
Brumfit, C. (2001). Individual freedom in language
teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University

Press.
Coyle, D, Hood, P, Marsh. (2010). Content andlanguage integrated learning. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Dornyei, Z. (2010). Questionnaires in second language
research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Howatt, A.P.R., & Widdowson, H. (2004). A history
of English language teaching. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Lonergan, J. (1984). Video in language teaching.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Ohata, K. (2005). Potential sources of anxiety forJapanese learners of English: Preliminary caseinterviews with five Japanese college students in
the U.S. TESL-EJ 9(3). Retrieved from: http://
www.cc.kyoto-su. ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej35/
a3.pdfParkinson, B., & Reid Thomas, H. (2000). Teaching
literature in a second language. Edinburgh,
Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
Turner, J.M.W. (1839). The fighting temeraire. The
National Gallery. Retrieved from: http://www.
nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/joseph-mallordwilliam-turner-the-fighting-temeraire
Wordsworth, W. (1996). Daffodils (poem). In Wu,
D. (ed.), Romanticism: An Anthology (p. 281).
Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
(Original work published in 1807)
Wordsworth, W. (1996). The world is too much withus (poem). In Wu, D. (ed.), Romanticism: An
Anthology (p. 274). Oxford, England: Blackwell
Publishers Ltd. (Original work published in
1807)

Author’s Biography:
Neil Addison teaches at Meiji Gakuin University. His research interests include teaching
English literature to EFL students and scaffolding a critical approach towards media content.
<Naddison34@yahoo.co.uk>
Neil Conway teaches at Musashino University, Tokyo. His research interests include Extensive
Reading, classroom management and the role of literature in ESL. <Conway.neil@gmail.com>

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

113

Addison & Conway

Appendix
Pre- Reading Poetry Questionnaire

1) What is your opinion of poetry?
For example:a) interesting b) easy c) okay d) difficult e) boring

What areas of language does poetry help with? [5 = A lot; 1 = Not at all]
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Grammar [5 = A lot; 1 = Not at all]
Vocabulary [5 = A lot; 1 = Not at all]Reading Comprehension [5 = A lot; 1 = Not at all]Writing [5 = A lot; 1 = Not at all]Speaking [5 = A lot; 1 = Not at all]

Post Reading Poetry Questionnaire

1) What is your opinion of poetry?
For example:a) interesting b) easy c) okay d) difficult e) boring

What areas of language does poetry help with? [5 = A lot; 1 = Not at all]
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Grammar [5 = A lot; 1 = Not at all]
Vocabulary [5 = A lot; 1 = Not at all]Reading Comprehension [5 = A lot; 1 = Not at all]Writing [5 = A lot; 1 = Not at all]Speaking [5 = A lot; 1 = Not at all]7) Have you changed your mind about poetry on this course?
8) If so, why?

114 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

CT LiLT SDD Forum: Creativity, criticalthinking and language learning

Tara McIlroy David A. Gann
Kanda University ofInternational Studies
Tara.mcilroy@gmail.com

Tokyo University of
ScienceDawn Kobayashi
Onomichi City University

Jane JoritzNakagawa
Literature in Language
Teaching SIG

In this forum shared themes related to all three SIGs were discussed. David Gann talked about
how critical thinking and creativity are related within a widely accepted framework of generalthinking skills. Jane Nakagawa discussed learner diversity, creativity, and critical thinking in theclassroom. Dawn Kobayashi made connections between creativity in language learning and drama.
Tara McIlroy talked about selecting poems and short literary texts for discussion and debate inuniversity content-based classes. A discussion on models of critical thinking, creativity and literarytexts followed the individual presentations.
このフォーラムでは、上記の３つのテーマに沿っての講義が展開された。
デイビッド・ガン氏
は、批判する力と創造性は、どのように一般的な思考の技術に関係しているかを講義した。
ジェーン・ナカガワ氏は詩、多角的な知能、スピーチ、演劇、そして討論についての紹介をした。
ドーン・コバヤシ氏は、演劇を通した言語学習から創造性について関連付けた。
タラ・マ
キロイ氏は、話し合いや討論を大学の授業でするために用いるとよいと思われる詩や短編の文学作品を選ぶことについて講義した。批判的に考える力と創造性と文学のモデルについての話し合いは、個人のプレゼンテーションの後に記されている。

*

Introduction

In this forum, shared themes related to all three SIGs
were discussed. David Gann talked about how criticalthinking and creativity are related within a widely
accepted framework of general thinking skills. Jane
Nakagawa introduced poetry, multiple intelligences,and speech, drama and debate. Dawn Kobayashi madeMcIlroy, T., Joritz-Nakagawa, J., Kobayashi, D., &Gann, D., (2014). CT LiLT SDD Forum: Creativity,
critical thinking and language learning. In R.
Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan(Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp.
102-123). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

connections between creativity in language learningand drama. Tara McIlroy talked about selecting poems
and short literary texts for discussion and debate inuniversity content-based classes. A discussion onmodels of critical thinking, creativity and literary texts
followed the individual presentations.

Critical Thinking and Creativity in a
Framework of General Thinking Skills
David A. Gann
In discussions about critical thinking since CT
SIG was established, a common issue has been theboundary between critical and creative thinking. Most
The 2012 Pan-SIG Conference Proceedings

115

McIlroy, Joritz-Nakagawa, Kobayashi, & Gann
Table 1
Relationships between micro and macro skills (Angeli, 2010, p. 7)

Relationships between Micro and Macro Skill
MACRO SKILLS
Problem Solving

Decision Making

Critical Thinking

Response

Sound argument,
proof, theory

Creative Thinking

MICRO SKILLS
Causation
Transformations
Relationships
Classifications
Qualifications

OUTPUT

Solution to a
problem

New meaning,
aestheticallypleasing results

teachers are not acquainted with taxonomical modelsof cognition and so understandably take an inductive
approach, examining artifacts (literary texts, works
of art, architecture etc.) and inferring observablequalities they believe result from critical thinking andcreative thinking. It is sometimes the case that people
are concerned with what they perceive as a dichotomy
between critical thinking and creative thinking; they
understand the need for critical thinking instruction,
but are concerned that critical thinking, which they
may regard as negative or constraining, can operate at
the expense of creative thinking development (Fisher,
2001, p. 13). Perhaps what is needed in education

them to fall. Composition is a balance between free
thinking at one end of the spectrum and goal directed
thinking at the other end. Writers must be free todaydream at times and at other times must be able tobear rhetorical norms in mind (Kellogg, R.T., 1994,
pp.10-11). In some cases, unraveling and separating
the two threads of critical and creative thinking may
be quite simple.
Metaphor is frequently invoked as an example ofcreative thinking. However, under closer scrutiny, thekind of cognition (transformations) required to link
two incongruent elements—such as “a lover’s smile”
and “a spring day”—falls within the boundary shared

is not only more critical thinking instruction, butcourse design based on a better understanding of therelationship between critical and creative thinking.
In writing a novel, critical thinking may be thoughtof as the framework in which creative thinking takes
form and which also constrains that creative energy. The
convention of cause-and-effect may be stretched, but
not past the breaking point. Characters must maintaincertain core qualities. They must remain within the
categories into which the writer initially places themand into which the reader might reasonably expect

by both creative thinking and critical thinking (Angeli,
2010, p. 6). Some people consequently reposition toassert that critical and creative thinking are essentiallythe same thing. This is neither satisfying nor helpful.
The design of wine glasses provides an exampleof how critical and creative thinking are not so easily
unraveled. Most people can appreciate the delicate
form of wine glasses and undoubtedly creativity is
involved in their design. From the terminology wemight guess the form is a kind of metaphor for a flower.
Wine is poured into the bulb and wine is referred to as

116 The 2012 Pan-SIG Conference Proceedings

CT LiLT SDD Forum, pages 115-123
Table 2Distribution of micro-skills across macro-skills. (Angeli, 2010, p. 6)

A Model of General Thinking Skills
1. Causation
Establishing cause and effect, assessment:
Prediction, Inferences, Evaluations, Judgement
2. Transformations
Relating known to unknown characteristics, creating meanings:
Analogies, Metaphors, Logical Induction
3. Relationships
Detecting regular operations:
Parts and Wholes, Patterns, Analysis and Synthesis,
Sequences and Order, Logical Deductions
4. Classification
Determining common qualities:
Similarities and Differences, Grouping and Sorting, Comparisons,Either/Or Distinctions
5. Qualifications
Finding unique characteristics:
Units of Basic Identity, Definitions, Facts, Problem/Task Recognition

having a delicate bouquet. The form of the wine glass
also has a function. A difference in temperature affects
flavor and other qualities. For that reason, wine glasses
are made with a stem, (another flower metaphor) the
function of which is to avoid heat transfer from thepalm of one’s hand to the wine (Billing, 2008, p. 69).
Working backwards from the design of the artifact tothe cognition of production can lead to guessing about
the roles of critical and creative thinking. Rather thanwork from an artifact back to the cognition, a more

first thing to note is that the question regarding theboundary between critical and creative thinking was
earlier framed as something of an oversimplification.
The question itself contains a false dichotomy thatfails to take into account problem solving anddecision making. Table 1 also shows that the four
major skills are not undifferentiated skills, but rather
skill sets composed of micro skills and that, excepting
qualifications, none of the micro skills is unique to any
single macro skill. (Table 2 provides definitions of theeffective approach may be to forego talk of artifacts
altogether and define critical and creative thinking interms of skill sets.
Table 1 and Table 2 are based on taxonomies ofBloom (1956) and Guilford (1967) (in Angeli, 2010,
pp. 6-7). These provide a good entry point for anyone
interested in this issue. How do such taxonomies speak
to educators responsible for curriculum and course
design? What do they say about improving efficiency
in teaching critical thinking to liberal arts students
teaching creative writing at a college of science? The

terms used in Table 1.) Note also that between any
two macro skills there are areas of overlap and nonoverlap. This observation can be a significant aid to our
curriculum and course design.
In view of students’ abilities, this taxonomy
can recommend focusing on some micro skills anddeemphasizing others. Although transformations
and relationships are an important part of criticalthinking, many liberal arts students will have likely
already developed micro skills in the creative macroskill set. Teachers can then avoid redundancy in
The 2012 Pan-SIG Conference Proceedings

117

McIlroy, Joritz-Nakagawa, Kobayashi, & Ganntheir course design. It may also be expected thatthose students will have not fully developed skills in
identifying causation and classification. Accordingly,
teachers may wish to provide lessons that focus on
these skills. Science students likewise may not needdevelopment in transformations and relationships
but may benefit from lessons on qualifications and theability to recognize or form new and novel meanings.
Understanding critical and creative thinking in termsof the underlying overlapping and non-overlapping
micro skills dismantles the perceived polarity between
critical and creative thinking. It can also help educators
avoid redundancy in course design and better meet
students’ domain-specific needs.

Learner differences and multiple
intelligences theory
Jane Joritz-Nakagawa
Jane Joritz-Nakagawa discussed the importance oflearner (and teacher; see Nakagawa, 2004) differences
and the usefulness of Gardner’s multiple intelligences(MI) theory (Gardner 1993, 1999 a &b) and Jungian
psychological type theory ( Jung, 1976) along withtransformative learning (Cranton, 1994) in planningcourses and lessons with the goal of reaching diverse
learners.
Cranton (1994) believes learner personalities
affect the way students think and learn, and that these
individual characteristics need to be taken into accountwhen teaching critical thinking; Lawrence (1996)
and Fairhurst and Fairhurst (1995) link Jungian
psychological types to learner preferences for classroom
activities and Silver, Strong and Perini (2000) attempt
to account for learner diversity by combining theMI and Jungian psychological type models. A chartfrom Silver, Strong & Perini (2000) distributed by
Nakagawa illustrated four artworks, each by a different
artist, which represent four distinct types of “cognitivecore” in the Jungian sense: sensing/thinking wasrepresented by an Ansel Adams photograph; sensing/feeling by a Norman Rockwell painting, intuitive/
feeling by a Picasso painting; and intuitive/thinking
by an Escher painting. In this way Silver et al. (2000)
attempt to demonstrate that one multiple-intelligence

118 The 2012 Pan-SIG Conference Proceedings(in this case visual-spatial intelligence) can vary in its
expression in accordance with Jungian psychologicaltype theory. Nakagawa commented that all artworks(including poems; Nakagawa teaches poetry among
other subjects) could not be so easily categorized
but that psychological type theory and multiple
intelligences theory, despite well known criticisms of
both, have value in reminding teachers that learners
will have different preferences in terms of learningmaterials and strategies which teachers can keep inmind to stimulate, value and challenge diverse learners.
Gardner (1993) suggests that critical thinking
should be taught/practiced relative to specific domains
because “the kind of thinking required to analyze
a fugue is simply different from that involved inobserving and categorizing different animal species, or
scrutinizing a poem, or debugging a program . . . . “ (p.
44). He suggests (1999a) MI can be used by teachers/
learners to “introduce topics or provide powerful
points of entry” (p. 186); present analogies to link theunfamiliar with the familiar; and to provide “multiple
representations of the central or core ideas” (p. 187)
of a topic. He also suggests (1993, pp. 42-44) thatmemory may be tied to the MI vs. a separate ability,
citing neuropsychological evidence for this belief.
Cranton (1994) cites a model of personaltransformation also discussed in Mezirow et al (2000)
that suggests personal transformation begins with a“disorienting dilemma” when a person encounters new
information which conflicts with an earlier formed
belief. If what provokes critical thinking -- the triggers
in trigger events that lead, optimally, to critical thinking-- are different for each person then to provide various
kinds of “triggers” (materials and tasks) in a classroom
appears wise as a way of promoting critical thinking.
Nakagawa stated that when she made an effort
to include a broad range of MI and Jungian typerelated materials (e.g. songs, poems, film, academic
writings, statistical charts, etc.) and activities andused transformative learning pedagogical ideas
in her courses together with cooperative learning(Cranton refers to cooperative learning but for amore detailed overview, see Sharan, 1999) effective
learning according to student self-reports and teacher
observation, including in challenging content courses

CT LiLT SDD Forum, pages 115-123
such as American History, Gender and Society,and Introduction to American Poetry, as well as inrequired EFL courses, took place. She also found via
course evaluations that these courses were very wellreceived by students. She further discovered thatstudents began to integrate MI in an unpromptedfashion in meaningful ways; for example students
would make posters, drawings and placards, or add orcompose music or sound effects, for use during theirspeeches, role plays and debates without being asked
to do so or would illustrate their journals etc. in waysthat enhanced their meaning and/or aided audiencecomprehension. In content courses, students werepermitted to determine the form of response to weekly
themes and readings in their journals (e.g. via writing
a poem or dialogue; composing a speech, debate,
comic or song; preparing a brief research report, etc.).
Responses varied by student but also student responses
changed over the term; the results were gratifying forstudents and teacher. The courses concluded with oral
and written research reports; written reports were read
only by the teacher except for the sharing of drafts withpeers and the oral reports were designed as a way forstudents to share the knowledge they had gained withother students.

Creativity through Drama in
Language Learning
Dawn Kobayashi
Dawn Kobayashi discussed how drama, specifically
drama techniques, can be used to develop students’creative thinking. As Pope and Swann argue creativity
does not exclusively mean the elite creativity of
exceptional artists (2011, pp. 5-7). This selective viewof creativity, often called Big C creativity (Craft, Jeffrey& Leibling, 2001), leads people to believe that they are
not creative. Research into everyday creativity argues
that we are all creative and use language in uniquely
creative ways in everyday interactions (see Kaufman
and Sternberg, 2010; Carter, 2004). The psychologists
Kaufman and Sternberg (2010, p. xiii) state thatcreativity is: 1. Something new, different, innovative,
2. High quality, and 3. Appropriate. Creativity has also
been defined as entailing change or transformation(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 28) and should create theneed to make, create, imagine, produce or design anew
(Feldhusen, 2006, p. 137).
Kaufman and Beghetto’s (2009) four levels ofcreativity present creativity as a gaugeable skill. From
this model it can be seen that although Big C creativity,
the legendary type that people are either born withor not, may not be attainable for all students; there
is no reason why through the use of activities such as
drama techniques (hereafter DTs) that students may
not progress from lower to higher levels of creativity.
Beghetto uses the analogy of a jazz pianist to illustrate
the distinctions:
1. Big C – legendary creativity, ex. Fats Waller
2. Pro C – professional creativity, ex. Professional
jazz pianist
3. Little c – everyday creativity, ex. Accomplishedamateur jazz pianist
4. Mini c – interpretive creativity, ex. Young player
just discovering jazz riffs(Adapted from Beghetto, 2010, pp. 455-456)
DTs are activities that were developed in thetheater to help actors gain deeper understanding ofa play’s characters, situation and background story.
These activities have been selected and/or adapted
for use in the language classroom (see Spolin, 1986;
Maley & Duff, 2005). Activities that a teacher could
use might include: tableaux, hot-seating, and choral
reading. As DTs are not intended for performance, thefocus is on the process of developing the drama rather
than the finished product. Additionally, DTs often
revolve around some conflict or tension that must be
resolved. How the ‘problem’ will be resolved is up to
the participants, each problem having multiple possible
solutions. This structure is very similar to creative
thinking exercises where students are presented witha problem and must produce as many solutions as
possible. The Torrance test of creativity (Torrance,1966) is still one of the most common assessments ofcreativity, many of the tasks are surprising similar to
the theatre games and drama techniques devised by thelikes of Spolin, 1986; Maley and Duff, 2005; Swale,
The 2012 Pan-SIG Conference Proceedings

119

McIlroy, Joritz-Nakagawa, Kobayashi, & Gann
2009. For example: product improvement, unusual
uses, and just suppose.
Finally DTs in the language classroom foster
creative, cognitive function. Drama techniques act
as stimuli for students’ creative and interpretative
thinking, they function as the starting points fromwhich students may depart to multiple potential end
points. Language learning and creativity are synergic:
Acquiring knowledge about the rules of language
enables creative thought, and thinking creatively
helps students make new linguistic connections
and test out theories of language. It has been argued
that one of the main factors that inhibit creativity inthe classroom is the predominance of IRE: initiate,
respond, evaluate (Beghetto, 2010, p. 450). Within
this framework students soon learn that their role isto answer or respond to the teacher’s questions, which
the teacher will respond to and evaluate. As the teacher
usually has a ‘correct’ answer in mind, students have
few opportunities to explore or express their own
ideas, theories and interpretations of language. Drama
techniques on the other hand positively encourage this.

A creative process to select texts for
EFL classes
Tara McIlroy
In this part of the forum the process of selecting shortcreative texts for classroom introduces some factors toconsider: usability; readability; ambiguity. This shorttalk introduces a process of selecting short creative
texts such as poems and song lyrics for the language
classroom while explaining that rejection of unsuitabletexts is part of the creative process in itself.
Literature, it has been argued, can be useful tomotivate and assist in language learning (Oatley, 2011,
Pope & Swann, 2011). Here the idea of “literature witha small ‘l’” helps moves beyond the traditional view ofclassic the canonical texts of Literature (with a big ‘L’)such as Shakespeare or Dickens (MacRae, 1994). Small‘l’ literature can mean any creative text. In everyday
life, use of puns, alliteration, metaphorical expressions
and jokes are all uses of creative language which reduce
the narrow view of literary language existing only innovels (see Cook, 2000 or Carter, 2004 for detailed

120 The 2012 Pan-SIG Conference Proceedings

explorations of this). This is important when talking
about student responses to texts which may include
creative responses such as writing stories and poems
themselves. The teacher must draw on various sources
to help guide students towards language learning goals.
Selecting short creative texts for classroom use is one
example of a creative process.
Using a process to select some texts and rejectothers follows the “creativity is subtraction” mantra(Kleon, 2012), or what Keith Oatley calls “creative
construction” (Oatley, 2011, p. 55). Kleon states that
it is just as important to decide what to keep as it is
to decide what to leave out. This conveniently gives
the teacher room to make choices appropriate to
the learning goals of students as well as the teachingcontext.
Pablo Picasso’s suggestion that “Art is theft” (quoted
in Kleon, preface) is echoed in T.S. Eliot’s further
explanation that “immature poets imitate; mature poets
steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets
make it into something better, or at least something
different” (ibid.). One way of understanding this could
be to say that creativity is something that all teachers
should do for the improvements that they can bring toany project. As Bruce Springsteen suggested recently,
nothing is original, that is to say we are living in a “postauthentic world” (NPR Music, 2012). Particularly
in a teaching environment, the idea that originality
is key to students’ creative work can be prohibitive.
An alternative, more inclusive view is required andnecessary. Creative work does not need to be ‘original’,and in many situations it rarely is completely new.
First, the question of usability is introduced as partof the process in selecting texts. Is the text convenientand practical to use? Can it be adapted easily? How
does it fit in with the needs and goals of the learners?
These are all questions to consider when looking at theusability of a text. Usability is synonymous with theideas user-friendly and learnability. The teacher shouldmake a judgement about this based on the needs andwants of the learners. Working with students of any
age, teachers are often required to make judgementsfrom their understanding of content, appropriate text
type, genre, and interest. This is the first step in thecreative process of choosing what to select and what toCT LiLT SDD Forum, pages 115-123
exclude in a course.
Reading research has investigated at length what
is meant by readability and the complex relationshipbetween texts and readers. One example of this is
Stanley Fish’s concept of the interpretative community
which suggests that groups interpret ideas collectively,
sometimes independently of the text itself (Fish, 1980).
Readability across genres has shown that reading
creative texts such as poetry requires more effort
than reading transactional texts (Hanauer, 2001).
Also, creativity in literary texts should be carefully
considered by the teacher (Pope & Swann, 2011). Two
simple aspects to readability should be consideredby the teacher: 1) difficulty at the word level and 2)
difficulty at the sentence level. Examples focusing on
readability would be to conduct analysis at the wordlevel, look closely at unusual grammar constructions
at the sentence level or compare text types on similar
topics.
The third point in this discussion related toambiguity and its usefulness as a concept in looking for
multiple meanings and encouraging original thinking.
Ambiguity is generally thought as a possibility of thebeing understood in two or more ways. Discussing
the impact of Practical Criticism (Richards, 1929,
Empson, 1966) and inspired by the interesting pointsof ambiguity in popular songs and poems brings theunderstanding that ambiguity can encourage language
learning because it presents multiple-perspectives.
Looking at a text’s potential for ambiguity can help toanswer these questions and confirm the suitability ofcertain texts for use in EFL classes.
In summary, for those considering various steps
in the creative process of selecting texts and rejecting
others, a creative process is recommended. Primarily
the process of selection itself can be creative. Also
usability, readability and ambiguity are useful concepts
to consider in the selection of texts. Doing this ina strategic way encourages development of learner
materials, for example through using an online
vocabulary profiling website or other source to gauge
difficulty level. Finally, by focusing on ambiguity,
learners can be surprised and challenged to think about
new opinions while introducing multiple perspectives
on a text.

Conclusions
The Critical Thinking, Speech, Drama and Debateand Literature in Language Teaching SIGs worked
together in this forum for the first time. In exploringa wide range of topics in a short time the speakers andforum participants looked in depth at issues relating totheir interests. While at times the speakers had differing
opinions about their topics and interpretations, ashared desire for open discussion was evident.

References
Angeli, C. (2010). Instructional Strategies for Teaching
Critical Thinking. Saarbrücken, Germany:
Lambert Academic Publishing.
Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom.
In R. J. Sternberg & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp 447-463).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Billing, M., Öström, Å., & Lagerbielke, E. (2008).
The importance of wine glasses for enhancing themeal experience from the perspectives of craft,design and science. Journal of Foodservice, 19(1),69-73.
Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art ofcommon talk. London, England: Routledge.
Craft, A., Jeffrey, B. & Leibling, M. (Eds.) (2001).
Creativity in education. London, England:Continuum.
Cook, G. (2000) Language play, language learning.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and promoting
transformative learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Csikszenymihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and thepsychology of discovery and invention. New York,
NY: Harper Perennial.
Empson, W. (1966). Seven types of ambiguity. New
York, NY: New Directions Publishing. (Original
work published in 1930).
Fairhurst, A. M. and Fairhurst, L. L. (1995). Effective
teaching, effective learning: making the personality
connection in your classroom. Palo Alto, CA:
Davies Black.
The 2012 Pan-SIG Conference Proceedings

121

McIlroy, Joritz-Nakagawa, Kobayashi, & Gann
Feldhusen, J. F. (2006). The role of knowledge
base in creative thinking. In J. S. Kaufman &J. Baer (Eds.) Creativity and reason in cognitive
development. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Fish, S. (1980). Literature in the reader: Affective
stylistics. In Is there a text in this class? The
authority of interpretive communities (pp. 21–67).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
(Original work published 1970).
Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking: An introduction.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: the theory
in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999a). The disciplined mind. New
York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Gardner, H. (1999b). Intelligence reframed: multiple
intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Hanauer D. (2001) The task of poetry reading andsecond language learning. Applied Linguistics 22(3). P.295-323.
Jung, C. G. (1976). Psychological types. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kaufman, F. S. & Sternberg, R. J. (2010) Prefacein R. J. Sternberg & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. xiii-xv)
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Kaufman, J. C. & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big
and little: The four C model of creativity. Reviewof General Psychology 13, 112.
Kellogg, R.T. (1994). The psychology of writing. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kleon, A. (2012) How to Steal Like an Artist: 10things nobody told you about being creative. New
York, NY: Workman.
Lawrence, G. (1996). People types & tiger stripes.
Gainesville, FL: CAPT.

122 The 2012 Pan-SIG Conference Proceedings

MacRae, J. (1994) Literature with a small ‘l’.
Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Maley, A. & Duff, A. (2005). Drama techniques.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Mezirow, J. & Associates (2000). Learning astransformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Nakagawa, J. (2004). Individual differences andteaching style. TESL Reporter 37(1); 42-56.
Oatley, K. (2011). Such stuff as dreams: The psychology
of fiction. London, England: Wiley-Blackman.
Pope, R. & Swann, J. (2011). Introduction: Creativity,
language, literature. In Swann, J., Pope, R. &Carter, R. (Eds.), Creativity in language andliterature: the state of the art. Basingstoke,
England: Palgrave.
Richards, I.A. (1929). Practical criticism: A study ofliterary judgement. London, England: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Sharan, S., Ed. (1999). Handbook of cooperative
learning methods. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Silver, H. F., Strong, R.W., and M. J. Perini, M.J.
(2000). So each may learn: integrating learning
styles and multiple intelligences. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Spolin, V. (1986). Theater games for the classroom: Ateacher’s handbook. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University Press.
NPR Music. (2012). Bruce Springsteen on the meaningof music. Retrieved from <npr.org/blogs/
therecord/2012/03/15/148693171/brucespringsteen-on-the-meaning-of-music.>
Sternberg, R. J. &. Baron, J.B. (1985). A statewide
approach for measuring critical thinking skills.
Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44-48.
Swale, J. (2009) Drama games: For classrooms andworkshops. London, England: Nick Hern Books.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance test of creative
thinking: Technical norms manual. Lexington
MA: Personnel Press.

CT LiLT SDD Forum, pages 115-123

Authors’ Biographies:
Tara McIlroy’s interests include literary reading and world literature in the language classroom.
She is a co-coordinator of the Literature in Language Teaching SIG.
David Gann is Assistant Professor at Tokyo University of Science. He is the Coordinator of the
JALT Critical Thinking SIG. Contact at <david@criticallyminded.com>.
Dawn Kobayashi’s interests include drama as an educational tool and literature in language
teaching. She can be contacted on <kobayashi-dawn@onomichi-u.ac.jp>.
Jane Joritz-Nakagawa was born in the US and has published and presented widely on themes
including learning styles, global issues, content-classes, student-centered pedagogy, and poetry.
She can be contacted via <janenakagawa@yahoo.com>.

The 2012 Pan-SIG Conference Proceedings

123Enriching Short-term Study Abroad Programs

Marcus Otlowski
Kochi University
otlowski@kochi-u.ac.jp

The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology (MEXT) has raised concerns
over the continual decline in the number of Japanese university students electing to study abroad(MEXT, 2011). In an attempt to reverse this decline MEXT is encouraging high schools anduniversities to establish international partnerships, and to promote international exchange
programs. Current research on short-term study abroad programs (STSAP) shows that they canbe an effective way to increase the cultural sensitivity and intercultural proficiency of participating
students (Amuzie & Winke, 2009; Anderson, Lawton, Rexeisen & Hubbard, 2006). However, toincrease students’ “cultural sensitivity” and “intercultural proficiency” through STSAP, programsmust be “appropriately designed and sequenced” ( Jackson, 2008, p. 12). This paper outlines anumber of effective measures implemented in a STSAP to promote greater cultural understandingby increasing students’ participation and interaction with the host culture and target language.
文部科学省は、海外留学を選択する日本人大学生の数が減少を続けていることに対し、危惧を示している (MEXT, 2011)。
この減少に歯止めをかけるため、文部科学省は高等学校や大学に対し、文化理解を促進するような国際連携や国際交流プログラムを設立するよう促している。最近の研究では、「短期留学プログラム (STSAP)」 が参加学生の「文化的感受性」
や「文化間コミュニケーション力」
を高める有用な方法の一つであることが示されてきた (Amuzie & Winke, 2009; Anderson, Lawton, Rexeisen & Hubbard,
2006)。
しかし、STSAPで学生の「文化的感受性」
や「文化間コミュニケーション力」
を高めるためには、プログラムは「適切に企画され、継続される」ものでなければならない(Jackson, 2008) 。本論文では、長期継続されたSTSAPで、学生が訪問国の文化と積極的に関わり、学習言語での交流を活発にすることで、より深い文化理解を促進させる取り組みについて、いくつかの有効な方法を示す。

Enriching Short-term Study Abroad
Programs*

The effectiveness of short-term study abroad programs
Otlowski, M. (2014). Enriching short-term study
abroad programs. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks, M.
Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 124-129). Nagoya,Japan: JALT.

*

124 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings(STSAP) on a learner’s linguistic development isinconclusive: “the linguistic benefits of short-term
study abroad programs are unclear” (Amuzie &Winke, 2009, p. 2). Amuzie and Winke’s findings
correspond with other researchers who found limited
improvement in participants’ target language after
returning home (Allen, 2010a; Bennett, 2011). Other
research has pointed out several areas where STSAP
have failed to adequately provide opportunities

Enriching Short-term Study Abroad Programs, pages 124-129
and the environment necessary for participants toeffectively use the target language, thereby, minimizing
any possible improvement in linguistic or pragmaticcompetence (Allen, 2010a; Cadd, 2012; Cubillos &Ilvento, 2012; Jackson, 2008; Wang, 2010).
However, there is a growing body of research thatstrongly suggests that STSAP can have a deep andlong-lasting effect on students’ intercultural awareness(Amuzie & Winke, 2009; Anderson, Lawton, Rexeisen& Hubbard, 2006; Chieffo, 2004; Cubillos & Ilvento,
2012; Salisbury, Umbach, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2009)and on their motivation to continue study (Cadd,
2012; Chieffo, 2004; Cubillos & Ilvento, 2012). As
one of the main aims of STSAP is for participants
to develop “intercultural sensitivity” (Anderson,
Lawton, Rexeisen & Hubbard, 2006, p. 3) and in the
belief that participants with these skills will be able
to effectively operate in the increasingly intertwined
international workplace, then STSAP can be aneffective method to culturally acclimatize and motivate
young Japanese who have recently been described as“inward-orientated” ( Japan Times, 2011, p. 1) and“introverted” (Tanikawa, 2011, p. 1).

Short-term Study Abroad Programs
The interpretation of STSAP greatly varies by
researchers and facilitators of STSAP: programs canbe as long as one semester, or as short as two weeks( Jackson, 2006; Martinsen, 2010; Mills, 2010).
Although specific data on the number of Japanese
undertaking STSAP is not readily available, it is clearthat like other Asian universities, many Japanese
universities are using STSAP as a key component intheir institution’s courses to increase their students
cultural sensitivity ( Jackson, 2006). Current researchshows that STSAP can have a long lasting impact on
the participant’s motivation to continue studying
the target language and on their cultural sensitivity
towards the target culture. (Allen, 2010a; Anderson,
Lawton, Rexeisen & Hubbard, 2006; Cadd, 2012;
Chieffo, 2004; Cubillos & Ilvento, 2012; Jackson,
2006; Mills, 2012). The key caveat for participants toacquire this awareness and knowledge of the target
culture is the STSAP has to be “done right” (Fischer,2009, p. 1). Jackson (2008) believes “appropriately

designed and sequenced” programs can provide theparticipant with the most conducive environment forlearning and interaction to take place (p. 12).
The question for facilitators of STSAP is: How
can we organize an STSAP that is “appropriately
designed and sequenced”, and has enough “intensity”
to maximize the participants interaction in the target
culture using the target language ( Jackson, 2008, p. 12)?
As Cadd (2012) and other researchers have correctly
noted “immersion in another culture cannot guarantee
linguistic and cultural gains” (p.230). Kinginger (2011)succinctly outlines the role of the STSAP coordinatoras “promoting educationally relevant engagement in
the practices of host communities, providing guidancein the interpretation of these practices, and preparing
students to take specific advantage of language
learning opportunities” (p.10). Therefore, facilitators
must take time before, during and after the STSAP todevelop strategies that keep the participants involvedin the target culture and language. The time overseas
is limited but it “offers a different level and type of
language input” (Amuzie & Winke, 2009, p. 366) andtherefore should be used judiciously so that “the course
design and delivery becomes a critical component ofstudent success” (Mills, 2010, p. 3).

Practical Improvements for Intensity
I will now outline a number of suggestions - somecommonsense, some introduced after trial-and-error,
and others instigated after reading current research
on STSAP – for instructors currently involved inorganizing STSAP. Although this STSAP is by nomeans perfect, the preliminary results from my research
have shown positive impact on the participants whilein the host culture and that this impact remained after
their return to Japan (Otlowski, 2009).

Organizing a STSAP
University Courses
In regards to courses, the simplest option for an
ELICOS center is to employ a part-time instructor,
provide them with a classroom for the length of yourstay and ask them to accompany your group on any
university planned excursions as a guide/supervisor. For
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

125Otlowski
the ELICOS managers this causes the least disruption
to the module courses that it usually runs. However,this is not the best option if you want your students
to have a wider exposure to students from a variety ofcultures and a more linguistically diverse environment.
Having classes with only Japanese students, especiallyones that they have come with, is merely replicating
a Japanese university’s English conversation class ina foreign country. There is very little opportunity forstudents to use English in an authentic situation during
their class time. Allen (2010b) points out that thisstyle of program may have your group “integrate into ahost institution yet remain in a peer group with others
sharing their first language” (p.28). Instead it is more
beneficial to have your students placed in classes withother international students. Most universities offer
short module courses that last between four and six
weeks. These modules run throughout the year and so
there are a number of possible starting dates to choose
from. To help with processing and class placement
many universities will allow the STSAP facilitator tocarry out a placement test before departure. This saves
time and allows your students to start their courses
with their new classmates.

Accommodation
For most students the home-stay is one of thehighlights of their time abroad: students have thechance to live with a family, establish friendships, anduse their English in an authentic situation on a daily
basis. However, from personal experience organizing
STSAP, finding home-stays is an ongoing problem formost ELICOS centers in Australia, especially if yourtour is coming in the spring or summer break. To copewith the large demand for homes, many centers ask hostfamilies if they are willing to accept two, sometimes
up to three students. This is good for the host family
and the ELICOS center, but it can significantly reduce
the students’ experience if they are hosted together.
Students in this situation naturally tend to converse
together in Japanese, thereby, denying themselves of theopportunity to use English in the home environment.
Yet, shared home-stays can be a favorable option
when the other hosted students are not from Japan.
Many students find living with other international

126 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

students a unique opportunity to establish friendships
and exchange ideas and opinions. Some of the mostpositive feedback I have received concerning homestay placement has come from students who haveshared a home-stay with other international students.

Factoring in ‘impact’
There are a number of ways to increase what Fry(Fischer, 2009, p.1) has termed “impact” in STSAP.
As students are only overseas for a short time it isnecessary to maximize the opportunities they have tointeract with a variety of native speakers in multiple
situations. Research has shown that it is also importantfor students to spend time reflecting on and discussing
their reactions to the target culture in led discussions
with the study group (Allen, 2010a; Allen, 2010b;
Cadd, 2012). The following are the adjustments madeto my STSAP over the past ten years.

Language Exchange
Although the number of students studying Japanese inAustralian schools has declined by 16% since 2000 (deKrester & Spence-Brown, 2010), at university it is still
one of the most popular language courses. By setting
up a language exchange program with the university’s
language department, students can meet and havemeaningful interaction with students interested inJapan, its language and culture. Students spend half thetime speaking English and the remaining half Japanese.
The study tour coordinators at the ELICOS centerare usually more than willing to help you organize thelanguage exchange if you give them and the university
instructor time to coordinate timetables. Do not
expect to be able to organize this on arrival.

School Visits
Another way to expose your students to a cultural
setting that they are unlikely to find themselves inwithout prior planning is to organize a school visit.
Again ELICOS coordinators are usually very happy toarrange a visit for you, but again you need to request
this in the very early stages of your tour’s planning. If
you have a large group, then you may have to split thegroup for the visit, or organize the visit as a voluntary

Enriching Short-term Study Abroad Programs, pages 124-129
activity. School visits are always popular and are very
educational for students: they must use their English
to interact with students and teachers, and they get the
chance to experience a different educational system
first-hand. If visits are arranged before departure, you
may be able to contact the Japanese language teacher
and discuss what your students will do during their visit.
Students can prepare for this before their departure.

Weekly Meetings
Research has shown that having students reflect
upon their experiences helps them to develop a better
understanding and appreciation for the host culture( Jackson, 2006). It can also provide a safe environment
for students who have had problems adjusting to
the culture, their host family, or difficulties with thelanguage to discuss their problems with the group. The
meetings are usually arranged each week, with time put
aside in each meeting to discuss issues that may havearisen, and to arrange and report ontasks. This time provides valuable feedback for the
STSAP facilitator on how the group is adjusting totheir time in the L2 culture and provides time forthe facilitator to consult with students who may be
struggling to adjust to their new situation.

Local Research
To develop a deeper understanding of the hostculture and the local history, I have students carryout and present on simple community-based research
projects. Students are assigned a partner or to a small
group to research in detail a historically or culturally
significant feature in the host city. In many cases
students will visit these places in the role of a tourist
but having them prepare a report for the weekly groupmeeting gets them to be more involved in the local
culture. Also getting students to interview someone
they have met has been a very effective way of deepening
the students’ knowledge of the host culture (Cadd,2012). In the past, I have had students interview their
host families, their teachers, neighbors, craftspeople
and local shop owners.

Journal/Report
All students must prepare a final report about theirtime abroad. These reports are then collated andpublished by my university’s department. Having thestudents keep a journal during their stay is an effective
way for the students to reflect on what is happeningaround them (Santanello & Wolff, 2007; Wutrich,2008) while also providing them with material thatthey can use in their final reports. All ELICOS centers
have well-equipped computer centers that students
can use for assignments or email. Getting students
to use online word processing applications, such as
Google Drive, allows them to leave their laptops athome, thereby saving weight, gives them access to their
documents at all times, and allows them to create digitalpresentations. It also allows the student to share their
document with the facilitator, thereby, establishing analternate method of feedback and communication.
However, the document and sharing facility should all
be set up before leaving Japan, as well as familiarizing
the students with Google Drive functions.

Pre-departure & Debriefing Sessions
An essential element in creating intensity in a STSAP
is keeping students actively engaged not only physically
but also mentally in the host culture. Providing
students with background information on where they
are studying, local history, points of interest, and/or
current news relating to the host culture or area is themost effective way to start students’ involvement. Predeparture meetings can be used not only to organize
travel details but also to have students learn about
the host culture before departure. On return, holding
debriefing and follow-up sessions also helps students
to make more sense of their experience. I usually havestudents present their reports to the group and followup with an open discussion. In the past I held informal
photo exchange meetings that were another good way
for students to get together in a relaxed environmentand discuss their time abroad. However, with thepervasive use of cell phones students now exchange
photographs digitally and as a result the sharing
experience has changed.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings127

Otlowski

Conclusion
From my experience of organizing STSAP and taking
students abroad, I fully agree with the conclusions
made by the growing number of researchers that
STSAP are beneficial to students as they encourageinteraction and reflection on the host culture thatcannot be replicated in the home institution. Students
return with not only a new understanding of the target
culture but also a new perspective and understandingof their own culture. Having to explain about theirown culture and discuss world issues with their hostfamily and fellow international students challenges
students to become better communicators of their own
culture, and motivates them to study the L2. Although
linguistic gains and competency may be nominal,
students come away from the program with a greater
cultural sensitivity and awareness (Anderson, Lawton,
Rexeisen & Hubbard, 2006). However, these positive
aspects of STSAP will not come about if programs
are not organized to maximize input and interaction
with the surrounding culture and language. Poorly
planned programs may have negative consequences onparticipants. Rather than being actively engaged in thetarget culture, students may become withdrawn andunwilling to interact in the target language ( Jackson,
2008; Toyokawa & Toyokawa, 2002). The need to planfor “intensity” is paramount.
I hope the suggestions presented in this paper will
be of use to those instructors who are involved in, orare contemplating organizing a STSAP. I acknowledge
that this not a comprehensive list of ways to engage
students in the target culture while overseas, and that
there are many other possible measures that could betaken. Hopefully, other facilitators of STSAP will
share their experiences and activities so that future
STSAP can be furthered improved, thereby, enhancing
the educational and cultural value of the STSAP tostudents.

References
Allen, H. (2010a). Interactive contact as linguistic
affordance during short-term study abroad: Mythor reality? Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journalof Study Abroad, 19, 1-26.

128 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Allen, H. (2010b). Language-learning motivation
during short-term study abroad: An activity
theory perspective. Foreign Language
Annals, 43(1), 27-49. doi: 10.1111/j.19449720.2010.01058.x
Amuzie, G., & Winke, P. (2009). Changes in language
learning beliefs as a result of study abroad.
System, 37(3), 366-379. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.011
Anderson, P., Lawton, L., Rexeisen, R. & Hubbard,
A. (2006). Short-term study abroad andintercultural sensitivity: A pilot study.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations,30(4), 12. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijintrel.2005.10.004
Bennett, R. (2011). Is linguistic ability variation inpaired oral language testing problematic? ELT
Journal, 66(3), 337-346. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccr066
Cadd, M. (2012). Encouraging students to engage
with native speakers during study abroad.
Foreign Language Annals, 45(2), 229-245. doi:
10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01188.x
Chieffo, L. & Griffiths, L. (2004). Large-scaleassessment of student attitudes after a shortterm study abroad program. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 13.
Cubillos, J., & Ilvento, T. (2012). The impact of study
abroad on students’ self-efficacy perceptions.
Foreign Language Annals, 45(4), 494-511. doi:
10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12002.x
de Krester, A. & Spence-Brown, R. (2010). The
current state of Japanese language education inAustralian schools. Education Services Australia
Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.asiaeducation.
edu.au/verve/_resources/JapanReport.pdf.
Fischer, K. (2009). Short study-abroad trips can havelasting effect, research suggests., The Chronicleof Higher Education, Retrieved from http://
chronicle.com/daily/2009/02/12191n.htm
Jackson, J. (2006). Ethnographic preparation for
short-term study and residence in the target
culture. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 30(1), 77-98. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.004
Jackson, J. (2008). Intercultural learning on short-term

Enriching Short-term Study Abroad Programs, pages 124-129
sojourns. Paper presented at the International
Education Conference, Berlin, Germany.
Japan Times. (2012). Money to study abroad, The
Japan Times, Retrieved from http://www.
japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2012/04/01/
editorials/money-to-study-abroad/#.
URmzuaXt4m8
Kinginger, C. (2011). Enhancing language learningin study abroad. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 31, 58-73.
Martinsen, R. (2010). Short-term study abroad:
Predicting changes in oral skills. Foreign
Language Annals, 43(3), 504-530. doi:
10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01095.x
MEXT. (2011). Five proposals and specific measures fordeveloping proficiency in English for international
communication. Retrieved from http://www.
mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/
afieldfile/2012/07/09/1319707_1.pdf.
Mills, L., Deviney, D. & Ball, B. (2010). Short-term
study abroad programs: A diversity of opinions.
The Journal of Human Resources and Adult
Learning, 6(2), 13.
Mills, L., Vrba, T. & Deviney, D. (2012). Enriching
the short-term study abroad program: A casestudy. Proceedings of American Society of Businessand Behavioral Sciences, 19(1), 112-130.
Otlowski, M. (2009). Short-term Study Abroad
Programs: Enhancing the cultural andcommunication experience. Research Report of
the Department of International Studies, 10, pp.
31-44.
Salisbury, M., Umbach, P., Paulsen, M., & Pascarella,
E. (2009). Going global: Understanding the
choice process of the intent to study abroad.
Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 119-143.
doi: 10.1007/s11162-008-9111-x
Santanello, C. & Wolff, L. (2007). Designingassessment into a study abroad course. Frontiers:
The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15,
189-195.
Tanikawa, M. (2011). Fewer Japanese students
studying abroad, International Herald
Tribune, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.
com/2011/02/21/world/asia/21iht-educLede21.
html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Toyokawa, T. & Toyokawa, N. (2002). Extracurricular
activities and the adjustment of Asianinternational students: A study of Japanese
students. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 26(4), 363-379.
Wang, C. (2010). Toward a second language
socialization perspective: Issues in study abroadresearch. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 50-63.
doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01059.x
Wutrich, T. R. (2008). Study abroad revisited. ADFL
Bulletin, 40(1), 37-40.

Author’s Biography:
Marcus Otlowski works in the Department of International Studies at Kochi University. His
research interests are study abroad programs, task-based learning, content-based instruction, andmaterial development.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings129

Facilitating Learning Shifts throughMilton Model Language Patterns

Brian Cullen

Brad Deacon

Sarah Mulvey

Ben Backwell

Nagoya Institute of Technology Nanzan University Nagoya City University Nagoya City University
cullen.brian@gmail.com
This paper taps into the fields of hypnotherapy and neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), andmore specifically the language patterns of the Milton Model (e.g. Bandler & Grinder, 1975a,
1975b, 1976; Grinder, DeLozier & Bandler, 1977), as tools for stimulating EFL learners’ reading
and writing speeds. The paper begins and ends with a story that frames the importance of effective
communication in the classroom. Next it offers an overview of various Milton Model language
patterns, including short explanations of each pattern and contextualized examples as they wereused in each study within this paper. Then a brief outline of the two studies, the first on timed
reading and the second on timed writing, are included together with their respective results. Finally,various conclusions are provided that support the usage of language patterns as tools to increase
students’ reading and writing speeds. Ultimately, we will show that language patterns do have apositive impact on student’s ability to learn more effectively.
これは，催眠術と神経言語プログラミング(NLP) の分野の論文です．英語を学ぶ人
が，素早く読み書きできるようになるための道具として，
とても特殊な，
ミルトンモデルの言語パターン(e.g. Bandler & Grinder, 1975a, 1975b, 1976; Grinder, DeLozier &Bandler, 1977)について述べます。始めと終わりには，英語を学ぶ教室内でのコミュニケーションがどれほど大切か，背景を述べます。次に，いくつかのミルトンモデルの言語パターンについて，概要を述べます．
それぞれのパターンに対する簡単な説明と，
この論文中の各研究事項に，
どのように使用されているのか，例を用いて説明します。
さらに，二つの研究について，概要を述べます．始めはタイムドリーディングについて，次に，タイムドライティ
ングについてです．
それぞれの結果が，影響し合っていることを説明します。
そして，読み書きの速度を上げる道具として，言語パターンの使用を推奨するような結論が，多数でる事を
述べます。
最終的に，
次の事が分かります．
言語パターンは，生徒の学習能力に良い影響をもたします．言語パターンによって，生徒はより効率的に英語を学習できるのです．

Once upon a time, there was a teacher named John*

Cullen, B., Deacon, B., Mulvey S. & Backwell, B.,(2014). Facilitating learning shifts through milton
model language patterns. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 102-137). Nagoya,Japan: JALT.

*

130 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

who worked at a big school with many teachers. One
day, one of the other teachers, Sally, happened to passby John’s classroom on the way to her own class. She
glanced in the window and saw John giving a very
dynamic lesson from the front of the room. He was
gesturing excitedly with his hands, writing energeticallyon the board, and talking in a loud and cheerful voice.
But when Sally looked a little deeper into the classroom,

Facilitating Learning Shifts, pages 130-137
she noticed something a little strange. There were no
students in the classroom at all. Naturally, Sally became
a little curious! She gently knocked on the door andwent inside.
Startled when he heard the knock, John looked
around and said, “Sally, I’m teaching right now. Please
don’t disturb me.”“John,” Sally said, “John, I’m sorry. It’s just that I
can’t help noticing that there are no students here.”“Yes, thaaat’s riiight,” John drawled. “None of thestudents came this morning.”“Well,” Sally continued, “I noticed that too, andyet I saw that you were still teaching.” She then waitedin stunned amazement for some simple explanation.
***
You might be curious too about John’s next words,
and it is good to be curious about how language canshape experience because that means you can begin
to consider how a teacher’s language in the classroom
can shape a learning environment. You may even be
thinking now of a particular teacher in your past who
was a lot more gifted in their classroom communication
than John in the story above.

Background
Effective teachers carefully use words and language
patterns that influence students positively in theirlearning, but what kind of language patterns are
effective? In this paper, we look to the fields of
hypnotherapy and neuro-linguistic programming(NLP), and more specifically the language patternsof the Milton Model (e.g. Bandler & Grinder, 1975a,
1975b, 1976; Grinder, DeLozier & Bandler, 1977)
in order to answer this question. NLP postulates thatthe most effective way to learn how to do a skill or toteach it to others is to model excellent performers ofthat particular skill. In the 1970s, the founders of NLP,
Richard Bandler and John Grinder (1977), began tomodel excellent communicators. One of the people
they chose to model closely was the hypnotherapist,
Milton Erickson. Erickson used his knowledge of
linguistic skills as a means to motivate people to learn
or to change in positive ways by carefully choosing
the words that he used. This resulted in the language

patterns that we now refer to as the Milton Model.
As users and teachers of language, we believe that
there is much that we can learn from this modelling of
excellence in communication.
Milton Model patterns are widely used in sales(O’Connor, 2001) and therapy (McDermott & Jago,
2001), and have come to be used in various other areas
including education (Dilts, 1983; Cullen & Mulvey
2012; Cullen, Deacon, Backwell & Mulvey, 2013).
Although these language patterns originated in thefield of hypnotherapy, they should not be confusedwith therapeutic tools or as a means to put students
to sleep. On the contrary, hypnosis simply means theability to create facilitative states in ourselves and inothers through using language patterns that suggest
useful internal representations. Hammerman (1979)
concluded that light hypnosis can be a valuable toolfor educational purposes in general and for language
learning in particular. In addition, Revell & Norman(1997) showed that the power of language patterns canimpact students’ learning states and positively affecttheir learning outcomes.
However, there still appears to be a shortage of
empirical research investigating the effect of language
patterns on students’ ability to perform more
effectively. In this paper, we introduce some examplesof Milton Model language patterns as they can be usedin the classroom. We then discuss two research studies
which examined the effectiveness of language patterns
as an intervention for stimulating the reading andwriting speeds of university freshman students using
a control and experimental group over a longitudinaltime frame. Finally, we conclude with a variety of salient
points that support the usage of language patterns as
powerful tools for enhancing student performance.

Sample Scripts Based on Milton
Model
In this section, we offer brief explanations followedby practical examples of the Milton Model language
patterns that were used in the reading and writing
studies in this article (see Cullen & Mulvey, 2012 for ateacher-friendly version of these and other patterns forpractical classroom usage).
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

131Cullen, Deacon, Backwell, & Mulvey

Lost Performatives
With lost performatives it is not clear who made ajudgement, yet it is generally easy for a listener toaccept it.
•• “It’s good to read quickly, isn’t it.”•• “It’s interesting that people who write faster actually
understand more.”

Cause-EffectWe make an implied cause-effect relationship between
two statements even though this relationship may notnecessarily be true.
•• “You’ve been studying and reading English for along time, so you can use that experience to begin
to read faster and faster now.”•• “People who write more quickly get higher scoreson tests such as TOEIC, and that will lead to betterjob possibilities for you in the future.”•• “You may like to read more quickly by letting youreyes dance across the page. You could read faster byrelaxing, or you could simply read faster by focusing
your attention in whatever way is best for you. It isreally your choice.”•• “Before you write as many words as possible, you
don’t have to think of all the interesting things thatyou have done this week. You might just remember
some of the things that you saw perhaps at school, athome, or somewhere else. You may even remember
some of the things that you heard such as what
people said, a TV show you watched, or maybe
even some music that you listened to.”•• “You could begin to enjoy writing English in thiscourse, or perhaps you have always been able toenjoy writing English, and you might start to enjoy
writing English even more.”

Comparative Deletion
Complex Equivalence
Complex Equivalence is very similar to a causeeffect relationship (i.e. A causes B), but in a complex
equivalence we imply that one thing means anotherthing (i.e. A means B) even if it is not necessarily true.
•• “This is the second time you are reading this text,
and that means that you can easily read much more
quickly and even relax as you read more quickly.”•• “It’s a lovely day today…and that means you can justrelax and begin thinking about all the things you
would like to write about now.”

Modal Operators
Modal operators (e.g., can, should, might, will, must,have to, etc.) can seem to create a choice for the students.
Sometimes, of course, that choice is an illusory choice.
In other words, we are really only pretending to giveour students a choice by using the options that satisfy
our learning goals and objectives. Another benefit
to using modal operators is that they make it easy toembed suggestions for our students. Below, we haveunderlined some of the embedded suggestions.
•• “You shouldn’t read quickly just because yourteacher says so... you can read more quickly because
you know it is good for you, don’t you?”

132 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

In a comparative deletion, we use a comparative adjective
such as “faster” or “better”, but we do not specify
what it is being compared to. In the examples below,
the listener can understand the comparisons as being
to last year, or to their current ability, or to someone
else. All of these are valid and useful interpretations
that match the learning objective of developing a fasterreading/writing ability.
•• “This time, you can just read faster, be better, easily… now.”•• “You are able to write more quickly and enjoyably
at this time.”

Yes-Sets
A Yes-Set consists of several truisms or pacing
statements, such as statements that are easy to agree
with, followed by a leading statement that we want thelearners to accept. The leading statements are italicized
below.
•• “So, you’re sitting at your desk and we are here again
together this afternoon. You can remember that at
the beginning of the class we started with timed
reading. I can see that you have your book withyou today. And that means you can begin reading as
much as you can within the next 10 minutes startingnow.”Facilitating Learning Shifts, pages 130-137

Figure 1. Group A over ten weeks

Figure 2. Group B over ten weeks

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

133Cullen, Deacon, Backwell, & Mulvey•• “So, we are all here together again in class thisFriday. And it’s another beautiful sunny day outside
this morning. I can see that you have put your bagsin the back of the room and that you have yourmaterials for today ready on your desks. You can seethat today’s topic, ‘this week’, is on the board. And
that means we can write as much as possible about‘this week’ now.”

Table 1Tag Questions

Study 1: Timed Reading

Tag questions are a little more difficult to disagree with,aren’t they? And we can use them in the classroom tohelp students to learn more effectively, can’t we?
•• “You want to read faster, don’t you?”•• “It’s good to be able to write English quickly, isn’t
it?”

Repeated reading and timed reading have bothbeen shown to help develop the eye movements andcognitive patterns required for faster reading (Taguchi
et al., 2004). Accordingly, a timed-reading study was
carried out in a semester-long weekly English classwith two groups of students: Group A (experimentalgroup; n=38) and Group B (control group; n=38).
Each week, students read a text of about 800 words
three times (for 3 minutes, 2 minutes, and 1 minute,respectively). Students then calculated and recorded
their reading speed in words per minute (wpm).
Figures 1 and 2 show the change in average reading
speed for Group A and B over the ten weeks of thestudy. Table 1 shows the percentage changes.
While Group A had a steady and substantial increaseover the semester, Group B showed little change andeven a slight decrease. This difference between the twogroups correlates with the controlled use of teacher
language patterns. In addition to the quantitative
gains, Group A (the experimental group) also showed
more motivation in reading as demonstrated by thestudents’ enjoyment in comparing their speeds, andcompeting both with each other and with their own
previous results.

Delivering Suggestions
Of course, how you say something is just as important
as what you say. In earlier work (Cullen et al., 2013),
we explained how to use analogue marking to embed
important messages. Analogue marking involves using
verbal and non-verbal cues to highlight specific words
or phrases of a sentence. This marking or highlightingof specific words is to facilitate an attentive state which
can act as a catalyst for increased learning and allow theembedded suggestions to be more easily accepted.

Language Patterns in Action
Below, we present condensed summaries of the resultsfrom one study on timed reading (Cullen, 2013) andanother on timed writing (Deacon, 2013 in progress),
both of which involved the teacher making deliberate
use of Milton Model language patterns over a semester.

Change in reading speed (%) over ten weeks

Group AGroup B

1st Reading

+24%

-3%

2nd Reading

+19%

-2%

3rd Reading

+27%

+1%

Table 2Difference between baseline (pre-test) and final timed-writing (post-test) writing speed changes measured by words, andgroup differences

Group
Experimental
n = 16
Controln = 20Differences

Baseline (pre-test)

Post-test

Pre-test to post-test

141.47208.56+67.09114.79130.05+15.26+26.68+78.51+51.83

134 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Facilitating Learning Shifts, pages 130-137

Study 2: Timed Writing
In order to develop greater writing fluency, a 13week timed-writing activity was introduced into acoordinated curriculum at a four-year private Japanese
university. The participants included 36 freshman
university students who were attending required firstyear writing classes for non-English majors.
The students were randomly divided into an
experimental group and a control group. These groups
became the experimental (n=16) and control groups(n=20), respectively. A baseline pre-test was given
to determine initial writing speeds for both groups
before the experiment was conducted. The baseline(pre-test) scores were compared with the final timed
writing (post-test). The dependent variable was thestudents’ writing speed taken at these two different
times. The independent variables were group division(the experimental group and the control group) andthe time measured (pre-test and post test results). The
following research questions were explored:
RQ1: Did the timed-writing intervention havean impact on the experimental group’s ability toincrease their writing speed?
RQ2: What were the differences, if any, inthe number of words written between theexperimental and control group?
Table 2 provides the results taken from the pre-test
and post-test. The results show that the experimentalgroup, while ahead on the baseline test by an averageof 26.68 words initially, shot up by a difference of
78.51 average words on the post-test compared to thecontrol group. The experimental group increased theirwriting speed by 67.09 average words from the pre-test
to post-test, while the control group increased by only
15.26 average words. Over the same time period, theexperimental group improved by 51.83 average words
compared to the control group. Clearly, the answer tothe research questions above are that the experimentalgroup benefited from the intervention as the numbers
reported herein indicate.

Conclusions
Based on the results in the two studies above it is clearthat language patterns do, in fact, have an impact on
student’s ability to read and write faster. First, careful
use of language patterns by teachers does help students
to get into appropriate learning states that allow themto more fully focus on the goals (such as reading andwriting faster) of their lessons. Second, students canachieve more when they are guided to first imagine
what it is that we want them to do via the stimulus andthe suggested beliefs to achieve more that are suggested
through language patterns, resulting in an enhanced
ability to achieve what it is that we actually want themto do. Reading and writing are solitary endeavors andstudents often struggle beforehand to get into a focusedstate prior to engaging in these activities. Language
patterns can help students to achieve a more focusedstate of mind through their power of suggestion. On
the other hand, the absence of such stimulus can limit
a student’s ability to both begin the process of reading
and writing and sustain it during a timed period. Third,
simply leading students to our desired outcomes is
not enough; rather, they can achieve more when they
are adequately paced beforehand. Teachers have an
impact on their students’ success through the language
they use to structure classroom activities. Thus, it is
not only crucial that we become more aware of thelanguage patterns that we are actually using with ourstudents now, but also that we structure our language
to facilitate greater learning. In doing so, we can create
more empowering messages for our students which, inturn, will support their learning potential.

John & Sally Story: Part 2
So, Sally stood dumbfounded and was waiting
curiously for John to explain why he had been teaching
to an empty classroom. John, as confident as could be,then boasted, “Yes, thaaat’s riiight. Well, they pay me toteach, and that’s what I was doing.”“It’s at moments like these,” Sally told me, “thatyou realize that teaching and learning are two separate
things.”We also can’t help being aware of this significant
difference between teaching and learning. Moreover,The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

135

Cullen, Deacon, Backwell, & Mulvey
we wonder how John and his students might benefit
from exposure to Milton Model language patterns andthe differences they could make to their teaching andlearning experiences likewise. Thaaat’s riiight... .

References
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1975a). Patterns of the
hypnotic techniques of Milton, H. Erickson, M.D.
(Vol. 1). Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1975b). The structureof magic (Vol. 1). Cupertino, CA: Meta
Publications.
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1976). The structure ofmagic (Vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Science andBehavior Books.
Cullen, B. (2013). The effect of teacher language
pattern use on timed reading speed. New
Directions 2013(1). Nagoya, Japan: Nagoya
Institute of Technology.
Cullen, B., & Mulvey, S. (2012). Language patterns
and embedded suggestions for motivating
learners. Humanising Language Teaching, 14(6).
Retrieved from http://www.hltmag.co.uk/dec12/
sart02.html
Cullen, B., Deacon, B., Backwell, B., & Mulvey,
S. (2013). Effective language patterns in theclassroom. In N. Sonda & A. Stewart (Eds.),
JALT2012 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo, Japan:
JALT, 375-382.
Deacon, B. (2013). The impact of Milton model
language patterns on EFL student’s timed-writing
speed. In progress.
Dilts, R. (1983). Applications of neuro-linguistic

136 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

programming. Capitola, CA: Meta Publications.
Grinder, J., Delozier, J., & Bandler, R. (1977). Patternsof the hypnotic techniques of Milton H. Erickson,
M.D. (Vol. 2). Portland, OR: Meta Publications.
Hammerman, M. (1979). Hypnosis and language
learning. Retrieved from ERIC Clearinghouse.
Ishikawa, Y., Cullen, B., et al. (2009). Academic
reading for science and engineering. Tokyo, Japan:
Cengage.
McDermott, I., & Jago, W. (2001). Brief NLP therapy(Brief therapies series) (1st ed.). New York, NY:
SAGE.
O’Connor, J. (2001). Successful selling with NLP:
Powerful ways to help you connect with customers.
London, England: Thorsons.
Raths, J., & McAninch, A. C. (Eds.). (2003). Teacher
beliefs and classroom performance: The impact ofteacher education. Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Revell, J., & Norman, S. (1997). In your hands: NLP
for ELT. London, England: Saffire Press.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion
in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’
intellectual development. New York, NY: Rinehart
and Winston.
Rosenthal, R. (1980). This week’s citation classic.
CC, Vol. 7, p.156. Retrieved from garfield.library.
upenn.edu/classics1980/A1980JD87300001.
Taguchi, E., Takayasu-Maass, M., & Gorsuch, G. J.
(2004). Developing reading fluency in EFL: How
assisted repeated reading and extensive reading
affect fluency development. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 16(2), 70-96.

Facilitating Learning Shifts, pages 130-137

Authors’ Biographies:
Brian Cullen is an associate professor at Nagoya Institute of Technology. His research interests
include NLP, EFL materials design, and the use of music in EFL. <cullen.brian@gmail.com>
Brad Deacon is an instructor at Nanzan University. His research interests include applicationsof NLP to ELT, classroom management, program management, and narrative inquiry.
<braddeacon@mac.com>
Ben Backwell is a lecturer at Nagoya City University. His research interests include positive
psychology in EFL. <benbackwell@hotmail.com>
Sarah Mulvey is a lecturer at Nagoya City University. Her research interests include gender issues
and classroom management. <sarahmulvey@yahoo.ca>

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings137

Foregrounding Learner Research for TBL Activities

Matthew W. Turner

Robert James Lowe

Rikkyo University
m-turner@rikkyo.ac.jp

Rikkyo University

This paper describes how through a semester-long program, a task-based course was designed andimplemented where learners conducted fortnightly research assignments on several culturally
orientated topics, before engaging in a cycle of sharing and exchanging these materials withother class members. Informed by previous studies, a framework was developed to guide theconstruction of the course and also to evaluate the success of the course. The paper demonstrates
how foregrounding learner-generated information contributes positively towards collaborative andcooperative learning in class, raises accountability, and encourages greater learner autonomy bygiving learners the motivation and impetus to share research and use the research of others in orderto achieve an end goal. This paper also details an approach that reduces bias amongst cultural lesson
content, particularly by removing English “target cultures” as a central focus, while contributing
towards the desired outcomes of the course.
本稿は１学期間のプログラムを通して、
タスクベーストの授業をいかにデザインし実践したかを記述する。
この授業は２週間毎に様々な文化に関するリサーチ課題を学生が行い、その後学生間で課題の共有や交換を繰り返すというものである。本稿は学習者が作り出した情報を前景化することが、クラス内での恊働学習および協同学習にどのような効果をもたらすか、
アカウンタビリティーをいかに向上させられるのか、授業目標到達のために課題を共有したり他の学習者の課題を使うという刺激や動機付けを学習者に与えることが、自律学習にいかにプラスに働くかという点を論ずる。
また授業内容として、特別に英語圏の文化を文化の中心としない、文化に対する公平な姿勢がいかに授業の望ましい結果をもたらすかを詳述する。

Foregrounding Learner Research for
TBL Activities*

This paper describes the development and piloting ofa culturally-oriented, task-based EFL course taught
over two years at a Japanese university. With a view
to increasing student autonomy and accountability

Turner, M., & Lowe, R. (2014). Foregrounding
learner research for TBL activities. In R. Chartrand,
G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp. 138-144).
Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

138 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedingson the course, as well as fostering co-operative andcollaborative learning, student-generated research was
favoured and foregrounded in place of professionallyproduced materials. In this paper we will first provide
a review of the literature investigating co-operative
learning, student autonomy, and approaches to culturein the classroom, before providing a framework forcourse design based on this literature. Following this,the paper describes the structure of the course, andfinally discusses how well the course met the criteria
specified in the framework. Finally, the paper suggests
some ways that the course could be improved in the
future.

Foregrounding Learner Research for TBL Activities, pages 138-144

Literature Review
Nunan (2004) defines a task as “a piece of classroom
work that involves learners in comprehending,manipulating, producing, or interacting in the target
language while their attention is principally focusedon meaning rather than form” (p.10). When designing
the course described in this paper, there were two key
areas that were taken into consideration in relation
to tasks; cooperative and collaborative learning, andstudent autonomy and accountability. In addition, as
this was intended to be a culturally-oriented course,
we wanted to investigate approaches to culture in theclassroom. The literature for each of these topics will
briefly be reviewed below, and reasons given for why
these were felt to be appropriate focuses for the course.
Due to space constraints, this literature review will
be limited only to the particular literature which wastaken into account when designing the course.

Culture in the Classroom
The appropriate teaching of culture has long been aconcern of ELT practitioners. Culture is ever-present
in classroom practices and exchanges, and the best
approach to take to the teaching of culture, and tothe model of culture taught, has been questioned
and examined by several authors (see Kramsch, 1998;
Guest, 2002; Nault 2006; Baker, 2011 for an overview).
The teaching of culture has often been aspirational innature, as the language is associated with a particular“target culture” – a community with which thelearners are presumed to wish to interact. English has
primarily been associated with the “target cultures”
of Britain and North America, however one can nolonger necessarily equate English to these countries.
Since Kachru’s (1992) descriptions of world Englishes
and Graddol’s (2006) commentary on language
development and change, the belief that the English
language can be fixed to one culture and community
alone is neither warranted nor realistic (Nault, 2006),
and this changing understanding needs to be reflected
in classroom practice.
This has presented a challenge for material writers
designing texts, who have been forced to consider theappropriate encoding of culture into language content,
imagery and exercises. Writers such as Gray (2010) havediscussed these challenges in detail, while Meddings
and Thornbury (2009) have called largely for thesidelining of published materials, instead favouring
learner-found or authentic texts over culturally-laden
published materials. These concerns were taken into
consideration by the designers of the course describedin this paper.

Cooperative and Collaborative Learning in
Relation to Tasks
Cooperative learning is considered to be an importantand effective element of second language acquisition,
and a review of the major literature by Liang, Mohan,
and Early (1998) into its use in EFL contexts foundthat “cooperative learning offers second language
learners more opportunities for interaction in their L2and helps them improve second language proficiency”(p.14). More recent research has supported this view(see Oxford 2011;Sachs, Candlin, & Rose 2003), andcooperative learning has also come to be recognized as
an important aspect of task-based approaches. Jacobs(1998) provides a list of possible advantages of groupbased tasks, including increasing learner motivationand increasing the variety and quantity of speech acts.
In confirmation of these potential benefits, Storch(2001) found that students gained many advantages
from engaging collaboratively in tasks, including
scaffolding each other’s constructions, and the coconstruction of texts and knowledge.
The existing literature strongly suggests thatcooperative and collaborative learning hold many
benefits for students, and if engaged in during taskbased approaches, can increase opportunities for using
a variety of language, co-constructing knowledge,
increasing motivation, and increasing independence.
For these reasons, cooperative and collaborative
learning were a major focus in designing this course.

Student Autonomy and Accountability in
Relation to Tasks
Student autonomy is another area that has been wellresearched (see Murray, Gao, & Lamb 2011; Yang
1998), and a focus has been put on autonomy in thetheory and formulation of task-based approaches
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

139Turner & Loweto learning (Cotterall, 1995). Synthesizing some ofthis previous research, Little (2007) provides a list ofdesirable traits for the autonomous classroom, which
are given below:•• The target language is the preferred medium ofcommunication.
•• The teacher supports the learners in looking for“good learning activities”.
•• Within the curriculum, learners set their own goals
and choose their own learning activities.
•• Individual learning goals are pursued partly via
collaborative group work.
•• All learners keep an individual written record of
their learning − facilitating a focus on form, andencouraging memorization.
•• Learning is regularly evaluated in the target
language.
(Adapted from Little, 2007)
Student autonomy is, then, a central componentof task-based approaches, and should be a major focus
for teachers and curriculum designers. In the course
discussed in this paper, autonomy was encouraged, andthis was attempted though the development of student
accountability.
In relation to tasks, student accountability is
crucial because, as Nunan (2004) explains, “outcomes
will…be affected by learner’s perceptions about what
they should contribute to task completion” (p.15).
Holding students accountable for their work will givethem a level of focus and personal connection with thetask, driving them from a passive “survival orientation”
towards the task to a more active “achievement
orientation” (Breen, 1987). For this reason, in
designing this course it was decided that building instudent accountability would help to foster autonomy
and motivation among the students.

Framework for Course Construction
Building on the literature discussed in the previous
section, we decided to develop a course that held to thefollowing criteria:•• Reduce bias towards any particular target culture

140 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

••
••
••
••
••

and promote diversity.
Maximize communication in the target language.
Contain collaborative group work.
Maximize student autonomy and accountability.
Contain regular assessment in the target language.
Involve learners keeping a record of their learning.

In the next section we will describe the course
which was constructed with these criteria in mind.

Course Description
This section provides a description of the course thatwas designed. This section also covers the context ofthe course, the structure of the course, and the taskcycle model which was created.

Course Context
The course with which this study is concerned wasnamed “Comparing Cultures”, and was delivered andadministered to female, pre-intermediate, tertiarylevel learners at a private university in Tokyo, Japan.
The course was a compulsory component of study forstudents of the English communication department,
all of whom were in their second-year of study.
Classes consisted of no more than twenty students,and each class was taught in a unified, team-teachingenvironment; in that all teachers associated with thisprogram followed a mutually agreed upon course
structure, shared groups and assessments, and kept on
pacing with one another. The course designers were
tasked with designing a culturally-oriented course of
study, however all other planning decisions such as
curriculum building, content, and modes of assessment
were the responsibility of the course designers andteachers.

Course Structure
The course took place over a 15 week-long semester,
starting with a week of orientation and culminating ina final week of assessment. Following this, the course
was organized into “task-cycles”, each focusing on adifferent topic area, and each lasting two weeks. These
were as follows:Foregrounding Learner Research for TBL Activities, pages 138-144
Weeks 2-3 ‘Clothing’Weeks 4-5 ‘Festivals’
Weeks 6-7 ‘Food’
Weeks 8-9 ‘Crafts’
Weeks 10-11 ‘Famous Places’
Weeks 12-13 ‘People and History’Weeks 14-15 ‘Tourism’
The course content was based on student research
into different countries, and in the first week thestudents selected a country to study in small groupsof two or three. This country would remain the focusof their research during the course, with all groups
researching different countries. The students could
choose their preferred country from a limited selectionof countries, and were expected to keep concise
research assignments in notebooks.

Course Task-Cycle
This section will detail more about how the previously

mentioned task-cycles were organized and taught.
Each task-cycle took two weeks to complete, in which
the students received four 90-minute lessons. The
first week of the two focused on pre-teaching some
useful language, for example during the “food” taskcycle, language items such as phrasal verbs related
to cooking were taught and practiced. The students
were then set “fact finding tasks” (Willis & Willis,2007), which took the form of research assignments
based on each topic area. The students were required
to complete these before the commencement of thesecond week of each task-cycle. A typical example of a
research assignment on the same topic consisted of thelearners finding some information about famous foodfrom their country of research, and then producing awritten record of the information they found. In orderto keep learner research consistent (which would help
to facilitate later stages of the cycle), the students were
given pre-specified pieces of information to find. For
example, on the same topic, students researched a local
recipe and the method of preparation.

Figure 1. Course Task-Cycle

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings141Turner & LoweIn the second week these findings were used ascontent and stimuli for a variety of tasks involving
the students collaborating with others from different
research groups, using the information they had
gathered during their homework assignment. The firstpart of this collaborative process was a “sharing” task,
in which learners assumed roles and described theirresearch findings to each other. This was then followed
by a planning and presentation task; for example,
during the “festivals” topic the students designed a
festival on campus, which included exhibits and eventsfrom their researched countries. Once planning wascompleted, the students were then formally assessedon a presentation of their festival plan, with assessment
criterion concerning the use of the target language, thequality of their research, and accuracy. This task-cycle
is illustrated by Figure 1.

Evaluation Against the Framework
Earlier we provided a framework for course
construction. This section now evaluates the course
described above against each of the points specified inthat framework.

Reduce Bias Towards any Particular Target
Culture and Promote Diversity
The course involved the students engaging in research
about a particular country. The available countries
were all selected from the outer and expanding circleof English use (Kachru, 1992); a decision madeintentionally so that students could use English withreference to countries other than those traditionallyconsidered as “target cultures” of English learners.
Furthermore, as the students engaged in information
sharing using their research, they were not focusedsolely on one country during their tasks, but wererather considering aspects of culture from a varietyof perspectives. In this way, bias was reduced towards
any particular target culture and diversity amongst avariety of cultures was promoted.

Maximize Communication in the Target
Language
During the task-cycle, the students were engaged

142 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

initially in language work which would aid themin the completion of each task. In the second weekof each task-cycle, students were not only engaged
in communicative activities, but were also required
to participate in extended tasks (e.g. planning a
festival), which required negotiation and genuine
communication. This culminated in an assessedtask in which the students were again required tocommunicate their ideas to a larger group of people.
Throughout each task-cycle, the students were engaged
in meaning-focused and communicative tasks, all ofwhich allowed for extensive communication in thetarget language.

Contain Collaborative Group WorkAs the students were placed into research groups,
research was often collaborative. More crucially,in the second week of each task-cycle, the students
would engage in a “planning” task, in which they
were required to work collaboratively with membersof other research groups to complete a task which
involved planning and negotiation (e.g. organizing afashion show). These tasks were largely group-basedand collaborative, and occurred in each task-cycle.

Maximize Learner Autonomy andAccountability
The fact-finding tasks, in the form of learner research,were crucial in fostering learner autonomy andaccountability throughout the course. The students
were held accountable for completing the research byboth the teacher and their classmates, who would beinconvenienced by a group member failing to complete
the task. Further to this, the majority of students
showed pride and satisfaction in their work, often
producing elaborately decorated notebooks of theirresearch findings and engaging enthusiastically in thetasks. It therefore seems that the course was successful
in maximizing learner autonomy and accountability.

Contain Regular Assessment in the Target
Language
During the task-cycle, the learners received constantfeedback on their task performance. This feedback

Foregrounding Learner Research for TBL Activities, pages 138-144
was informal and un-assessed, but was designed toencourage learners in their work and to help guidetheir completion of the tasks. Each cycle ended on anassessed task. The students were assessed on the successof their communication during the task, the use of thefunction language, the quality of their research, andlanguage accuracy.

Learners Keep a Record of Learning
During the course, the learners were engaged in“fact-finding” tasks which took the form of research
assignments. This research was written up in a
notebook, and marked by the teachers. This helped thestudents to focus on their language development, as
well as keep a record of their progression through thecourse, both in terms of content and language.

Problems and Further Developments
Overall, the course largely met the criteria specified
in the earlier framework, however there was one issue
which would need to be addressed in the future.
As the course was intended to foreground learnerresearch, it is notable that there were no explicitly-taught
research skills during the course. In future, a researchskills based component should be incorporated. While
the majority of students completed their research
assignments as expected, there were several incidentsof plagiarism and machine-translation. While obvious
to the markers, the students were cautioned after
any initial instances, with more severe penalties suchas reduced grades being introduced as the course
progressed. Simple awareness-raising at the start of thecourse would have prevented this from being an issue,
however we understand this to be one of the drawbacksof relying on learner-generated research.

Conclusion
As described earlier, the course was designed with aframework of goals in mind which were largely met. This
program took a unique approach to task formulationin its prominent use of learner research to provide classcontent and support for tasks. Arguably this resulted inraised learner autonomy and accountability, and ample
opportunities for collaborative group work during

tasks in which target language communication could
be utilised. As desired, biases towards specific target
cultures were reduced, with the students instead being
invited to discuss a range of topic areas from a variety
of diverse cultural perspectives. While factors such as
research skills would need to be better integrated inany future incarnations of this program, this study has
provided an example of a successful attempt to create acourse in which the foregrounding of learner researchencouraged learner autonomy, collaborative group
work, and increased levels of motivation.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all EDC instructors at Rikkyo
University who provided critical feedback on theformal presentation of this project. Thanks must also
be paid to our previous students for their participationand hard work on the course related to this study.
Finally, thank you to Yurika Kambe for her translation
work.

References
Baker, W. (2011). From cultural awareness tointercultural awareness: Culture in ELT. ELT
Journal, 66(1), 62-70.
Breen, M. (1987). Learners contributions to task
design. In Candlin, C. & Murphy, D. (Eds.),
Language Learning Tasks (pp.23-46). London,
England; Prentice Hall.
Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy:
Investigating learner beliefs. System 22(3), 195205.
Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. Retrieved fromhttp://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-researchenglish-next.pdf
Gray, J. (2010). The construction of English: Culture,
consumerism and promotion in the ELTcoursebook,Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guest, M. (2002). A critical ‘checkbook’ for culture
teaching and learning. ELT Journal, 56 (2), 154161.
Jacobs, G. (1998). Cooperative learning or justgrouping students: The difference makes a
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

143Turner & Lowedifference. In Renanda, W. & Jacobs, G. (Eds.),
Learners and Language Learning (pp.145-171)
Singapore: SEAMEO.
Kachru, B. B. (1992). Teaching World Englishes. In
Kachru, B. B. (Ed.), The other tongue: English
across cultures (pp. 355-66). Chicago, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Liang, X., Mohan, B. & Early, M. (1998). Issues ofco-operative learning in ESL classes; A literature
review. TESL Canada Journal 15(2),13-23.
Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy
and the European language portfolio: two
ESL case studies. Retrieved from http://
www.learnerautonomy.org/DavidLittle
Handout12May2007Univof Warwick.pdf
Meddings, L., Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching
Unplugged, Surrey, England: Delta Publishing.
Murray, G., Gao, X. & Lamb, T. (Eds) (2011).
Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language
Learning. Bristol, England; Multilingual Matters.

Nault, D. (2008). Going global: Rethinking culture
teaching in ELT contexts, Language, Culture andCurriculum. 19(3), 314-328.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching.
Cambridge, England; Cambridge University
Press.
Oxford, R. (2011). Cooperative Learning,
Collaborative Learning, and Interaction: Threecommunicative strands in the language classroom.
The Modern Language Journal 81(4), 443-456.
Sachs, G., Candlin, C. & Rose, K. (2003). Developing
Cooperative Learning in the EFL/ESL Secondary
Classroom. RELC Journal 34, 338-369.
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work?
ESL tertiary students composing in pairs.
Language Teaching Research 5(1), 29-53.
Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing Task-Based
Teaching. Oxford, England: OUP.
Yang, N.D. (1998). Exploring a new role for teachers:
promoting learner autonomy. System 26(1),127135.

Author’s Biography:
Matthew W. Turner has been teaching at universities in Japan and the UK for five years. He
currently holds two postgraduate diplomas in language education m-turner@rikkyo.ac.jp.
Robert James Lowe has been teaching for five years in Japan. He holds the Trinity College London
Diploma in TESOL and an MA in Applied Linguistics robertlowe@rikkyo.ac.jp.

144 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Educational Manga Textbook Activity Preferences

Erina Ogawa
Toyo University
erina@toyo.jp
This article reports on an analysis of tasks which accompany manga in an educational manga
textbook. Student preferences for each type of activity was determined by a completion-rate analysisof activity groups that included: dialogue completion, sentence writing, list making, partial businessdocument writing, chart completion, checklist creation, blank filling, sentence completion, quiz or
matching activities, listening comprehension, name writing or signing, and journal writing tasks.
Task types with particularly high completion rates were: listening comprehension, partial businessdocument writing, name writing or signing, and chart completion. Those with particularly low
completion rates were: checklist creation and list making. Although generalization of these results
may not be appropriate, they do provide evidence that students do have preferences for some typesof tasks over others.
この論文では、教育マンガのタスクの分析結果を報告する。学生のタスクについての優先順位を調べるため、タスクをグループに分け、それぞれのグループの完成率を計算した：対話の完成、文章の作成、リスト作り、履歴書などの一部分の作成、チャートの完成、チェック
リストの作成、穴埋め問題、文章の完成、クイズや答え合わせ、
リスニング、名前やサインの書き方、
ジャーナル・ライティング。特に完成率の高かったタスク・グループは、
リスニング、履歴書などの一部分の作成、名前やサインの書き方、
チャートの完成。特に完成率が低かったタスク・グループは、
リスト作りとチェックリストの作成。
この結果の一般化が適切でない場合があるが、学生は好みのタスクのタイプがあるという証拠になる。

*

Introduction

One challenge of being a teacher is to provide engaging
tasks to facilitate student learning. Many teachers would
agree that choosing appropriate learning materials is
an important facet of meeting this challenge. In orderto provide students with an engaging textbook, thisteacher/researcher turned to educational manga, thevisual stimuli of which appeal to the majority of thebody’s sensory receptors (since 70% are located in the
Ogawa, E. (2014). Educational manga textbook
activity preferences. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 145-154). Nagoya,Japan: JALT.

*

eyes - according to Wolfe, 2010). Since attention is
invoked by emotion and encourages learning (Cary,
2004), the emotional intimacy often found in mangacan also facilitate learning. Further, manga provides
a visual representation of conversation, which canalso be useful for language learning: “When we learn
another language, we often, if not always, use images
to assist us. In fact, many literacy scholars would statethat the use of image literacies in language learning ismuch more than an established pedagogical practice”(Monnin, 2010, p. 123).
Therefore, there is no reason to dismiss the optionof using educational manga in the English language
classroom just because it is not the traditional way ofteaching and learning. As Johnston (2005) explains,
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

145

Ogawa“Imagine an alternate world to ours save one technohistorical change: video games were invented andpopularized before books. In this parallel universe, kids
have been playing games for centuries – and then thesepage-bound texts come along and suddenly they’re all
the rage. What would the teachers, the parents, andthe cultural authorities have to say about this frenzy ofreading?” (p. 19). Indeed, it is important that educators
seek effective teaching materials and learning tasks
without prejudice.
This may include the acceptance of learning tasks
provided by educational manga and the like in ourclassrooms. While the term educational manga is used
to refer to the particular textbook used in this study(partially because of the inclusion of many educationaltasks), similar materials are sometimes referred toas graphic novels. Since Mouly (2010) equates theterm graphic novels with comics, it is appropriate tolook at a definition of comics to better understandwhat an educational manga is. One such definitionis that comics are “juxtaposed pictorial and otherimages in deliberate sequence, intended to convey
information and/or to produce an aesthetic responsein the viewer” (McCloud, 1993, p. 9). Monnin (2010)
explains that graphic novels and comics can be used todevelop reading and writing skills at various stages ofthe language learning process. She identifies learning
tasks for each level, such as discussing the elements ofthe story, identifying sequences, and writing readers’theatres. Meanwhile, improved student understanding
and classroom discussion activities due to the visual
scaffolding of manga is documented by Uchida, Orita,
Kunigami, Terano, and Yoshikawa (2012) with theirstudy of “manga textbooks” (p. 1).
The above examples show that educational manga
lends itself to useful and meaningful learning activities.
In order to provide improved content and language
support for their students, the author and a colleague
developed an educational manga for university English
language classrooms (Ogawa, 2013a). With thistextbook, besides reading and participating in the story,
students also complete a variety of tasks. As a teacher, amaterials writer, and a researcher, the author wonderedwhich types of tasks were the most engaging for her
students. Therefore, she examined the completion rates

146 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedingsof different activity types by 71 students in two of herclasses in order to determine student preferences forthese various types of tasks. This article reports on thisanalysis while aiming to answer the following researchquestion: Which types of activities were preferred bythese students? And conversely: Which were not?

Methodology
A specifically-designed educational manga named At
the Riverside Café (see Appendix A for a sample page)
was used by the author with two class groups, eachfor fourteen 90-minute class periods in the second
half of the autumn semester of 2012. The students
in these two English classes were high-beginner or
low-intermediate Business-major Japanese university
students. This English-language educational manga
was designed to teach English as a Foreign Language
students how to write an English resume, prepare for
an interview in English, and prepare other job-hunting
documents in English. It also discusses issues related
to work and provides a context of an English working
business environment. On the last day of each class,and during the few days following, 71 textbooks werecollected for analysis. This number equals the total
number of students who completed the course in thetwo classes in which the author used the textbook inthat semester.
To analyze the completion rates of each task, firstthe author categorized each task and grouped theminto the 12 task types presented in this paper: dialogue
completion, journal writing, listening comprehension,
partial business document writing, checklist creation,quiz or matching activities, chart completion, list
making, blank filling, sentence completion, sentence
writing, and name writing or signing. Examples ofthese 12 different types of activities are provided inAppendix B. Next, the author tediously went throughevery textbook noting whether each activity wascompleted satisfactorily, attempted but not completed,or not even attempted. This analysis took several fulldays of work and was completed over a period of a
few weeks. Due to the subjective nature of such ananalysis, ideally this would have also been done by anindependent reviewer. However, this was not possible
due to the time-consuming nature of this type ofEducational Manga Textbook Activity Preferences, pages 145-154
analysis.

Results
Table 1 shows the completion rates of each of the
12 task types, listed down the far left column. The
textbook has six units. Some of these task types were
included once in each unit, for a total of six times in the
textbook. Others were not included in every unit. The
number of times each task type appears in the textbook
is listed in the column “Number of Tasks”. This number
is multiplied by 71 (the number of textbooks analyzed)
to provide the numbers in the next column, “Total”.
These are then separated into the three columns on
the right, which show the percentages of those tasks
which were “Completed”, “Semi-Done”, and “Not
Attempted”. “Completed” refers to a task which a
student completed satisfactorily, according to what was
expected of them. “Semi-Done” refers to a task which a
student attempted but only partially completed. “Not
Attempted” refers to a task for which a student did notwrite anything.
Looking down the Completed column, it is clearthat dialogue completion, listening comprehension,
partial business document writing, quiz or matchingactivities, chart completion, and name writingor signing activity types had comparatively highcompletion rates. On the other hand, looking down

the Not Attempted column, journal writing, checklist
creation, list making, and sentence writing activity
types were more likely to have not even been attempted.
Task types with particularly high completion rates(more than two-thirds completed) were: listening
comprehension, partial business document writing,name writing or signing, and chart completion. Thosewith particularly low completion rates (more than
two-thirds not attempted) were: checklist creationand list making.
It should be noted that the students who
provided their textbooks for this analysis are partof a larger group who completed a questionnaire
survey distributed in class at the end of the course (ananalysis of which is reported in Ogawa, 2013b). In thecomments section of that survey, 28 of the 71 students
whose textbooks were analyzed for this paper wrote
comments about the textbook tasks, as per below. One
question asked respondents to write (or list) whichtasks they were glad they did, such as practicing theirsignature or typing their cover letter on the computer.
In response to this question, 14 students wrote thatwriting a resume in English was the best activity, withthree of these students clarifying that actually writing
an English resume on the computer was what was themost worthwhile. Seven other students wrote thatwriting a cover letter was best, with four specifyingthat writing a cover letter on a computer was what

Table 1
Task Completion Rates

Tasks Type

Number of Tasks

Total

CompletedSemi-Done

Not Attempted

Dialogue

6

426

62.9%

27.9%

09.2%

Journal

6

426

30.8%

10.8%

58.5%

Listening

4

284

68.3%

09.2%

22.5%

Documents

6

426

69.0%

11.3%

19.7%

Checklist

6

426

29.8%

00.5%

69.7%

Quiz/Matching

5

355

58.9%

01.7%

39.4%

Chart Completion

6

426

73.0%

08.9%

18.1%

List Making

2

142

22.5%

02.1%

75.4%

Blank Filling

5

355

47.3%

08.7%

43.9%

Sentence Completion

3

213

37.6%

20.7%

41.8%

Sentence Writing

2

142

38.0%

04.9%

57.0%

Write/Sign Name

3

213

66.9%

14.1%

19.0%

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings147

Ogawawas important. Another two students wrote thatmaking both a resume and a cover letter was the best.
Four more students wrote comments that did not
answer the question directly: two wrote that they had
fun learning English, one just wrote the name of the
textbook, and one commented that it was easier tounderstand than a normal textbook. Perhaps the most
revealing comment (translated from Japanese) was:“having the opportunity, which I probably would nothave ever had, to be able to write a resume in English
and to understand how to do it”.

Discussions and Conclusions
The above results indicate that these particular
students believe writing a resume in English to be avery worthwhile activity. In fact, despite being given
examples of specific smaller tasks, most students’comments focused on the main activity of the
textbook – that of writing a resume in English. Perhaps
this explains the reason for the very high completion
rates for document-related tasks. Chart completion
tasks also had high completion rates, suggesting thatstudents also found this type of activity engaging.
Conversely, list making, journal writing, checklist
making, and sentence writing tasks had low completion
rates. In general, these activities required students to
produce more language than the other activity types.
Whereas many other tasks involved merely fillinginformation into blanks, these four types required
students to write in sentences or to answer questions
that were likely to be more difficult (or to be perceived
to be more difficult) than one-word answers common
in the activity types which had high completion rates.
Therefore, we can conclude that these students
preferred highly scaffolded activities and tasks whichwere directly related to the main goal of writing a
resume in English. Whether a different group of
students (particularly those with higher proficiency
levels in English) would also prefer highly scaffolded
activities is unknown. Likewise, other students (forexample, a group of Literature majors) may not havebeen as focused on the goal of writing a resume andcould in fact have been more engaged in journal writing

148 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

or other tasks more common in the field of literature.
Nevertheless, the results presented in this paper may
increase awareness that, as far as student preferences
are concerned, not all learning tasks are created equal.

Acknowledgment
The author wishes to acknowledge Helen Hanae as coauthor of At the Riverside Café, the educational manga
used in this study.

References
Cary, S. (2004). Going graphic: Comics at work in themultilingual classroom. Portsmouth, England:
Heinemann.
Johnston, S. (2005). Everything bad is good for you.
New York, NY: Riverhead.
McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding comics. New
York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
Monnin, K. (2010). Teaching graphic novels: Practicalstrategies for the ELA classroom. Gainesville, FL:
Maupin House.
Mouly, F. (2010). Foreword, In K. Monnin, Teachinggraphic novels: Practical strategies for the ELA
classroom, (pp. xi-xiii). Gainesville, FL: Maupin
House Publishing.
Ogawa, E. (2013a), Educational manga: An effective
medium for English learning, In N. Sonda (Ed.),
JALT 2012 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo, Japan:
JALT.
Ogawa, E. (2013b, unpublished). Students’Impressions of Using Educational Manga.
Uchida, H., Orita, A., Kunigami, M., Terano, T., &Yoshikawa, A. (2012). Gakushu ni okeru kizuki
no henka wo hakaru [Measuring a change oflearners’ awareness]. The 26th Annual Conferenceof the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence,
2012. Tokyo, Japan: Japanese Society for
Artificial Intelligence.
Wolfe, P. (2010). Brain Matters: Translating research
into classroom practice (2nd ed.). Alexandria,
Egypt: Association for Supervision &Curriculum Development.

Educational Manga Textbook Activity Preferences, pages 145-154

Author’s Biography:
Erina Ogawa teaches English at Toyo University. Besides researching the use of educational
manga, one of her recent projects investigates the effects of the Great East Japan Earthquake on
students’ cultural identities, and another examines relationships between student learning beliefs,
strategies and confidence.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

149

OgawaAppendix A:
Sample page of educational manga textbook used in this study.

150 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Educational Manga Textbook Activity Preferences, pages 145-154

Appendix B:
Samples of Different Activity Types
Dialogue Completion

Journal Writing

Listening Comprehension

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings151

OgawaPartial Business Document Writing

Checklist Creation

Quiz or Matching Activities

152 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Educational Manga Textbook Activity Preferences, pages 145-154

Chart Completion

List Making

Blank Filling

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

153

OgawaSentence Completion

Sentence Writing

Name Writing or Signing

154 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Identity in Intercultural Interaction:
How Categories Do Things

Tim Greer

Adam Brandt

Yosuke Ogawa

Kobe University
tim@kobe-u.ac.jp

Newcastle University

Kansai University

Although identity has become a key topic in second language research, it is a problematic notion toresearch when considered to exist only in the individual’s head. By operationalizing identity as thesocial display of self in relation to others, discourse analytic approaches such as Conversation Analysis(CA) and Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) instead locate identity in interaction. Thus,
this makes identity observable through the sequential details of talk. This paper (1) introduces
the CA/MCA approach to identity as a social accomplishment and then (2) applies it to identity
ascriptions in a study abroad context and an online English-speaking practice chat room. The
analysis initially focuses on the role of epistemics and how discursive displays of knowledge help
accomplish identity. It then goes on to demonstrate some of the ways that participants use identity
categories as an interactional resource.
アイデンティティーの概念は第二言語研究においても近年その重要性を増しているが、内在的で不可視な存在であるため研究対象としては疑義的なものであった。
この研究は、社
会的表象としてのアイデンティティーを相互行為の中に突き止めるのではなく、会話分析
や成員カテゴリー化分析等の談話分析的手法を用いて会話記録の詳細からアイデンティ
ティーを解明する。
まず会話分析と成員カテゴリー化分析の方法論を検証し、それらの分析方法を用いて短期留学とオンライン英会話チャットルームの環境下での帰属意識の表
示と機能を分析する。本稿では成員関係の認識的機能と、またその推論的な知識の表示が参加者自らのアイデンティティー完遂にどう機能しているかに焦点を合わせる。
そして実
際に参加者が成員カテゴリーを会話方策としてどう使用しているか論証する。

Ever since the increase in post-structural approaches toresearch such as those of Bonnie Norton (2000)*andDavid Block (2003), identity has become a major focus
within Applied Linguistics. Teachers and learners alikeare interested in the effect that acquiring a second
language (L2) can have on the way we see ourselves,
Greer, T., Brandt A., Ogawa, Y. (2014). Identity inintercultural interaction: How categories do things.
In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan(Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp.
155-164). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*and conversely, how we express who we are in anotherlanguage.
However, one of the problems with much of theresearch on identity to date has been that it is difficult
to make robust claims about a construct that isunderstood to exist within the individual’s head. Suchfindings are usually based on participant accounts,
such as through interviews or diary entries, which
ultimately provide insight into people’s reflections
on their identity rather than real-time evidence from
actual instances of identity negotiation.
The position that this paper takes, on the other
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

155

Greer, Brandt & Ogawa
hand, is that the only aspects of our identities thatare relevant for other people are those that we
make available through interaction, and that we as
researchers can track them through the careful analysisof actual instances of talk, just as interactants do inreal-time. As such, we treat identity not as an in-thehead phenomenon, but as Bucholtz and Hall havedefined it, as “the social positioning of self and other”(2005, p.587).
First and foremost, identity is to be found insociality; it takes two or more people to do identity.
It is “talked into being” through the co-constructedmeanings that interactants make relevant on a turnby-turn basis. Using the related micro-discourse
analytic approaches of Conversation Analysis (CA)and Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA),
this paper focuses on the role of epistemics inaccomplishing intercultural identity and demonstrates
some of the ways that identity categories can be used as
an interactional resource.

How Do We Get at Identity
Methodologically?
Before we consider some specific instances ofidentity in interaction, it is worth outlining thebroad methodological stance that CA/MCA adopts
with regard to this topic. The approach to identity
presented here has developed from the pioneering
work of Harvey Sacks during the 1960s (collected as
Sacks, 1992). Sacks was arguably the first sociologist
to highlight that participants in interaction havemultiple potential identity labels; which identity isrelevant to any ongoing interaction is not objectively
defined, but is a matter for the speaker and his or herinterlocutor(s) to decide. Therefore, it is not that talk isused for showing identity, but that identity becomes aninteractional resource for getting things done.
Antaki and Widdicombe (1998) put forward a
number of key points when considering identity ininteraction from a CA/MCA viewpoint. Firstly, oncea participant’s identity is made relevant during an
instance of interaction, he or she is cast into an identity
category with associated characteristics or features.
This happens whether he or she is the person speaking,

156 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

being spoken to, being spoken about, or even acting
as an in/out-group member. A group of members isoften team-labelled as having the same characteristics
or linked to certain category-bound activities (e.g.
‘Punk-Rocker’ associated with ‘acting rough’). Thosecategorization expressions are based on local, here-andnow understandings determined through indexicality(who or what an identity category points to in thisinstance) and occasionedness (how it is brought about
in this particular sequence of talk). This means theimplications of having any given identity depend
greatly on the conversational context. The work that
an identity category is doing in any given instanceis accessible to participants (and researchers) via its
procedural consequentiality, the interactional influence
it has on the ongoing talk. Finally, any identity that isrelevant for the co-participants is made visible in theconversational structure of the talk.
In one sense, CA is people-watching taken to
its analytical extremes; through a process of carefulobservation and meticulous transcription, researchers
collect instances of particular conversation patterns
within and across data samples and seek to distinguishbetween different interactional methods in orderto describe and account for a range of interactional
phenomena (Sidnell, 2010). Similarly, MCA is built
on collections of cases, but here the emphasis is moresquarely on identity or membership. Stokoe (2012)
notes that in MCA, collections are of categorial
instances of three main sorts: explicit mentions of
categories (e.g. Japanese, student, female); membershipcategorization devices (e.g. family, band member);and category-resonant descriptions (categories thatare not explicitly stated but are nonetheless implied).
The analyst locates the sequential position of eachcategorial instance within the ongoing interaction
and analyses the design of the turn and the action it
accomplishes in order to look for evidence of how
recipients orient to those categorial instances. Such
research highlights the interactional consequences ofa category’s use, co-occurring component features ofcategorial formulation, and the way speakers build andresist categorization within and between turns.
Finally, it is worth pointing out some of the potential
pitfalls of this sort of research. First of all, the notions

Identity in Intercultural Interaction, pages 155-164of membership and identity always belong to theparticipants, not the researcher. Successful CA/MCA
research does not analyze identity from the researcher’s
subjective viewpoint, but instead aims to address its
findings primarily as a demonstrable participant’s
concern. Researchers must look at how participants act
in mundane talk, not pre-arranged situations createdsolely for research purposes. Furthermore, it should
be noted that multiple identity/membership devices
are often used spontaneously in talk. In addition,
we cannot necessarily generalize features to otherinteractions, and we should not essentialize the notionof identity/membership (e.g. “S/he used the identity
because s/he is Japanese”).
This section has summarized the CA/MCA
approach to researching identity/membership ininteraction. By carrying out brief analyses of actualinteraction, the next two sections will go on to discuss
some features of intercultural identity categories andthe interactional work they help to accomplish.

Epistemics and Intercultural Identity
in Interaction
In recent years there has been a growing body ofresearch into interculturality as a topic worth exploringin itself, rather than as an underlying reason to explain
the motives behind a given instance of interaction(Mori, 2003; Nishizaka, 1999). A major thread that
underpins such research is that intercultural identities
are co-constructed in and through interaction andconsequently become communicative resources forspeakers.
While it could be argued that CA is ultimately
about the turn-by-turn co-construction of identity(Heritage & Clayman, 2010), that does not necessarilymean the speakers’ intercultural identities will beomnirelevant. This section will examine identity ininteraction, particularly in relation to interculturality,
by analysing some ways it becomes relevant in actual
instances of conversation between a Japanese student
and an American family. Pivotal to this analysis willbe epistemics, the interactional display of participant
claims to knowledge.
Consider Excerpt 1, taken from a dinner table
conversation; a Japanese student, Shin, has been staying
with an American homestay family in Seattle.
It is difficult to hear anything particularlyintercultural going on in this segment; Dad initiates

Figure 1. Excerpt 1: Camera.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

157

Greer, Brandt & Ogawa
an inquiry about Shin’s camera and Jeni offers him
some ice cream. We do not hear this as interculturalcommunication because the participants themselves are
not orienting to the talk as intercultural at this point.
That is not to say there is no identity work happening– it is quite possible to see ways that these inquiries andoffers work to socially locate the co-participants within
other identity categories, such as Host and Guest, butthese are not intercultural identity categories per se.
On the other hand, consider the segment in Excerpt
2 from a few minutes earlier in the same conversation.

Figure 2. Excerpt 2: Crackers.

158 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

This time Mom is serving some rice crackers that she
has bought.
Here it seems there is a lot more going on in termsof intercultural identities. Mom does not simply put
the crackers out. She also invites Shin to commenton them by asking him if he recognizes them, a turnthat is formulated in such a way that we can hear
Mom expects he will. In other words, she is affording
him some level of epistemic status. However, in line 3
Shin gives a minimal response that demonstrates he isunfamiliar with the crackers. Mori (2006) has shown

Identity in Intercultural Interaction, pages 155-164
that the Japanese token hee treats the prior turn as new
information. Mom then explicitly names the crackers(line 4), and Shin again treats this as news by initiating
repair, repeating the name with upwards intonation(line 6). Finally Mom uses a category to explicitly
identify the snack as Chinese.
When Shin again responds with the news-receipt
token hee (line 9), Mom reformulates her initialassumption by asking Shin whether they are familiar
to him. When he does not respond immediately, shefurther downgrades her assumption by asking “no?” andreformulates her original turn as a negative question,“Do they not look like Japanese crackers?” Notice how
this turn contains a second category which becomes
linked to the earlier category, Chinese, as it becomes
clear that Mom believes Chinese and Japanese snacks
to be sufficiently similar to be classed as the same.
However, Mom is also linking the crackers to
Shin’s identity, in designing her turn in a way thathearably attributes Shin with some cultural knowledgeof the snack and of the word that is used to describe
it. The interactants use cultural artifacts and theepistemic rights that go along with them to accomplish
interculturality by foregrounding aspects of eachother’s relative cultural identities through talk.
A similar argument stands in terms of gender.
When people meet someone for the first time, they
are usually sure whether that person is male or female.
That may become relevant to the conversation, or it
may not. However, the category is always there andavailable potentially ready to be invoked through talkby either speaker, as are many other identity categories
related to visual attributes like age, size or physicalappearance. In the same way, interculturality is justone possible path any given conversation could head.
As Antaki and Widdicombe (1998) note, it is not thatpeople:passively or latently have this or that identity
which then causes feelings and actions, but thatthey work up and work to this or that identity, forthemselves and others, there and then, either as
an end in itself or towards some other end. (p.2)
In short, CA views identity not as something
we are, but as something we do. We have seen thatparticipants make relevant cultural difference byorienting to identity categories in talk and throughprivileging themselves or others with various epistemic
statuses, or what Heritage (2012) has called territories
of knowledge. Mom makes it public through her actions
that she believes Shin should be more knowledgeable
about the rice crackers than she is. This in turn impacts
on recipient design, the way speakers construct their
talk based on what they know about the audience, andso tells us as analysts where and how interculturality
becomes relevant for speakers.
The next example will provide further considerationof this relationship between interaction, epistemicrights and identity.

Identity Categories as Interactional
Resources
The example in this section is taken from a corpus of
Skypecasts— online, multiparty, voice-based chatrooms—in which participants gather to (ostensibly)
practice or improve their English. This second
language setting has been discussed in more detailelsewhere (Brandt & Jenks, 2013; Jenks, 2009, 2014;
Jenks & Firth, 2012), but a couple of observations
are particularly germane to the following analysis:(1) participants in these chat rooms tend to beunacquainted, and subsequently spend a lot of time
“doing getting acquainted” ( Jenks, 2009); (2) since
this is an international setting, much of the talk that is
involved in getting acquainted pertains to differences innational cultural artifacts, often food (Brandt & Jenks,
2011). The example presented and analysed analysedin Excerpts 3a and 3b is one such case in point.
In this exchange, Mick and Neelz have been
discussing topics such as sports and food. As the excerpt
begins, the chat room host, Swaroop (represented in thetranscript as “Swar”) rejoins the room, having earlier
left to eat a meal. As stated earlier, the participants’respective national and lingua-cultural identities are
not of relevance to the analysis until they becomedemonstrably relevant to the participants. And as
will be seen, some such identities do become relevant,
implicitly and, later, explicitly.
After Swaroop announces to the room that he
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

159

Greer, Brandt & Ogawa

Figure 3. Excerpt 3a: Chapatti.

has returned, Mick initiates a new topic with him(lines 1-2). At lines 4-6, after a lengthy delay, Swaroop
precedes his answer by stating an assumption that
Mick will not know what it is that he has eaten. Mickprovides a minimal response to this (line 8). After
which, Swaroop elaborates by explaining that the food
item in question – chapattis – are “different,” which
is why Mick does not know what it is. Notice that
Swaroop has upgraded the certainty of his statementfrom “I think” (line 4) to a stronger “you don’t know…

160 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

what is that,” perhaps in part because Mick’s response(line 8) was neutral, minimal, and did nothing todisplay any knowledge of the item in question. Indeed,a few lines later, Mick aligns with Swaroop’s position
by confirming that he does not know it (lines 15-16).
However, this statement is produced in part in overlap
with Neelz who disagress with Swaroop indicating her
belief that Mick will know what chapattis are (lines 1718).
This sequence has much in common with Excerpt

Identity in Intercultural Interaction, pages 155-164

Figure 4. Excerpt 3b: Chapatti.

2, in that participants in this interaction are seen to be
displaying their assumptions about others’ territories
of knowledge. However, unlike in the rice crackers
example, here we see a more direct contestation of aparticipant’s epistemic status pertaining to a specificcultural artifact. It might be said then that, here, therelevance of interculturality is being constituted, but
subsequently contested. Although no direct mention
has been made of any of the participants’ identities,
Swaroop’s assumption suggests to us that some kindof implicit identity work is being done. We can seethat identity work is not incontrovertible, but in factpotentially open to being debated.
Swaroop’s response to Neelz does continue
the debate on Mick’s knowledge, or otherwise, of
chapattis. Instead, Swaroop displays his surprise that
Neelz herself appears to know the item in question(line 20). Neelz confirms that this is the case (line 21),
before continuing to describe chapattis to Mick (lines
21-22). She does so by likening it to another food item
– tortilla wraps – at lines 22-23. Swaroop agrees withthe description (line 25) before Neelz continues by
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings161

Greer, Brandt & Ogawa
making another comparison, this time to naan bread(line 27-28).
Neelz’s descriptions-by-comparison not only serveto aid Mick in his identification of what chapattis are,but also explicitly demonstrate her knowledge. Neelz
ends her description with “isn’t it?” (line 28) whichdisplays the strength of her epistemic status.
After a particularly lengthy pause (line 29),
Swaroop again displays his surprise at Neelz’s displayedknowledge, asking directly how she knows aboutchapattis (lines 30-31). Neelz explains this by invoking
an identity category, her ethnicity; she knows chapattis,
she says, because she’s Asian (lines 33-35).
What is particularly interesting about Neelz’sreference to her ethnicity is that she had just previously
contested an assumption regarding the relationshipbetween identity categories and epistemic rights. The
implication by Swaroop is that Mick’s territory ofknowledge will not extend to chapattis, presumably
because of his ethno-cultural identity, but this isa position which Neelz refuses to accept. And yet
here, when asked how she herself is knowledgeableof chapattis, she uses her own ethno-cultural identityof “Asian” as explanation. Here we can see how this“grand identity” of ethnicity can be used as a rhetoricaldevice, a means of achieving an interactional goal.
All readers can surely imagine, and have probably
experienced first-hand, how other identities – such as
nationality, gender, profession, etc. – might similarly
be used by the identity incumbent, or an interlocutor,
in order to explain how s/he knows (or does not know)
something, or is able (or unable) to perform someaction. Of course, the accuracy or appropriateness ofthese rhetorical uses of identities can be contested.
Using identity in such ways is a common feature of
spoken interaction in a wide variety of social settings,
and when scrutinized in fine detail, provides us withinsight into how identity can be used as an interactional
resource.

Concluding Discussion
Since the “social turn” in SLA and applied linguistics
research (Block, 2003), it has become widely acceptedthat identity is a fluid, dynamic phenomena, which isneither fixed nor measurable. However, even from this

162 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

position, there are a number of different approaches forthe study of identity. In this paper, we have presented
one such way.
Our analysis has argued that identities are locallyoccasioned in ongoing interaction, and shown how
participants themselves work up (and potentiallycontest) such categories. It has also been shown thatsuch “working up” of, or orientation to, identity
category/ies is not done in a social vacuum, but in theservice of some other social action or goal. The approachpresented here is particularly powerful because of its
empirically-grounded nature, which requires analysts
to follow the participants’ demonstrable orientations.
It is worth remembering that when and whether
these varying identities actually matter changes
on a moment-by-moment basis, depending upon
the context in which the identity incumbents findthemselves, and the actions they are undertaking.
As seen in the first example, the interaction was nottreated as intercultural as Dad, Shin and Jeni discussed
ice cream and taking photographs.
While the participants in these interactions aretreating some identity categories as relevant to their
ongoing social activities, they are also not treating
many other potential identity categories – for example,
their gender, profession or linguistic background– as the most relevant thing about themselves atthat moment. This is a particularly important point
for SLA and Applied Linguistics research: In theirinfluential critique of SLA research, Firth and Wagner
pointed out that second language speakers have “amultitude of social identities, many of which can berelevant simultaneously, and all of which are motile”,
and lamented that “for the SLA researcher, only one
identity really matters, and it matters constantly
and in equal measure throughout the duration of
the encounter being studied” (1997, p. 282). This
presumption of the higher relevance of certain factors
over others is clearly a problematic position for any
researcher to take.
This paper has highlighted how identities can beseen to really matter, in specific contexts at particular
moments, to the participants themselves, throughthe interactional consequences of the identity
being foregrounded. In so doing, we hope to have

Identity in Intercultural Interaction, pages 155-164
contributed to a growing body of research which gives
the right to determine which identities are relevant tothose participants in interaction who are the object ofour research.

References
Antaki, C., & Widdicombe, S. (Eds.). (1998).
Identities in talk. London, England: Sage.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language
acquisition. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh
University Press.
Brandt, A., & Jenks, C.J. (2011). ‘Is it okay to eat
a dog in Korea…like China?’ Assumptions ofnational food-eating practices in interculturalinteraction. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 11(1), 41-58.
Brandt, A., & Jenks, C.J. (2013). Computer-mediatedspoken interaction: Aspects of trouble in multiparty chat rooms. Language@Internet. (10)Article 5.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity andinteraction: A sociocultural linguistic approach.
Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 585-614.
Firth, A. & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse,
communication, and (some) fundamental
concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language
Journal, 81(3), 285-300.
Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequenceorganization and territories of knowledge.
Research on Language and Social Interaction,
45(1), 30-52.
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (Eds.). (2010). Talk inaction: Interactions, identities and institutions.
Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jenks, C. J. (2009). Getting acquainted in Skypecasts:
Aspects of social organization in online

chat rooms. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 19(1), 26-46.
Jenks, C. J. (2014). Social interaction in second
language chat rooms. Edinburgh, Scotland:
Edinburgh University Press.
Jenks, C. J., & Brandt, A. (2013). Managing mutualorientation in the absence of physical copresence: Multi-party voice-based chat room
interaction. Discourse Processes, 50(4), 227-248.
Jenks, C. J., & Firth, A. (2012). Interaction insynchronous voice-based computer-mediatedcommunication. In S. Herring, D. Stein & T.
Virtanen (Eds.), Handbook of the pragmatics ofcomputer-mediated communication, pp. 209-234.
Amsterdam, Holland: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mori, J. (2003). The construction of interculturality:
A study of initial encounters between Japaneseand American students. Research on Language
and Social Interaction, 36(2), 143-184.
Mori, J. (2006). The workings of the Japanese token
hee in informing sequences: An analysis ofsequential context, turn shape, and prosody.
Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1175-1205.
Nishizaka, A. (1999). Doing interpreting withininteraction: The interactive accomplishment ofa “henna gaijin” or “strange foreigner”. Human
Studies, 22(2-4), 235-251.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning:
Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Essex,
England: Pearson Education.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford,
England: Blackwell.
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An
introduction. Oxford, England: Blackwell-Wiley.
Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membershipcategorization analysis: Methods for systematic
analysis, Discourse Studies, 14, 277-303.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings163

Greer, Brandt & Ogawa

Author’s Biography:
Tim Greer researches bilingual interaction and L2 talk from a Conversation Analytic perspective.
He is currently analysing a corpus of natural talk from non-classroom settings.
Adam Brandt is interested in the micro-analysis of social interaction, particularly in contexts inwhich participants’ national, ethnic and/or linguistic identities are demonstrably relevant.
Yosuke Ogawa adopts a discourse analytic approach to the study of L1-L2 interaction, particularly
L1 speakers’ simplification and pragmatic functions of paralinguistic features of interaction.

164 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Improving Students’ Conversational Competence with
the Rules of Improvisation

Dawn Kobayashi
Onomichi City University
kobayashi-dawn@onomichi-u.ac.jp
The rules of improvisation, which are derived from improvised drama, have been gaining attention
for their transferability to other fields such as business and education. This paper reports on the
results of a study into the effects of learning the rules of improvisation to develop Japanese university
students’ conversational competence. The students at the center of the study were 275 first year
general English students. This paper firstly argues for the applicability of the rules of improvisationin EFL classrooms and proceeds to discuss the results of a preliminary analysis of a sample of thewhole study’s data.
最近、即興演劇の規則はビジネス、教育など他分野への注意を集めています。
本稿は、日本の大学生の会話能力を開発する即興の規則学習の効果に調査の結果について報告します。研究所の学生は、総合英語 1年生275名でした。本稿はまず英語教育でドラマの適用性と主張し、全体研究データのサンプルの予備的な分析の結果について説明します。

Introduction*

Recently there has been increased support for theuse drama in language education (Anderson, Hughes
and Manuel, 2008; Podlozny, 2000; Winston, 2007);
however, for many teachers the impracticalities of
implementing such an approach are educational
requirements, the classroom environment including
factors such as student numbers and noise and theteacher’s lack of confidence in utilizing what may be
unfamiliar drama approaches. Although there havebeen attempts to introduce drama techniques bylanguage educators (Kawakami, 2012; Kobayashi,
2012; Malay and Duff, 2005; Miccoli, 2003; Wilson,
Kobayashi, D. (2014). Improving Students’
Conversational Competence with the Rules of
Improvisation. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter,& M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference
Proceedings (pp. 165-170). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*2008) there is still a long way to go before drama
becomes standard accepted practice in the language
classroom. This paper suggests how teachers canuse the rules of improvisation as a framework fordeveloping conversational competence in theirlanguage classrooms.
Much of the speaking practice that occurs in thelanguage classroom consists of artificial language
exchanges happening after preparation and practice(Thornbury, 2008). It may involve students reading
scripted role-plays or engaging in question andanswer exchanges with the teacher that conforms toinitiate, respond, and evaluate (Beghetto, 2010 p.450)
formula. In this environment students cannot be said
to be engaging their creative mind nor stretching
their linguistic ability. Additionally, such interactions
do not reflect real world language exchanges whereinterlocutors do not know how their co-interlocutor
will respond in advance, nor does natural conversation
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

165

Kobayashi
usually adhere to a neat question and answer flow.
There will be hesitations, restarts, misunderstandings,
rejection of topics and requests for repetition andclarification. Furthermore, classroom exchanges
based on textbook conversations are often formulaic;lacking in originality, excitement and the unexpected.
Teachers often find that although students need help
in managing conversations, merely practicing roleplays more or learning conversational gambits do not
result in the students engaging in naturally sounding
exchanges. The teaching of explicit strategies andtechniques that provide students with a guide orframework could result in more positive results.
The rules of improvisation can help to bring theseelements back into the classroom and give students
the confidence to become successful communicatorsand engage in spontaneous conversations. This paper
reports the results of a preliminary analysis of asample data set taken from an ongoing larger study
to investigate whether the deliberate teaching of rulesof improvisation has an effect on students’ ability toengage in small talk.

Improvisation
The rules of improvisation come from a type oftheatre performance called improvised drama, which
is often, but not always comedy based. They havedeveloped from the work of many theater practitioners
including but not restricted to Spolin (1999), Maley
and Duff (2005) and Wilson (2008). The purpose of
the rules of improvisation is to provide actors withguidelines on how to initiate, manage and maintainlanguage exchanges in a cooperative and productive
way. The rules of improvisation are of interest to
language educators because they can also be applied toconversations in the classroom. In improvisation actors
utilize the rules to cooperate with each other, working
together to develop a flowing, coherent conversation;
the rules act as a framework that facilitates spontaneityand creativity. Since there is no time for preparation,
actors have to rely on their instincts and impulse, skills
that language educators strive to nurture and develop
in students. Additionally, improvisation depends
on the actors creating an atmosphere of trust andsupport; the rules of improvisation also facilitate the

166 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

development of this. Recently they have been drawing
attention for their applicability to a number of otherfields that require effective communication such as
business, consulting as well as language education.

Implementation
The students at the center of the study were 275
first year undergraduate students at Onomichi City
University in Hiroshima prefecture. Their majors were
Economics and Fine Art, and they were all required tocomplete a one-year General English course as part oftheir studies. It was decided to conduct the study inthe second semester, as this would reduce the effectsof factors such as unfamiliarity with other students
and the teacher, and the university environment. Afterone semester of lessons with the teacher and the sameclassmates it was believed that the students would
feel relatively secure in the educational setting. A setof rules were selected that had the most relevance tolanguage teaching and learning (see table 1 below).
These rules were then actively taught and practiced
by students over a period of ten weeks. The rules wereintroduced as an initial warm-up section of regularlessons with each activity lasting around ten minutes.
At the beginning of the semester a pretest wasadministered to establish where the students were interms of conversational competence prior to learning
the rules of improvisation. At the end of the second
semester, a posttest was administered to see if any
changes could be observed in students’ conversational
competence. Both the pretest and posttest wereconducted with the following framework. The
students were to ‘chat’ about a topic for one minute(see table 1).The teacher assigned the topic randomly
to students just before the conversation. A ten second
pause would mean the conversation was over. The test
was videotaped and the teacher neither made notes
nor gave feedback on the conversation, the teacher
did not participate in the conversation and acted as anobserver only.

The Rules of Improvisation
As mentioned above the rules of improvisation are
the means by which actors initiate, manage, andmaintain improvised drama. Although the exact rules

Improving Students’ Conversational Competence, pages 165-170
Table 1
List of conversation topic
TopicsFood
Music
Friends
FamilyFavorite animal
Hobbies
Books
SportsMoviesFamous person

may differ slightly depending on the theater groupand practitioner, Alger (2013) provides some good
examples. As some of the rules are to do with dramatic
setting and establishing character they have varying
degrees of practicality for the language classroom. For
the purposes of this study the following nine rules wereselected to be explicitly taught to students as a meansfor developing conversational competence. The tenth
rule; ‘establish a location’ was not included as it wasconsidered to have limited relevance to the language
classroom.
1. Yes and2. Don’t block or deny
3. Avoid questions
4. Bring something
5. Let yourself fail
6. Play, relax have fun
7. Listen, listen, listen, respond
8. Work to the top of your intelligence
9. Make your partner look good
(Adapted from David Alger’s first ten rules of
Improv)Rule 1: ‘Yes and…’
This is perhaps the guiding principle of improvisation
to agree and build on your partner’s ideas andsuggestions. It builds a positive atmosphere andallows the forward movement of conversation andinteraction. Responding to someone’s suggestion witha negative comment not only shuts down conversation;
but also creates neuro-physical stress in the brain,adversely affecting interpersonal relationships between
the interlocutors (Newberg & Waldman, 2010).
Rule 2: ‘Don’t Block or Deny’
This rule is linked to the ‘say yes and’ principle, however
there are more ways to block someone’s ideas orattempts at conversation other than just saying no. For
example a speaker could change the topic completely.
For example if speaker A opened with ‘Wasn’t thetennis match yesterday exciting!’ And speaker B
responded with ‘I think tennis is boring.’ then speaker
B has effectively blocked the conversational start that
A has initiated. In improvisation the goal is to workand build on what your partner has said. So even if
speaker B has not seen the tennis a preferable response
would be ‘Oh I didn’t get to see it did Murray win?’
In this way speaker A can continue the conversation
topic of tennis and the positive, forward motion of theconversation is maintained.
Rule 3:‘Avoid questions’This rule is very challenging, textbook exchanges
are often based around 3 or 4 question and answer
exchanges. However in authentic conversations nearly
half of questions are in fact elliptical: Have you? Don’tyou?; or question tags :Yes? Right? Don’t you think?
(Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, and Finegan, 1999)
In improvisation questions are usually avoided
for a number of reasons. If the question is a (yes/no)one, then the dialogue becomes monotonous ‘Are
you hungry?’-‘Yes’, ‘Would you like something toeat?’-‘Yes’, ‘Do you like ham sandwiches?’-‘Yes’. And
if the questions are open ones ‘What do you thinkof…?’,‘ What’s your favorite…?’ then the questioner is
automatically in the controlling role, through which
they steer the conversation with questions which areoften formulaic. Therefore the questioner makes theanswerer do all the work and provide all the detail and
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

167

Kobayashi
information. By removing questions, the interaction
becomes much more equal and balanced.
Rule 4: ‘Bring something to the conversation’The fourth rule that was taught to students was ‘Bringsomething to the conversation’. This relates to the firstrule of ‘say yes and’. If the conversation is to develop,
sufficient material must be provided to allow for thenatural progression of the language exchange. The
more information that is provided, the easier it is forstudents to respond. Consider the following exchange
from the pretest data:
A: ‘My hobby is listening to music’
B: ‘ ahh’
In this extract, ‘A’ provided limited informationfor B to respond to, consequently B soon completes
their turn without providing any information for theconversation to progress. Compare with the following
from the post test:
A:‘I like climb a mountain…so mountain view sobeautiful…do you like?’
B: ‘ Ahh I don’t like but I like …’
In the second exchange A gives their opinion andthen invites B to respond. By adding more detail,colour and information to the initiating turn, student
A has made it much easier for their partner to respondin a meaningful way even though they do not agreewith student A’s statement.
Rule 5: ‘Let Yourself Fail’, Rule 6: ‘Play, Relax andHave Fun’
The fifth and sixth rules are more to do with students’attitude to communication. They are ‘Let yourself fail’and ‘Play relax and have fun’ both related to adopting
a positive attitude to conversation, which is essential to
the language classroom. There is the obvious disparity
of attempting to teach authentic conversation in
the artificial setting of the language classroom. This
causes the difficulties of creating a relaxed, friendly
atmosphere within a formal, institutional setting.
The mere fact that it is a classroom and the teacher
is watching can make students become nervous andself-conscious. It is therefore useful to explicitly teachstudents that failure is not a problem and that native

168 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

speakers’ speech is marked by restarts, mistakes andungrammatical statements. Additionally, it is helpful
to remind students that conversations are held for fun
and enjoyment and to find out more about friends andassociates.
Rule 7: ‘Listen, Listen, Listen, Respond’The seventh rule was ‘Listen, listen, listen, respond’.
This is an important issue in conversation classes andstudents should be encouraged to listen carefully andprocess what is said to them before responding. It is
often tempting for students to interject with their own
opinions before fully understanding what has beensaid. Encouraging students to listen attentively to theirpartner’s utterances before responding is a valuablecommunication skill.
Rule 8: ‘Work to the Top of your Intelligence’The eighth rule was ‘Work to the top of yourintelligence’. For improvisation, it is important to beoriginal and interesting; even if there is no audience it isstill a performance. It is also important in conversation,
and we hope that our conversation partner will beinterested in what we have to say. Therefore it is essential
to remind students to make their contributions original
and interesting and to take the difficult option, tostretch themselves, to make longer, more detailed andstimulating answers. The more students give, the easier
it becomes for their partner to make a fitting response.
Rule 9: ‘Make your Partner Look Good’The final rule was ‘Make your partner look good’. In
improvisation, it can be quite daunting to performwith no script. For the actors to perform effectively it isessential that they know that their partner will support
and assist them. The same is true in the classroom;
students should be encouraged to assist and above all
make their partner look and feel good!

Discussion of Results
After the post-tests, the recordings from one class of
35 students were transcribed and analyzed for the
emergence of possible points of interest for further
study. The table below describes the results of thispreliminary analysis (table 2). The first column ineach set refers to the pretest, the second to the post-Improving Students’ Conversational Competence, pages 165-170

Figure 1. Comparison of pretest and post-test

test. The first set refers to the average number ofconversational turns taken within each conversation.
The second set denotes the number of exchanges
within each conversation; by this I mean the numberof discrete topics that were discussed. The third set
describes the longest exchange; this means the numberof conversational turns within the longest exchangeof the conversation. The final set denotes the average
number of words spoken within each turn.
The results for the pretest revealed some common
issues such as students not helping each other tocommunicate. For example, no rephrasing comments,
no using gestures and displaying unfriendly bodylanguage. There were also frequent pauses and attempts
by students to directly assign turns to their partner.
In addition, unnatural conversational techniques
were observed. For example some students decided
to make a short speech with first one student giving
their thoughts on the designated topic and then thesecond student giving their opinion. Another frequent
technique was for one student to take the role ofinterviewer and the other student to reply to theirquestions. This resulted in a power imbalance withthe ‘interviewer’ having control of the conversationand the other student being forced to provide all theinformation.
When the results of the pretest and post-test werecompared some interesting findings were revealed. The
number of turns that were taken in the conversation
showed little change with just a slight increase observed(see figure 1), moving from an average of 9.71 in thefirst test to 10 in the second. Additionally, the numberof exchanges or sub-topics (a topic within the topic)
that were discussed showed no real change, a slightdecrease from 1.79 to 1.64. The first main difference
was in the number of turns within the longest exchange;
this showed an increase from 6.41 to 7.86. This meansthat once both students had settled on the sub-topic,
they used an increased number of turns to discuss that
topic. Also the number of actual words that students
used within each turn decreased from 7.19 in the first
conversation to 5.06 in the second. There were also
differences in the openings of the conversations withfewer pairs beginning conversations with questions,choosing to provide information instead of requestingit.

Conclusions
From this initial analysis of a small sample of the data,
it can be seen that once students had decided on a subtopic, they could maintain that sub-topic for longer. For
example, if the main topic was famous people then the
sub-topic might be talking about Ichiro. Additionally,
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

169

Kobayashi
students actually spoke less within their own turn; thismeans that they dominated the conversation less andwere more ready to switch turns back and forth in amuch more balanced conversational style.
There are many possible areas to study in these data
sets such as the repetition of phrases, how students
designate turns, students use of body language andgestures, the function of laughter in the conversation
and also the comments that students made for
evaluating their own performance after the tests.
However, it is the two factors that define the choppinessof the conversation, i.e. the number of turns in the subtopic and the number of words within each turn in that
sub-topic, that the author intends to focus on for theremaining data sets.

References
Algers, D. 10 rules of improvisation Retrieved on
2013/07/26 from http://improvencyclopedia.
org/references//Rules_of_Improv.html
Anderson, M., Hughes, J, & Manuel, J. (2008).
Drama and English teaching: Imagination, actionand engagement. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford
University Press.
Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom.
In R. J. Sternberg & J. C. Kaufman(Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 447-463).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. &Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken

and written English. Harlow, England: Longman
Kawakami, A. (2012). Drama on the global stage:
Cultural competence and the role of drama
techniques in the EFL classroom. Mask & Gavel,
1, 16-22.
Kobayashi, D. (2012). Drama techniques in the EFL
classroom. Mask & Gavel, 1, 23-30.
Maley, A. & Duff, A. (2005). Drama techniques:
A resource book of communication activities
for language teachers. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press
Miccoli, L. (2003). English through drama for oral
skills development. ELT Journal, 57(2), 122-129
Newberg, A, & Waldman, M., R. (2012). Words canchange your brain. Retrieved from: http://www.
psychologytoday.com/blog/words-can-changeyour-brain/201207/the-most-dangerous-wordin-the-world
Podlozny, A. (2000). Strengthening verbal skills
through the use of classroom drama: A clear link.
Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34, 239-275
Thornbury, S. & Slade, D. (2006).Conversation: Fromdescription to pedagogy. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press
Spolin, V. (1999). Improvisation for the theater: Third
edition. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press
Wilson, K. (2008).Drama and improvisation. Oxford,
England: OUP
Winston, J. (2012). Second language learning throughdrama: Practical techniques and applications.
Abingdon, England: Routledge

Author’s Biography:
Dawn Kobayashi is a specially appointed lecturer at Onomichi City University. Her researchinterests include the use of drama and literature in language teaching.

170 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Instructional Design for Teachers ofEnglish as a Foreign Language

Megumi Kohyama
University of Wyoming
megmeg42k@gmail.com
Many educators are tasked with developing courses and instructional materials, but few have hadformal training in the field of instructional design (ID). One critical step in the ID process is toconduct a thorough front-end analysis of the learning site, the students, and the resources available.
Only then can proper instruction, and materials be developed. This paper is an introduction to ID
with special emphasis given to analysis. An example of an English training course for office workers
at a private university, which was developed by the author, will be used to illustrate the ID process.
多くの講師が教室での講義だけでなく授業準備や教材の作成を行っているが、そのうちどれくらいの講師がインストラクショナルデザイン（ID）の知識を活用しているだろうか。IDの重要なプロセスの一つに授業計画作成前に行う教育環境、生徒、そして教材の分析がある。
この分析をもってこそ生徒に最も適切な教授を行い、教材を作成することができる。
この論文ではID、特に分析プロセスについて紹介する。参考に筆者が行った私立大学職員に向けた英語レッスンの作成の過程を例として用いる。

*

Introduction

For university teachers of English, there is usually
very little time to prepare instruction that properly
considers students’ needs, characteristics, knowledge
and attitude. Also, course evaluation takes time to
conduct. However, the information generated form
these processes would help instructors to form a clearer
understanding of their students and would positively
affect the instruction method or strategy. For thisreason, it is important for teachers to have at least abasic understanding of instructional design principles
and to apply these principles to their instruction. For
many teachers, the instructional design process can
Kohyama, M. (2014). Instructional design for teachersof English as a foreign language. In R. Chartrand, G.
Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp. 171-176).
Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

seem too cumbersome for classroom use, and toocomplicated to learn and apply. However, there is norequirement that teachers must follow every step of a
proposed model to benefit from it. By choosing thecorrect model to suit an individual instructor’s needs,
and adapting that model to their particular situation,knowledge of instructional design principles can prove
beneficial to almost any teacher.

Literature Review
Instructional Design
The most important aspect of instructional design isthat it provides teachers and course designers with asystematic method to design and evaluate instruction.
Smith and Ragan (2005) define instructional design
as “the systematic and reflective process of translating
principles of learning and instruction into plans for
instructional materials, activities, information resource,and evaluation” (p. 4). By systematizing instruction,
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

171

Kohyama
teachers are able to identify important teaching andlearning points and to understand how to present thesepoints most effectively to specific learners (Dick, Cary,& Cary, 2001/2009). Despite the benefits of applying
systematic instructional design to one’s teaching, ittakes time to learn and apply. However, in the longterm, by applying instructional design principles to
one’s practice, teachers can make their instruction
more sophisticated and provide a better service to theirstudents.

The ADDIE Model
There are many instructional design models; someare designed for general education and others for
instruction in specific fields of study. One of the mostwell-known models which is used for a wide range ofeducational situations is the ADDIE model. ADDIE
is an acronym, which stands for the five steps of themodel; analyze, design, develop, implement andevaluate. (Gagné, Wager, Golas, & Keller, 2005/2012)
One characteristic of this model is that it includes thefive core steps of analysis, which are commonly used inother instructional models (Reiser & Dempsey, 2007).
Also, the ADDIE model is highly adaptable to many
contexts, so teachers of a variety of disciplines in any
environment can use it.

Figure 1. ADDIE Model .

Of particular importance is the first stage ofthe instructional design called the analysis stage.
This is where the instructor seeks to understandthe learners’ goals, characteristics, and educational
environment. This is important because without thisknowledge the instructor cannot truly understandthe needs of the learners and the limitations of thelearning environment. To analyze these elements,
it is necessary to collect data. Data collection can be
conducted by interview, survey or pre-test. Based on
this information the teacher will design and develop
instruction. Through each stage of the design process,

Table 1
Outline of the needs analysis conducted for an English course for office workers at a Japanese university.

Needs

Context

Learners

The purpose of this
instruction

The university is internationalized but the workers do not have the ability
to communicate in English.

Classroom and facility
characteristics

The workers are allowed to use classrooms and facilities.

Organizational
characteristics

The workers position and period of contract is varied. Willingness of selflearning is low.

Learner’s characteristics

They have positive attitudes towards leaning English. They are aware of the
weakness of their English skills.

Prerequisite skills

They have bachelor’s degrees and have studied English for at least 8 years.

Objectives

Identify English questions.
Answering the question in English..

Required outcome

Answer frequently asked questions in English appropriately and withcorrect pronunciation.

Goal

172 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Instructional Design for Teachers of English, pages 171-176
the instructor should conduct an evaluation and makechanges when necessary. Frequent evaluation enables
teachers to fix problems before they become serious
and to enhance the effectiveness of future teaching andlearning. (Gagné, Wager, Golas,& Keller, 2005/2012)

Methodology
In order to illustrate how the steps of the ADDIE
Model can be applied to a real instructional situation, I
have provided a description of a course that I designed
at my workplace at a private university in Japan. The
learners were administrators and the goal of the course
was to provide them with the necessary English skills
to communicate with foreign students and teachers – askill becoming more and more important due to theinternationalization of the university. The following
table provides an outline of the analysis and thequestions I asked in order to conduct my analysis:

Needs Assessment
Problem summary
The university changed their strategy regarding
international students to increase enrollment andcreate an international environment. Because of thisstrategy, the ratio of international students and thenumber of courses provided only in English increased.
As foreign students and teachers increased, the faculty
offices at the university struggled to provide effective
and efficient service due to a lack of English speakers.
There are two reasons for this; first, the university had
not hired enough people who could speak English.
This is because in the past, most of the foreign students
could speak Japanese because they had to take classin Japanese, so English skill was not vitally important
for administrators. Second, the current office worker’s
English ability is not enough to communicate withforeign students and teachers in English. English
language skills are not required for being hired as
an administrator at the university. However, sincemost of the workers are required to have at least anundergraduate degree, most workers have studied
English at least eight years from middle school touniversity. Yet, even with several years of instruction,
their English proficiency level was very low.

After examining the situation in the university andthe result of interviews with the office administratorsand foreign teachers and students, I decided thatthe university needed workers who could speak
conversational English with special attention
given to vocabulary commonly used in university
administration. Hiring new workers or train existing
workers will meet this need. However, since the hiring
process takes time and is costly, training existing worker
is the first logical step to solve this problem.

Context Analysis
Classroom and facility characteristics
The available classrooms and facilities for this
instruction are listed in Table 2.
Organizational characteristics
The staff in the university office consists of part-timeworkers, contract workers and full-time workers. The
part-time worker and contract workers have contracts
limited to 3 to 5 years, therefore, the staff memberschange frequently. Part-time and contract workers
mainly talk with teachers and students in all the offices
and many of them have experienced misunderstanding
with foreign teachers and students because of language
barrier. However, the results of my analysis showedthat even though these workers saw a need to study
English, many of them were not willing to do so.

Learner Analysis
To analyze characteristics and prerequisite skills of
the learners in this instruction, I decided to conduct
an interview and pre-test with them. The interview
questions were about the learners’ attitude towards
Table 2
List of available classrooms and facilities for instructionMore than 100 classrooms are available
Mostly 20 to 300 seats in the classroom
Classrooms
Tables and chairs are movable in someclassroom

Facilities

Projector and screen are equipped in all theclassrooms
PC is not equipped but faculty office lend
laptop PC

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

173

Kohyama
learning English, their learning style, and the balancein their lives between study and work. The pre-test
was a fill-in-the-blank test based on frequently asked
question from foreign teachers and students in theoffice and common vocabulary used in a university
administration setting.
Background
The researcher picked three workers from an office thatare engaged in teacher and student services. This officeis the first place that teachers and students go when
they have questions. Therefore, these workers have an
important role to answer teachers’ and students’ theirquestions or guide them to the people who can answer
their questions. The learners were from 25 to 33 yearsof age and were all female. They worked as part-timeworkers or on a five-year contract and they had beenworking in the office for one to two and half years. Oneof the learners was a receptionist and others helped had
the task of helping the receptionist when the office wasbusy. They all graduated university and had degrees ina variety of majors including economics, social studies
and English literature. They studied English for at least
eight years from middle school until their second yearof university. One of them had been taking English
lessons once a week for a year at a private English
conversation school.
Characteristics
The participants liked talking with coworkers, teachersand students and they were interested in their work.
They had adequate communication skills and could
explain university systems and processes as well as havethe ability to make small talk with customers in theirnative language. One of the learners said that she wasshy to talk with people until she got to know them well.
However, her anxiety increased when she had to speak
English because she was afraid of making grammaticalmistakes or having misunderstanding. The other two
learners were not afraid of speaking English; when
they had to speak English, they tried to speak andeven if they did not know certain vocabulary, they
explained what they wanted to say with single words
and body language. All the learners assessed theirEnglish speaking skill as poor, however; they believed
their reading and listening skill were better than their

174 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

speaking skills. They thought the reason why they
were not good at speaking English is because they did
not practice speaking in the English courses they hadtaken. This is common in Japan, especially in highschool where the goal of English classes is to prepare
students for college entrance exams, not improvepractical communication skills. They learned highlevel grammar and/or reading skills in these classes but
they didn’t have enough opportunity to actually speakin English. They believed that they could increase theirEnglish speaking skill if they got used to speaking
English and were able to build their vocabulary.
Prerequisite skill
All participants had studied English for at least
eight years from middle school to the second year of
university. From these eight years, it can be assumed
that they have enough English skill to speak basic
English and understand basic English spoken tothem. The result of the pre-test showed that they haveenough skill to make simple English sentences withsubjects and verbs. Two of them completed all of theanswers on the pre-test using full sentences and one ofthem answered with full sentences or in some cases, asingle word. All of them seemed to not to have enoughspecialized vocabulary knowledge (words frequently
used in university administrative offices). Some
vocabulary that they struggled with was the name ofeach faculty at the university, and the words “graduate
student” and “scholarship”.
Motivation
From the interview, the researcher learned that all thelearners had a positive attitude for studying English.
The learners were motivated to learn English becausewith this skill they could:•• Provide better service to the teachers and students
in their workplace.
•• Be seen as more valuable employees in their current
job and in future jobs.
•• Enrich their life by communicating with a wide
range of people
Unfortunately, this dose not means that they were
motivated to study English. One learner had to takecare of an elderly family member after work, so she did
not have the time to study even though she wanted to.

Instructional Design for Teachers of English, pages 171-176
Another learner said that she was more interested inusing her spare time to study other subjects. The lastlearner said that she was willing to study English afterwork if someone would make her a study plan andteach her what to do.
Learning style
All the learners preferred to be taught by someone
rather than to study by themselves. The reason was
because they could not motivate themselves without
direction. Also, they said they could not disciplinethemselves to study if they did not have a teacher towatch over them. One of the reasons why they might
have had this attitude is because Japanese education
tends to be teacher-centered and students are notrequired to be actively involved in the course; they
are only required to listen to lectures and take notes.
Even though they have similar preference for learning
style, they have different style when they study bythemselves. For example, one learner preferred to write
the words on paper to memorize vocabulary, while
the other learner preferred to read the words out loudwhile she was writing them. Another learner preferred
to memorize the words used in a sentence.

Goals
After completing the assessment of needs and learner
analysis, the following goal of instruction was written:
At the completion of four one-hour lessons, thelearners will be able to respond to frequently asked
question appropriately and with correct pronunciation
when asked each English question by a native English
speaker in a controlled setting.
In the process of accomplishing the goal, thelearners were able to get knowledge or skill needed
for their work. Objectives are a detailed description ofwhat the learners are able to do when the instruction
is finished. The objectives of this instruction are listed
below:
Objectives
1. The learners will be able to identify the mainidea of an English dialogue presented througha video and locate English words and phrases inthe dialogue which they already know.
2. After looking at a written list of vocabulary

words from the dialogue, the learners will beable to identify the definition of the words thatthey do not know and discover the correct usageof words with multiple meanings in the context
of the presented dialogue.
3. While reading the vocabulary list the learners
will identify words with which they are notfamiliar, look up these words in an electronic
dictionary and write the Japanese translationsof these words next to the English – the learners
should ask the instructor for clarification if
there are multiple meanings to a word.

Discussion
A thorough front-end analysis identifies what thelearners want to learn and the resources available tohave efficient and effective instruction. By clarifying
the needs and goals of the learners, the instructor
is able to eliminate content from instruction thatis not important for them. Also, specific goals andobjectives can motivate learners by showing them
what demonstrable skills they will possess after theperiod of instruction. In my case, the instructional
design process contributed to my ability to develop an
effective training program at my office, because I could
understand the learners’ characteristics and their needs
clearly. For this reason, the instruction was rewarding
for both the instructor and the learners. I believe theinstructional design process is a bridge between the
instructor and learners that not only contributes to thecreation of more effective and efficient instruction, butalso helps both parties to better understand the other.

Reference
Dick, W., Cary, L.,& Cary, J. O.(2009). Hajimete no
instructional design. [The systematic design of
instruction (5th ed.)]. (T. Kado, N. Tada, C. Ishii,
Trans.).Tokyo, Japan: Pearson Education Japan.
(Original work published 2001).
Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller,
J. M. (2012). Instructional design no genri.
[Principle of instructional design (5th ed.)].(K.
Suzuki, S. Iwasaki, Trans.). Kyoto: Kitaooji Shobo
Publishing Ltd. (Original work published 2005).
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

175

Kohyama
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2010). Teaching online: A
practical guide. New York, NY: Routledge
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2007). Trend andissues in instructional design and technology (2nded.). Upper Side River, NJ: Pearson Education

Inc.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional
design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley&Sons.Inc.

Author’s Biography:
Megumi Kohyama works as an office administrator at Ritsumeikan University. She is currently
studying for her graduate certificate in online teaching at the University of Wyoming.

176 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Interactional Language and Head-Held Camcorders

Duane Kindt
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies
kindt@nufs.ac.jp
After 2 years of employing head-held camcorders to explore and develop classroom interactional
language in a variety of classroom activities, the author has begun the construction of a video archive,
called the Database of English Learner Interaction (DELI). This practice-oriented paper provides
a brief description of head-held camcorders and their introduction to and use with students. It also
includes a selection of interactional language from the DELI used to create classroom activities
focusing on pragmatic development which include: 1) understanding explanations in teacherstudent interaction, 2) using strategies in pair work during collaborative dialogues, and 3) focusing
on greeting, small talk, and leave-taking in role plays. The paper concludes with a discussion of someof the benefits and limitations of head-held video for increasing pragmatic skills.
頭部装着ビデオカメラを用いてさまざまな授業アクティビティにおいて対話言語の調査と開発を2年間実施し、Database of English Learner Interaction (DELI)という授業での対話言語のビデオ記録データを作り上げた。
この実践志向型の研究論文では、頭部装着ビデオカメラに関する簡単な説明と概要、学生が使用する方法について述べられている。更に、1）教員・学生間相互の説明理解、2）協同して行う対話ペアワークでの手法の使用、3）挨拶、雑談、分かれ際の会話のロールプレイ 、の3つを含む語用論的な発展に焦点をおいた、授業でのアクティビティを行うのに使用されたDELIの対話言語の選集も含まれる。論文は、語用論的な技術の向上に向けた頭部装着ビデオの利点と制限等についての議論にて総括される。

Introduction*

The importance of interaction in the developmentof human communication and language skills is
firmly established. Studies in the related fields ofsociolinguistics (Hymes, 1972), pragmatics (Levinson,1983), and interactional competence (Kramsch, 1986)
show that these are “founded on innate universal
skills” (Atkinson, 2013, p. 1), which can be targeted
for development in instructional settings (Kasper &Kindt, D. (2014). Interactional language and headheld camcorders. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks, M.
Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 177-187). Nagoya:
JALT.

*

Rose, 2001). Building on the concept of sociolinguisticcompetence introduced by Canale and Swain (1980),
applied linguists and language educators have studied
methods to effectively prepare students for L2
encounters either at home or abroad (see, for example,
Carletta & Mellish, 1996; Taguchi, 2008).
My interest in targeting pragmatic skills in theclassroom comes from a desire to increase students’classroom interactional competence (CIC) (Walsh,2011). From oral communication (OC) classroom
observation, it was readily apparent that some students,
as Swain (2000) notes, are more comfortable thanothers when interacting during collaborative dialogues(CDs). Walsh (2012) reports that while skills in CIC
are “highly context specific,” there are certain features
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

177

Kindtof CIC which can be encouraged and promoted in any
setting (p. 12). Among the skills I had hoped to promote,at least initially, were purposeful and appropriate useof language to achieve certain outcomes in classroom
dialogues in a variety of situations and for a variety ofpragmatic purposes (Kindt, 2011).
Modern, compact camcorders are a popular toolfor exploring aspects of classroom interaction including
the effectiveness of teacher instruction (Nunan,
1990), learner’s perceptions of interactional feedback(Mackey, 2002), and the evaluation of communicative
language learning (Klapper, 1991). They have also
been used in language classrooms to research, forexample, student affect (Spielmann & Radnofsky,2001), interaction in dyads (Nabei & Swain, 2002),
and classroom dynamics (DuFon, 2002). Johnson,
Sullivan, and Williams (2009), however, point out
that a limitation in these studies is that stationary
and hand-held camcorders provide only a static, nonparticipant view of classroom events (p. 35). Even
when using several stationary or hand-held camcorders(Fitzgerald, Hackling, & Dawson, 2013), there is still
an obtrusive, observer’s distance (Gredler, 1995).
This situation changed in 2005, when reasonably
priced head-held or point of view (POV) camcorders
came on the market (Berra, 2010). The current interestin using these powerful, lightweight POV camcorders
in educational settings (Hargis & Marotta, 2011;
Rowell, 2009) is partially due to their ability to record
a closer approximation of what the wearer actually seesand hears while participating in events. Considering
these unique benefits, this paper presents a selectionof classroom language captured with POV camcordersthat were used to support student development of
pragmatic competence.

The GoPro Hero 2 and Its
Introduction to Students
I selected the GoPro Hero 2 (GoPro®, 2012) for
classroom trials due, in large part, to its central, headheld position, the best among POV camcorders for
capturing participant interaction. Furthermore, theHero 2 records in 1080p high-definition (HD) witha wide, 170˚ field-of-capture in mp4 format. It uses a

178 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

memory card up to 32GB that provides approximately
four hours of video. A fully charged battery records for
up to 2.5 hours. I should note here that as of December
2012, the next generation, the GoPro Hero 3 doubles
the capability of the Hero 2 but has half its size andweight. An upgrade, the Hero 3+, was released in
October 2013.
I introduced the GoPro camcorder to students
at the beginning of the second semester of a yearlong
OC course. Preparing to talk about summer events,
we brainstormed some activities that might beinteresting to do while wearing a head-held camcorder.
Suggestions were “climbing a mountain,” “cooking
something,” “riding a roller coaster,” and the like.
Then, I suggested “language learning,” and showed
students the camcorder, explaining that “I would liketo be able to see the class through their eyes,” (Kindt,2011). Finally, I asked for permission to use thecamcorder—emphasizing that the recordings would
be for the class or research purposes and anyone could
ask not to participate at any time either verbally or
via email. Once general permission was given, I asked
for a volunteer. In all four classes in the trials, the first
volunteer came quickly.

Capturing and Using Head-Held
Video for Pragmatic Development
Capturing classroom language, however, has many
challenges (Fitzgerald et al., 2013). When first using
POV camcorders, I soon realized that the naturalnoise of an interactive classroom can diminish
the intelligibility of the POV dyad’s conversation(Kindt, 2013c). To minimize this problem, wirelesstransmitters and receivers have been employed, thereceiver attached to the camcorder and a lavaliermicrophone for the cameraperson and the transmitter
attached to a second lavaliere microphone for thepartner (Kindt, 2013a). Unfortunately, this solution
was not found until halfway through the second yearof trials.
From these recordings, I choose two- to threeminute clips to use in creating materials for use withthe same students, predominantly, in subsequent classmeetings. I had targeted POV footage I believed would

Interactional Language and Head-Held Camcorders, pages 177-187
provide a rich source of data that focused on particular
pragmatic goals. Here, I present 3 examples of POVderived materials focused on: 1) understanding
explanations in teacher-student interactions, 2)
reviewing strategies for effective pair work, and 3)
greeting, small talk, and leave-taking in role plays. For
each of the 3 examples mentioned above, and following
Nguyen, Pham and Pham (2012), I first focused onbuilding students’ pragmatic awareness by pointing
out instances that are likely to afford opportunities
for improvement. To achieve this, I chose clips thatshowed evidence of not only students’ successful useof the focus of the materials but also examples whereinteractions could be improved.

1) Understanding Explanations
One important area of classroom pragmaticdevelopment is appropriately asking for andunderstanding explanations. In the first example(Appendix A), two students are working on a task intheir textbook, Impact Issues 2 (Day & Yamanaka,2009), designed to generate discussion by exploring
opinions about the nature of happiness (p. 72).
During their discussion, the students come across theword “worthy.” Unsure of its meaning, they asked
me for explanation. Later, when viewing the video,
I found that both students and I used a number of
useful expressions for understanding explanations,but there were also a number of instances where theexchange of meaning could have been enhanced. Thus,
I transcribed the section and created a worksheet toreturn to students in the following class.
When presenting the POV clip and materials tostudents in the following class, I first had them viewthe clip, watching for “useful expressions,” “alternative
expressions,” and “improvements.” After the firstviewing, I gave students the handout and asked themto listen again. Then students worked together to fillin the blanks representing useful expressions. After
listening a third time, students again collaborated
in clarifying the useful expressions and also trying tobrainstorm possible alternatives. We finished using thehandout by discussing alternatives and improvements.
I offered suggestions for those expressions that
presented difficulties, such as “Okay, so you’re saying

people won’t be happy until they go to heaven?”
Following this procedure, students were able to not
only understand the situation and what needed tobe communicated, but also came up with alternative
responses, which I clarified, improved, or suggested.

2) Pair Work
According to Swain (2000), it is reasonable to assume
that students skilled in participating in effective pairwork can also increase the likelihood of acquisition.
In the second example, students talk in pairs about
free time (see Kenny & Woo, 2012, unit 6). In theconversation, a higher-ability student takes the leadin helping her partner to describe what he does in his
free time (Appendix B). Though of lower-ability, thepartner also uses a number of effective strategies tomake appropriate contributions to the negotiation of
meaning. Because of this, and because students werepreparing for a final group conversation evaluation
with a strategic competence component, I decided tomake a handout reviewing strategies.
For this handout (Appendix B), I underlined someconversation strategies, and noted the errors. I began byasking students to watch the clip, this time listening forstrategies. Then referring to the handout, they watchedagain, this time trying to fill in the blanks with namesof strategies used in the double-underlined dialogue.
After allowing students time to compare with partners,
I wrote the strategies on the board in alphabeticalorder. Students watched a final time before trying tofill them in and compare their responses. It may appear
that there are too many strategies for a single lesson,
but since this was for a strategies review, students had
already been shown and practiced these strategies inprevious classes. After filling in the blanks with theappropriate strategies, I asked students to try speaking
again about the topic, putting a mark by the strategies
whenever they used one. In this case, I was able to hear
instances of strategy use, indicating that students arelikely familiarizing themselves with their use.

3) Role Play
Since classrooms can only simulate the outside world,role plays are often employed to support pragmatic
skills development (Bray, 2010). To help students
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

179

Kindtto be better able to communicate effectively in thissituations, a role play was developed in which students
were given the chance to talk in front of the class ina simulated chance meeting, imagining they had justmet after the summer break and had only a couple ofminutes to chat before taking leave.
Relying on the few minutes captured by thevolunteer cameraperson during her role-play, I wasable to pinpoint a number of pragmatic points related
to greeting, small talk, and leave-taking (Appendix C).
In this case, students watched the scene simply to see
if the actors are effective in these pragmatic points.
Once I had elicited some reactions, I distributed thehandout and showed the clip again, asking students
to correct the grammar points. Then we looked moreclosely at the blanks, indicating a place for writing
improvements, such as “Did I miss something?” rather
than “Mm?” and “Well, I better let you go,” rather thanthe ubiquitous “See ya.”In this case, some students were able tocollaborate to correct grammatical forms and indicate
improvements. For instances that required pragmatic
skills beyond the ability of any students in the class,however, I offered suggestions. I believe this was aneffective procedure for allowing students to tap into
their linguistic knowledge but also allow for new
pragmatic structures that were taught within a clear
interactional context.

Benefits and Limitations of HeadHeld Camcorders
Though analysis of events captured with establishedtools like stationary or hand-held camcorders canincrease our understandings of language classrooms,
head-held camcorders can provide a more accurate
representation of the participant experience. The clear
benefit is that they capture what students actually say
and do (Kindt, 2013c). While is it true that head-held
camcorders are intrusive, participants not only become
more spontaneous with time, but it appears they are
more playful and carefree with POV devices than
traditional video.
When comparing head-held camcorders tostationary laboratory webcams, some limitations were180 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

apparent: 1) the audio was inferior, 2) there werenumerous interruptions and distractions, 3) there wasrelatively less focus on interactive tasks, and 4) onlya single dyad could be recorded. POV recordings
are, however, less constrained as, being in a language
classroom, there were: 1) more artifact affordances,“[properties] of the environment that [are] relevant…
to an active, perceiving organism in that environment”(van Lier, 2000, p. 252), 2) markedly different learningalignments, the “processes through which humanbeings effect coordinated interaction” (Atkinson,
Churchill, Nishino, & Okada, 2007, p. 169), and 3)
variance of nonverbal aspects, such as gesture, facial
expression and body positioning (Barraja-Rohan,
2011, p. 9). Furthermore, in laboratory-style video
conversations, students were well-aware that theirpartners and teacher will subsequently view therecording and would be required to complete a followup transcription (Kindt, 2013b), possibly limiting thenaturalness of their production.
Even though POV camcorders are intrusive,
students appeared to use them more playfully, like anentertainment tool rather than a study tool. In fact,in preliminary feedback from volunteers, some notedthat they had “seen the camera used by comedians instunts, and they find it interesting and unique” (Kindt,
2011, p. 185). The novelty of the camcorder graduallydiminishes, but because the majority of volunteers overthe course of a semester are using the camcorder for the
first time, a sense of lightheartedness and uniquenessremained.

Discussion and future directions
Though it impossible at this stage to confidently
claim that the use of POV clips in creating materials
for classes is effective for helping students to develop
pragmatic competence, looking at the clips I havecollected indicates a number of promising outcomes: 1)
in all the footage, students appeared quite comfortableand often playful, 2) they were increasingly at easeoffering suggestions, corrections, and brainstorming
improvements on handouts, and 3) some of thesuggestions have, indeed, appeared in subsequent
practice conversations and language lab recordings.
There are a number of encouraging avenues forInteractional Language and Head-Held Camcorders, pages 177-187
both pedagogy and research related to head-held
camcorders, authentic classroom interaction, andpragmatic competence. As various pragmatic aspects
appear in POV footage, new ways of bringing thesefoci to students’ attention and helping them to develop
those skills will need to be designed. As classroom data
become easier to capture, both practitioner and researchdatabases, like the DELI, will emerge and contribute toour understanding of learner language and pragmaticdevelopment. Someday, we may be able to conduct
studies that involve all participants simultaneously
wired for video. Though not yet practical, we can begin
to narrow the divide between what we think we know
and what we can know about classroom interaction byusing the POV camcorder.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the many membersof the JALT Pragmatics SIG who supported thispresentation and paper.

References
Atkinson, D. (2013). Language learning in
mindbodyworld: A sociocognitive approach tosecond language acquisition. Language Teaching,
July, 1-17. doi: 10.1017/s0261444813000153
Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., & Okada,
H. (2007). Alignment and Interaction in a
Sociocognitive Approach to Second Language
Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal,
91(ii), 169-188.
Barraja-Rohan, A. M. (2011). Using conversation
analysis in the second language classroom toteach interactional competence. Language
Teaching Research, 15(4), 479-507. doi:
10.1177/1362168811412878
Berra, S. (2010). Company Q&A GoPro: With
company founder/inventor Nick Woodman.
Retrieved from http://www.malakye.com/asp/
front/CMSPage.asp?TYP_ID=2&ID=2831
Bray, E. (2010). Doing role-play successfully inJapanese language classrooms. The Language
Teacher, 34(2), 13-18.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases ofcommunicative approaches to second language
teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Carletta, J., & Mellish, C. S. (1996). Risk-taking andrecovery in task-oriented dialogue. Journal of
Pragmatics, 26, 71-107.
Day, R., & Yamanaka, J. (2009). Impact Issues 2 (2nded.). London, England: Longman.
DuFon, M. A. (2002). Video recording in
ethnographic SLA research: Some issues ofvalidity in data collection. Language Learning &Technology, 6(1), 40-59.
Fitzgerald, A., Hackling, M., & Dawson, V. (2013).
Through the viewfinder: Reflecting on thecollection and analysis of classroom video data.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12,52-64.
GoPro®. (2012). GoPro Hero 2. Retrieved fromhttp://www.gopro.com
Gredler, M. (1995). Program Evaluation. Englewood
Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.
Hargis, J., & Marotta, S. M. (2011). Using Flip
camcorders for active classroom metacognitivereflection. Active Learning in Higher Education,
12(35).
Hymes, D. H. (1972). Models of the interaction of
language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. H.
Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The
Ethnography of Communication (pp. 35-71). New
York, NY: Holt.
Johnson, B., Sullivan, A. M., & Williams, D. (2009).
A one-eyed look at classroom life: Using newtechnologies to enrich classroom-based research.
Issues in Educational Research, 19(1), 34-47.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics
in Language Teaching. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Kenny, T., & Woo, L. (2012). Nice Talking with You.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Kindt, D. (2011). Seeing through the eyes of thestudents: First impressions of recording in
the classroom with a GoPro® head-mounted
camcorder. Nagoya University of Foreign
Studies Journal of the School of Contemporary
International Studies(7), 179-199.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

181

KindtKindt, D. (2013a). Employing POV video to developinteractional competence in oral communication
courses. ACTC2013 Conference Proceedings, 231242.
Kindt, D. (2013b). Follow-up activities and resources.
Retrieved from http://www.profkindt.com/site/
Follow-ups.html
Kindt, D. (2013c). Improving collaborative dialogues
with POV video. In N. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.),
JALT2012 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
Klapper, J. (1991). The role of the video camera incommunicative language teaching and evaluation.
Language Learning Journal, 4(September).
Kramsch, C. (1986). From Language Proficiency toInteractional Competence. Modern Language
Journal, 70(4), 366-372.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge
Cambridgeshire, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: learners’
perceptions about interactional processes.
International Journal of Educational Research,
37(3-4), 379-394.
Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner Awareness ofRecasts in Classroom Interaction: A Case Studyof an Adult EFL Student’s Second Language
Learning. Language Awareness, 11(1), 43-63.
Nguyen, T. T. M., Pham, T. H., & Pham, M. T.
(2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit
form-focused instruction on the developmentof L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of
Pragmatics, 44(4), 416-434. doi: 10.1016/j.

pragma.2012.01.003
Nunan, D. (1990). The teacher as researcher. In
C. Brumfit & R. Mitchell (Eds.), Research in
the Language Classroom (pp. 16-32). London,
England: Modern English Publications and theBritish Council.
Rowell, L. (2009). How Tiny Camcorders Are
Changing Education. http://www.elearnmag.
org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=98-1
Spielmann, G., & Radnofsky, M. L. (2001). Learning
language under tension: New directions froma qualitative study. Modern Language Journal,
85(2), 259-278.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond:Mediating acquisition through collaborative
dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory
and Second Language Learning (pp. 97-114).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Taguchi, N. (2008). The role of learning environment
in the development of pragmatic comprehension.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance;
Social-interactive learning from an ecologicalperspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural
Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 245260). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse.
Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualizing classroom
interactional discourse. Novitas Royal, 6(1), 1-14.

Author’s Biography:
Duane Kindt’s doctoral work explored the complex, dynamic nature of student engagement
propensities. He is currently interested in using innovative technologies to explore pragmaticcompetence.

182 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Interactional Language and Head-Held Camcorders, pages 177-187

Appendix A
1) Understanding explanations (teacher-student interaction)
Prof. Kindt (PK) is trying to answer Ayana (wearing the GoPro camcorder) and Sayaka’s questions about happiness.
Listen and fill in the blanks with their useful expressions. Then we’ll add alternatives Ⓐ and improvements Ⓘ
1. Sayaka
2. Ayana

How about, “Human beings are not worthyof being happy?”<checks her dictionary> Hm?
<laughs>

3. Sayaka

Human beings are not worthy of being happy.”

I don’t…

4. Ayana

I can’t understand.

5. Sayaka…understand . So I didn’t check that one Ⓘ. <looks at book>

6. Ayana

You are<laughs>

unsure.

7. Sayaka<raises hand> Prof. Kindt.

8. Ayana
9. PK<raises hand> <points> We can’t understand the meaning of
beings are not worthy of being happy.”
Yeah, that question is maybe about someone that believes in heaven…

10. AyanaMm.

11. PK…um, and thinking that life on earth is like a test, something that we have to work hard at
to get to heaven, and that person might say that, you know, our purpose as humans is not
to be happy, it’s to work hard and, and make it to heaven.
Mm. Okay, I see.
Ⓐ

12. Ayana
13. PK“Human

14. AyanaSo, then they’ll say, “human beings are not worthy,” that they haven’t earned happiness.
They haven’t worked to become happy. They’ll be happy if they go to heaven.
Ah.

15. Sayaka

Sayaka <turns to Ayana> I’m sorry, could you explain that again?

16. PK<gives more explanation> Do you know… “Worthy” means you’ve earned something. For
example, um, your TOEFL score needs to be 450 or higher to graduate…

17. AyanaMm.

18. PK
19. Ayana…so if you have a higher TOEFL score that 450, you’re “worthy” to graduate. You’ve
earned your graduation right…
Mm. Okay, I see. / Ah, I get it now.
Ⓐ

20. PK…though some people believe human beings don’t have a right to be happy

21. Ayana
22. PK
23. Ayana
24. PK
25. Ayana

Uh-huh. / Go on.

ⒶⒶ

Really?
They have to suffer.
Ha ha.
And be miserable. And because of those bad experiences you become able to enter heaven,“worthy” to enter heaven…
Mm.
Okay, so you’re saying people won’t be happy
until they go to heaven?
Ⓐ

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

183

Kindt
26. PK
27. Ayana

So… That’s just somebody’s opinion that “human beings aren’t worthy of being happy.” I
think, my opinion is, life is to be happy.
Oh.

28. Sayaka

We’re living so that we can enjoy our lives, I think. But that’s just another personal opinion.

29. Ayana

Mm. So, two different opinions. / So, you don’t agree.

30. Sayaka

Does that make sense

31. Ayana

Mm. Thank you.

184 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings?

ⒶInteractional Language and Head-Held Camcorders, pages 177-187

Appendix B
2) Pair work in collaborative dialogues (strategies review)
Shota (wearing the Contour camcorder) and Yuki are talking about free time. What strategies do they use? Write thename of the strategy next to where it’s used.
1. Shota

And I, how can I say <uses Japanese> the lyrics?

2. YukiAh, okay, okay.

3. Shota

Yeah.

4. YukiIt’s, like, kind of singing…

5. Shota

Do you know wha, what I mean? checking partner’s understanding

6. YukiWhat do you want to say? Just say it in Japanese. requesting Japanese

7. Shota

Ah, <uses Japanese>.

using Japanese

8. YukiAh, it is, like, humming.

offering a translation

9. Shota

Humming?

10. Yuki

Humming. Humming. Hmm. I think that’s what you mean.

11. Shota

Yeah.

12. Yuki

Humming.

13. Shota

Humming spell…? How do you spell that ? asking for spelling

14. Yuki
15. Shota

Uh, okay. I’ll write it down. Uh, I think it’s this. H-u-m-m… Yeah. Ca, do you have a
dictionary?
requesting a dictionary
Yeah.

16. YukiOh, just, no, no, no. Use this one, use this one.

17. Shota

Okay.

18. YukiThank you. How do you turn it on? Humming… Ah, wait. See? Hum.

19. Shota

Yeah. Yes, that’s right.

guessing what your partner means

using a dictionary
clarifying

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

185

KindtAppendix C3) Role Play (greeting, small talk, and leave-taking)
Sakie (wearing the GoPro camcorder) and Izumi are role-playing a chance meeting after the summer break. Use theblanks to add corrections. Later, we’ll think of some useful expressions Ⓔ.
Prof. Kindt Okay? Go!
1
2

Sakie

<laughter> Hi.

3

Izumi

Hey!

4

Sakie

Hey! Hi. How are you today?

5

Izumi

I’m fine.

6

Sakie

Oh, really?

7

Izumi

What are you doing here? [

8

Sakie

Hm? Just walking. [ Yeah, I had to come into school to register. Ⓔ]

9

Both

<laughter>

10

Sakie

11

Izumi

"Ah, so, what, what did you do last night?
[
What have you been up to lately?
Last night?

12

Sakie

Yeah.

13

Izumi

Uh, I drank with my boyfriend.

14

Sakie

<laughter> Oh, really?

15

Izumi

Yeah, I got a hangover.

16

Sakie

Ah-ha. That’s too bad.

17

Both

<laughter>

18

Sakie

Mm-mm. Mm? [ I’m sorry. / Did I miss something?

19

Izumi

I made…

20

Sakie

Mm.

21

Izumi

…dinner…

22

Sakie

Ah, really?

23

Izumi

…with my boyfriend.

24

Sakie

What kind of food did you cook?

25

Izumi

Um, Italian food.

26

Sakie

Oh, that sounds delicious. <laughter>

27

Izumi

But the taste was not so good.

28

Sakie

Eh? [

29

Izumi

Mm… Because my boyfriend cooked.

30

Sakie

Uh, ah, really? <laughter> Mm.

31

Izumi

What did you do last night?

32

Sakie

Mm, last night? Mm, nothing special. Mm, yeah.

33

Izumi

How’s your boyfriend?

What?

I’m surprised to see you here.

Ⓔ] Really? <laughter> Why?

186 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Ⓔ]

Ⓔ]”

Ⓔ]

Interactional Language and Head-Held Camcorders, pages 177-187
34

Sakie

Mm, my boyfriend? <laughter> Ah, during summer vacation, uh, I went to watch
the some game games because my boyfriend is rugby player and, and…
And he earns money?

35

Izumi

36

Sakie

37

Izumi

Yeah. <laughter> And, mm, he… Oh, when I met him, I didn’t know that but, so, mm,he, he is always, mm, funny, so, and say tells a lot of joke jokes , so, I, I, it’sunbelievable, for me, <laughter> uh, that he play plays ...
He’s different.

38

Sakie

Mm?

39

Izumi

Ⓔ

40

Sakie

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Ah…

41

Izumi

Oh! A phone calling call ! It’s my boyfriend.

42

Sakie

"Boyfriend? See you. <laughter> [Well, I better let you go.
/
Well, talk to you later.
Ⓔ]

How he is on and off the field are

different.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

187

Introducing Student Developed Low-Level Listening
Materials into the EFL Classroom

Mark WrightKyoto Sangyo University
markwwright@gmail.com
There are a plethora of ready-made materials available on-line, all of which can be utilized by educatorsand students that can help learners to hone their listening skills. Student input into designing theirown listening activities can not only help to enliven these sometimes neglected important skills,
but can also help lead the way for constructive discussion to take place in the classroom. This paper
will first try to summarize what is known about the processes of listening and how these views
have changed over the years. Second, some of the other considerations in selecting activities for acollaborative dedicated EFL listening course will also be listed. This includes showing an example ofa student created authentic listening activity from the Internet site YouTube, and then talking about
its classroom implementation. Finally, results of a recent student survey relating to students’ interestin this approach will also be posted and discussed.
インターネット上には、教育者や学習者がリスニングスキルを高めるために使用可能な教材が溢れている。学習者自身がリスニング活動を作成することは、重要で忘れられがちなそのようなスキルを活性化するだけでなく、教室での建設的なディスカッションにも有用である。本稿は、その理解を深めるため、
まずリスニングの過程として知られていることと、その過程が歴史的にどのように見られてきたかを要約する。次に協同的で献身的な
EFLリスニングクラスのための活動選びにおいて考慮すべき点を挙げる。
それには例として、’YouTube’というインターネットサイトを使って生徒が作ったリスニング活動を紹介
しまた教室でその使用を話し合ったことを紹介する。最後にこのアプローチに対する学生の興味に関する調査結果を報告し、考察する。

Background*

It wasn’t all that long ago when listening practices
in language classes were viewed simply as a way of
introducing new grammar. Students who undertook
the study of a second language tended to center theirenergies on being able to translate written texts, rather
Wright, M. (2014). Introducing student developed
low-level listening materials into the EFL classroom.
In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan(Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp.
188-196). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

188 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

than focus on oral communication. The prevailingthought at the time was that by employing thismethod of Grammar-Translation, learners would be
able to understand the structure and grammar of thetarget language; thus, the rest of the comprehension
would naturally follow. This led to other skills, such as
listening and speaking, to be sometimes neglected orrelegated by some educators to being only secondary
skills or merely as a “means to other ends, rather thanends in themselves” (Nunan, 1997, p. 1).
However, attitudes did start to change with the
popularity of the Audio-lingual Method in the lateIntroducing Student Developed Low-Level Listening Materials, pages 188-196
1960’s. Although it was criticized for being rather
restrictive in its drills and application, it did however,highlight and renew interest in the role that oral
communication could play in the field of second
language learning. In particular, the sometimes
forgotten, but important role that listening plays insecond language learning and acquisition. Interest in
this field was again further expanded in the 1980’s
with Krashen’s (1982), (as cited in Nunan, 1997)
ideas of comprehensible input. Subsequently, over
the years, both researchers and educators alike havededicated an increasing amount of time in trying todevelop this skill in the classroom. As Rost (1994),(as cited in Nunan, 1997) explains, listening is “vitalin the language classroom because it provides input for
the learner. Without understanding input at the rightlevel, any learning simply cannot begin. Listening isthus fundamental to speaking” (p.1).

Cognitive Processes in Listening
Comprehension
Despite its early misgivings, the importance of listening
is now becoming more widely accepted in many
language programs as a core component (Richards,
2005). However, for many instructors, little thought
is still given to the actual listening processes itself. As
Underwood (1989) explains, like most people in thisfield, no one is quite sure how “listening works or how
people learn to listen and understand” (p. 1). Seo(2002) further expands by making the statement that
listening is, “after all, a covert activity, and the processes
involved have not yet been the subject of intensive or
extensive research” (p. 57).
What is known though, is that when we listen
there are two major processes occurring. They are theprocesses of perception involved in which the brain
makes upon receiving an acoustic signal through theear and then decoding it into language sounds, andthe processes at work, which make the aural input
meaningful to the listener.
Within these processes lie a number of subprocesses that teachers may not be aware of. According
to Peterson (2001) and Van Duzer (1997), some ofthese include being able to:

1. Realize the relevant context of the message
2. Recall the relevant schemata or backgroundinformation
3. Assign meaning
4. Predict possible outcomes of the intended
message
5. Decide on what information is to be transferred
between short-term and long-term memory
6. Recognize and match key words to the “semantic
structure of the text” (Peterson, 2001, p. 90).
It should be stated that this list does not follow
any particular order and it is in no way exhaustive. It
is merely an indication of how people’s perceptionof listening has changed over the years. Previously
regarded mainly as a passive skill, or a skill “taken
for granted” (Hedge, 2005, p. 229), listening is now
regarded more of an active process of “selecting andinterpreting information from auditory and visualclues” (Van Duzer, 1997, p. 2).
In addition to the processes and sub-processes
already discussed, researchers also believe that at thesame time we listen, two major cognitive processes
are in play: bottom-up processing (data driven) and topdown processing (conceptually-driven).
In the first of these, bottom-up processing, thebrain acts as a form of a data entry recorder (Nunan,
1997). Listening data enters the brain and this in turnis transformed into sounds. The listener then attempts
to decode these sounds into words. Grammatical
relationships are developed as these words are linked toform phrases, which lead to the formation of sentence
constructions, eventually ending up as meaning for thelistener (Van Duzer, 1997, p. 3).
On the other hand, top-down processing, works
from the other end. The premise being that the listenerre-constructs meaning using the incoming sounds asclues. To achieve this, the listener relies on his or hers
prior schemata or background knowledge to anticipate
the meaning of what the speaker might be trying to say.
The context is important in this situation. Things suchas situational awareness, topic at hand, relationshipof the speaker, and knowledge of prior events are justsome of the important factors required for meaning tooccur (Nunan, 1997).
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

189

Wright
However, it is worth noting that recent studies tend
to indicate that both processes tend to work in tandem
when we listen. As Peterson (2001) explains, “Inproficient listeners, top-down and bottom-up processes
interact, so that a lack of information at one level canbe compensated for by checking against information
at another level” (p. 89). For teachers, Van Duzer(1997) warns, “learners need to be aware that both ofthese processes affect their listening comprehension,and they need to be given opportunities to practice
employing each of them” (p.3).

Classroom Listening Activities
As already discussed, there are a number of cognitive
processes and sub-processes taking part while welisten. For a native listener, these are skills that occur
simultaneously and sub-consciously, but for nonnative listeners there will be times when these processes
may break down. Listening then becomes more ofa conscious effort rather than just being a passive
act, with the listener becoming “aware of the needfor repair” by seeking, “an appropriate strategy forcomprehension” (Peterson, 2001, p. 90). Therefore,
it is important that teachers take care when selecting
strategies and listening activities for their classes. Some
ideas in how to achieve these are discussed in thefollowing paragraphs.
First of all, it is important that tasks remain relevant
and hopefully useful for students in their everyday life.
Motivation is an important factor here. As Grognet
and Van Duzer (2003) explain, “to keep motivation
high, listeners must have a purpose for listening” (p.3).
If the task is not of particular interest, there maybe apossibility of students shutting down or not gaining
any substantial benefit.
Second, activities should try to teach not test. A
lot of the time, both students and teachers alike, tend
to link a listening task to some form of challenge ortest. Efforts should be made in designing lessons,which promote and encourage learning rather thanjust reinforcing knowledge already gained. This could
be achieved through such activities as listening gamesor role-playing rather than focusing on simple true andfalse or multiple-choice tasks.
Whenever possible, the development of different

190 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

styles of listening strategies should also be encouraged.
The use of authentic materials has long been argued as
one effective way in which to achieve this (Grognet &Van Duzer, 2003). Teachers now have at their disposal
quite a number of free supplemental materials thatare able be accessed on-line; all of which can provide
unique authentic listening opportunities for students.
These include all sorts of audio and visual bytes suchas DVDs, vodcasts, podcasts, radio and television
streaming broadcasts just to mention a few.
When using authentic materials, the tasks
themselves should not be modified, but kept as
natural as possible by including such things as pauses,
rephrasing and various accents. The level of difficulty
can be controlled through the selection of tasks (VanDuzer, 1997). By keeping the listening tasks authentic,
learners can also keep up to date with current language
trends, such as slang words, sayings and idioms, byallowing them to experience language in a morepractical way.

Classroom Application
Example Lesson
This paper so far has discussed only a small numberof the processes and sub-processes that can occur
during a listening task. Armed with this knowledge, I
have attempted to engage the students to think morecritically about their listening capabilities by exposing
them to some of the authentic sound and visual bytes
readily available from the Internet. To achieve this,I have actively tried to get the students to be more
actively involved through discussion and collaborative
group work and by allowing them a greater degree ofcontrol over the content of the lesson. The following isa description of one such task.

ParticipantsThis particular task was developed and taught touniversity students who were undertaking a dedicatedintermediate listening-theme course as an elective.
Being an elective, the age of the students ranged from
1st year to 4th year. Classes met once a week over a 15week period. Class sizes were limited to 20 students.
There were two classes in all.

Introducing Student Developed Low-Level Listening Materials, pages 188-196

Objectives
As part of their ongoing assessment, students in turnwere required before class to find a short (3 min) videofrom the Internet relating to a pre-determined theme.
Students were also required to prepare a worksheet inadvance to be distributed and then discussed in class(Appendix 1). The allotted task time to achieve thistask was set at twenty-five minutes.

Procedure
Step 1- Before Class
Presenters are assigned the previous week, andat this time the theme is also set. The students are
required to search for a video from the Internet.

While not restricted to, most videos are sourced from
YouTube due to its wide range of choice and ease ofaccess (Figure 1).
Students are also given a worksheet to complete
before class. On this the students write a brief summaryof the video they have found including any otherfurther information they feel is relevant to the topic(Figure 2). The students are also required to record
the details of the YouTube video, including the title,
URL and up-loader. In addition, two key words fromthe summary are listed and explained as well as one
key point is selected (Figure 3). Finally questions that
relate to the video are listed for discussion (Figure 4).
The following figures are taken from a student example.

Figure 1. Video selection – student sample (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekL_sfRX7DY)

Figure 2. Video summary – student sample.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

191

Wright

Figure 3. Previewing details, keywords and key points – student sample.

Figure 4. Questions – student sample

Step 3 – In Class
The following week in class, the presenter
distributes the worksheet (Appendix 1) to the otherclass members. Students are placed into groups andwork together through the summary, key words andkey points. Groups are also encouraged to come up
with their own keywords and key points. All thistime, the presenter is rotating from group to group,facilitating ideas and discussion.

192 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Step 4The presenter then goes onto play the selectedvideo three times. Between each viewing, students
discuss their answers in groups. Finally, the presenter
brings the whole class together to hear the replies fromthe various groups and to offer his own input.

Advantages
There are a number of advantages to this style oflistening task. First of all, it allows the students toIntroducing Student Developed Low-Level Listening Materials, pages 188-196
practice their researching skills. By sorting throughthe enormous amount of content available, presenters
are faced with the challenge of not only trying tofind a video which is relevant and that fits the week’s
predetermined theme, but more importantly, find
one that is of interest to other students. Second, italso allows the students some amount of control overthe content of the lesson. As Nunan (1997) states, achallenge for any teacher in the listening classroom is
to allow learners to “bring something of themselvesto the task” (p. 2). In addition, students also have theopportunity to be exposed to authentic listening texts.
Finally, it gives the presenters experience in speaking
and to build on their self-confidence by delivering
their materials in front of a class. Their work is subject
to peer review in the group; it provides a platform
for students to feel more positive about their own
learning, especially when a challenging task has beensuccessfully achieved in English (Ebata, 2008).

Copyright Concerns
It should be noted that all attempts are made to ensurethat there are no breaches of copyright. Article 35(1)of the Japanese Copyright Act allows for educational
institutions to reproduce work already made public, aslong as it is for non-profit and for educational purposes(CRIC, 2012).

Student Feedback
To gauge student interest and to work on improvements,a short survey was conducted at the end of thesemester. For ease of analysis, a 5-point Linkert scale,from strongly disagree to strongly agree, was employed
to gather data. The survey consisted of 16 questions
and was preceded by 2 open-ended questions and wasadministered in both Japanese and English.

Survey Results
The number of students who use English outside of
the classroom was of particular interest (Table 1). A
great number of students indicated that they wanted
to improve their English communication and listening
skills in order to participate on global social media
sites such as Facebook or Twitter. This is despite thefact that 88% of the respondents have never visited an
English-speaking country (Table 2).
Table 1
Use of English outside of class

Responses

Percentage

Internet & E-mail

57%

None

31%

Talking with Native English Speakers

12%

Table 2
Have visited an English-speaking country

Responses

Percentage

Never

88%

Less than 1 week

9%

More than 1 year3%

Most encouraging was that most students chose toemploy an English search engine (Table 3) rather thanrely on just using Japanese, with the majority spending
one hour or more on researching and preparing for thetask (Table 4).
A detailed summary of the rest of the survey results,
are provided below (Table 5). Results were balanced inwhether or not it was the first video found. However
most students (73%) thought their video would beinteresting for other class members with 71% finding
the other students’ videos interesting.
Table 3
Q.1-Which language search engine did you use?

Responses

Percentage

English66%

Japanese

30%

Don’t remember

4%

Table 4Q.2-How long did it take to find your video on-line?

Responses

Percentage

More than 1 hour

30%

About 1 hour

28%

Less than 1 hour

23%

Don’t remember

19%

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

193

Wright
Table 5
Survey Percentage Results
SD

D

UD

A

SA

Video/Topic Interest3.

It was the first video I found

9

30

26

33

2

4.

I thought it would be interesting for the other class members

0

6

21

60

13

5.

The other student videos were interesting

2

7

20

66

5

6.

I was interested in this topic before finding my video

2

9

30

54

5

7.

I was more interested in my topic after presenting

0

5

0

72

23

Listening Exercises
8.

The questions relating to the video were too difficult

3

40

6

38

13

9.

The presenter should play the video more times

0

33

13

37

17

Discussing the Answers
10.

I like discussing the answers in groups

3

14

36

39

8

11.

There should be no discussion; the presenter should tell the answers only

11

31

32

17

9

12.

In our groups, I found it is easier to understand the answers

6

17

27

44

6

General Comments
13.

Each video/presentation was a challenge for me

0

26

37

34

3

14.

I learnt more about the topic after each unit

0

6

35

43

16

15.

I like watching and listening to authentic materials made for native
English speakers

3

6

34

40

17

16.

I believe my listening skills have improved

0

6

20

63

11

SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; UD = Undecided; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree

Again results were fairly balanced in regards to thedifficulty level of the videos and the number of times
they should be played. This was encouraging, as it
would suggest that the level of activity was appropriate
for the class. There is always the fear that students could
experience anxiety when faced with materials that areauthentic. The type of listening that can occur throughreal-life can be quite different to those that are scripted.
Despite the number of respondents who did experience
difficulty, the case for introducing authentic materials
is still valid and should be encouraged. Field (2002)
agrees, suggesting that authentic listening materials
should be introduced as early as possible as recordingsof “spontaneous speech expose learners to the rhythmsof natural everyday English in a way scripted materials
cannot, however, good the actors” (p.244).

194 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Most students also indicated that they liked
discussing the answers in groups with 50% finding iteasier to understand the answers that way. This wasperhaps not so surprising, as group work can according
to ( Jacobs & Farrell, 2001), provide a solid forum forstudents to employ their “collaborative skills to bringout and value the ideas of all group members” (p.10).
Finally, the survey indicated that the majority of
respondents appeared to have enjoyed the activity with
59% indicating that they had learnt more about the
topic. A majority (74%) reported that they believedthat their English listening skills had improved.
Whether this is actually the case or not, 57% did
however, indicate that they enjoyed being exposed toauthentic listening materials in the classroom.

Introducing Student Developed Low-Level Listening Materials, pages 188-196

Conclusion
While in the past, listening may have been somewhat
neglected as an important skill, it would appear bysome of the points discussed in this paper, that thistrend now appears to be changing. Recent research does
tend to suggest that listening entails a combination ofprocesses as well as sub-processes, all of which workin tandem without following any particular order.
This opens up the possibilities to both educators andstudents alike to try different ideas in their listeningclassrooms. The lesson plan discussed in this paper isonly just one example of how this may be achieved. The
survey, while showing the lesson to be well received
by a majority of students, is in no way conclusiveand demonstrates the need for further research anddiscussion in this area. It is hoped that by having abetter understanding of the processes and other factors
discussed in this paper, can help us as educators to planand deliver more effective listening strategies for ourstudents to enjoy.

References
Copyright Law of Japan. Copyright Research andInformation Center (CRIC), In Y. Oyama et al.
(translation), 2012. Retrieved from http://cric.
or.jp/cric_e/clj/index.html
Ebata, M. (2008). Motivation factors in language
learning. The Internet TESL Journal, 14(4).
Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/EbataMotivationFactors.html
Field, J. (2002). The changing face of listening. In J.C.
Richards & W.A. Renandya (eds.), Methodology

in language teaching: An anthology of current
practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press, 242-253.
Grognet, A. & Van Duzer, C. (2002). Listening skillsin the workplace. Retrieved from http://www.
springinstitute.org/Files/listeningwkplc.pdf
Hedge, T. (2005). Teaching and Learning in the
Language Classroom. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Jacobs, M.J. & Farrell, T.S. (2001). Paradigm shift:
Understanding and implementing change insecond language education. TESL-EJ, 5(1).
Retrieved from http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/
information/tesl-ej/
Nunan, D. (1997). Listening in language learning.
Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/
old_tlt/files/97/sep/nunan.html
Peterson, P. (2001). Skills and strategies forproficiency listening. In M. Celce-Murcia (ed.),Teaching English as a second or foreign language,
3rd ed. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle, 87-100.
Richards, J.C. (2005). Second thought on teachinglistening. RELC Journal, 36(1), 85-92.
Seo, K. (2002). The effects of visuals on listening
comprehension: A study of Japanese learner’s
listening strategies. International Journal of
Listening, 15, 57-81.
Underwood, M. (1989). Teaching listening. New York,
NY: Longman.
Van Duzer, C. (1997). Improving ESL learner’s
listening skills: At the workplace and beyond.
Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_
resources/digests/LISTENQA.html

Author’s Biography:
Mark Wright is a lecturer at Kyoto Sangyo University. He has been involved with ESL/EFL
education for over 20 years in both Japan and Australia

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

195

Wright

AppendixStudent Worksheet

Listening Communication Article Worksheet

Name: ___________________

Video Title: ______________________________________________________ Uploader: _____________________
URL: ________________________________________________________

Date of Video: ___________________YOUTUBE SUMMARY (50 to 100 words)

KEY WORDS (Vocabulary / Part of Speech / Meaning) [Leave 2 blank]
1. __________________________________________________________________ _________________________
2. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
3. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
4. ______________________________________________ _____________________________________________KEY POINTS (Two points. One sentence each.) [Leave 1 blank.]
1. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________VIDEO and DISCUSSION QUESTIONS (Questions only – No Answers) [Leave 1 Blank]
1. _________________ ____________________________________________ ___________________________
2. _____________________________________________________________ ___________________________
3. _____________________________________________________________ ___________________________
4. _____________________________________________________________ ___________________________
5. ________________________________________________________________________________________

196 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Japanese University Classroom Behavior and Teacher
Expectations: Non-Cooperative Behavior in Context

Neil Conway
Musashino University
conway.neil@gmail.com
Non-cooperative behavior in Japanese university classes is quite often distinct from misbehavior
both in form and motivation. This research began by treating non-compliance as a set of learning/interaction habits rather than expressions of a student’s character or moral identity. Qualitative andquantitative data were gathered on: (a) student views on their place in the classroom community, (b)student opinions on certain behaviors, and (c) teachers’ reflections on their relationships with theirclasses. Participants were then asked to reflect on which learning habits might be open to change.
日本の大学の授業における学生の授業に対する非協力な行動は、
それらがどのような行
動か、またどのような心理状態かという程度から、
しばしばそれぞれは区別される。本研究では、授業にきちんと従うかどうかという点において、学生の性格や、彼らが道徳的である
かというこということより、学習や話し方の習慣として扱うこととした。定性的および定量的なデータは、(a)学生自身の授業における自分たちの行動について、(b)授業にきちんと参加していない行動について、(c)他の教師からの彼らの授業での学生について、を収集した。
このデータ作成に伴って協力してくれた教師と学生からは、
これらのデータがこれからの授業行動に反映されるのかと問うた。

Japanese university classes have a natural mix ofstudents: some are outgoing and others are more
reticent. Teachers sometimes comment that academicor practical ability does not necessarily predict howsmoothly a class will run; moreover, it is sometimes the“shy” students who appear to engage in the class morethan their “extrovert” peers (Anderson, 1993). Thereseems to be a set of behaviors (or strategies) which is
employed by many students which hinders a groupin proceeding through their lesson. Typically these*

Conway, N. (2014). Japanese university classroom
behavior and teacher expectations: Non-cooperative
behavior in context. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 197-202). Nagoya:
JALT.

*

behaviors are seen when students do not wish to answer
a question from the teacher, complete an assigned task,
or when they express low levels of motivation.
A small-scale survey of 58 students (taught by theauthor, at two universities in Tokyo) and 15 teachers
was conducted, initially involving one interview withthe teachers, and two rounds of recorded, unscriptedinterviews with the students in small groups of up to
six as part of their regular teacher-student feedback
meetings. As a result of the responses, a series of lessonplans was created which included activity types whichsuggested themselves based on the data collected.
Several weeks later in the semester, the classes wererun, and afterward, one final interview was conductedwith the participating students. The basic themes of
the interviews are listed in Table 1.
In the first interview, when the teachers were
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

197

Conway
working at a part-time job. For these reasons, thisstudy did not focus on “sleeping;” instead, it focusedon behaviors which most teachers felt were clearly
avoidance strategies.

Table 1
Interview Themes
Target
Group

Theme

1

Teachers

Types of non-compliant
behaviorn = 15

A Broad Working Definition2

Students

Attitudes to non-compliant
behaviorn = 583Students

Attitudes to non-compliant
behaviorn = 584Students

Post-lessons feedback

n = 58The kinds of behavior discussed above (1-4) areconsidered here as something more than shyness,“misbehavior,” or malicious obstructiveness. They
certainly do disrupt the class to a lesser or greater extent,
and shyness might be a component, but the focus of
this paper are the strategies used by students to avoid
complying with (usually) the teacher’s instructions.
O’Donnell (2001) points out that “. . . no student islikely to be keen to do a task . . . that puts them in asituation where they are made to look small in frontof their contemporaries” (p. 98). Even when students
feel fairly sure that they are able to actively participate,
they will often prefer not to. Herein, O’Donnell’s
set of behaviors is referred to as “non-compliance,”“non-compliant behavior,” “non-cooperation,” or“non-cooperative behavior.” Much discussion could
be had regarding the power relationships that thisterminology implies: it is evocative of Nunan’s “highstructure teaching” (1999, p. 75), for example, andthe opportunities (or lack thereof ) for students tolegitimately challenge these (Hofstede, 1986). At afuture point in this research, a more appropriate term
may suggest itself; however, the present discussion isrooted in the university teacher’s roles as classroom
manager and participant in an evolving process which
is dependent on mutual participation on the part ofteacher and each student, and these terms are intended
to reflect this. The term “non-compliance,” and its
collocates above, is intended here to signify behavior
which disrupts learning, but which is not deliberately
intended to do so; its purpose is avoidance, andunfortunately students do not recognize the fact that
it affects the lesson, the class, and potential for fun andlearning for everyone.

asked about the types of student behavior which mostoften disrupted their class, “sleeping in class” was themost commonly-cited. Aside from this, the next mostcommon behaviors were:
1. Talking when other students/ the teacher “havethe floor”
2. Avoiding eye contact in order to avoid answering
a question
3. Consulting other students (often in L1, and often
at length) when asked a direct question
4. Using “props” (like eye drops/ dictionary/
searching for something in a bag) to provide a
legitimate reason to be unable to answer (andtherefore avoid) a question
The respondents were asked to comment on
what might be the cause of these behaviors. With
the exception of “sleeping” the consensus among theteachers was that while these behaviors were disruptive,
they were not intended as a challenge to the teacher’sauthority, as a way to obstruct other students’ learning,or as deliberate attempts to derail the class; rather they
were usually simple, “one off ” techniques to avoid
active participation in the class which might result intheir embarrassment, rather than an indication of thestudents’ attitudes to the course, or class, as a whole.
It should be mentioned that “sleeping in class”
elicited the greatest variety of interpretations from theteacher respondents (especially in the freer, unscripted
and more open discussion parts of the research): somebelieved that it does in fact indicate a negative attitude
toward the teacher or class, while others believedthat it is a consequence of extra-curricular pressures
on students such as heavy homework-load, long anddifficult commutes to university, or long hours spent

198 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Teacher and Student Attitudes
Toward Non-Compliant Behavior
A second, open-question discussion was conductedJapanese University Classroom Behavior and Teacher Expectations, pages 197-202
Table 2
Most Common Teacher Responses to Non-compliant Behaviors
Behavior

Teacher’s suggestions

1

Talking

Call the student’s name and ask them to be quiet

8

2

Avoiding Eye-Contact

Walk over to the student and force them to “see” me33Consulting Other Students

Call the student’s name and make it clear that the question was directed
only to them

2

4

Using “props”

Wait, making it clear that the student is expected to eventually answer

1

Remove/ confiscate the object

1
n = 15

Table 3Student Attitudes to Non-compliant Behavior
Behavior

Students’ attitudes
1: Not a
problem

3: Somewhat
of a problem

5: Serious
problemTalking

12

31

13

2

Avoiding eye-contact

14

22

14

8

Consulting other students

3

36

19

Using “props”

16

28

14
n = 58with the same 15 university teachers, and anothersimilar interview (with Japanese translation) was
conducted with 58 university students and included
one question which asked all the participants to suggest
ways that a teacher should react to specified noncompliant behaviors. The students’ suggestions often
reflected a non-confrontational approach: only a few(5 of 58) of their responses required immediate action
from the teacher, mostly in the form of the teacher
raising his or her voice, clapping his or her hands, or
asking the question again. By far the most common
student suggestion was “the teacher should wait/ bepatient” (51 of 58). The teachers’ responses were moreindicative of their desire alternatively to “make surethat [students] don’t get away with it”, or to “get things
moving again,” as several respondents wrote.
It is striking that none of the teacher responses
involved a long-term solution (beyond, in some cases,

explaining that they “always” reacted in the same way).
Any longer-term strategy was in essence just to maintainthe consistency (or “fairness”) with which they dealt
with non-compliance, utilizing the same strategy eachtime. Just as they suspected that the students were notintending to disrupt the class, and that the behavior
was “one-off ” and designed to “avoid the spotlight,” sotheir own reaction was short-term and often specificto each type of instance, and usually designed to keep
the “spotlight” on the student involved because of asense of fairness: a “reflection of what they know andbelieve” (Richards & Lockhart, 1996).
It is also noteworthy that the students’ responses
to the question of whether non-compliant behavior
is a serious or minimal disruption to the class are all
characterized by the belief that it is not.
Students appear to see a disrupted class asproceeding fairly normally even if both (a) another
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

199

Conway
student’s behavior is annoying for them and (b) theteacher seems to be at that moment focused on dealing
with the interruption. This may be interpreted as a signthat the students are behaving as if they are not part ofthe class, or as one teacher-respondent put it: “it’s likethey’re watching me on television rather than actually
doing a lesson.”Distance
There seems to be a circular pattern to both positive andnegative classroom interaction: with greater awarenessof others, comes a greater sense of participation anddesire to “own” the lesson, this is a centripetal force
which brings the locus of control towards students,
which in turn requires a greater awareness of others
and interest in engaging, which in turn affects locus
of control, and so on. A lack of awareness of others
implies that participants are less involved, whichcentrifugal force pushes the locus of control away (foreveryone: most of the class start to “watch television”
while the teacher deals with the problem), and thedesire to engage recedes.

A Longer-Term ApproachThis research focuses on one part of the cycle of positiveclassroom interaction above: awareness of others. In
order to raise and extend students’ awareness of thevalue of engaging with others, it was decided that somenew (to these classes) approaches would be used. These
approaches were intended to encourage students torecognize their role as important participants, and torecognize their peers’ equally important participant
roles. In order that students would not become overly
distracted by the idea of non-compliant behavior,
the initial series of discussions had been conductedat the start of the semester and couched in termsof the theme of the lessons at the time: “Big City
Manners: Are People in Tokyo Polite?” and weretreated as a peripheral exercise to give students somemore opportunities to talk about the lesson theme.
When, mid-term, the students were asked (as partof the normal feedback process) to suggest ways inwhich the lessons could be improved, most responded
that they were happy, and also requested that they be

200 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

given more “real” vocabulary to help with upcoming
TOEFL IP tests mandated by the two universities,
while some (12) students requested some explicit
help with developing their accents to avoid “sounding
Japanese.” Fulfilling these requests allowed for an
exploration of activity types which might increase classparticipation, and reduce non-compliant behavior, andfour approaches were decided upon: (1) Imparting amore rigorous structure to lessons; (2) Having students
adopt different roles in the classroom; (3) Using drama
training activities and (4) Introducing an extensive
reading component to the course.

Class Roles
Students often “tune out” in lessons because there are
few opportunities to empathize with other participants(usually the teacher or “nominated” students) whose
goals are different, and more complicated than simply
sitting through a class. This approach had the author
give successive groups of students a lesson plan for
an upcoming lesson component of 45 minutes andover the three or four days prior to the next class,they worked together and, with guidance from theauthor at lunchtimes, devised activities which would
help the class practice the language point. When eachgroups’ teaching day arrived, they were invariably met
with rapt attention as they instructed their peers anddelivered their lesson component.

Extensive Reading
Since the classes met twice a week, the students wereasked to read two graded readers (based on novels fromthe 19th and 20th Centuries) per week, and a twentyminute slot of each subsequent class was used to discuss
the main characters’ motivations, and specifically
how those characters’ attitudes, feelings, and desires
shaped the story. By the end of the course, students
were clearly more able to discuss the motivations andfeelings of both the characters in the novels, and paid
greater attention to their peers during these discussions
than shown in similar activities before.

Structure
The author designed lesson plans which involved

Japanese University Classroom Behavior and Teacher Expectations, pages 197-202
short five- to ten- minute parts which had a heavy,teacher-centered element, and which (perhaps mostimportantly) were clearly signposted as requiring thestudents’ full engagement. This meant that simple
keywords such as “Listen” were not used at all (asinstructions) in the other parts of the lesson. Instead
they had a specific meaning in the teacher-led lesson
parts, and the students fairly quickly became used
to actively listening to a Socratic style of discourse
where they were told the content of the interaction
and reminded of what they had been doing with theteacher afterward, before being given pair/ small-group
work which required each student to play an active
and autonomous role: tasks involving the negotiation
toward an outcome were used (role-plays with hard-toreconcile positions/ group tasks which depended on
all members of the team working together)The most
crucial points were brevity, clarity and the eliminationof display questions. In place of these (and rather atodds with common teaching practice), the students
were simply asked if they had any questions.

Drama Training Activities
The activities used were not drama activities in the sensethat students would adopt a role and then negotiate
toward an outcome by reading or inventing a script.
Instead, the author used drama training activities muchalong the lines of Gaulier’s (Le Gegeneur, 1996) ideas
on very minimalistic technique-specific training ideas.
John Wright (1996) also has engaging and adaptableideas which force participants to recognize and explore
the dialogic nature of experiential learning (Vygotsky,2012). In other words, the students were required tofocus on their partners’ thoughts and intentions, andabove all else (although these ideas were not explicitly
discussed): being in the moment, and complicité. Onevery successful activity has students work in pairs
sitting face to face beside a table with each student
placing their hand (nearest the table) palm-downwith their fingertips about 20 centimeters away fromtheir partner’s. The teacher places a book between thestudents’ hands. Each student takes it in turn to narrate
a story of whatever type (any kind of coherent story will
do and the teacher can specify vocabulary or grammar
which must be used, but fluent, extended discourse

is key). The goal is to slap the book three times, thus
winning the game. Both partners must maintain eyecontact: if it is broken by one, the other gains a point.
The narrator’s job is to distract the listener (withwhatever linguistic, meta-linguistic or narrative device
she might use) as she quickly tries to slap the bookbefore the other partner realizes that she is about totry for a point, and is then allowed to try to best her(moving before the narrator incurs a penalty point).
The object of the game is to have students concentrateon each other’s eyes and facial expressions. When thestudents become used to the procedure, time-limits
should be introduced. This very simple game had theauthor’s students making more eye contact in ten
minutes than in all the previous classes combined, butmore importantly, it created a lasting impression on
the students, and led to much discussion at the end of
the course.

Final Interview Data and Conclusions
For this piece of research, of course exploratory,
the preliminary results are rather positive, with allparticipating students appearing in the author’s classes
to be stronger participants (and incidentally, delivering
higher scores on their end-of-semester feedback forms
compared to other comparable classes). Typical postlesson student comments were: “I didn’t think I’d enjoy
talking and looking into her eyes for so long, but I’m
happy and I think that you should do that every class!”,“I think reading about peoples’ feelings is good because
it helps when I discuss in class.” and “Let’s do this more,
especially drama!” The author is aware of the effect ofsimple novelty on these feedback forms; however, theanecdotal results seem to indicate progress. Instancesof the non-compliant behaviors discussed above weremarkedly reduced.

Acknowledgements
With thanks to James Sutherland, Director,
International Center of Creative Arts: http://
iccatokyo.com/

References
Anderson, F. (1993). The enigma of the college
classroom: Nails that don’t stick up. In P. Wadden
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

201

Conway(Ed.), A handbook for teaching English at Japanesecolleges and universities, (pp. 101-110). New York,
NY: Oxford.
Gaulier, P. (1996). Le génèneur. Paris, France:
Editions Filmiko.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching
and learning. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 10, 301-320.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching andlearning. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective
teaching in second language classrooms. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language.
Cambridge, England: The MIT Press.
Wright, J. (1996). Why is that so funny? London,
England: Nick Hern Books Limited.

Author’s Biography:
Neil Conway teaches at Musashino and has classes at two other universities in Tokyo. His researchinterests include Extensive Reading, classroom management and the role of literature in ESL.

202 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

L1 in the EFL Class: Student Preferences and Teacher
Beliefs

Eleanor Carson
Hiroshima City University
eleanor_carson@hotmail.com
This study focused on student preferences for, and teacher beliefs regarding, teachers` use of
the students` L1 ( Japanese) in the EFL class. Mismatching attitudes could have pedagogicalrepercussions. The research questions were: 1) Do student preferences for teachers` use of students`
L1 differ according to their L2 (English) proficiency? 2) Do Japanese teachers` ( JTEs) and native
English speaking teachers` (NESTs) pedagogical beliefs differ regarding Japanese use? 3) Do student
preferences and teacher beliefs match? The participants in this study were 305 Japanese students,
and 13 JTEs and NESTs in English Communication courses in a university in Western Japan.
Participants completed identical bilingual questionnaires. Their responses supported the hypothesisthat student preferences for teacher use of Japanese differs at varying student L2 proficiency levels.
Mismatches between students and teachers occurred regarding Japanese support used by JTEs andNESTs. Pedagogical implications and recommendations are explored.
本論文は、英語授業で教師が学習者（大学生）の第一言語（日本語）を使用することへの学生の希望、
および教師の信条について調査することを目的とする。学生と教師の態度が異なる場合、教育面への影響が考えられる。本研究の研究課題は次の３つである。学習者が自分たちの第一言語を使った指導を教師に求める傾向は、第二言語（英語）の運用能
力と共に変化するか。日本人英語教師と英語母語とする英語教師の日本語使用に関する
教育信条は異なるか。学習者の要望と教師の信条とは合致するか。以上を明らかにするた
めアンケート調査を実施した。調査対象は、日本の大学の「コミュニケーション」関係の英語
クラスの日本人受講者305名、
この科目を担当する日本人教師（ＮＴ）と英語母語教師（ＮＥＳＴ）計13名である。対象者は英語と日本語のに言語の表記による同一質問紙に回答した。回答を分析した結果、教師の授業での日本語の要望は、英語の熟達度により異なっていた。
また日本人教師と英語母語教師による日本語使用に関する評価は、学習者と教師間で異なっていた。本稿は以上の結果に基づき、研究面及び教育面の示唆を得ようとするものである。

Support for the use of the first language (the L1) in*

Carson, E. (2014). L1 in the EFL class: Student
preferences and teacher beliefs. In R. Chartrand, G.
Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp. 203-213).
Nagoya: JALT.

*

the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom
has burgeoned in the past 15 - 20 years (Şenel, 2010).
While common sense suggests that proficiency in atarget language (TL) may affect student preferencesfor L1 support, this relationship could be clarified.
Furthermore, the relationship between teacher beliefs
and student preferences for L1 support has not
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

203

Carsonreceived much attention in the medium of instruction(MOI) literature. The researcher aims to clarify student
preferences and teacher beliefs regarding teacher use of
the L1 in the EFL classroom. To understand teacher
motives better, EFL classroom language policy will be
examined.

Background
It is a commonly held tenet that maximizing L2
exposure and use in the EFL classroom results in abetter learning outcome (Polio & Duff, 1994; Turnbull& Arnett, 2002). Teaching English in English (TEE),an educational policy promoted and/or accepted bymany government agencies, teaching administrators,
teachers, and parents (Auerbach, 1993; Butzkamm,2003; Cook, 2001), should create optimal conditions
for student learning (Duff & Polio, 1990; Turnbull &Arnett, 2002). While TEE seems like common sense, it
has been criticized for lacking theoretical, pedagogical,
and/or empirical support (Auerbach, 1993).
On the other hand, maximizing use of the L2 is notincompatible with use of the L1 to aid in the acquisitionof the L2 (Cook, 2012). It is not the maximizing of theL2 that is at issue in this paper, but the possibilities ofusing the L1 as a classroom resource.
EFL students generally begin L2 study after
acquiring their L1. Thus, they can use their L1 to assistin learning the L2, particularly during early vocabularyacquisition. L1 support is not only beneficial but
also essential to the acquisition of the L2 (Kroll &Tokowicz, 2001).
Several studies have attempted to elucidate thepedagogical uses to which L1 support can be applied
to maximize L2 acquisition (e.g., Burden, 2000;
Prodromou, 2002), but results differ even amongstudies using similar instruments. The researcher will
focus on a comparison of studies by Schweers (1999),
Burden (2001), and Tang (2002). Since these studies
used similar surveys and had participants of varying
L2 proficiency levels, it is hoped that research thatexamines the data from the perspective of proficiency
may contribute some clarity.
In a study comparing non-English major Spanishspeaking students and ESL teachers in Puerto Rico,
Schweers (1999) found that teachers believed that

204 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

the L1 should be used even more (100%) than thestudents (86.2%). The only pedagogical use for the
L1 clearly favored by the students was explaining
difficult concepts (86.2%), mismatching with teacher
perceptions (22.0%). Few students saw a need forL1 support for helping students to feel comfortable(13.4%) or less tense (18.3%); their strongest emotionaldesire for L1 support was to help when they feel lost
(68.3%). The high desire for some Spanish support,
mainly for difficult concepts and to help students when
they feel lost, and the otherwise low response rates forall other pedagogical L1 uses, may be due to the status
of English as an official second language. Elucidation
could result by examining a similar study, using asimilar instrument, conducted under EFL conditions.
Next, in a study comparing non-English major
Japanese student expectations and EFL teacher
beliefs, Burden (2001) found that students (87%)
and teachers (86%) agreed that Japanese should be
used in the classroom, and that students (61%) andteachers (78%) valued L1 use for telling jokes, anarea in which Schweers` participants did not findthe L1 to be helpful. He also found several areas of
mismatching attitudes between students and teachers.
Teachers believed that L1 support should be used forgrammar (63%), giving instruction (65%), explainingclassroom rules (63%) and creating human contact(73%), while students disagreed (37%, 30%, 25%
and 38% respectively). Burden reasoned that students
preferred the opportunity to hear “real English” tolearning grammar, were indifferent to communicative
approaches and were waiting for an activity to fulfill
their more traditional expectations, and were notinterested in creating human contact with teachers.
Burden believed that these numbers might reflect thelow proficiency levels of his students, which could
explain why student preferences in his study werehigher than in Schweers` ESL study.
In an EFL study with English majors, Tang (2002)
found that Chinese students (70%) and EFL teachers(72%) agreed that Chinese should be used in theclassroom. Unlike with Schweers and Burden, students
preferred more L1 support for difficult grammar (72%)
than teachers (39%), for learning new words (69%),
mismatching with teachers (39%), and less than half of

L1 in the EFL Class, pages 203-213
the Chinese students (48%) preferred L1 support fordifficult concepts or ideas, on a par with their teachers(44%). Chinese students did not feel that teachers` useof their L1 helped them feel more comfortable or lessstressed (8%) or lost (6%). It would appear that, having
chosen to be English majors, these students felt lessneed for emotional L1 support than in Burden`s study.
An area left unexplored in Schweers`, Burden`s
and Tang`s studies above is the issue of teacher
linguistic origin. The last issue being considered isthe comparison of NESTs with non-native English
speaking teachers (NNESTs), which includes teachers
from all nationalities. Most students appreciate bothtypes of teachers for different reasons (Pacek, 2005).
In the context of Japan, it is beneficial to elucidate
how NEST and JTE beliefs translate into L1 usage
in the EFL class. If teacher use of the L1 does notmatch student preferences, an unhappy and counterproductive classroom could develop.

Research Questions
1. Does EFL learner proficiency affect theirpreferences for teacher use of their L1?
2. Do NEST and JTE beliefs in their use of thestudent L1 to support L2 learning differ?
3. Do student preferences, NEST and JTE beliefs
coincide?

MethodParticipants
The participants were 305 first- and second-year
non-English major university students enrolled incommunication English courses offered to students inhumanity and science areas in a university in WesternJapan. Identical bilingual questionnaires were given
to thirteen EFL teachers who taught at the same
university. Seven were native English speakers, whereas
six were native Japanese speakers. To avoid confusion
regarding which language “L1” refers to, in this paper,
the “L1” will refer to the students` L1, or Japanese, and“L2” to the students` L2, or English.

Questionnaire
The researcher adapted a questionnaire from Schweers(1999) by adding a question asking if teachers should
know the students` L1 (Burden, 2001), adding aquestion about students` English and teachers`
Japanese proficiency, and providing a bilingual version
to all participants to avoid misunderstandings. Student
TOEIC scores were used to determine students`
proficiency, and JLPT scores or teachers` estimationof it determined NESTs` Japanese proficiency. Later,
the low number of teacher respondents necessitatedreorganizing them into NESTs and JTEs. Participation
was anonymous and voluntary.

Procedure
Student participants took an average of 15 minutes
in class to answer the 9 yes/no and multiple-choicequestions. Teachers answered their questionnaires on
the same day.

Analysis
The researcher divided the students into 4 proficiency
groups according to their TOEIC scores: Group 1(Beginner, <299, n=63), Group 2 (Lower Intermediate,300-399, n=96), Group 3 (Intermediate, 400-599,
n=110), and Group 4 (Advanced, ≥ 600, n=36). The
teachers were categorized into NEST (n=7) and JTE(n=6) groups. The researcher compared the student
preferences and teacher beliefs regarding a variety ofclassroom situations.

Results
To find answers to the three research questions (RQ1,
RQ2 and RQ3), the readers are invited to refer to therelevant questions in the survey (Q2, Q3, Q4, andQ5a-Q5j) (please see the actual survey form in the
Appendix), before examining the responses.

Research Question 1
The following analysis focuses on general student
preferences regarding Japanese use in the EFL classroom(see Figure 1). Responses to the questionnaire items
Q2: Should the instructor know the L1? Q3: Should
the L1 be used in class? And Q4: Should the instructor
use the L1? are compared to answer the first Research
Question (RQ1): Does EFL learner proficiency affect
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

205

CarsonFigure 1. Student preferences for using the L1 in class.

their preferences for teacher use of their L1?
For Q2, 97% of Group 1 (Beginner) students
prefer that the instructor know the L1, with student
preferences decreasing to 50% of Group 4 (Advanced).
Regarding Q3, 86% of Group 1 students prefer that
the L1 be used in class (by students), with preferences
declining to 42% for Group 3, and then rising to 50%
of Group 4. Finally, for Q4, 86% of Group 1, fallingto 36% of Group 4, prefers the instructors to use theL1 in class. As students` proficiency increases, fewer
students prefer their teachers` use of Japanese in class,a relationship that the researcher calls The Proficiency
Effect.

Research Question 2
To answer Research Question 2 (RQ2), “Do NEST and
JTE beliefs in teacher use of the student L1 to support
L2 learning differ?” NESTs` and JTEs` responses tothe same questions are compared: Should the teacher
know the L1? (Q2); Should the L1 be used in class (bythe students)? (Q3); and Should the teachers use theL1 in class? (Q4).
For all three of these questions (see Figure 2),
most teachers believe that teachers should know the

206 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

L1 (NESTs 71%, JTEs 100%, Q2) and the L1 can beused in class (by the students) (NESTs 86%, JTEs 83%,
Q4), but half or less of the teachers responded thatteachers should use the L1 (NESTs 43%, JTEs 50%,
Q3), figures which fell below all but the advanced
student responses.

Research Question 3
To answer the third research question (RQ3), “Do
student preferences, JT and NEST beliefs coincide,”
the researcher will compare the student responses toquestions 5a,b,d,e,f,g,i and j.

Instruction: mixed results
To compare student preferences (see Figure 3) andwith corresponding JTE and NEST beliefs (see Figure4) regarding instructive aspects of EFL lessons, theresearcher compared responses to the relevant partsof question 5 from the questionnaire: Q5a Explaining
difficult concepts; Q5b Introducing new material;
Q5d Testing; Q5g checking comprehension; Q5icomparing the L1 and L2; and Q5j defining new
vocabulary.
Most students prefer Japanese support forL1 in the EFL Class, pages 203-213

Figure 2. Teacher beliefs about using the L1 in class.

explaining difficult concepts (Q5a), from Group 1(79%), increasing to Group 2 (91%), and then declining
to Group 4 students (61%). Most NESTs (86%) and
JTEs (100%) agree that Japanese is useful.
Regarding introducing new material (Q5b), a
U-shaped pattern is observed for students. Groupscores decrease and then increase with higher
proficiency: Group 1 (29%), decreasing with Group2 (16%) to Group 3 (20%), and then rising again
for Group 4 (33%). NESTs (57%) differ from JTEs

Group 1 prefers L1 support, rising to 63% of Group2, and then decreasing to Group 3 (54%) and Group 4(47%). More JTEs (83%), than NESTs (57%) believethat L1 use was helpful, with NESTs matching student
preferences.
Student preferences for L1 support for defining
new vocabulary (Q5j) decrease from Group 1 (65%)
to Group 4 (25%). More NESTs (71%) than JTEs
(50%) believe that Japanese should be used.
The results suggest that more students prefer their(17%), with JTEs matching student preferences.
Concerning testing (Q5d), few students regard
L1 support as necessary. Only 30% of Group 1, risingslightly to 33% of Group 2, and then falling steadily to
8% of Group 4, prefer L1 support. More NESTs (57%),
compared to JTEs (33%), believe that L1 support wasneeded, with JTEs being closer to student preferences.
About 50% of Group 1, rising to 52% of Group2, and then declining to Group 4 (42%) prefers L1
support for checking comprehension (Q5g). Teacher
beliefs differ: 71% of NESTs compared to 33% of JTEs
believe that L1 support would be helpful, with JTEs
being closer to student preferences.
When comparing the L1 and L2 (Q5i), 52% ofteachers` L1 support for difficult concepts, L1 and L2comparison, new vocabulary, and comprehension thanfor other aspects of instruction. Preferences are linked
with student proficiency in their L2.

Emotional Factors
Only 35% of Group 1 prefers L1 support with jokes,
with responses declining through Group 2 (26%) andbeing almost the same with Group 3 (18%) and Group4 (19%). NESTs (29%) matched students compared to
JTEs (100%).
Regarding L1 support for confidence and comfort
in class (Q5f ), 37% of Group, 1 falling to 17% ofGroup 3 prefers L1 support, with an increase for GroupThe 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

207

CarsonFigure 3. Student preferences regarding L1 pedagogical uses.

Figure 4. NEST and JTE beliefs regarding L1 pedagogical uses.

4 (28%). More JTEs (100%) than NESTs (57%)
believe that Japanese could help students feel more
comfortable and confidant, with NEST responses
being closer to student preferences.
The results suggest that more students prefer their

208 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

teachers` L1 support for difficult concepts, L1 and L2comparison, comprehension, and except for Group 4,
new vocabulary, than for other aspects of instruction.
Preferences are linked with student proficiency in their
L2.

L1 in the EFL Class, pages 203-213

Discussion
Research results support The Proficiency Effect pattern.
L1 preferences decrease from Group 1 (Beginner) toGroup 5 (Advanced) students for general preferences.
Students and teachers agreed that the L1 should beknown and used by teachers, and used in the classroom,
supporting similar results by Schweers` ESL study(1999), Burden`s EFL study (2001) and Tang` EFL
study (2002). The discussion will refer to these threestudies.
Results regarding L1 support for instructive
aspects in EFL classes are mixed. Students in Groups 1
to 4 prefer Japanese support for difficult concepts, as in
Schweers but contrary to Burden and Tang. However,for comparing the L1 and L2, results were moderateand similar to Burden. For comprehension, preferenceswere similar to Burden and Tang, but higher than
Schweers, suggesting a difference between the EFL and
ESL contexts.
Responses concerning L1 emotional support for
students indicate mismatches between students andteachers. Students prefer less L1 support for comfort
and confidence than NESTs and especially JTEs
believe is helpful, generally supporting Schweers,
Burden and Tang about students, and Schweers
but not Burden about teachers. Furthermore, whilestudent responses were similar to NESTs about jokes,
they were much lower than JTE responses. Schweers
reported an agreement at low levels for students andteachers, while Burden reported an agreement between
students and teachers at high levels. Furthermore,
more JTEs and low-proficiency students than NESTs
and high-proficiency students believed that emotional
support in the L1 was beneficial. It is possible thathaving experienced learning the L2, possibly in EFL
conditions, JTEs` beliefs differ from those of NESTs.
Differences were observed between NESTs`and JTEs` pedagogical beliefs. NESTs believed inproviding less L1 support for joking, and students`
comfort and confidence, than JTEs (see Figure 2),
which matched student preferences. On the other
hand, NESTs felt that more L1 support was needed
than JTEs for learning new material, comprehension,
testing, and new vocabulary. NESTs mismatched withstudents on these variables, while JTEs matched withstudents.

Limitations
Four limitations exist in the present research. First,
a low number of teachers participated. Second, selfreported proficiency scores were used to group student
participants. Third, the researcher did not consider
factors such as student study major, experienceoverseas, or experience with language learning outsideof school. Finally, teacher proficiency levels in both ofthe languages were not examined. These issues could
be the focus for future study.

Conclusions and Pedagogical
Recommendations
From the findings reported above, the researcher has
concluded that student proficiency levels influence
their L1 preferences. From their higher responses to
Q2 than to Q4, more students prefer that teachers
can understand and use their L1, than students preferteachers to speak it. Students prefer having the optionof L1 support. Most students preferred L1 support
for difficult concepts and for comparing the L1 with
the L2. Despite teacher beliefs that students needemotional L1 support, most students do not prefersuch L1 support. Finally, although both NESTs andJTEs agree that teachers should know the L1 andstudents should use the L1 in class, they disagreed
about teachers using the L1.
Suggestions to support students in L1: Encourage
the use of L1/L2 dictionaries. Provide bilingual
vocabulary lists, grammar handouts and textbooks.
Have students translate difficult L2 to L1 to each otheror for the class. Allow student L1 discussion whilestudents prepare for difficult tasks. Begin the year
using more L1 than at the end. Finally, encouragement
should be in the L2.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Hidenori Kashihara
for his contributions in the early stages of this research.
The author would also like to thank Dr. Chiaki Iwai andthe anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments
on previous versions of this paper.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

209

CarsonReferences
Auerbach, E. R. R. (1993). Reexamining English onlyin the ESL classroom. TESOL quarterly, 27(1),
9–32.
Burden, P. (2000). The use of the students mothertongue in monolingual English “conversation”
classes at Japanese universities. The Language
Teacher, 24(6), pp. 5-10.
Burden, P. (2001). When do native English speaking
teachers and Japanese college students disagree
about the use of Japanese in the English language
classroom? The Language Teacher, 25(4), pp.
5–10.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in theclassroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/
La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 57(3),402–423.
Cook, V. (2012). Some issues for SLA research. In
L. Pedrazzini & A. Nava (Eds.), Learning andTeaching English: Insights from Research (pp.
39–68). Monza, Italy: Polimetrica.
Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How muchforeign language is there in the foreign language

classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74(2),154–166.
Kroll, J. F., & Tokowicz, N. (2001). The developmentof conceptual representation for words in asecond language. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two
languages: Bilingual language processing (Vol. 2,
pp. 49–71). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Pacek, D. (2005). `Personality not Nationality`:
Foreign Students` Perceptions of a NonNative Speaker Lecturer of English at a British
University. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Educational
Linguistics: Non-Native Language Teachers, 5, pp.
243-262). New York, NY: Springer.
Schweers, C. J. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 classroom.
English Teaching Forum , 37 (8), pp. 13-17.
Şenel, M. (2010). Should foreign language teaching
be supported by mother tongue? Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies, 6(1), 110–119.
Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English classroom.
English Teaching Forum, 40(1), 36–43.
Turnbull, N., and Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers` usesof the target and first language in second andforeign language classrooms. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics, 22, 204-218.

Author’s Biography:
Eleanor Carson, currently pursuing a PhD in Applied Linguistics at Hiroshima City University,
has been teaching at HCU and other universities since 2008.

210 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

L1 in the EFL Class, pages 203-213

Appendix
Questionnaire on the Use of Japanese in the ESL/EFL Classroom (For the EFL Students/Teachers)
Please note that all the results obtained from this survey will be treated as confidential and anonymous
information, and shall be used for academic research purposes only.
「本アンケートで回収した結果は、学術研究目的のみに使用され、すべて極秘情報および匿名情報として扱われます。」
1. [Instructors only]「英語教師のみ回答してください」
Where does your perceived Japanese ability lie in the following scale? (If you choose to report your ability, pleasecircle the appropriate bracket below. You may skip this question if you do not wish to answer.)「あなたの日本語能力は、以下のどの段階に相当すると思いますか。」（この質問に答えることにした場合、以下の該当する段階を○で囲んでください。答えたくない場合は、この質問に答える必要はありません。）
Beginner = JLPT 4, Low-Intermediate = JLPT Level 3, Upper-Intermediate JLPT 2, Advanced = JLPT Level
1*JLPT=Japanese-Language Proficiency Test
[Students only]「学生のみ回答してください」
Where does your latest TOEIC score stand in the following scale? (If you choose to report your ability, pleasecircle the appropriate bracket below. You may skip this question if you do not wish to answer. )「もっとも最近に受けたＴＯＥＩＣ試験のスコアーは、以下のどの段階に相当しますか。」（この質問に答えることにした場合、以下の該当する段階を○で囲んでください。答えたくない場合は、この質問に答える必要はありません。）

a) Below 299「299点以下」, b) 300-399「300点～399点」, c) 400-599「400点～599点」, d) 600-799「600点～799点」, e) Above 800「800点以上」
2. Should the instructor know the L1?
「英語教師は、日本語の知識を持っているべきでしょうか。」

Yes/No3. Should Japanese be used in the classroom?
「教室内で日本語を使うべきでしょうか。」

Yes/No4. Do you like or would you like your teacher to use Japanese in class?
「授業中、先生に日本語を使って欲しいですか。」

Yes/NoThe 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

211

Carson
5. When do you think it’s appropriate to use Japanese in English class? (Please circle all the relevant items below.)「英語の授業で、どのような場合に日本語を使うのが適切だと思いますか。」（以下から該当するものをすべて○で囲んでください。）

a) To explain difficult concepts「難しい概念を説明するとき」b) To introduce new material「新しい教材を導入するとき」c) To summarize material already covered「既に学習した教材の内容を復習するとき」d) To Test (e.g. translating from English into Japanese in a test)「英語力をテストするとき（例－テストで英語から日本語に訳すときなど）」e) To joke around with students「生徒に冗談を言うとき」f ) To help students feel more comfortable and confident「生徒の居心地をより良くし、より自信を付けさせるとき」

g) To check for comprehension「内容を理解しているか確認するとき」h) To carry out small-group work
「小グループで活動をするとき」

i) To explain the relationship between English and Japanese「英語と日本語の関係を説明するとき」j) To define new vocabulary items「新しい語いの説明をするとき」

6. What percent of the time do you think Japanese should be used? (Please circle the relevant percentage.)「日本語の使用は、授業全体のどれ位の割合を占めるべきだと思いますか」（以下の該当する割合を○で囲んでください）
割合: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

7. How often do you think Japanese should be used in the English classroom? (Please circle the relevant item.)「英語の授業中、どの程度の頻度で日本語を使うべきだと思いますか。」（以下の該当する割合を○で囲んでください）a) never「一切使うべきでない」b) very rarely「滅多に使うべきでない」
c) sometimes「ときどき使うべき」d) fairly frequently to aid comprehension「授業内容の把握につながるため、ある程度頻繁に使うべき」

212 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

L1 in the EFL Class, pages 203-213
8. If you prefer the use of Japanese in your class, why? (Please circle the relevant item.)「授業中に日本語を使用することを好む場合、その理由は何ですか。」（以下の該当する割合を○で囲んでください）a) It’s more comfortable「よりくつろいだ気分になるから」b) I am less tense「緊張感が下がるから」
c) I feel less lost「授業に戸惑う割合が減るから」
9. Do you believe using Japanese in your English class helps you learn this language? (Please circle the relevant
item.)「授業中に日本語を使うことで、英語の理解が進むと思いますか。
」

a) no「いいえ」b) a little「少し進む」
c) fairly much「やや進む」
d) a lot「大いに進む」

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

213

Learning as Meaning-making in Communities ofPractice

Akiko Nagao
Ritsumeikan University
nagaoa@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp
Two fundamental ideas from the social theory of language learning form the basis of this research.
First, the concept of Communities of Practice (CoP), introduced by Lave and Wenger (1991),
emphasizes that learning occurs through the participation of community members as part of social
practices in relationships (Wenger, 1998). Second, to understand the communities of social practice,
newcomers are required to familiarize themselves with the appropriate use of different semiotic
community resources (Halliday, 1978; Mickan, 2006). This study investigates the community
accustomization process as Japanese students join different academic learning communities inAustralia. Classroom discourse analysis, semi-structured interviews, and register analysis alongwith rhetorical activities from participants’ interactions are utilized to examine their evolving roles
during the semester. One implication of this research is that the language-learning model should
shift from knowledge transmission attribution to participant attribution to better account for how
learning occurs within classroom CoP.
本研究は以下の２つの理論を基軸とする。(1)コミュニティー内の新人は社会的実践に参加し、他のメンバーと持続的相互関係を繰返すことで徐々に一人前になっていく過程を「学
習」と定義する(Lave & Wenger, 1991)。(2)技巧・知識習得可能な環境を実践共同体と呼び、新人は実践共同体内の一員と成る為に適切な記号論的資源を学び社会活動に参加する(Halliday, 1978; Mickan, 2006)。研究目的は、日本人大学生が豪国内のESLク
ラス・大学院の授業に参加し、新人から経験豊かな英語学習者へ移行する過程を記録する。調査参加者は、日本人大学生及びそのクラスメート20名。分析方法は、授業観察（週１回約90分を4か月間）
・クラスルーム談話分析・インタビュー分析により学習者の学習経過を継続的に記録した。結果、(1) 知識や技術の変化、(2) 学習者とメンバー間の人間関係の変化、(3) 学習者自身のアイデンティティーの変化を記録し 、学習者が周辺的参加から中心的参加へ移行する為の記号論的資源を提示した。

This study examines the process in which
Japanese students, as English as a Second*

Nagao, A. (2014). Learning as meaning-making incommunities of practice. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 214-220). Nagoya:
JALT.

*

214 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Language (ESL) learners, join different academic
learning communities in Australia. By utilizing asociocultural lens and Lave and Wenger’s (1991)
Communities of Practice (CoP) model, thisresearch investigates how these newcomers evolve
into experienced learners by documenting their
engagement and participation in peer and classroom
discussions. In particular, two fundamental ideas

Learning as Meaning-making, pages 214-220
from the social theory of language learning form
the basis of this investigation. First, the conceptof CoP, introduced by Lave and Wenger (1991),
emphasizes that learning occurs through theparticipation of community members as part ofsocial practices in relationships (Mickan, 2006;
Wenger, 1998). Second, in order to comprehend
the communities of social practice, newcomers
are required to familiarize themselves with theappropriate use of different semiotic community
resources (Halliday, 1978; Mickan, 2006). This
study investigates the community accustomization
process by primarily focusing on two Japanese
students ( J1 and J2) in regard to how they interact
with their classmates, develop relationships, andaccess community resources.

Literature Review
The perspective taken in this paper is that learning
occurs through participation in communities that theparticipants belong to, which is described as CoP (Lave& Wenger, 1991). Such participation is essential not
only for learning but also for community development.
The degree of participation in a community falls
into one of the three groups: peripheral, active,
and core (Wenger, 2002). Over time, newcomers
can move from the periphery toward the core, thus
constructing an identity based on their experiences
and relationships developed within the CoP, which
in turn can transform the community itself. This
accommodation and transformation of CoP throughchanges in membership is referred to as “legitimate
peripheral participation (LPP)” (Lave & Wenger,
1991, p. 29). By utilizing Lave and Wenger’s model,
learning occurs by engaging in social practices within
CoP (Guzdial & Tew, 2006). To become community
members, newcomers need to observe models of
accepted community discourses and receive scaffolding
and coaching from more experienced members. The
learning process is located in particular social contexts;
therefore, it involves becoming a part of the culture of
the learning community (Oxford, 1997). Newcomers
can gradually move from peripheral roles to more
central ones, thereby becoming more core, experienced
learners who demonstrate three overall characteristics:(1) improved and expanded knowledge and skills;(2) improved relationships between themselves andother community members; and (3) enhanced ability
to make community resources accessible to newer
participants (Takagi, 1999).

Research Focus
This paper proposes the concept of core, active, andperipheral community membership that can be applied
to ESL classrooms to exemplify how newcomers evolve
into more experienced learners through effective
interaction with their classmates.

Methodology
ParticipantsThis research focuses primarily on two Japanese
students ( J1 and J2) and how they interact with
their CoP (approximately 20 students from two
different classrooms) over the course of a semester inAustralia. At the start of data collection, J1 had begun
his academic study in the Master of Arts in Applied
Linguistics program. The data showed that eventually
approximately 10 local and international students
interacted with him. While J1 may have had sufficient
English proficiency from previous experience, he was
new to applied linguistics as an academic course of
study. In regard to J2, she had prior experience in an
English Language Centre at an Australian university.
Although J2 may have had sufficient English
proficiency from this experience, she was new to thisparticular English-focused learning environment.

Data Collection
This study employs a series of classroom observations
and semi-structured participant interviews. J1 andJ2’s classroom interactions with their peers andteachers were observed and recorded over a periodof one semester between 2007 and 2008. For eachparticipant, classroom conversations included
90 minutes per class every week and all of the inclass participant interactions with their peers wererecorded and transcribed. Interviews with J1 and J2
were also conducted immediately after the classroom
observations. Two discussions (at the beginning and
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings215

NagaoTable 1
Summary of Field, Tenor & Mode: Text 1 and Text 2 ( J1)
Text 1 ( J1)

Text 2 ( J1)

Data

August 16, 2007
(The beginning of the semester)

October 5, 2007
(The end of the semester)

Field

Lecture: informal dyadic discussions concerningtranscript analysis

Study meeting: informal group discussions
regarding functional grammar analysis

Tenor

UnequalSocial distance

Equal
Less social distanceMode

SpokenSpokenTable 2
Summary of Field, Tenor & Mode: Text 3 and Text 4 ( J2)
Text 3 ( J2)

Text 4 ( J2)

Data

December 10, 2007
(The beginning of the semester)January 15, 2008
(The end of the semester)

Field

A formal classroom discussion in regard towriting a summary on the topic of surrogacy

A group discussion in regard to writing asummary on the topic of art museums

Tenor

Equal relationship; a fairly close relationshipamong group members

Newcomers just joined the class;building relationships among group members

Mode

SpokenSpokenend of the semester), in which J1 and J2 participated,were selected for detailed analysis along with interview
data from the beginning, middle, and end of thesemester.

Results
Register Analysis: Field, Tenor, and Mode
The registers of J1 and J2’s conversations are examined
here by analyzing their interactions from the beginningand end of their semesters. Tables 1 and 2 summarize
the register analysis for each text by considering thefield, tenor, and mode.

Classroom Discourse Analysis
First, J1 and J2’s application of progressive andpunctuative messages are examined. Progressive
messages include a complete clause that can further
expand the conversation and demonstrate access to afull range of lexicogrammar (Wake, 2006). Punctuative
messages are typically minor clauses, which include
formulaic minor clauses such as minimal feedback
that do not further the discussion (Wake, 2006).
All of J1 and J2’s utterances during the discussions

216 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

were categorized as either progressive or punctuative
based on the hypothesis that differences in frequency
between the two categories over time represents
relevant criterion for assessing language improvement.
Table 3 presents differences in J1’s contribution
to discussions between the beginning of the semester(Text 1) and the end (Text 2). According to Text 1,
78% of his messages were punctuative and only 22%
were progressive, thus showing that J1 contributed
from the outset; although, the majority of his messages
consisted of minor clauses with minimal feedback thatwere largely limited to formulaic expressions. As aresult, his utterances did not expand the conversations.
Conversely, J1’s contributions in Text 2 show adramatic increase in vocabulary range and complexity.
The number of punctuative messages decreased to44%, while progressive messages increased to 56%.
With respect to J2’s use of language features, Table 3
shows that at the beginning of the semester, 56% of
J2’s speech acts in Text 3 were punctuative while 44%
were progressive, thus indicating minimal contribution
to the discussion. As a result, many of her utterances
included minor clauses with minimal feedback andLearning as Meaning-making, pages 214-220
Table 3J1 and J2’s Progressive and Punctuative Messages

Texts

Participant

Total turns(message)

Total messages/
Turns of J1and J2%

Progressive
messages%

Punctuative
messages

%

1

J1

472

189

40

34

22

155

78

2

J1

786

165

21

93

56

72

44

3

J2

420

18

4

8

44

10

56

4

J2

552

71

13

40

56

31

44

incomplete expressions. In Text 4, J2’s punctuative
messages decreased to 44% and her progressive
messages increased to 56%, indicating a higher numberof thoroughly expressed messages with more clauses.

Interview Analysis: J2’s Self-reflection
A macro analysis was conducted regarding J2’s selfreflections on the unit of work over the 6-month
period in order to obtain a better understanding oflearners’ development within communities of practice.
J2’s self-reflection provided a narrative account ofher progress in developing writing and speaking skills
through writing an essay about surrogacy and byusing authentic reading materials. In addition, J2’s
interview analysis allowed us to discover her strategies
of meaning-making as she engaged in literacy practices
and a variety of roles that helped her become anexperienced learner within the CoP.
Proofreaders
One of J2’s new methods of organizing themeaning-making process in the target language was towork with a proofreader:
I asked my host sister to check my English in
the essay before I submitted it. She said she
tried to keep my writing and changed only mygrammatical mistakes. But when she started tocorrect my grammar mistakes she sometimes
changed my entire sentence. I found many
grammatical and word choice’s mistakes in mywriting. To talk with her is very helpful for me
because she taught me proper language choice(November 27, 2007).

Asking someone to proofread one’s work can bea social practice since “the proofreading process [is]a constant conformation with one reader’s meaning
making operation” (Teramoto & Mickan 2008, p. 52).
J2’s “host sister” (proofreader) attempted to respect J2’s
lexical and grammatical choices. However, the choices
were, at times, incorrect. Therefore, the proofreader
modified and paraphrased some of the sentences inher essay to improve overall comprehension. J2 was
satisfied with her written sentences, which had become
more like those of a native English speaker. After J2
discussed the changes, she realized that the majority ofher notes were written verbatim from the article andit was necessary to rewrite them in her own words.
She understood the benefits of recontextualizing theformal written language of the article into everyday
speech that was more accessible to her classroom
peers. Moreover, applying everyday speech, rather thantechnical language, proved to be a better approach tohelping her classmates understand the article, which
can be referred to as social semiotic.
Peer Discussions
One of the classroom tasks involved a discussionof authentic texts. There were a total of eight students
in each group and an additional student acted as
the chairperson to ensure that the discussion was
kept within the allotted time. This student-centeredteaching approach was maintained during the entire
lesson. The teacher’s role was to provide as muchscaffolding as possible by asking open-ended questions
as well as monitoring the time for the chairperson.
The classroom discussion was based on four articles
regarding surrogacy. All students were asked to read
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings217

Nagaoone of the articles in advance. J2 was in charge of the
fourth text, a web article titled “Fact Sheet: Surrogacy–
the Issues.” The students were given the task sheet atthe beginning of the lesson, which included questions
about the author’s profession, opinions, intentions,perspectives on surrogacy, and the presented data. J2’s
reflection concerning this class discussion is as follows:I could not speak up when my classmates werediscussing article one, two, and three. This isbecause the first article was too difficult tounderstand for me; therefore I decided to become
a listener. It was hard for me to understandbecause of the speaker’s pronunciation. During
the discussion about the second and third
articles, I was also unable to participate in thediscussion but I wanted to say something because
I understood both articles. However, when thechairperson introduced the explanation on the
fourth article, I participated with my classmates.
I thought I knew the article better than the otherstudents and therefore, I pushed myself to speak.
I might have confidence to interact with others byasking questions spontaneously. (November 27,
2007)
J2’s challenge was to interact with others bytaking turns and expressing her opinions verbally.
During the discussion on the first article, she listened,
acknowledged her peer’s comments, and took notes.
These activities could be considered as passive learningand be categorized as minor roles in peer discussion.
Engaging in verbal discussion is considered as animportant role of the core group of participants.
However, smaller tasks such as listening and nodding
are also an essential part of participating as a memberof a community (Lave & Wenger 1991). New students
are not usually asked to assume core duties; instead,they are expected to take on less critical responsibilities
as they develop their skills. In addition, newcomers
can enhance their confidence and satisfaction byfulfilling less important roles (Lave & Wenger 1991).
J2 was not aware of the importance of listening andtaking notes during her discussion and she regretted
not being able to participate verbally. At times, J2
participated on both peripheral and active levels and

218 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

she became an active student who took turns andexpressed her opinions regarding the topic at hand. In
other moments, she was a peripheral participant who
observed the students’ interactions. This suggests that
she may have had difficulty distinguishing whether aperson’s participation was active or peripheral. Somestudents take on both roles and change from one
to the other, depending on their interests, English
proficiency, and knowledge of the topic. Therefore,
J2 assumed different roles according to the situation,
which enabled her to become an experienced learnerwithin the community.

Discussion
J1 and J2’s classroom discourses from the end of thesemester exhibited a significant number of progressive
messages that contained elements that expanded theconversation with their peers; this did not occur as
frequently at the beginning of the semester. This implies
that J1 and J2 gained the ability to employ patterns ofinteraction under practical situations, which helped
them become core participants in their classroom CoP.
Furthermore, J2 required the necessary skills to
use the appropriate types of social practices to makesense of what she was learning through interactions
with other group members. J2’s self-reflections indicatethat she applied the hypothetical process to become
an experienced learner as a result of being exposed toa variety of social practices. Initially, J2 became selfaware of her role as a peripheral participant when firstjoining the community. As a new member, she felt theneed to be accepted by the other members during verbal
interactions and she followed the same proceduresthat the majority of the students adopted to completetasks, such as reading authentic articles. However,this learning process proved to be insufficient for J2.
As a result, she discovered her own strategy by asking
the other members to help her complete the reading
assignment. J2’s overall ability to guess unknown
words and add additional words improved throughthe reading assignments. Furthermore, she attempted
to discover appropriate learning processes to enhance
her language learning, which is considered a social
practice.

Learning as Meaning-making, pages 214-220

Conclusion
One implication of this research is that the modelof language learning should shift from knowledgetransmission attribution to participant attribution
in order to better account for how learning occurs
within classroom CoP. Learning occurs when students
participate in ongoing communication tasks by utilizing
the target language to improve meaning-making. The
social perspective of language acquisition maintains
that through their interactions, learners negotiate not
only meaning but also their roles in their relationships
as well as their cultural and social identities within thecommunity (Ellis, 1999). J1 and J2, as newcomers,
gradually moved from peripheral roles to more central
ones that demonstrated three overall characteristics:(1) improved and expanded knowledge and skills;(2) improved relationships between themselves andother community members; and (3) enhanced ability
to make community resources accessible to newer
participants.

Acknowledgments
My utmost gratitude and respect goes to Dr. Peter
Mickan for his scholarly, trustworthy, candid, andencouraging supervision. Without his academic
support, ongoing commitment, and helpfulcomments, it would not have been possible to bringthis publication to fruition.

References
Ellis, R. (1999). Theoretical perspectives oninteraction and language learning. In Ellis,
R. (Ed.), Learning a second language throughinteraction (pp. 3–32). Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Guzdial, M., & Tew, A.E. (2006). Imagineering
inauthentic legitimate peripheral participation:
An instructional design approach for motivating
computing education. Proceedings of the second
international workshop on Computing education
research, New York, NY 51–58.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social
semiotic: The social interpretation of language
and meaning. In H. Mori (Ed.), A sociocultural
analysis of meetings among Japanese teachers
and teaching assistants (pp. 9–15). Adelaide,
Australia: Adelaide University.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:
Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Mickan, P. (2006). Socialisation, social practices, andteaching. In P. Mickan, I. Petrescu, & J. Timoney(Eds.), Social practices, pedagogy, and language
use: Studies in socialization (pp. 7–23). Adelaide,
Australia: Lythrum Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1997). Constructivism: Shape-shifting,substance, and teacher education applications.
Peabody Journal of Education, 72 (1), 35–66.
Takagi, K. (1999). Identity construction in legitimate
peripheral participation theory. Bulletin of theCenter for Educations of Children Overseas Tokyo
Gakugei University, 10, 1–14.
Teramoto, H., & Mickan, P., (2008). Writinga Critical Review: Reflections on Literacy
Practices. Language Awareness 17, 1, 44–56.
Wake, B. (2006). Dialogic learning in tutorial talk:A case study of semiotic mediation as a learning
resource for second language international
students. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved fromhttp://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/
bitstream/2440/40128/1/02whole.pdf (The
University of Adelaide).
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2002). Cultivating communities ofpractice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002).
Cultivating communities of practice: A quick startup guide. Retrieved from http://www.ewenger.
com/theory/start-up_guide_PDF.pdf

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings219

NagaoAuthor’s Biography:
Akiko Nagao, is a full-time lecturer in the Language Education Center at Ritsumeikan University.
Her research interests include sociolinguistics and learning as socialization experiences

220 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

The Quality of Life in the English as a Foreign Language
University Classroom: A Case Study of Two Departmentsof Kwansei Gakuin University

Paul Aaloe

Alan Brady

Kwansei Gakuin University
aot06033@kwansei.ac.jp

Kwansei Gakuin University
aybrady@gol.com

At Kwansei Gakuin University, a private university in Kansai, Japan, not all students actually needor require English study, which may be contentious. But Bainbridge (2002), and Beale (2002)
point out that one of the most pressing issues involving English education in Japan is the lack ofpublic airing of why and who needs English study. In the language classroom, the notion that there
may be serious social problems or puzzles seems to be rarely if at all acknowledged by students orteachers who go out of their way to pretend that all is well socially. Our research project, a combined
qualitative-quantitative study utilizing informal interview and more formal survey methodology,
seeks to unpack as much as is possible, those underlying social puzzles that may exist in class andwhich may go unnoticed.
日本の私立大学である関西学院大学では、議論を呼ぶかもしれませんが、英語学習がす
べての学生に必要なものであるとは言えないのが実際のところです。Bainbridge (2002)とBeale (2002) が指摘していますが、日本の英語教育で最も差し迫った課題の1つは、
なぜ、誰が、英語学習を必要とするのか、一般の周知に欠けているという点です。言語学習の教室では、
その言語学習に関する切実な社会問題や困惑が存在するかもしれないという考えは、学生や教師にはほとんどないかのごとくで、あったとしても社会的に全てがうまくいっているという具合にふるまわれています。本研究は、非公式なインタビューとより公式な調査方法を用いた定性的・定量的研究であり、教室内に存在しうるが、気づかれないでいるそれらの潜在的社会問題をできるだけわかりやすく説明します。

It is the purpose of this paper to report on a classroom
research project in its planning stage(s), and which is tobe further carried out with student surveys in the very
near future (i.e. in early 2014). This research aims to*

Brady, A. & Aaloe, P. (2014). The quality of life in the
English as a foreign language university classroom:
A case study of two departments of Kwansei Gakuin
University. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter,& M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference
Proceedings (pp. 221-226). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

investigate the quality of classroom life of students asthey experience their university English language study
and learning at one university in Japan. In the courseof this research, we hope to “find” some evidence offactors that either inhibit and/or enhance student
satisfaction of their English language learning in class.
During our investigation of issues that impact
either negatively or positively on the quality of life in
the English language learning classroom at university,
we also aim to gain validated insights into the overall
conception and practice of university English language
education, as exemplified at one such institution, and in
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

221

Brady & Aaloe
particular within two departments of that institution.
We are hopeful that we can use data obtained in
student surveys, and possibly to include interviews of
selected students at some later point, that might give amore clear picture and make some greater sense of thepresence of English language learning at one university.
At this point we aim solely for clearer understandingof what may be problematical with English language
university study from the students’ perspective. We do
not yet wish to or aim to attempt to “solve” any suchproblems.
Understanding, Allwright (2003) believes, can in
itself help dispose of a problem or puzzle, or at least
provide the seeds of, a possible solution or solutions.
Allwright and others recognize we classroom English
language practitioners need a way of doing the researchthat does not, in any significant manner, interrupt thepedagogy and learning, but which actually helps it
along. This requires a redefinition or reinvention of thenotion of practitioner research so that it becomes partand parcel of the pedagogy and learning and not as anactivity that is parasitic upon class study.
The criteria for exploratory practitioner research is:
1. understanding before trial-and-error problem
solving
2. promotion rather than disruption of language
teaching and learning
3. taking classroom life itself as a prime source of
topics or issues or puzzles
4. having the research agenda be a part of the classstudy and learning
5. asking students themselves to “act” as observersof what is happening
6. ensuring that there is sustainability andcollegiality in the project
7. focusing on the development of people and thelearning.

English for everyone in Japan, andfor all university students?
Mike Guest, an Associate Professor of English at
Miyazaki University, wonders whether English is thecorrect choice for everyone in Japan. He suggests a
streamlining of the English study system where only

222 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

those people who want or need to should study (in)English. He argues,
Those entering fields in which English
communication will be necessary or advantageousshould. This will mean better motivation, moregoal-directed teaching and learning, and better
teachers – both Japanese and non-Japanese –since the subject will no longer be monolithic andall-encompassing, but specialized and localized.
(Guest, 2006:15)
At Kwansei Gakuin University, a private university
in Kansai, Japan, not all students actually want or
require English study. Beale (2002) and Bainbridge(2002) point out one of the most pressing issues
involving English language education in Japan is thelack of public airing of why and who exactly needs
English study. McVeigh (2002) maintains that English
study is a veiled way in which Japan can compare andcontrast its national identity with “others.” Both Beale(2002) and Bainbridge (2002) contend that it has neverbeen made sufficiently clear, beyond sloganeering suchas, “English is necessary for globalization,” why English
study is carried out in Japan.
In the Japanese print media in 2007 an op-ed
entitled, “Japan’s Ambivalent English” in the Japan
Times argued that the system of teaching and learning
English is conflicted. The op-ed states,
Japan’s future standing in the world rests in largepart on its ability to speak other languages. Toomuch really can be lost in translation. Countries
with the best language ability will prosper most as
globalization seeps more fully into everyday life…
Japan must learn other languages, then, not only
to understand other ways of thinking feeling, butalso to understand itself.

Reconsidering EFL motivation within
the general context of university
study in Japan
According to Kaneko (2012) English has become a truly
global language necessitating serious reconsiderationof students’ second language (L2) learning motivation.

Quality of Life in the EFL Classroom, pages 221-226
In the L2 (second language) Motivational Self System
researched by Dornyei (2009), Kaneko (2012) reportsthat integrative (i.e. identifying with the target groupusers), and instrumental (i.e. studying and learningfor purposes other than integration) are reformulated
as a single and inseparable concept. Kaneko’s 2012
study examined how the motivation of Japanese EFL(English as a foreign language) university learners canbe influenced by opportunities to listen to lectures
given by possible Japanese role models as students
reflect upon their present and future self-images(2012:3).
Her study indicated it is possible for the university,and its English language teachers, to help students
form a clearer image of their ideal L2 selves. This they
can do by leading students to recognize the importanceusefulness of English and English study as an
instrument for achieving something more practical or
purposeful than, for example, doing translation fromor to English, to or from Japanese, or analyzing English
in order to do translation. It is students themselves,
Kaneko maintains, who can best make the decision
whether or not to (want to) belong to a global society,worldwide or more regional. With concrete and clear
images of their present and future selves as membersof a widespread target community of global English,
it can be expected, she argues, that English instruction
and learning may become more effective for Japanese
university students who might otherwise not perceive
any immediate need for studying and/or using English
language.
The two researcher-writers of this paper, Alan
Brady, a full-time English Sociology professor, and Paul
Aaloe, a part-time instructor in a number of Kwansei
Gakuin University departments (but not Sociology),
have hypothesized possible institutional inhibitors ofstudent English learning as follows:
1. teachers’ use or non-use of English in teaching
2. focus on study about the English language as
opposed to study that uses English as a mediumof learning and communication
3. English classes offered only in the first two yearsof university which may be perceived as a kindof “hurdle” on to graduation rather than as anintegral component of graduation success

4. large numbers of students in language classes
making it difficult for a quality interactive sociocultural and socio-educational relationshipbetween teacher and students, and between
students themselves
5. too much focus on testing, grades, and texts as
opposed to teaching and learning
6. insufficiently challenging and demanding classes
7. lack of choice for students in language studies
8. little institutional support for outside-class useof English on campus, including non-visibility
and lack of use of English speech publically
9. no explicit connections made between English
language and discipline-area study
10. continued (over-)reliance and dependence on“Inner Circle” English teachers, which gives theimpression that the institution may or does not(want to) recognize the pluralistic realities ofEnglish language use in Asia or in the world
11. teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards the study
and use of English, which can influence how
students study and want to or do not want touse English.
What is it about the environment of study andlearning at Kwansei Gakuin University, and three ofits departments in particular, that influences student
anxiety about studying English, and also student
willingness to want to and actually use English
language, and take its study and use as seriously as they
do study in their native L1, Japanese? The researchers
are concerned with how Kwansei Gakuin University
English teachers can enable students to want to, if theychoose, join one or another global English community.
University students have already developed beliefs
and attitudes about English study by the time they
arrive at university. What shapes learner beliefs about
learning? Breen (2001), and Arnold (1999), argue
pedagogy can provide opportunities and conditions
within which learner contributions are found to havea positive effect upon learning, and also how learners
can be more positively engaged in their learning.
Thomas & Harri-Augstein (1983) conclude that
beliefs about learner capacity and personal models (i.e.
personal “myths”) of their own learning processes are
more central to understanding individuals’ learning
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

223

Brady & Aaloe
performances than theories of learning.
There are three approaches to research on language
learner beliefs. The first approach is normative—
Likert-scale questionnaires (Horwitz, 1987)—where
it was found that (a) learners underestimated difficultyof language learning, (b) learners held misconceptions
about how to learn foreign language and (c) learners
gave more value to accent (pronunciation) thanteachers. The second approach is metacognitive whichsays that learners hold prescriptive beliefs which stress:(a) the importance of using language in a natural way
practicing as often as possible, thinking in the L2, living
and studying in an environment where the L2 wasused, (b) learning about the language, such as grammar
and vocabulary, taking a formal course, learningfrom mistakes and being mentally active, and (c) the
importance of personal factors like emotional aspect,
self-concept, and learning aptitude (role of culture).
The third approach to research on language
learner beliefs is contextual where beliefs are viewed
as embedded in students’ (study) contexts. Benson &Lor (1999) discovered that in order to modify beliefs,
the learner must also (first) modify those underlying
conceptions on which the beliefs are based and mustalso pay attention to the context in which the beliefs
function. Teachers need to know if students’ beliefs arefunctional or dysfunctional, and how dysfunctional
beliefs might be changed.
Stevick (1980) argued that success in learning
depends less on materials and teaching techniques
than it does on what goes on inside (the head andthe heart of ) the learner. Bassano (1986) recognizes
that students have differing needs, preferences,beliefs, learning styles, educational backgrounds. The
imposition of change(s) upon all these factors canlead to negative reactions. There are six steps, she says,
towards dealing with student beliefs:
1. become aware of students’ past classroom
learning experiences and assumptions about
language learning
2. build students’ confidence
3. begin where students are and move cautiously
4. show students their achievement
5. allow for free choice(s) as much as is possible
6. become aware of students’ interests, concerns,

224 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

goals, and objectives.

Understanding first; problem
solving, if at all, later
Allwright (2003) believes there are two ways of dealing
with a problem, or as he labels it, a puzzle. One way
is to conclude that we have only dealt with it when
we have “solved” the puzzle or problem, or made it goaway by finding a possible solution or solutions. This iswhat Action Research in English as a second language(ESL) or EFL offers—a way of trying out possible
solutions to a problem. This strongly implies, Allwrightmaintains, that solving a problem is more important
than understanding it, or knowing better why it isa problem, and for whom it is a problem. Nunan(1992) summarizes the goals of Action Research (AR)pioneers Kemmis and McTaggert:
A piece of descriptive research carried out by ateacher in his or her own classroom (e. g. a survey
or discussion that can inform a survey) whichaims at increasing or understanding rather thanchanging the phenomenon under investigation,
would (our italics) not be considered to be action
research.
Following Allwright, we can take action forunderstanding at least as seriously as we take any
subsequent action for change. The impetus for thepresent research is to generate hypotheses about
possible causes for a puzzle or problem, all of which
Allwright says, can provide a “rich spread of ideas sothat it immediately becomes clear that some serious
action for understanding is required before taking
matters any further, and certainly before trying out any
possible change” (2003: 18).
The researchers in this project are interested
primarily in the whole idea of life in the classroom, andwhat it is like for students and teachers to be there. Do
people feel let down by their language study or learningand by their educational experience(s)? The language
classroom, which may depend to a greater extent oninteraction and communication than the L1 (first
language) or L2 lecture or seminar, represents a sociallystressful environment that, says Allwright (1998: 7),

Quality of Life in the EFL Classroom, pages 221-226
is painfully real … the language classroom does
not need to be brought to life; it is already too
often too real. What it needs is an improvementin the quality of life, and to do so requires us
to better understand what it is that happens
before, during, and after study to make language
classrooms socially stressful places and events.
In the language classroom, Allwright maintains,
the notion that there might be social problems seems
to be rarely explicitly acknowledged by either students
or teachers. There is too little or no discussion of suchmatters. Students and teachers go out of their way(s) topretend to themselves and one another that all is wellsocially. This is, claims Allwright (and we agree), a sortof covert conspiracy which seems to revolve around theidea all must be pedagogically well if all is or seems to
be well socially. Learners and teachers give each otherexcuses so as to believe that all is well socially (even if it
is not!) to justify the supposed success of the teaching
and learning. Our research seeks to unpack as much as
possible, the underlying social problems that may exist
in class, which can give the appearance of successful
teaching and learning, but which may not actually be
successful either socially or pedagogically.

The research design and preliminary
considerations
Weaknesses of survey research can result from (1)researcher(s) asking respondents questions which the
respondents may not invest in or wish to be asked or
answered, and/or (2) possible answers to said questions
not being relevant (enough) to the respondents. The
questions that are asked of students about their present
university foreign/additional/other than L1 language
learning experience (FAO experience) therefore should,
from the initial stage(s) of survey planning, come fromthe students themselves as much as is possible to ensure
they are the questions the respondents actually wish/
hope to be asked, and which they (students) believe
are most relevant in order for them to have a greaterand more clear understanding of the language learning
experience.
The researchers are presently at the stage now of
having edited a number of student-made questions

many of which we will ask those being surveyed tochoose to better understand their experience of studying
and learning English at Kwansei Gakuin University.
Though any survey should, and does to some extent,
take into account what those being surveyed think
ought to be asked (i.e. the actual questions on the final
survey), we believe this may be the first attempt everto actually base a survey on explicitly and intentionallyasking those being surveyed to comprehensively
determine which questions most need to be asked andthen answered.
The next stage of this research will be to narrow
down on the finished survey to a manageable set ofquestions. Students will also from now be informallysurveyed in a more qualitative framework what
they think ought to be possible choice answers to
the questions that will appear on the final survey
version. We will then make answer selections to survey
questions using the input we get from students on what
they think may be possible answers to questions they
themselves have posed. It is hoped that by adopting
this combined quantitative-qualitative methodology(1) respondents will be fully engaged and invested in
the questions being asked of them, and (2) also fully
invested and engaged in responding to those questions
with possible answers that make sense to the students
themselves. It is further hoped that by adopting thismethodology, respondents will more fully invest in the
successful completion of the questionnaire.
In posing questions that now need to be sorted out
and also narrowed down, we must be careful not to ask
questions first posed by students themselves that are (1)double-barreled, (2) leading or biased, or (3) loaded.
We also recognize that we should give students the
choice of doing this survey or not, and if they choose to
do so, they can respond in either their L1, Japanese, orin the L2, English, as they please. Thus, the survey that
we will draw up will be bilingual. Hypothesizing whatneeds to be done after we administer the survey, weneed to analyze how students’ responses give insight
into the actual lived experience of their language
classroom life. Thus, we must carefully choose fromthe questions we now have those that meet the above
criteria. We also intend to continue more qualitativeroutes to this research by discussing with students
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

225

Brady & Aaloe
their lived experiences in language classrooms, thru
interviewing and other less formal discussion means.
In conclusion, let us quote from Davies (2006) inregards to finding out what students really want fromtheir language coursework,
It is impossible to overestimate the value ofwhat learners can teach us about themselves via
class-specific questionnaire surveys. Of course
questionnaires are not infallible instruments andthe potential for teacher bias in item creationand learner misinterpretation of the intended
meaning of items clearly exists…… But the fact
remains that what is gained from the use of classspecific surveys is what is generally most oftensought by teachers in their classrooms – a greaterand more uniquely personal understanding of ourlearners, and an additional and reliable means ofassessing and effecting change where it is needed
most. (Davies, 2006: 10)

References
Allwright, R. (2003) The Priority of Understanding
Over Problem-Solving. (Unpublished paper).
Allwright, R. (1998) Bringing Classroom Language
Learning to Life. (Unpublished paper)
Arnold, J. (1999). Affect in language learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bassano, S. (1986). Helping learners adapt tounfamiliar methods. English Language Teaching
Journal (ELTJ), 40(1): 13-19.
Beale, J. (2002). EFL in Japan: Whose English is it
anyway? Babel, 37(2): 26-28.
Bainbridge, S. (2002). Second Language Acquisition
and Current Trends in Japan: The Cultural Risks.
Journal of the College of Engineering, Nihon
University, 44)1: 167-177.

Benson, P., and Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions oflanguage and language learning. System, 27(4):459-472.
Breen, M. P. (Ed.) (2001). Learner contributions tolanguage learning: New directions in research.
Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Davies, A. (2006) What do learners really want fromtheir EFL course? ELT Journal, 60(1): 3-12.
Dornyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language
acquisition, Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Guest, M. (2006) Japan’s Struggle with English –Why? Daily Yomiuri Language Page, Feb. 17,
2006.
Harri-Augstein, E.S. (1985) Learning to learn
languages; New perspectives for the personalobserver. In D. Banister (Ed.) Issues andapproaches in personal construct theory (pp. 4765). London: Academic Press.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language
learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Horwitz, E. K. (1987) Surveying student beliefs
about language learning. In A.L. Wenden and
J. Robin (Eds.), Language strategies in language
learning, (pp. 119-132). London: Prentice-Hall.
Japan’s Ambivalent English. Japan Times:: Opinion
Editorial, March, 2007
Kaneko, E. (2012) On The Motivation of Science
majors Learning English as a Foreign Language:
A case study from Japan. OnCUE Journal, 6(2):3-26.
McVeigh, B. (2002) Japanese Higher Education as
Myth. New York and London: M. E. Sharpe.
Nunan, D. (1992) Research Methods in Language
Learning. Cambridge: CUP
Stevick, E. (1980). Teaching languages: A way andways. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Authors’ Biographies:
Alan Brady is a full-time professor in the Sociology Department at Kwansei Gakuin University in
Kansai, Japan, where he has worked since 1991.
Paul Aaloe works as a part-time lecturer in several departments at Kwansei Gakuin University.

226 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Literature Circles: Collaboration and Community

Kevin Michael Maher
University of Macau
kmaher@umac.mo
Literature Circles are ideal for students to acquire and retain language. They create discussion,
language awareness, and collaboration among participants. Additionally, students involve themselvesin the lives and stories of characters, which they examine and discuss in detail. In literature circles,
each student is given a role. These include Word Wizard, Summarizer, Graphic Organizer, Culture
Collector, Real-Life Connector, Group Leader, Passage Person, Character Creator, and the ‘IF’
Person, among others. Each student is responsible for typed ‘rolework’ to be given to the instructor
for assessment. They contribute and collaborate by discussing the required readings through theirpre-prepared rolework. A shared community of learners develops through analyzing the assigned
text together. In addition to rolework and literature circles, students are given other tasks to enhancetheir awareness of the text. These include teacher-generated idiom quizzes, discussion questions,
inference questions, and literature skits. These will be discussed in further detail.
リテラチャーサークルは学生にとって言語の習得や、またそれを維持するのに理想的だといえるだろう。
なぜならそこで彼らは議論や言語意識、そして参加者間の共同作業を生み出すからである。加えて、彼らが事細かに調べ、話し合ったその本のストーリーやキャラクタ
ーそのものにおいて自分自身を関与させるようになるのだ。
リテラチャーサークルでは学生
一人一人にそれぞれ役割が与えられる。
その役割は語彙担当者、要約者、
カルチャーコレクター、
グループリーダー、登場人物担当者など様々だ。各学生は評価を得るために、それぞれの役割作業を講師に提出する。
そして彼らは事前に用意したその役割作業をもとに、リーディングにおける必要性を議論しながら、共に協力そして貢献し合うのである。割り当
てられた本を共同で解析していくことによって、学習者にとっての共有のコミュニティーの場が自ずと生まれてくる。
このリテラチャーサークルや役割作業に加え、学生は本に対する意識をさらに高めるために、講師によって作成されたイディオムクイズや討議質問、推論質
問や文学寸劇など他の課題も与えられることになる。
これらの課題についての詳細は本論文でよりいっそう深く触れていく。

Studying literature in the L2 doesn’t have to various structured teacher-generated activities
be a solo activity. A shared experience through can lead to greater literature interest, increased
awareness of the target language culture, and asense of community among participants. The*
Maher, K. M. (2014). Literature Circles:
following will discuss the collaborative nature
Collaboration and Community. In R. Chartrand, G.
of literature circles, as well as how to organize
Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013
one.
PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp. 227-234).
*

Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

227

MaherThe Background of Literature Circles
Literature circles are a great place for students tocollectively discuss and get deeper into the text, thanmight be possible through other methods of study.
The experience is communicative, community-based,bonding, and collaborative. This first section will
discuss the pedagogy of literature circles.

The Brief History of Literature Circles
Daniels (2002), a book author on literature circles,
discusses their recent past. They have been aroundas long as publishing, but exploded in popularity inthe 1990s. They have only continued to increase inpopularity since then. Daniels’ book focused on theusage of literature circles in the Chicago school system;
however, the book is well-referenced as influential inapplying the same system to the EFL world as well.
Furr (2004) states how students uninterested inreading, once exposed to literature circles, were moreeager to share the stories they had read, refer to text
passages to support arguments, and ask insightfulquestions of each other. This ties in well with theprophetic statement that Daniels received from a
Chinese educator, who stated that, “It has been five
thousand years that we have been taught to respect
an expert’s opinions and accept them with no doubt”(Daniels, 2002: 2). Then the Chinese educator,
according to Daniels, stated that literature circles
will challenge that to make Chinese students open
their mouths and discuss literature instead of simply
respecting it as is.

The Collaborative Nature of Literature
Circles
Williams, an educator in Japan, discusses thecollaborative nature of literature circles. As eachmember of the group has a unique role in the overalltask, they collectively guide what will be the content,
the direction, the lexical complexity, and the pace totheir own needs, as opposed to that of the instructor(Williams, 2010). Once they become engaged in thereading, they refer to texts in the reading, support
arguments, and question each other on the deeper
meaning of the texts (Furr, 2007). This collaboration

228 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

bonds the students to the story and gives them a sharedexperience.
In this way, the principles of Vygotsky’s (1978)“Zone of Proximal Development” can be realized in
the EFL Classroom through the use of literature circles.
Students assist each other in learning by a step-by-stepprocess in a way that they might not have been able
to do on their own. Additionally, Krashen who is anenormous proponent of students studying novels forlanguage acquisition purposes (1985), also states that
this type of content-based discussion creates a focus on
authentic and meaningful input, as opposed to simply
grammatical form (1982). For this reason, studying
collaboratively, allows students to set their own pace,and digest the literature in deeper ways collectively.

Collaboration Into Higher AwarenessBrown (2009) discusses how students analyze
the text, connect the reading to the real world, assess
their cultural assumptions, and ultimately apply
critical thinking to the text. Critical thinking affects
how students can discuss these topics on higher
levels: how they look at emotional conflicts and social
dilemmas, and how they demand a response and value
judgment. As students get involved in the reading,they link personal experiences to the contents, which
in turn assist personal development (Lin, 2004). With
this type of awareness, Brown (2009) states, it is not
unusual that through student discussion, they change
their opinions on various topics, simply by reading
and discussing the novel. Kim (2003) stresses theimportance of this, as many EFL students majoring in
English, are not familiar with critical ways of reading,analyzing and questioning texts. Students therefore
reflect on a deeper level with the reading throughdiscussion and collaboration.
Another aspect of literature circles which occurs isthat students become introduced to the social norms
and practices of their target L2 culture (Allington& Swann, 2009). The literature becomes a portal forsociocultural features of the society from where theliterature takes place. It reinforces the vocabulary,grammar, and culture within the authentic text
(Iida, 2013). In this way, literature becomes a way tounderstand the culture language. It becomes a prism

Literature Circles, pages 227-234
in which to view the events of the time (Bibby, 2012).
For EFL students targeting a language and culture, it
allows a deeper insight into that L2’s world.

Setting up a Literature Circle
This section will examine how to setup a literaturecircle. Each researcher and teacher has their own way to
set up a literature circle. I will discuss my own methods
and style accordingly.
At the time of this research, I was teaching
Sophomore-year students at a university in Japan. The
students were in a special program with the hope tostudy abroad in a foreign country. The classroom size
consisted of approximately 18-25 students. I believethat the assigned roles could be applied to much lower
ability students; however the other goals would need
to be modified according to an instructor’s discretion.

Pre-Reading and ‘Rolework’
Each week, my students read approximately 18-25
pages a week from a literature book. Each student was
assigned one role. Furr (2004) used a Group Discussion
Leader, Summarizer, Connector, Word Master, Passage
Person, and Culture Collector. These were modified
from Furr with the following additions created, they
included Visualizer, Idiom King/Queen, the ‘IF’
Person, Graphic Organizer, Character Organizer, andCharacter Creator. I also changed the names of Furr’s‘Connector’ to ‘Real Life Connector’, and Furr’s ‘Word
Master’ to the title of ‘Word Wizard’.
Each student had ‘rolework’ that they had to do
before class. Each student prepared specific tasks,
to hand in to the teacher, and to pass out among
their group members. This rolework was assessed incomparison to other rolework by other class memberswith the same role. Therefore, only one ‘Visualizer’, forexample, would get the highest marks for best Visualizer
within the class. The scoring system consisted of marks
1-10, where the student with the best work was given
maximum points and possibly extra credit points. The
second and third students couldn’t get the maximum
points, but were given marks between 7-9 points. The
lowest quality work, could only receive a maximum of
7 points total. It was a system designed to reward thehardest worker, as opposed to all students attempting
only the minimum work required of them.
Next, in regards to the rolework that was assigned
to the students. There were only five roles given at any
one time, due to the fact that each group consisted ofonly five members. During a five week run, each groupmember would experience each set role. Afterwards,
the class collectively agreed on exchanging some of
the roles for brand new roles, which would then be
used for the following run of five weeks. Additionally,
students were asked to consider creating new roles,
which were then set into rotation for their upcoming
literature circle run.
Once students had their selected assigned roles,
they submitted new ‘rolework’ prior to the beginning ofeach weekly literature circle. Additionally, all rolework
was typed. This ensured students planned and set aside
time outside of class, and they were not handwriting
their work at the beginning of class. The following wereroles assigned and what they were to submit:

Discussion of Literature Circle’s Roles
The Discussion Leader
This person prepared questions for their groupmembers. They were required to type 10-12 discussion
questions to submit as rolework. This person was also
responsible for time management during the literaturecircle. Ensuring that each other group member
was given ample time to present their role and thateveryone participated. Assessment was centered on thequality of questions, and how thought-provoking andinteresting they were for their group.
Vocabulary Wizard
This person created a vocabulary quiz for the othergroup members. It was to be at least 10-12 words orphrases, generally structured in the form of multiple
choice questions. The student also included theanswers when handing in their rolework. Grading was
based on the accuracy of their definitions.
Idiom King/Queen
This person was basically the same as the
Vocabulary Wizard, however they focused on idioms
instead. They were only required to research 6-8, andonly half of them could be phrasal verbs.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings229

MaherThis was an extremely challenging role for most
EFL students. They had difficulty recognizing or
understanding them. Another variation was that theteacher generated the idiom lists, and gave a study list
and administered a quiz before their assigned reading.
Real Life Connector
This person was to connect three events from thereading to their personal life. If it didn’t happen tothem personally, they could connect it with someone
else they have known in their life. For example, if
a character had an experience with a police officer
in the story, perhaps the real life connection would
be about their own encounter with a police officer.
They submitted three real life connections for theirrolework.
Passage Person
This person had to identify at least six importantpassages. This could be of several different natures.
Anything that they thought was crucial or eventchanging in the story satisfied this requirement.
Another option was to identify confusing passages
or text, so that students could generate discussion on
the meaning of those passages. It was a fairly liberal
category, of the student’s discretion.
Visualizer
This person took visual images from the internet
and shared them with the group members. They
were often unusual vocabulary words that could be
difficult to explain with words, often cultural in nature.
Examples included maple trees, coalminers, fajitas, andso forth. A minimum of 10-12 images was required fortheir submitted rolework.
Graphic Organizer
The student in this role generated a timeline ofevents. They could hand draw scenes, or discuss themwith key words in some organized manner of theirchoosing. The clearer and better organized, the morepoints were given.
Culture Connector
This person identified cultural differences fromtheir own culture with that of the story, including timeand place. They were required to submit at least five

230 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

different cultural differences.
Summarizer
This person wrote out in paragraph form, asummary of all events from the assigned reading forthat week.
The IF Person
This person created ‘if ’ scenarios. For example, if
you were the character who was in the social dilemma
depicted in the text, what would you do? Students
created five ‘if ’ scenarios, from any character’s
perspective, and discussed it.
Character CreatorThis role created a character and wrote them into
the story. Their rolework was to create a timeline thatmatched other events in the story with what this newly
created character might do. The new character could
be someone as simple as Mickey Mouse or someone
completely new and unusual. The goal was to havethem interact with the text. Generally, I allowed thisrole near the end of the literature circle, and never atthe beginning. It was a confusing role for students
before they became familiar with the characters in theliterature.
Character Organizer
This was a role given when there were many
characters in a story. The purpose was to refresh
everyone’s memory of who was who, and theirrelationships to other people. For rolework, students
submitted a list of new and minor characters, andcontinually added further details about themTime Structure
On the day of the literature circle, the Discussion
Leader was responsible for time management. The
person had to allot time fully and sufficiently so thateach other member spoke and contributed. If any groupfinished their circle too early, the Discussion Leader
was held responsible for creating new questions, newtopics, and to continue to generate discussion.
The literature circles were designed for acollege semester, which was approximately 12-15
weeks, nearly the full semester. In their respective
circles, each group discussed the text for a minimum

Literature Circles, pages 227-234
of 40 minutes per week. However, if good discussion
was being generated, it was occasionally allowed tocontinue for up to an hour of class time.
Prior to their literature circles, students were
given five to ten minutes with ‘clarification’ partners.
This was a one-on-one partnership where two students
simply discussed confusing passages within the
text. It was the teacher’s role to monitor and collectinformation on difficult topics during this time, toexamine and discuss more fully before the literaturecircle began.

Additional Non-Literature Circle
Tasks to Enhance Classroom
Community and Collaboration
In addition to the literature circle, there wereother tasks of a community-based nature. These were
designed to enhance the students understanding of thetext.

Comprehension and Inference Questions
and Quizzes
I created somewhere between 18-25 questions fromthe weekly assigned reading. This was generally done
after the literature circle had already commenced. The
idea was that all students should have shared awarenessof all important details within the reading. Later, I
assessed them with a quiz based on that exact set of
discussion questions. It was also a last opportunity forthem to discuss important details of the text that theymight not have realized were critical to the story plot.

“Lit Skits”“Lit Skits” mean essentially acting out parts of
the literature story. Each week, one group of students
had to prepare and act a scene of their choice. They
practiced it outside of class, and their score was basedon creativity, fluency, and usage of characters’ originallines.

Weekly Idiom Quizzes
While occasionally a student had the role of‘Idiom King/Idiom Queen’, at other times I pre-readthe literature and collected those idioms myself. I gavethem the definition in context to the story. They were
tested on those idioms prior to be given their assigned
reading. See Appendix II for an example of the Idiom
List issued to students.

Conclusion
In conclusion, literature circles can be utilized todeepen students’ extensive reading skills, their criticalthinking skills, and their understanding of the text.
This is very collaborative in nature, set to the students’
own interests, needs, and pace. I highly recommend
any EFL teacher to assign this type of extensive reading
to their students.
Additionally it can be a very bonding social
experience for the students. One that they will continue
to mention to their teacher and fellow students wellafter the literature circle finished.

References
Alllington, D., & Swann, J. (2009). Researching
literary reading as social practice. Language andLiterature, 18(3), 219-230.
Bibby, S. (2012). Teaching literature in the language
classroom: An introduction. The Journal of
Literature in Language Teaching, 1, 5-9.
Brown, H. (2009). Literature circles for criticalthinking in global issues classes. In A.M. Stoke(Ed.), JALT 2008 Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voices andchoice in book clubs and reading circles (2nd ed.).
Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Furr, M. (2004). Literature circles for the EFL
classroom. Proceedings of the 2003 TESOL
Arabia Conference. Retrieved from http://www.
eflliteraturecircles.com/litcirclesforEFL.pdf
Furr, M. (2007). Reading circles: Moving great stories
from the periphery of the language classroom to
its center. The Language Teacher, 31(5), 15-18.
Iida, A. (2013). Critical review of literary reading
and writing in a second language. The Journal of
Literature in Language Teaching, 2, 5-11.
Kim, H-R. (2003). Literature circles in EFL curricula:
Establishing a framework. The English Teacher,
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

231

Maher
32. Retrieved from http://www.melta.org.my/
ET/2003/2003-1.pdf.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices of second
language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues andimplications. New York, NY: Longman.
Lin, W. (2004). The theory and practice of “literaturegroup.” Journal of Education Research, 126, 33-44.
Vgotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The developmentof higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Williams, D. (2010). Using literature circles in acontext-based course. Retrieved from http://www.
jiu.ac.jp/books/bulletin/2010/tour/williams.pdf.

Author’s Biography:
Kevin M. Maher is teaching at the University of Macau, where he lives with his wife and kids.
His research interests include Literature Circles, Neuroplasticity & SLA Theory, Pair Work, andPublic Speaking.

232 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Literature Circles, pages 227-234

Appendix A
Kansai Gaidai University – Kevin Maher’s Class
Literature Circles for The Glass Castle
Within your group, each of you will have a ROLE in the discussion. You will need to produce written workfor each role.
1. Group Leader•• Facilitator in the group. Keep the discussion flowing, and ensure everyone is participating equally.
•• You’ll prepare QUESTIONS to ask the other students in the group. Anything related to the story.
Must be thought-provoking and create interesting discussion.
•• GIVE TO THE TEACHER: 1) Approximately 10-12 discussion questions that you think your groupshould discuss.
2. Graphic Organizer•• Using drawings or timelines, you will explain the basics of the story to your group.
•• You should bring copies for everyone.
•• This can be you copying pictures off the internet that show a timeline of events. It can also be you
drawing visually the sequence of events.
•• GIVE TO THE TEACHER: 1) Copy of drawings or timelines. Anything you used.
3. Real Life Connector•• This role is to find connections between the text and the real world.
•• You can make connections between story characters and real people – friends, family, or classmates.
•• You’ll also make a list of questions. These questions you can ask your group. Perhaps, “Have you
ever__________?” These will be used to generate conversation.
•• GIVE TO THE TEACHER: 1) Written connections + 2) Your connection questions you asked toyour group members. Must be typed.
4. Culture Collector•• One student focuses on cultural DIFFERENCES.
•• Looks at the story for differences and similarities between the culture of the story and Japanese culture.
•• Make a note of things that are very different in the foreign culture, that are not so common in Japan.
•• GIVE TO THE TEACHER: 1) List of Cultural differences + 2) Cultural types of questions you
decide to ask your group. Must be typed.
5. Character Creator•• You’ll write a new character into the story. Give the character a name, a history, and tell us how andwhere he interacts with the story. Be creative, and have fun!
•• GIVE TO THE TEACHER: 1) Character name. + 2) The character’s history + 3) How does thecharacter interact in the story? Must be typed.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings233

MaherAppendix B
Idiom List for The Glass Castle p. 81-101
IDIOMSDay in day out			
Act high-and-Mighty			
Pipe up				
Peter out				Make fun of				Roll up one’s sleeve			
Make a mockery of			Be carried away			
Shoot your mouth off			
Burst into Tears			
Blessing in disguise			
Move up in the world			
Plot something out			
Polish off				
Get down to				It doesn’t always carry the day		
Broke into a run			

Every day is the same ol’ routine.
Behaving as if you are more important than everyone else.
Speak up and say something!
To gradually come to an end
To tease or laugh at
To prepare to work or fightMake something seem foolish or absurd
Lose self-control
To talk about something that is secret or private
Suddenly start crying
Something looks bad, but it’s actually good
To become successful
To make details for a plan
To finish something
Get serious about
It’s not realistic
Started running immediately

234 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Motivating Students by Talking about Novels: On
Character-driven Novels and Plot-driven Novels

Stephen A. Shucart

Mamoru Takahashi

Akita Prefectural University
triplegem@akita-pu.ac.jp

Akita Prefectural University
bobby@akita-pu.ac.jp

Experts say that students read more graded readers if teachers talk about books with enthusiasm.
In this paper, we will explicate about two types of stories that are useful for teachers when theytalk about literature in the classrooms: character-driven novels and plot-driven novels. Generally
things happen inwardly in character-driven novels and outwardly in plot-driven novels. With many
concrete illustrations, the readers will learn the different patterns of development in these two typesof novels. The knowledge of these two types will promote better classroom guidance for extensive
reading.
専門家によれば、教師が熱心に本について語るほど学生はグレーディドリーダーを読むとのことである。本稿において私たちは、教師が文学について教室で語るのに役立つ、二種類のストーリーの型について説明を行う。
それらは人物中心小説と筋中心小説である。一
般的に言って、人物中心の小説では物事は内面的な出来事として起るのに対し、筋中心の小説では物事は外面的な出来事として起る。読者は、具体的な例と共にこの二種類の小説の型の展開の仕方の違いを知ることになる。
これらの二種類の型に関する知識は、教室における多読指導の促進に役立つことになろう。

We have students who complain that they have no idea
which book to choose for their reading assignment. In
an effort to remedy this situation, we inform them that,in general, there are two kinds of novels. One is serious
literature and the other is popular literature. There isno rigorous distinction between the two, but in serious
literature it is more likely that the character is theengine that moves the novel forward and in popularliterature it is the plot. The author of the book Writing
Fiction describes it like this:*Shucart, S. A. & Takahashi, M. (2014). Motivating
Students by Talking about Novels: On Characterdriven Novels and Plot-driven Novels. In R.
Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan(Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp.
235-239). Nagoya: JALT.

*

Literary fiction differs from genre fiction
fundamentally in the fact that the former ischaracter-driven, the latter plot-driven. There isa strong tendency—though it is not a binding
rule—of genre fiction to imply that life is fair,
and to let the hero or heroine, after great struggle,
win out in the end; and of literary fiction toposit that life is not fair, that triumph is partial,
happiness tentative, and that the heroine or heroare subject to mortality. (Burroway, 2011, p.397)
This paper discusses some of the key characteristicsof these two types of novels from a novelist’s viewpoint
in order to show the structure of novels clearly.
In a character-driven novel, external action andexcitement is limited, though the protagonists’ daily
lives are usually described in excruciating detail. On
the homepage of goodread.com, a social website
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

235

Shucart & Takahashi
devoted to reading, they give examples of typicalcharacter-driven novels. In a plot-driven novel theaction is more frenetic, and the plot more of a complex
web of interlocking events designed to trap the readers’attention and engage them in a duel of wits in a race tosolve the core quandary before the titular protagonist.
This type of story is most commonly found in genre
fiction, such as the SF story, historical adventure, thefantasy novel, and the crime novel. For the purpose ofthis paper’s plot-driven section, three types of crime
fiction are examined: the classic mystery, the thriller,
and the general crime novel.
This paper is divided into two major sections. The
first section discusses the attributes of a characterdriven novel. Some of the points covered will include
the knot, initial conditions, the inciting incident,
and the moment of truth, with pertinent examples
to illustrate them. The second section of this paper
focuses on the genre of crime fiction, and compare andcontrast the three different types of novels to be foundin this genre – the mystery, the thriller, the crime novel.
In addition, tips will be offered on how a teacher may
best utilize this information. The conclusion will pointout how raising awareness of these differences can beused to increase student’s motivation.

Character-Driven Novels
Hints to reading can be found in directions to writersof fiction.

Writing Notes for the Main Character
There is good news and bad news on this topic. The badnews is that the first stage of writing a character-driven
novel is boring. The good news is there is a simple
formula to create a character-driven novel. This formula
involves the initial condition, the inciting event, knot,
escalation, the moment of truth, and the final stage.
Writers can learn how to best employ this formula byreading Jeff Gerke’s book Plot versus Character. The
book teaches how to create this important structure
for a novel.
Gerke shows writers how to create uniquecharacters. First, he creates the core personality, andto do this he employs ideas from a popular psychology

236 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

book called Please Understand Me II. First herecommends deciding on a personality type. Second,he suggests building layers onto the core personality.
He recommends that writers should make a lot of notesthat will elucidate the character’s behavior in a variety
of different situations. Naturally, this is easier said thandone. This note-taking process is quite exhausting, butwriters must persevere during this first stage.
To write an appealing novel, writers should choosea theme that is related to the dramatic personality ofthe main character. When and where to delineate themain characters in the novel is a matter of techniqueand creative imagination.

Knots
According to Gerke, a writer has to make notes about
the characters’ actions, what they talk about, the way
they talk, and show these things at the very beginningof the book. Then a writer continues to build the innerpersonality of a character. The knot is a word that Jeff
Gerke uses to describe the problem at the center of thehero’s personality. In this interpretation, a knot meansa weakness. For example, fear is a knot. Gerke says thatthe most important element is in understanding why
the character has this particular fear. By explaining thecause of the fear together with the character’s emotionalsuffering, readers will have a deeper understanding ofthat fear.
A character will eventually realize that he has aknot. Then he or she will have to choose from several
alternatives: whether to continue to hold on to theknot or to abandon it. The moment of decision iscalled the moment of truth. Truth in Greek is aletheia,
which means something uncovered. Truth is hidden.
At the moment of truth, the main character realizes hisor her hidden knot.

The Initial Condition
Gerke says, “at the beginning of your story, ‘allow theknot to hurt her, but don’t let it consume her,’” and“your hero has to be likeable at the beginning of yourstory.” (p. 110) Therefore, at the beginning of a book, ahero is supposed to be in a difficult condition.
Gerke says authors should write 30 to 40 pages
about the initial condition of the hero, who the heroMotivating Students by Talking about Novels, pages 235-239
is, and should draw attention to the hero. Only thenshould an author write about the hero’s knot, and use
it to apply pressure.

there comes the final stage of the story: “The last stageof the story tells the reader what happened to the hero
after the moment of truth.” (p. 152)

Inciting Event

Summary of a Character-driven Novel

There should always be an inciting event between
the initial condition and the moment of truth. The
inciting event directs the hero toward the destination.
The inciting event is “a radical turn in a new direction.
The inciting event is related to the hero’s knot and it
pushes the hero towards the climactic event.

So far the stages of writing a character-driven hero havebeen described: the initial condition, the knot, and themoment of truth. When the pain of staying the same is
not enough to change the hero, the hero fails.
In order to write a character-driven novel, theauthor has to make a lot of detailed notes. There is
the arc to the hero’s conflict in which the old negative
actions clash with each other and the hero is forced
to choose from the alternatives. In a character-driven
novel, the hero returns with a treasure from his battlewith inner demons and that treasure is his charactertransformation.

Escalation
Though Gerke does not explain the explicit
relationship between knot and escalation, he does saythat escalation is a process in which the hero graduallyrealizes that past actions are in some way old andoutmoded. Gerke says, “a character has to be convincedthat his current way of doing things is no good. That’s
what the escalation phase is all about.” (p. 139) In acharacter-driven novel, the hero must choose between
the old way and the new. The hero compares the twoand makes a decision.
Here is an interesting quotation, “Hero wants tostay as he is. New way comes in and tries to knock him
out of the old way. Hero fights back, digs in deeper tothe old way, goes more extreme.”(p. 133) This is an
example of escalation and the manner in which thehero understands the merits of change. “Finally, heunderstands what the new way is offering and how theold way is hurting.” (p. 133)

The Moment of Truth
The hero must make a decision at the moment of truth.
Love is invisible, so the hero is usually awakened to loveat the moment of truth. However, the hero does notalways choose the right way.
The hero needs to experience a lot of pain andhardship before he is awakened to love and spiritualchange. This means the author can pile hardship uponhardship on the long-suffering hero until he abandons
his folly and chooses the right way. When the herofinally discovers the correct path, this is the moment of
truth. After the climactic scene of the moment of truth,

Plot-Driven Novels
GenresPlot-driven stories most often occur in genre novels.
This section of the paper focuses on the three main
sub-classifications of the general genre known as crime
fiction. By raising students’ awareness of the profounddifferences within a specific genre of plot-driven novels,
teachers will be able to make a more well informed
choice and thus to provide greater motivation forincreasing their English fluency with graded readers.
This same process can be applied to any genre. The firstsection starts by defining mystery novels, then moves
to thrillers, and finally discusses crime novels.

Mystery Novels
The classic mystery novel is probably the oldest formof crime fiction. Stories featuring the Tang Dynasty
detective, Judge Dee, were written in the Yuan andMing Dynasties, and what might well be the earliest
detective story—The Three Apples—appeared in Kitāb
alf laylah wa-laylah (The One Thousand and One
Arabian Nights). The modern scientific detective canbe traced to Edgar Allan Poe’s The Murders in the Rue
Morgue, 1841, the story in which he introduced thedetective C. Auguste Dupin. Other famous detectives
in this genre include Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot,
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

237

Shucart & Takahashi
Perry Mason, and Nero Wolfe. The classic “whodunit”
plot can be summed up as a variation on the board game
CLUE: “Colonel Mustard—with a Candlestick—in
the Library.” The stories usually consist of a veritablecrossword puzzle’s worth of clues, alibis, red herrings,
and the detective often reveals the name of the killer inthe final scene.

Thrillers
The thriller is quite a modern invention, an outgrowthof the spy novel. The website goodreads.com has thisto say:Thrillers are characterized by fast pacing, frequentaction, and resourceful heroes who must thwart
the plans of more-powerful and better-equippedvillains. Thrillers often overlap with mysterystories, but are distinguished by the structureof their plots. In a thriller, the hero must thwart
the plans of an enemy, rather than uncover acrime that has already happened. Thrillers also
occur on a much grander scale: the crimes thatmust be prevented are mass murder, terrorism,
assassination, or the overthrow of governments.
While a mystery climaxes when the mystery issolved, a thriller climaxes when the hero finally
defeats the villain, saving his own life and often
the lives of others.
Another commonality to thrillers is the reoccurring
hero of the series. Some of the most popular heroes are
James Bond, Jack Reacher, Jason Bourne, or John Rain.
As can be easily seen, if a person wants to write a seriesof thrillers, it is a good idea to have the character’s firstname begin with a “J.”Crime Fiction
The third type of crime novel could be labeled crime
fiction, and some of the ablest practitioners of this subgenre were Donald E. Westlake, George Pelecanos,
John D. McDonald, and Elmore Leonard. One of the
key characteristics of this type of novel is the fact thatthe main character is often just a regular person, not an
eccentric genius, amateur detective, or a superhuman,suave, kung fu killing machine in a tuxedo, but just an
average Joe or Jill who becomes caught up in a series of

238 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

extraordinary events. The crime and criminal are often
known from the very beginning, and the story usuallyrelates how the protagonist resolves the situation. Thisgenre is more of a “howdunit” than a “whodunit” andthe details of how the protagonist outsmarts the villain,or how a complicated caper is pulled off becomes thecentral component of the plot.

Application
Now that the difference between a Plot-driven and a
Character-driven novel has been explicated, as wellas having given a detailed explanation of the what
constitutes the various sub-categories of the genre
known as Crime Fiction, it now behooves us to give
several examples of how this information can beutilized by a teacher of Extensive Reading.
One way would be to hand out a reading survey
during the first class to ascertain each student’s interests
and reading habits in their native language. After thesurvey has been analyzed to determine the specificmotivation patterns, then the teacher could present
Graded Reader examples of the key genres and makerecommendations for the whole class in general.
Another possible way for teachers to utilize
the character vs. plot continuum would be for thebook report form that the students will use to have asimple 7-point Likart Scale with “Plot-Driven” at one
end of the spectrum and “Character-Driven” as theother. That way the students can evaluate the books
themselves, and thus add their own opinions andrecommendations for any of their peers who may be
tempted to read the same book.
An on-going genre-awareness raising activity could
be done as a pair- or group-work activity in which
students are given excerpts from graded readers andthey have to classify them into genres and evaluate
them according to whether they are more characterdriven or plot-driven, then defend their opinions in a
discussion with their peers. This, of course, would bean activity for more advanced students.
In addition to the reading activities, it is possible
to use the common pattern of novels as a resource for
writing activities. In our integrated skills class, students
are required to make an oral presentation. After theylearned the common pattern of novels: the initial

Motivating Students by Talking about Novels, pages 235-239
condition, the knot, and the moment of truth, they arestrongly encouraged to use the pattern of development
to write and tell their own stories.

Conclusion
Plot-driven novels and character-driven novels should
be considered as a continuum, and it is unlikely thatany work of literature will fall at either extreme ofthe spectrum. Still, a general pattern emerges when anovel is classified according to this criteria, with bothclassical novels and those considered to be exemplarsof modern literature, such as books short-listed for the
Man Booker Prize, generally falling at the characterdriven end of the spectrum and those novels classified
as belonging to such popular genres as horror, science
fiction, romance, westerns, or crime fiction falling moreat the plot-driven end of the spectrum. By teachers
raising their student’s awareness of this pattern they
allow them to make a more informed choice of which

graded reader to choose to read. Boredom is anathema
to motivation, and nothing can be less motivating thanseeking out a fast-paced adventure, such as is found in
a Jack Reacher novel, and ending up with a story on theorder of Bleak House instead. It is hoped that teachers
can utilize the information in this paper to strangle
such travesties in their cribs. Which action, by the by,
could be the opening scene in either a plot-driven or acharacter-driven novel. It is up to teachers to steer theirstudents in the proper direction.

References
Burroway, J. (2011). Writing fiction: A guide tonarrative craft. Boston: Longman.
Gerke, J. (2010). Plot versus character. Cincinnati:
Writer’s Digest Books.
Thriller. (2013, July 29) Retrieved from http://www.
goodreads.com/genres/thriller

Authors’ Biographies:
Stephen Shucart has run the CALL lab at the university’s Honjo Campus for 14 years His current
fields of interest are CALL and extensive reading.
Mamoru Takahashi has been teaching English at his current university for 14 years and iscurrently interested in CALL, creative writing, and extensive reading.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings239

N/NEST Collaboration: A pipe dream or a possibility?

Kevin Kato
Kinjo Gakuin University
katokh@kinjo-u.ac.jp
The concept of the idealized native speaker has been critiqued in various dialogues and applied toa multitude of debates. However, little research has examined its implications vis-à-vis non-native
English speaking teacher and native English speaking teacher (NNEST-NEST) collaboration in
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) environments. This article aims to explore how the constructionof the terms native and non-native can (positively and or negatively) influence collaboration between
foreign and Japanese teachers in Japan. My personal experience as an American often misperceived
as having different ethnicities, such as Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, has led to this exploration of
how certain cultural beliefs underpin the native speaker benchmark and hinder teacher collaboration
among both Japanese and non-Japanese alike at the university level. The paper will also argue how
Cook’s (1991, 1999) notion of multicompetence offers one step towards unifying two disparate
groups to promote foreign and Japanese teacher collaboration.
ネイティブ・スピーカという考えは様々な研究グループで妥当性が疑問視されている。
しかし、EFLの日本の大学環境でネイティブ、
ノン・ネイティブの教師への影響を及ぼす研究は少なそうです。本研究は、そのネイティブ・スピーカの考えと個人的な経験で日本文化的な信条がネイティブとノン・ネイティブの教師のコラボレーションはどのような影響があるかを見極めることを目的している。本研究では、外国人教師と日本人教師のコラボレーションを応援のためにmulticompetenceとのその二つの格差のグループを縮めることも論じている。

Many scholars have challenged and critiqued the native
speaker benchmark across a wide range of discussions
and through a variety of lenses. For instance, Pennycook(1994) and Phillipson (1992) critically examined
the native speaker fallacy via linguistic imperialism.
On the other hand, Braine’s (1999) and Llurda’s(2005) collected volumes investigated the perceived
advantages and disadvantages of N/NESTs while also
advocating for the legitimacy and empowerment of*Kato, K. (2014). N/NEST Collaboration: A pipe
dream or a possibility? In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 240-245). Nagoya:
JALT.

*

240 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

NNESTs. Although the concept of the idealized native
speaker serves as a thread through these dialogues,
little research has examined its implications vis-à-vis
NNEST-NEST collaboration in EFL environments.
This article aims to explore how the construction of
the terms native and non-native can (positively and or
negatively) influence collaboration between foreign
and Japanese teachers in Japan. Drawing from theory
interwoven with my personal experience, I will discuss
the role race, ethnicity, and native speaker status has
played in teacher collaboration at University K, aprivate Japanese university. As such, this paper willconcentrate on the context of language learning andcollaboration at the university level in Japan, where
English is taught as a foreign language.

N/NEST Collaboration, pages 240-245

Background
Until quite recently, a deficit model represented adominant method to evaluate teachers based on what
qualifications and skills they possessed or did notpossess. When this notion was applied to Non-Native
Speakers (NNS) and Native Speakers (NS), it createda dichotomous relationship in which the term nonnative, emphasized that a teacher was not a memberof the other group, i.e., not a native speaker. Although
the scholarship and research of educators (e.g. Braine,
1999; Llurda, 2005; Mahboob, 2010) have helped
establish NNESTs as legitimate teachers and havehelped curb the use of a deficit model, parts of a native
speaker benchmark continue to linger. Specifically,a stereotypical set of characteristics highlighting thestrengths and weaknesses associated with NNESTs
and NESTs seems to have been applied as a sweeping
generalization to each group at some EFL institutions.
At these schools, for example, NNESTs are
generally valued by students, administrators andcolleagues for their insights into grammar and as rolemodels of successful language learners and users. On
the other hand, positive opinions and traits associatedwith NESTs commonly include good pronunciation
and breadth of vocabulary, particularly idioms andslang.
There are also negative qualities associated witheach group, such as some NESTs’ lack of corrective
feedback or insufficient knowledge of students’ L1.
Likewise, some NNESTs come under criticism for theirpoor pronunciation and overemphasis on grammar.
While these variables can potentially hinder NNESTNEST collaboration and reinforce misleading
stereotypes, they reflect characteristics manifested ina deeper cultural ideology of self-Orientalism, whichemphasizes a romanticized image of the West to define
and promotes a unique Japanese identity (see e.g.,
Iwabuchi, 1994; Kubota, 2002; Lie, 2001)
The appropriation of the idealized speakerparadigm represents a medium to sustain andpropagate self-Orientalism. As a result, the adoptionof native-speakerism (Houghton & Rivers, 2013) inJapan influences not only NNESTs, but also NESTs
who face discrimination, prejudice, and inequality
due to native speaker policies. Ironically, the samestereotypes and policies that elevate the status of native
speakers are also used to condemn them. I argue that
self-Orientalism is one major reason which deters
many groups of qualified teachers with experience inJapan from collaborating despite having coordinatedtexts, syllabi and courses.

The Western Other
As others have written, the terms native and nonnative encompass and refer to much more than theirface values denoting language acquisition order(Amin, 2004; Houghton & Rivers, 2013). In the caseof many Japanese institutions, these terms have been
“re-made” (Tobin, 1992) to fit common Japanesecultural categories surrounding the perceived identityof foreigners and Japanese nationals. In addition to thecultural classification, the label of NEST is generally
attached to foreigners, while Japanese are sometimes
identified as NNESTs. Unique qualities spanningphysical attributes to proficiency in Japanese are also
associated with foreigners and Japanese (see e.g. Dale,
1986; Kubota, 1999; Kubota & Lin, 2009; Lie, 2001).
For example, the slightly derogatory term, gaijin,
generally defines foreigners in terms of what they arenot. As a result, foreigners often occupy a subaltern
position to their Japanese counterparts. Hayes (2013)
study regarding faculty at Japanese universities seems
to corroborate this notion, revealing that Japanese
NNESTs “were never referred to as non-native speakers
of English but rather simply as Japanese” (p.136).
A commonly essentialized image the word gaijin
depicts is that of a blonde haired, blue eyed Caucasian.
Interestingly, Caucasians, or perhaps more broadly,
Westerners, are generally not referred to as individuals,
but rather by the umbrella term, gaijin. This shares
similarities with the way Chinese, Japanese andKoreans are referenced as Asians by some people in the
US. Conversely, the same Chinese or Korean citizen
in Japan, though technically a foreigner, would most
likely be labeled as a Chinese (chugokujin) or a Korean(kankokujin) as opposed to a gaijin. This kind ofclassification emphasizes a binary relationship whichhighlights foreigners as non-Japanese.
Although a detailed dialogue is beyond the scopeof this paper, there also exists a hierarchy among
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

241

Kato
foreigners regarding which country they are from (i.e.,
what type of gaijin one is). Westerners are generally“imagined as superior, enlightened and civilized
entities to be emulated” (Iwabuchi, 1994), whileother East Asian countries like China and Korea areseen as inferiors (Lie, 2001). In my experience, being
misidentified as a Chinese person has yielded the worst
treatment and service at stores and restaurants, withthe same situation drastically improving when people
thought I was a Japanese-American.
The prestigious image of the West and the supposed
mediocrity of neighboring East Asian countries are
not to be taken as static entities; in fact they are quite
ephemeral archetypes dependent on a context which
serves to benefit and essentialize Japan while silencing
opposing views. Alternatively put, “both positive
and negative images coexist as two sides of the samecoin,” with the side of emphasis being dictated bycircumstances (Iwabuchi, 1994).

Native-speakerism at the workplace
In the workplace, this labeling and ‘othering,’ i.e.,
the unequal classification separating of Japanese andforeign citizens, can be expressed in many ways frompay inequality to assigned courses and workload(Houghton, 2013; Kubota & Fujimoto, 2013).
Although the way English classes are divided among
foreigners and Japanese teachers can represent one
aspect of a native speaker benchmark, I will argue here
how it is really an extension of self-Orientalism. While
University K has no explicit account of what defines anative speaker, the division of required English courses
between foreign and Japanese faculty seems to shed lighton a possible rationale. Specifically, University K seems
to classify its faculty on a native speaker benchmark,assuming all foreign faculty members are NESTs andJapanese faculty are NNESTs. Consequently, it appears
that there is little or no consideration of one’s field ofexpertise or qualifications when assigning a teacher toa course.
A quick survey of University K’s open-access online
syllabus and research database appears to corroborate
this hypothesis. The online syllabus reveals that nearly
all general requirement English productive skills
courses (writing, speaking and presentation) are taught

242 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

by foreign faculty who are NESTs. On the other hand,
Japanese NNESTs conduct all remaining receptive
skills courses (reading and listening) as well as TOEIC
preparation classes. Moreover, other foreign languages,
such as French, follow this pattern but perhaps due toa lack of native teachers, utilize Japanese teachers forsome productive classes.
On the surface, the online syllabus provides someevidence that suggests University K has bought into
the native speaker fallacy. While the delegation ofparticular skills based on native speaker status alone
may not negatively influence teacher collaboration, theus versus them division among foreigners and Japanese
may impede it. When applied at the workplace, thisbinary relationship in conjunction with the idealized
native speaker model allows Japanese to strengthen
their national identity while enjoying the cultural
capital of the West. For instance, a large number ofnative speakers at an institution can provide a heftyamount of cultural capital (e.g., via physical appearance,
accent, and or native speaker status), with any teachers
holding advanced qualifications and publications
increasing it even more. However, due to their status
as foreigners, biases and sweeping generalizations,such as only a Japanese can perform this task, can beused to exploit, exclude, and discriminate against thesame group of people (Houghton, 2013, pp. pp.6768). As such, the various characteristics and qualities
associated with the native speaker benchmark provide
fuel to the self-Orientalism fire.

An Imposter in the Middle
As an Inner Circle native speaker of English from the
US with lower N1 proficiency across the four skills inJapanese and a degree in TESOL, I thought I would bea good match for many universities in Japan. Although
my previous education in Asian Studies and experience
as an exchange student in Kyoto, helped prepare me
for my next chapter in Japan, I quickly realized hownaïve I had been. While my native speaker status may
have aided in securing my job and consequently used
to promote University K, it was also a misperception.
I speak a variety of English which does not matchthe stereotype of my physical appearance. Thesemisunderstandings also occur in the classroom.

N/NEST Collaboration, pages 240-245
It never ceases to shock new students that I am
not a Japanese national. When I do roll call at the
beginning of class, my Japanese accent generally goes
unnoticed by students. However, when I begin a selfintroduction in English, jaws drop to the floor, and thesubsequent facial expression, “how could a Japanesepossibly speak English like that?!” is quite common.
When I tell students that I am American, the ambianceof the class tends to change over time.
Interestingly, when students discover mybackground, some try to capitalize on it by employing
the foreigner/NEST and Japanese/NNEST
stereotypes. For instance, a few students complainedthat my classes were really boring and wished that
I would make them fun. Upon further discussion, I
discovered their notion of fun referred to edutainment,a type of teaching they associated with foreign native
speakers. Apparently, my goal and passion to help mystudents learn did not match the image some students
had of me as a native speaker whose objective was tomake them laugh and passively watch movies. It lateroccurred to me that for some, learning English anddeveloping proficiency in it may come at the priceof their Japanese identity. Just as othering of foreign
faculty can result in unfairness with administration, it
can also encourage apriori knowledge in students.

Collaboration
Informational conversations with teachers who workat universities across Japan, seemed to suggest thatteacher collaboration, even among Japanese or foreign
faculty members is not common practice. Apparently,
many Japanese nationals at universities also haveadministrative duties in addition to their normalschedules, while the number of foreign faculty withadministrative roles is seemingly small. Stephanie
Hirsch articulates that not many schools have “aculture that encourages teachers and administrators towork together on a regular basis, to consult each othermore often on matters of teaching and learning…that
address both their needs and their students’” (2010).
One way to foster NNEST-NEST collaboration is bytackling the notion of self-Orientalism with Cook’s(1991, 1999, 2005) notion of multicompetence.
Most universities seem to split receptive andproductive instruction between Japanese and foreign
faculty. Providing a chance for Japanese faculty
members to teach speaking classes could have a myriadof benefits. For example, it would serve as evidence
against the self-Orientalism of the native speaker fallacy
to both students and teachers. Moreover, it would offer
teachers a way to gain experience in teaching different
macro skills. For instance, a Japanese NNEST at a
local university was seen by students conversing witha native speaker for five minutes in between classes.
Following this event, he observed a positive change inhis students’ perceptions of him as a legitimate teacher.
Perhaps this case can inspire other institutions toexperiment with how classes are assigned.

Suggestions
General requirement English courses may best lendthemselves to this approach, as the curriculum, books
and syllabi are generally coordinated by a larger entity,
such as a language center. By employing a shift in whatcourses the faculty teaches, in tandem with a theoreticalframework to contest the current hegemony of othering,
the result may be the mitigation of self-Orientalism inJapanese institutions. Cook’s (1991, 1999) notion ofmulticompetence and the idea of the L2 user bypass
the native speaker benchmark by embracing difference,
not deficit. Multicompetence represents one
outlook on SLA which views all languages as well asinterlanguage by an individual as one interdependent
system. Moreover, it does not intrinsically use thenative speaker as an ultimate measure of attainment,
but instead encourages language learners to become
L2 users. Cook (2002) refers to an L2 user as “a person
who uses another language for any purpose at whateverlevel” (p.47).
Under the multicompetence lens and L2 user lens,previously contentious topics like native speakers as thesole proprietors of English (the ideal native speaker),
codeswitching, and first language in the classroom
become moot points. This approach attempts to makethe native speaker fallacy an inaccessible vehicle for thenotion of self-Orientalism. For example, Houghton(2013) described how a rigid division of languages,
rooted in the self-Orientalism and driven throughthe idealized native speaker, reflected the disparity
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

243

Kato
between the tenured Japanese faculty and the nontenured foreign faculty (i.e., native English speakers)
at University X. The application of a multicompetenceand L2 user based framework could help impede alanguage divide and its potential backlashes driven by
the native speaker fallacy, as it takes away a means to
support the core ideology, in this case the uniquenessof Japanese (self-Orientalism). At other institutions,this framework used in combination with the rotationof teachers across productive and receptive skill classes,
could perhaps aide in refocusing our goals on students

carry the image of an exotic Caucasian Westerners, nor
can the ideology dictate that Japanese teachers, even
Japanese English teachers, cannot speak English.

while providing a chance to develop different skills.

References

Conclusion
Although I tried to present that teacher collaborationin Japan is quite different from its counterpart in
ESL situations and even other EFL situations, it is
not to say that collaboration is impossible. However,
it is difficult to encourage collaboration between
two seemingly disparate groups when collaboration
among Japanese and foreigners in itself appears quiterare. Difficulties synchronizing schedules whilebalancing personal research, departmental meetings,
as well as a full course load (perhaps across different
schools) present problems; however the first step inthe solution lies in changing apriori perceptions. Li’s
(1998) article regarding some incongruities between
grammar-translation based methodologies in CLTclassrooms mentioned, “a conflict apparently exists
between what the CLT demands and what the EFL
situation in many countries, such as South Korea,
allows. This conflict must be resolved before EFL
teaching in these countries can benefit from CLT”
(p. 695). The notion of discrepancy above sharessome parallels concerning the teacher collaboration
situation in Japan. Specifically, a conflict apparently
exists between what teacher collaboration requires
and what the EFL situation in many countries, like
Japan, allows. One step towards bridging the NNESTNEST collaboration gap in Japan is to address thenotion of self-Orientalism as expressed throughnative-speakerism and its generalizations regarding
the foreigner/NEST and Japanese/NNEST groups
in Japan. No longer can the notion of a native speaker

244 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the audience for theirinsights as well as Tamara Swenson for her critiques.
My gratitude goes also to Paul Matsuda who inspired
me to write about the intersection of my personal andprofessional life.

Amin, N. (2004). Nativism, the native speakerconstruct, and minority immigrant womenteachers of English as a second language. In L.
D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and Teachingfrom Experience Perspectives on Nonnative
English-spekaing Professionals (pp. 61-80).
Michigan: The University of Michigan Press Ann
Arbor, MI.
Braine, G. (1999). Non-native educators in English
language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cook, V. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus
argument and multicompetence. Second
Language Research, 7(2), 103-117.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speakerin language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2),185-209.
Cook, V. (2002). Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon;
Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. (2005). Basing teaching on the L2 user. In
E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers:
Perceptions, challenges, and contributions
to the profession (pp. 47-61). New York, NY:
Springer.
Dale, P. N. (1986). The myth of Japaneseuniqueness. New York, NY: St Martin’s Press.
Hayes, B. E. (2013). Hiring criteria for Japanese
university English-teaching faculty. In S. A.
Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Nativespeakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics
in foreign language education (pp. 132-146).
Bristol; Buffalo NY: Multilingual Matters.

N/NEST Collaboration, pages 240-245
Houghton, S. A. (2013). The overthrow of theforeign lecturer position, and its aftermath. In
S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Nativespeakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics
in foreign language education (pp. 60-74).
Bristol; Buffalo NY: Multilingual Matters.
Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. J. (Eds.). (2013).
Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroupdynamics in foreign language education.
Bristol; Buffalo NY: Multilingual Matters.
Iwabuchi, K. (1994). Complicit exoticism: Japan andits other. Continuum, 8(2), 49-82.
Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed bydiscourses: Implications for applied linguistics
research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1),9-35.
Kubota, R. (2002). The impact of globalization on
language teaching in Japan. In D. C. David Block(Ed.), Globalization and Language Teaching(pp. 13-28). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kubota, R., & Fujimoto, D. (2013). Racialized Native
Speakers: Voices of Japanese American English
language professionals. In S. A. Houghton & D.
J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan:
Intergroup dynamics in foreign language
education (pp. 196-206). Bristol; Buffalo NY:

Multilingual Matters.
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (2009). Race, culture, andidentities in second language education:
Exploring critically engaged practice. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Li, D. (1998). “It’s Always More Difficult Than
You Plan and Imagine”: Teachers’ Perceived
Difficulties in Introducing the Communicative
Approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly,
32(4), 677-703.
Lie, J. (2001). Multiethnic Japan. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Llurda, E. (2005). Non-native language teachers:
Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to
the profession (Vol. 5). New York, NY: Springer
Mahboob, A. (2010). The NNEST lens: Nonnative
English speakers in TESOL. Newcastle, NY:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics ofEnglish as an international language. London:
Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tobin, J. J. (1992). Re-made in Japan : Everyday
life and consumer taste in a changing society.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Author’s Biography:
Kevin Kato is an English lecturer at Kinjo Gakuin University. His research interests include world
Englishes, sociolinguistics, and non-native English speaking teachers in ELT.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

245

Online Language Learning Opportunities and Pitfalls:
Content Development for Synchronous Online Learning

Miroslav Michael Hadas
BBT University
mike.hadas@gmail.com
Online learning has existed for years in several different formats. Today, it is indispensable to
instructors and learners for language learning. In terms of efficiency and effectiveness, “learners pickup language knowledge or skills faster, … retain language knowledge or skills longer, make deeper
associations, and/or learn more of what they need” (Hubbard, 2009, p. 2). However, language
instructors and content developers may question the benefits of synchronous (face-to-face) online
instruction and be unaware of existing issues. This paper outlines issues in synchronous online
content development and instruction. It introduces guidelines and explores pitfalls that e-learning
content developers may encounter, including technological constraints that impact language
courseware development, implementation, and instruction. It also discusses opportunities that exist
for those producing or delivering online content. These opportunities include developing relevant
e-learning materials to motivate and engage learners, and differentiating content to attract specificlearner groups and establish subject matter credibility.
オンライン学習は、いくつかの異なる形式をとりながら長年にわたり存在しており、現在では言語習得をめざす学習者や指導者にとって、不可欠な存在となっている。学習者は言語の知識や技術をより早く習得し、より長く維持し、より深く関連付け必要な情報を得ることが可能であり、
オンライン学習は効果的で効率的であるといえる。
この論文はオンライン上での対面学習におけるコンテンツや指導における問題点を述べる。
さらにガイドラインを紹介
し、e-ラーニングのコンテンツ開発者が直面するであろう問題（オンラインでの言語コース
開発や実施、指導上において起こり得る技術的な面も含む）
について掘り下げる。
また、
オ
ンラインコンテンツを作ったり教えたりする際に存在するチャンス（学習者の動機づけに役
立つe-ラーニング教材の開発や、学習者を引き付けるユニークなコンテンツ作り、当該科目を指導するにあたっての信頼性の確立）についても議論する。

In the world of computer-mediated communication(CMC), there has been a continuous progression of*

Hadas, M. M. (2014). Online Language Learning
Opportunities and Pitfalls: Content Development
for Synchronous Online Learning. In R. Chartrand,
G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp. 246-251).
Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

246 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

technological platforms and tools available to language
teachers and students to address their instruction andlearning needs. However, according to Furstenberg(1997) despite the benefits that technology provides,
it is not “a panacea for language learning and teaching”(p. 22). Instructional technologies, such as thoseused for synchronous (face-to-face) online language
learning, often accomplish little more than deliver
traditional classroom content through a new channel.

Online Language Learning Opportunities, pages 246-251
Developers often do not adapt their content to thisnew environment. Language content instructors anddevelopers primarily focus on creating and deliveringlevel-appropriate task-based learning materials with nofocus on the learner’s learning context. However, thecontextual relevance of these materials and how they
are delivered will affect how appealing and effective
they are.
Today, “networked, internet-based applications
not only present learners with information in various
modes (visual, audio, and verbal/textual), but also
require learners to engage in productive tasks andactivities” (Hampel, 2006, p. 106). These tasks should
not only address learner communication levels andtask-based goals, but should also target learners’
individual interests and needs. They should also matchthe various technological platforms, applications, anddevices learners will use to interact with the content.
This paper will examine the issues facing content
development for synchronous online instruction,
specifically task-based English for specific purposes(ESP) content targeting learners that require English
for their business or corporate environment. It will
discuss issues related to technology and how they
relate to content development and delivery. Finally,
it will explore opportunities related to targeted
instructional content, including defining a client/learner base, developing appropriate content for thoselearners and establishing a unique selling proposition(USP) to differentiate one’s content from that of otherdevelopers.

Online Learning Issues
Due to the interactive nature of CMC, task-based
content is increasingly being employed in online
synchronous language instruction. Skehan (2003)
acknowledged the benefits that task-based teaching
brings to online instruction. These benefits have arisen
because “groups of learners can engage in real-timecommunication, so that the feasibility of exchange
arrangements grow[s] exponentially, and ‘twinning’ oflearners and native speakers become[s] common place”(p. 403).
However, although task-based teaching may
complement CMC and synchronous online

instruction, content based instruction (CBI)
courseware targeting specific English learner groups
has been successfully used primarily with science andtechnology subjects, “possibly due to the technologyrelated abilities of instructors in these fields, whohave competent skills and knowledge of multimedia
software and programming, and are able to convert
lecture notes into interactive multimedia courseware”(Tsai, 2013, p. 112).
Beyond the fields of science and technology,
most English language courseware developed forbusiness or commerce could do more to effectively
prepare learners for their actual language needs inthe workplace. This may be due, in large part, toinstructional content being developed by language
teachers and not industry subject matter experts.
As a result, business English learning materials andcourseware do little to address specific business sector
needs and are often simply business-themed textbooks
applied to online synchronous lessons. Svensson refers
to this as “the ‘you do what you did before’ approach
where traditional classrooms are often virtualized, with
their ‘old’ structures” (2004, p. 12).
Targeted ESP content, such as industry-specificbusiness English instructional materials, could better
address learner needs if courseware was preparedby industry subject-matter experts, together withlanguage content developers with online instruction
expertise. In this way, the content would be more
relevant, practical, and better suited to the technology
and platforms that learners use when engaging in
synchronous learning with their language instructor.
In the next section, we will explore some of thepitfalls content developers encounter when preparing
courseware for synchronous language lessons. This
involves the efficacy of online technology and how its
use can impact successful content implementation andinstruction.

Synchronous Content Development
Pitfalls
In this section, for instructors and developers
considering or presently involved in synchronous
language e-learning content creation, we begin withThe 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

247

Hadassome thoughts on online learning technology andits effectiveness, then introduce guidelines fromthe U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization’s
e-learning methodologies report on developing andimplementing e-learning courseware. Following this,we will explore technological pitfalls that can preventor inhibit successful implementation of synchronous
language e-learning content.
First of all, regarding the effectiveness oftechnology for online language instruction, Zhao
(2003) points out that it is not the technological toolsthat should be regarded as effective or ineffective, butrather the ways in which technology is used that havethe greatest impact on the efficacy of online language
learning. Furthermore, to deliver effective online
instruction, content developers should also be aware of
the time and effort that are required to create engaging
online language learning content. As MacDonald andThompson (2005) note, “quality e-learning comeswith a cost: significant investments in time and energy”(2005, MacDonald and Thompson, Conclusions
section, para. 1). Therefore, before developers consider
developing synchronous e-learning content, they must
consider not only the technology, but how learners
will use it to engage with their instructor, and theamount of time and effort required to build successful
e-learning language courseware.
We begin with a guide to online content
development that can be used to effectively plan
language learning instruction. Online instructional
content implementation guidelines are provided by theUnited Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in
their instructions for e-learning course development.
Their guide begins with an analysis of the needs,
audience, and tasks that should take place prior toe-learning content development. It outlines design
stages, including how content should be organized
and what to consider when choosing platforms orapplications to deliver instruction. In the development
stage, content and courseware development takes
place, which includes consideration of the target
audience, instructional approach, as well as delivery
and assessment rubrics to evaluate acquisition oflearning content.
Prior to program implementation, developers

248 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

should examine: platforms or systems such as AppleOS, Windows and Android; software applications,such as Skype, Adobe Connect, MS Live Meeting, etc.;
and devices such as notebooks, tablets, smart phones,
etc., that will support the instructional process oncethe program content is implemented and distributed
to learners. Developers should determine how thesedifferent technologies will affect content once it isdelivered to the end user in order to ensure that the
instructional experience is uniform for all learners
and, as much as possible, free of disruptions. Potential
technological pitfalls include content that is corrupted
on different software versions, illegible or unreadable
text or images on user screens, or video and audio
problems that may arise due to user device or network
connection issues.
A final pitfall to consider when implementing a
synchronous e-learning program relates to learners’
familiarity with, or affinity for, the technologies
used in online lessons. Though many learners may
be familiar with online communication software
applications such as Skype, other issues related to thetechnology used in the lesson may negatively affectthe instructional experience. These issues include userfriendliness or simplicity of the learner management
system (LMS), learner technological aptitude or
know-how, and instructor familiarity with thetechnology, which allows them to assist learners during
the lesson, among others. Of course, once learners andinstructors become familiar with the technology, theoverall learning experience can combine “traditional
language skills such as listening, speaking, reading, andwriting with electronic literacy skills such as learning
to interact with others through the use of a variety
of technological tools as an integral part of language
teaching” (Hauck & Stickler, 2006, p. 464).
Even if developers adopt and apply the guidelines
above and understand the issues and concerns related
to technology and how it is used, they may still
experience disruptions and impediments to online
instruction. However, by anticipating and preparing
for potential pitfalls, course content developers canminimize the impact of synchronous e-learning
issues. Developers can then focus on creating relevant
language courseware and content to create a successful

Online Language Learning Opportunities, pages 246-251
e-learning experience for the instructors and learners
involved.
In the final section, we will explore the opportunities
that synchronous content development and instruction
offer. These opportunities include: creating relevant,synchronous content that increases learner motivation;
targeting appropriate learner groups with ESP content
based on the developer’s expertise and knowledge; anddeveloping a USP to differentiate one’s materials fromother content available, and establish credibility in a
specialized language e-learning content area.

Synchronous Content Development
Opportunities
In the final section, we examine the ways thatsynchronous learning content producers can develop
e-learning courseware that: meets learner needs,
attracts learners who have a genuine interest in theircontent, and differentiates their content based on
their subject matter expertise. In terms of determining
learner needs, curriculum developers commonly
perform a needs analysis prior to developing a course
syllabus and content. In ESP curriculum development,
needs analysis is a critical step in the instructional
content planning process. Learner needs are definedby Johns and Dudley-Evans (1991) as the “identifiable
elements [of ] students’ target English situations” (p.
299) and commonly involve interviewing learners
about their situational language needs and goals.
However, a learner needs assessment should
go beyond a simple determination of the language
the learner will need. The content developer must
understand the learner’s actual contexts and needs
when the learner communicates in the L2. Whenlanguage content developers lack industry-specificknowledge, subject matter experts and industry
professionals should be brought in to collaborate
on content. In their ESP aviation discourse analysis,
Girginer and Sullivan (2002) used pilots and air traffic
controllers to build ESP–based content with industryspecific language for L2 speakers employed in aviation.
In this way, subject matter experts and e-learning
language content developers can produce content that
addresses learner workplace needs and meets their

specific language requirements.
But what if a synchronous language content
developer does not have access to, or is unable tocollaborate with a subject matter expert? How can apotential online courseware developer produce content
that will attract the attention of a specific target learnergroup? One option is to explore an interest area thatthe developer has experience with or knowledge about,then determine what the particular communicative
language and discourse needs are. For example, if alanguage developer has an interest in animation orcomics, they could develop online language learning
content to help interested L2 animation fans acquire
discourse skills and engage in discussions on themes
related to their mutual interest area. However, CMC
content developers focusing on specific ESP areas mustalso take note of issues of register and genre. As Kern
(2006) points out, “many observers note that CMC
language is often less correct, less complex, less coherent
than other forms of language use” (p. 194). This lackof complexity and coherence may result in gaps or
discrepancies in the learners linguistic and discourse
competence when discussing subjects outside of thetarget subject area.
By determining a synchronous content area thatappeals to an L2 learner group with a mutual interest,
content developers can establish their expertise in anarea and connect to learners who possess the willingness
and motivation to acquire competence in that subject
interest area. As Dornyei and Ushioda (2011) note,
motivation increases when the knowledge that learners
acquire is perceived to be relevant to their needs,
and when task engagement leads to clear, achievablegoals that meet those needs. Therefore by developing
content that is relevant and interesting to a target L2
group, with goals perceived to be attainable that meetthose learners’ needs, content creators can attract andretain learners who are motivated and interested inengaging in communicative interaction using theirsubject matter content.
The final point in this paper relates to a marketingstrategy called a USP, used to differentiate a productor service from competitors and establish a dominantposition in a particular market. The concept, credited
to Rosser Reeves, a U.S. television advertising pioneer
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

249

Hadasin the 1940’s, can be applied to any situation where anadvantage is necessary in order to achieve a distinct
market position. In language learning content
development, this strategy allows a courseware orcontent creator to establish their knowledge orexpertise and be recognized as a leader in a particularlanguage learning area.
The opportunity that exists in CBI for online
language developers relates to the overwhelming
prevalence of “commercially produced materials [that]
focus on informing their users about language featuresand on guiding them to practice these features”(Tomlinson, 2012, p. 143). This situation presents
an opportunity for innovative developers to create
content that fills in niche language learning areas andto produce online materials that respond to language
learners’ subject matter discourse needs. How content
creators can take advantage of this opportunity is
to determine what content areas are in demand andwhich of those areas they have the requisite knowledgeof or experience with to produce content. Once they
determine which subject matter areas they want tocreate materials for, they can begin the content designand development process and establish their USP inthat language learning area.

Conclusion
This review of the issues, pitfalls, and opportunities
that exist in online ESP content creation presents a
broad overview of the current situation facing materials
developers seeking to expand into or currently engaged
in CMC synchronous content production. With theincreased expansion of CMC synchronous instruction
and the continual improvements and expansion oftechnologies that facilitate this form of language
learning, language instructors and content developers
can take advantage of the benefits this medium has
to offer. One important point to bear in mind is that
language learning courseware requires a significant
amount of time and energy to produce. However, if
appropriate steps are taken and content is carefullyplanned and implemented, developers can position
themselves as a subject matter instruction specialist in
an ESP content area they are knowledgeable in.
As Tomlinson asserts, instructors can now “think

250 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

about how best to facilitate language acquisition anddevelopment, to gain self-esteem and confidence
and to develop personally and professionally in ways
which help them to help others” (2012, p. 170). This
push towards autonomous material creation, coupledwith rapid developments in technology, is allowing
language professionals to develop courseware thattargets the specific needs and interests of niche learnersegments. The potential is rapidly expanding forlanguage courseware developers to establish themselves
as ESP subject matter experts and create content that
better addresses the needs of individual learner groups.
So long as they remain aware of the pitfalls and focus
on learner interests and needs, language courseware
developers will have increasing opportunities toestablish themselves and receive benefits from CMC
instruction.

References
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching andresearching motivation (2nd ed.). London:
Harlow, Longman.
Furstenberg, G. (1997). Teaching with technology:
What is at stake? ADFL Bulletin, 28(3), 21-25.
Ghirardini, B. (2011). E-learning methodologies: A
guide for designing and developing e-learning
courses. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations. Rome: U.N.F.A.O.
Girginer, H., & Sullivan, P. (2002). The use of
discourse analysis to enhance ESP teacher
knowledge: An example using aviation English.
English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 397-404.
Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design forthe digital age: A framework for language
teaching and learning in a synchronous online
environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105-121.
Hauck, M., & Stickler, U. (2006). What does ittake to teach online? CALICO Journal, 23(3),463-475.
Hubbard, P. (Ed.). (2009). Computer assisted
language learning: Critical Concepts in
Linguistics, Vol. 1. London: Routledge.
Johns, A. M., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1991). English for
specific purposes: International in scope, specificOnline Language Learning Opportunities, pages 246-251
in purpose. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 297-314.
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology inlearning and teaching languages. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210.
MacDonald, C. J., & Thompson, T-L. (2005).
Structure, content, delivery, service, andoutcomes: Quality e-learning in higher
education. International Review of Research inOpen and Distance Learning, 6(2). Retrieved
from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/
article/view/237/321
Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, tasks, andtechnology. CALL Journal, 16(5), 391-411.
Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for
language learning and teaching. Language
Teacher, 45(2), 143-179.
Tsai, S. C. (2013). Integrating English for
specific purposes courseware into taskbased learning in a context of preparing forinternational trade fairs. Australasian Journalof Educational Technology, 29(1), 111-127.
Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology
and language learning: A literature review andmeta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7-27.

Author’s Biography:
Michael Hadas specialized in automotive marketing, advertising and e-commerce in the U.S andCanada. He currently develops and instructs online business English content in Tokyo.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings251Performance, Literature, and Critical Thinking

David E. Kluge
Nanzan University
klugenanzan@gmail.com
Drama and oral interpretation (readers theater) are often considered to be extraneous activities in acurriculum. Speech and debate are often considered to be elitist activities reserved for the very best
students. This paper shows these activities to be valuable because they expose students to the target
culture in the form of literature, and help activate critical thinking. In addition, they are fun andmotivating activities. This paper explains the value of doing creative activities like drama and oralinterpretation in an EFL curriculum, and also gives examples of how to make speech and debate
activities accessible for all students.
ドラマやオーラル・インタープリテーション（またはリーダーズ・シアター）は、
カリキュラムには適さないアクティビティとよく考えられる。
また、
スピーチとディベートは、大変優秀な学生のためのアクティビティだと思われることが多い。本論文では、
これらのアクティビティが、大変有意義であるということを紹介する。
なぜなら、学生は文学を通して第二言語の文化に触れられるとともに、批判的に考える能力を高めることができるからだ。
さらに、
これらは、
大変面白く、興味を与えるアクティビティである。本論文では、外国語教育の中で、ドラマやオーラル・インタープリテーションのようなクリエイティブなアクティビティを実施する意義を説明するとともに、すべての学生を対象にできるスピーチやディベートのアクティビティの例を紹介する。

“How can one possibly do a presentation or write
an article which includes such disparate activities asspeech, drama, and debate?” This question sometimes
comes up in reference to such presentations as this one,and indeed, regarding the scope of the Speech, Drama,
and Debate SIG. In fact, all of these activities, andmore, are covered under the term forensics, from theLatin word forensis, meaning “of the forum.” Forensics
is defined as “the art and study of argumentation andformal debate” (TheFreeDictionary). It is an activity
that is practiced in many high schools and universities*

Kluge, D. E. (2014). Performance, literature, andcritical thinking. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks, M.
Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 252-259). Nagoya,Japan: JALT.

*

252 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedingsin the United States. The National Forensic League
is one of four national organizations which sponsors
high school speech and debate events in the UnitedStates (along with the National Catholic Forensic
Association, the National Christian Forensics andCommunications Association, and Stoa USA), in
addition to many state forensic organizations. The
National Forensic League (NFL) and the Wisconsin
High School Forensic Association (WHSFA), both
based in Wisconsin and two of the oldest organizationsof their kind, are good examples to show what activities
are included under the rubric of forensics.
Listed in Table 1 are the various activities includedin the NFL and in Table 2 the activities includedin the WHSFA. As can be seen by the activities inTables 1 and 2, it is appropriate to discuss debate,speech, oral interpretation, and drama in one paper

Performance, Literature, and Critical Thinking, pages 252-259
Table 1NFL Activities
Debatepolicy debate
Lincoln-Douglas debate
public forum debate
congressional debate
supplemental debate

Speechinternational
extemporaneous
speaking
U.S. extemporaneous
speaking
original oratory
expository speaking
extemporaneouscommentary
impromptu speaking

Oral Interpretation

Drama

prose
poetrydramatic interpretation
humorous interpretation
duo interpretation
storytelling

NO ACTIVITY

Oral Interpretation

Drama

Table 2
WHSFA Activities
DebateNO ACTIVITY

Speechdemonstration
extemporaneousfour minute speech
moments in history
oratory
public address
special occasion
radio speaking

or presentation. However, why should activities suchas drama, interpretive prose, or interpretive poetry be
done in language classes? Valdes (1986) answers:
It is simply accepted as given that literature is a
viable component of second language programs
at the appropriate level and that one of the major
functions of literature is to serve as a medium totransmit the culture of the people who speak thelanguage in which it is written. (p. 137)
Language teachers are expected to teach culture
in addition to language, and part of culture is theliterature of a country. Forensics helps in the teachingof literature and culture.
The teaching of critical thinking skills is also thedomain of language teachers. Dewar (2011) explains
the connection of critical thinking skills and debate:

Farrago (melding 2 ormore pieces together)group interpretative
reading
prose
poetrystorytellingplay acting
solo acting serious
solo acting humorous

Lessons in debate improve critical thinking skills
Ask students to argue a case, and they might bepretty good at naming a few reasons in supportof their argument. But they rarely consider
counterarguments, disconfirming evidence, or
the merits of the opposing view. . . And that’s
where debate comes into it. Not the silly, sloppy,
emotional exchanges that pass for debate on TV
and the internet. But the real thing: Disciplined,
logical, responsive, evidence-based argumentation
with another person.
It is clear that the teaching of speech, drama, oralinterpretation, and debate are good activities for the
language classroom. This paper explains in detail how
to do a speech activity, an oral interpretation activity,
and a debate activity for the language classroom.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

253

KlugeTable 3
How To Do My Monologue
Step

Activity

Description

1

Selection of theme

Select a theme—can be the theme of the textbook

2

Creation of Monologue
Template

Create a template for the monologue (see below) with blanks forstudents to add their personal information.

3

Monologue Writing

Have students write out the entire monologue in class or as homework.

4

Monologue Checking

Have students hand in monologues. Check them for grammar/spellingproblems. Return monologues to students.

5

Second Draft Writing

Have students write a second draft based on the teacher’s corrections/suggested changes.

6

Practice/Rehearsal

Have students practice their monologues by themselves, and then insmall groups. Have them record their monologues using their own
digital cameras or cell phones. Students can do self-evaluations based on
the video they recorded.

7

PerformanceStudents perform their monologues without script to whole class.
Students in the audience can ask questions. Have them record theirmonologues using their own digital cameras or cell phones. Students
can do self-evaluations based on the video they recorded so they cancompare before and after performances.

My Monologue Speech Activity
Many teachers know that speech contests are positive
experiences for students. Bury, Sellick, and Yamamoto(2012, p. 17) summarize these positive points:
Entering a speech contest has many benefits
for students, and incorporates the four English
skills as the students write their own speeches,negotiate the topic and structure of the speechwith their tutor, research their speeches
independently, and then deliver the speech. It
also provides the students with an opportunity
to function in an autonomous context, further
developing their confidence and empowering
them to use English in a fulfilling and rewardingway.
With all these benefits, it seems a shame that not all
students can share them. Kluge (2012) makes this exact
point and shows how to do speeches in language classes
on a regular basis, doing what he calls My Monologue.
This activity can be done with any textbook or any
topic and takes two class periods to complete. The

254 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

procedure for My Monologue is listed in Table 3.
For example if the topic of the textbook is sports,
the teacher can write on the board the following sample
monologue template:
Hello everybody! Let me tell you about sports
and me. When I was in junior high school I used
to ____, but now I ___.My best memory doing___ is _______. I really enjoy ____ because_________. I ____ ___ times a ______. I usually_____ with ______. In the future I would like totry _____ because _____.Thank you.
The students rewrite the monologue filling in theblanks with their own answers. The teacher collects
the monologues at the end of class, corrects them, andreturns the corrected monologues during the next class.
The students rewrite the monologue incorporating thesuggested changes. They then practice the monologues
by themselves, and then perform the speeches insmall groups. This activity can also be used for oral
exams. With My Monologue, students can experience
regularly the benefits of a speech contest mentioned

Performance, Literature, and Critical Thinking, pages 252-259
Table 4
Steps for Oral Interpretation and Readers Theater
Step

Activity

Description

1

Selection ofmaterial

Select a piece of literature (poem, song lyric, short story, speech, essay, novel,
news story, biography, etc.) to be performed, considering the number of
performers, performers’ interests, language proficiency, & maturity level of
performers and audience2

Script making

Get the material scripted for RT (Who reads what?)

3Interpretation

Understand both implicit and explicit messages of the text
*Explicit: What do the words mean?
*Implicit: What does the piece mean (Theme)?

4

Reading aloudLearn prosodic features such as pronunciation, intonation, rhythm, pitch,
rapidity, style, and loudness that can match the interpretation.

5

Staging

To convey the message to the audience, learn how to better employ
paralinguistic aspects of English : facial expression, posture, gestures,movement, GROUPING

6Practice/ Rehearsal

Make arrangements so that everyone involved can get together for practiceand cooperate with group members

7

Performance

Learn how to overcome stage fright (physical warm-up, voice warm-up, deep
breath before performance)

above by Bury, Sellick, and Yamamoto (2012).

Oral Interpretation Activity
As Valdes (1986) stated, if a teacher wants to teachculture in class, a good way is to use literature. A good
way to study literature is through oral interpretation.
What is oral interpretation?
Oral Interpretation is the expression and sharingof literature with an audience. The function of
the interpreter is to establish oneself as a liaison
between the author who created the literatureand the audience which responds to it. The
goal of the interpreter should be influenced by
the author’s intention which can be discoveredby investigation into the author’s background,
viewpoint and the time and conditions underwhich the selection was written. (Parker &Bradley, 2012, para. 1)
It is true that there are people who have studied oralinterpretation and use it regularly in class, but this does
not mean that they are the only people who can use it.
In Table 4 are the steps that any teacher can follow to
do oral interpretation in the language classroom.
This activity can be done by individuals, small
groups, or by the whole class. One thing that can makethe activity more interesting is using popular songs.
Students can find the song on the Internet anytime
and then practice pronunciation and intonation as
homework.

A Physical Debate Activity
Debate is seen by many, teachers and students alike, as
an elite activity, and in many ways it is, but that does notmean that all students cannot try it and learn importantcritical thinking skills. The challenge is to overcome
the impression that debate is complicated and difficult.
One way to do that is to use physical activity to learn
debate moves. There are really only a few moves indebate: build (a case), attack (a position), guard (yourposition) and review (the flow of the debate). ThisThe 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

255

Klugemethod of teaching debate uses two main metaphors
to teach the moves: laying bricks and boxing. The firststep is to teach the physical movements:
Brick laying move
Build: place one brick next to another and build
a wallBoxing moves
Attack: (jab, cross, uppercut-jaw, uppercut-bodyblow, hook, roundhouse)
Small Victory: clasp hands and move themforward and backRocky Pose: raise fists over head
Guard: hold fists up in front of face
Other move
Review: move arms in large circles on either sideof body
Optional Moves
Bring it on!: palm up, fingers together, movefingers forward and back (can be done with one
hand or both)
Glove Tap: tap each other’s gloves
After practicing these movements, then it is timeto learn the order of the debate, which can be foundin Appendix 1. The students are divided into groups offour. Each group of four is divided into two groups oftwo, Affirmative team and Negative team. The teacher
calls out the speech name. The appropriate person
stands up and repeats the speech name. The next stepis to do the same procedure, but this time the students
add the movements, found in the Actions columnof Appendix 1. The third time the teacher teaches
students the language of debate found in the Language
column of Appendix 1. The purpose of this procedure
is to learn the moves of a debate, the order of speeches,
and the basic set phrases used in debate.
The next step is to decide on a topic. The topic has
to be in this form: Resolved: That __ (a body, like thegovernment)__ should __ (action, like stop or prohibit

256 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

something)__ . There should be two sides to the topic
and it should be a topic that is easy for students toresearch and find enough information. Here is an
example of such a topic (or resolution): Resolved:
That the Japanese government should actively explore
alternative energy sources.
By using the physical movements or actions, it
makes debate fun to learn and easy to understand forthe students.

Conclusion
Teachers who see forensics as an interesting way to
expose students to the target language culture throughliterature and a way for students to learn and practice
critical thinking skills should not shy away fromteaching speech, oral interpretation, or debate because
they think it is too difficult. Using these easy step-bystep descriptions of these three activities will will makeit easy to introduce the benefits of these activities to allstudents in the language classrooms.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the officers andmembers of the Speech, Drama, and Debate SIG for
their support for this presentation. In addition, thanks
go to the Literature in Language Teaching SIG and
the Critical Thinking SIG for their partnership in
PanSIG2013.

References
Asano, K., Kluge, D. & Kumai, W. (2012).An
Introduction to Oral Interpretation and Its
Relation to Nanzan Junior College. ACADEMIA
Literature and Language, 91, pp. 81-100.
Bury, J., Sellick, A. & Yamamoto, K. (2012). An
after school program to prepare senior highschool students for external speech contests:
Implementation and feedback. The Language
Teacher: 36.2 March / April 2012, The Language
Teacher Online • Retrieved August 30, 2012 fromjalt-publications.org/tlt
Dewar, G. (2011). Lessons in debate improve criticalthinking skills. Retrieved May 1, 2012, from<http://www.parentingscience.com/debate-Performance, Literature, and Critical Thinking, pages 252-259
improves-critical-thinking-skills.html>.
Kluge, D. (2012). Speech in the Language Classroom:
A Weekly Class Activity, Not a Contest. Mask
& Gavel: Journal of the Speech, Drama, & Debate
SIG, 1, 81-100.
Parker, N. A. & Bradley, M. C. (2012). Retrieved
June 1, 2012, from http://www.scsk12.org/

STT99_WQ/STT99/Houston_HS/parkern3/
TheatresWebPg/ POI.htm
TheFreeDictionary. Retrieved June 1, 2012, from<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/forensics>
Valdes, J. (ed.) (1986). Culture Bound. Bridging the
Cultural Gap in Language Teaching. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.

Author’s Biography:
David Kluge has been involved in theater, oral interpretation, speech, and debate for 45
years as a participant, a coach/director, and teacher. He was the first coordinator of the
Speech, Drama, and Debate SIG.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

257

KlugeAppendix A
SpeechTime(before debate)

1. First Affirmative Constructive

3 min

Actions

Langauge

Bring it on!
Glove bump

Bring it on!

Begin

Good afternoon. Because __ we areresolved: ___Point 1: “__.” Point 1: “__.”According to ____,
Plan Point 1: “_.” Plan Point 1: “_.”Thank you. I am now ready for crossexamination.

AttackSupport
Build
End

2. Second Negative Cross-X

1 min.

Jab/Guard

Who? What? When? Where? Why? Howmuch?

3. First Negative Constructive

3 min.

Begin
Build

We believe the present system is fine. Point
1: The present system is fine because ___.
Point 1: The present system is fine because___.
According to ____,
Point 1: The proposed system is not good
because ___. Point 1: The proposed system
is not good because __.

SupportAttackSupportEnd

According to ____,
Thank you. I am now ready for crossexamination.
Who? What? When? Where? Why? How
much?

4. First Affirmative Cross-X

1 min.

Jab/Guard

5. Second Affirmative Constructive

3 min.

Begin
Build
SupportAttackEnd

Point 1: “__.” Point 1: “__.”According to ____,
Plan Point 1: “_.” Plan Point 1: “_.”Thank you. I am now ready for crossexamination.

6. First Negative Cross-X

1 min.

Jab/Guard

Who? What? When? Where? Why? Howmuch?

7. Second Negative Constructive

3 min.

Begin
Build

Our position is the present system is finebecause ___. Point 1: The present system isfine because ___.
According to ____,
Our position is the proposed system is notgood because ___.The proposed system is
not good because __.

SupportAttack

258 The 2013 PanSIG Conference ProceedingsPerformance, Literature, and Critical Thinking, pages 252-259
7. Second Negative Constructive
SupportEnd

According to ____,
Thank you. I am now ready for crossexamination.

8. Second Affirmative Cross-X

1 min.

Jab/Guard

Who? What? When? Where? Why? How
much?

9. First Negative Rebuttal

2 min.

Review
Small Victory
Conclusion

They said __, we said __Clearly the Negatives won this point.
Clearly the Negatives won this debate.

10. First Affirmative Rebuttal

2 min.

Review
Small Victory
Conclusion

They said __, we said __Clearly the Affirmatives won this point.
Clearly the Affirmatives won this debate.

11. Second Negative Rebuttal

2 min.

Review
Small Victory
Conclusion

They said __, we said __Clearly the Negatives won this point.
In conclusion, because of _____, clearly the
Negatives won this debate.

12. Second Affirmative Rebuttal

2 min.

Review
Small Victory
Conclusion

They said __, we said __Clearly the Affirmatives won this point.
In conclusion, because of _____, clearly theAffirmatives won this debate.

(after debate when judge/s
announce the winner

Rocky pose

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings259

Pragmatic Appropriateness of English Learners’ Refusals

Kimiko Koseki
Denenchofu Futaba Junior andSenior High School
koseki@myad.jp
This study was designed to identify problems of Japanese EFL learners’ refusals which might hinder
their appropriateness and comprehensibility. Two American raters evaluated Japanese high school
students’ English refusals of a higher-, an equal-, and a lower-status interlocutor’s invitation to a
party. Similarly, two Japanese raters evaluated Japanese equivalents to see whether the problemsof the Japanese students’ English refusals were caused by a lack of the students’ English linguistic
and pragmatic ability or their immature pragmatic ability in their native language. Major problems
found in the students’ English refusals include their abruptness and a lack of or unconvincing
excuses. Regarding the difference in interlocutor’s social status, American raters judged the refusals
given to a lower-status interlocutor as most inappropriate. They evaluated two-thirds of them as
abrupt and four-fifth of them as lack of reasons or need of more compelling reasons.
本研究の目的は、日本人学習者の英語の「断り」の妥当性を損なう問題点を特定すること、
また、話し相手の社会的な立場の違いがその問題点にどのように影響するのかについて調べることである。談話完成タスクを使い、日本人高校生がアルバイト先の上司、親しい
友人、部活動の後輩の招待に対する「断り」
を英語と日本語で書いたものを集め、まず、英語のものをアメリカ人２人が評価した。
さらに、１回目の評価における評価者のコメントを基に５つの規準を選び、この５項目についてアメリカ人が英語の「断り」
を、日本人が日本語の「断り」を評価した。結果は、説得力のない言い訳、言い訳の欠如、
また、表現が短くぶっ
きらぼうであることが、アメリカ人・日本人共に評価者達が表現が妥当性に欠けると判断する主な理由であることが分かった。
また、アメリカ人の評価者達が失礼だと判断したもの
は、社会的な立場が下の話し相手に対するものに最も多かった。

Appropriateness is generally used as a criterion to assess
pragmatic aspects of language performances (Kasper,
1997; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). From her comparative
study, Koseki (2013) found inappropriateness in her
Japanese students’ refusals. Research has indicatedthat native speakers tend to interpret pragmatic failure*

Koseki, K. (2014). Pragmatic appropriateness ofenglish learners’ refusals. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 260-268). Nagoya,Japan: JALT.

*

260 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

negatively as offensive (Thomas, 1983), arrogant, or
rude (Nelson, Carson, Al Batal, & El Bakary, 2002).
Additionally, acquisition of pragmatic competence
seems to be difficult specifically in EFL environments(Takahashi & Beebe, 1987). Therefore, the purposeof this study is to identify what pragmalinguistic andsociocultural features of Japanese EFL learners’ refusals
could be inappropriate from the native speakers’
perspective and/or could hinder communication of
the speaker’s intention.
Refusals were chosen because they were a facethreatening act, must be instantly produced since theyPragmatic Appropriateness of English Learners’ Refusals, pages 260-268
Table 1The Results of Grading.

G

Situation 1

Situation 2

Situation 3

RefusalsU

M

L

RefusalsU

M

L

Refusals

U

M

L

5

0

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

4.5

2

1

0

1

2

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

4

4

2

1

1

6

3

1

2

3

1

1

1

3.5

6

2

3

1

10

5

5

0

6

3

3

0

3

9

3

4

2

3

0

0

3

8

2

2

4

2.5

5

0

2

3

5

1

1

3

9

3

2

4

2

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1.5

4

2

0

2

1

0

0

1

3

0

2

1

G=Grade; Refusals (N=30); U=Upper-level students (N=10); M=Middle-level students (N=10); L=Lower-level students(N=10).

were a response to other speech acts, and could vary
cross-culturally (Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz,
1990; Nelson et al., 2002, Chang, 2009; Allami &Naeimi, 2011; Bella, 2011). Therefore, the researchquestions are:
1. What aspects of the Japanese students’ refusals
may hinder their appropriateness in eachsituation?
2. How could a difference in interlocutors’ social
status impact appropriateness of Japanese
students’ refusals?

Methods
ParticipantsFirst, 56 Japanese students were engaged in three
discourse completion tasks (DCTs) in class. Then, toinvestigate impact of their English proficiency on theirperformance,10 upper-level, 10 middle-level, and 10
lower-level students were determined based on theirfour exam scores for the course, and their refusals wereused for evaluation. The students are all female and arein their second year of senior high school in Tokyo.
Their English competency varies (approximately
TOEIC 350-850). Three students lived abroad (two in
the U.S.A. and one in Thailand) for several years when

they were in elementary school, but most students had
never used English outside of classroom except when
they traveled abroad.

DCTs
English and Japanese refusals were collected withthree DCTs (see Appendix A) which intended toelicit a polite refusal of an invitation to a party given
to a higher- (Situation 1), an equal-, (Situation 2),
and a lower-social status interlocutor than the refuser(Situation 3).

Procedure
Evaluation was implemented twice. Two American
raters, a male and a female, conducted the first evaluation.
They graded the Japanese students’ English refusals on
the scale of 1-5 in terms of their appropriateness andcomprehensibility (see Appendix B). However, thefirst evaluation did not provide enough information
to identify problems of the Japanese students’ refusals.
Therefore, the second evaluation was necessary. For
the second evaluation, American raters assessed thesame English refusals again on the five criteria whichwere developed based on the findings from the firstevaluation (see Appendix C). Similarly, Japanese raters,
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

261

KosekiTable 2Raters’ Comments at the First Rating (Rater 1 + Rater 2)
Raters’ Comments

Situation 1

Situation 2

Situation 3

Unclear Meaning, confusing, strange language

15

11

12

Incorrect language

3

1

1

Rude

1

2

7

Vague reason

7

10

8

Weak reason, not compelling enough for the boss

10

0

0

Not appropriate language for the boss

2

0

0

No reason569Abrupt0

1

4

Misunderstanding

2

0

0

.

a male and a female, assessed Japanese equivalents on
the same criteria to ascertain whether the students’problems were caused by a lack of their English abilityor their immature pragmatic ability in their native

language. All raters, both Americans and Japanese, arecollege English instructors who have a master’s degreein TESOL.

Table 3
The Number of Semantic Formulas Used in Each Situation: Japanese Students’ Refusals

Adjuncts &Semantic Formulas

Total
N=90

S1
N=30

S2
N=30

S3
N=30

S2 (Americans)
N=10Flat Refusals(Americans)
N=10Statement of Positive Opinion

31

11

10

10

5

1

Pause Fillers

1

0

0

1

2

0

Gratitude/Appreciation

24

8

10

6

5

0

“No”

1

0

0

1

0

1

Negative Willingness/Ability

55

20

17

18

2

9

Statement of Regret

81

28

28

25

3

6

Wish

1

1

0

0

0

0

Excuse/Reason/Explanation

64

26

23

15

7

0

Statement of Alternative

0

0

0

0

0

2

Promise of Future Acceptance

21

6

7

8

0

0

N=Number; S=Situation. Examined in the Present Study & American Refusals (Koseki, 2013).

262 The 2013 PanSIG Conference ProceedingsPragmatic Appropriateness of English Learners’ Refusals, pages 260-268

Results
First Evaluation
As you see in Table 1, against the author’s
expectation, the students’ English competency did
not seem to impact their performances so much.
The average of the grades supported this finding.
Most average grades are 3, which means that mostAmericans can probably get a general idea of what
the student wants to say but their refusals are notvery comprehensive and/or not very appropriate (seeAppendix B
Then, what aspects of the students’ refusals might
have hindered American raters’ understanding and/or might have been offensive to their ears? Raters
were not asked but were invited to comment on theirassessment (see Table 2). Their comments indicatedthat problematic areas were lack of the students’English ability, their unconvincing excuses, their lackof reasons, and abruptness of their refusals. Some
refusals were even judged as rude.
The refusals were also examined in terms of theirsemantic formulas. The semantic formulas werecategorized based on Beebe et al.’s (1990) classification.
The American refusals, both polite refusals and flatrefusals, collected by the author in the previous study(Koseki, 2013), were used as a baseline for comparison.

As Table 3 shows, strategies most frequently used by
Japanese are negative willingness/ability (e.g. I can’t go.),statement of regret (e.g. I’m sorry.), and excuse/reason/
explanation. However, statement of positive opinion
and gratitude/appreciation strategies, even though all
Americans used at least one of them in their polite
refusal, were only used by 34% (positive opinion) and
27% (gratitude) of the Japanese. Additionally, excuse/reason/explanation strategy, which was expected to
be used in all the refusals, was actually used in 71% ofthem in total and only 50% of them in Situation 3.

Second Evaluation
However, the first evaluation could not provide
enough information to specify exactly what had
hindered appropriateness of the students’ refusals.
It was partly because the rating was designed togive a holistic grade and partly because the raters’comments on their evaluation were provided only ona limited number of refusals. Another problem of thefirst evaluation was interrater reliability. Difference
between two grades given by two raters was two fornine refusals. According to their comments, the raters
seem to have evaluated the same refusal on different
criteria. Additionally, interrater reliability of theresults was calculated with Excel and Spearman-Brown

Table 4
The Frequency of the American Rater’s Choices on English Refusals.
Clear
Communication of
Refusals

Politeness

Abruptness

Choice

1a

1b

1c

1d

2a

2b

2c

4a

4b

5a

5b

5c-5e

5c

5d

5e

5f

5c-5f

AR1+AR2(N=180)

88

56

15

21

55

80

45

84

96

16

25

89

64

11

14

50

139

S1
(N=60)

29

16

9

6

16

28

16

29

31

6

6

36

25

3

8

12

48

S2
(N=60)

32

19

3

6

26

26

8

35

25

7

12

29

22

4

3

12

41

S3
(N=60)

27

21

3

9

13

26

21

20

40

3

7

24

17

4

3

26

50

Reasons/Excuses

AR=American Rater, N=Number; S=Situation. (See Appendix C for Choices 1a-5f.)

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

263

Kosekiprophecy formula (Brown, 2005), but their reliability
could be low because the results both from the firstevaluation and from the second evaluation were notinterval scale but ordinal scale.
Finally, the frequency of American raters’ choices
in each criterion are shown in Table 4. In the second
rating, each rater was asked to choose one of the
choices on each criterion (see Appendix C). The results
on formality were deleted from Table 4 because they
were not problematic. The results in the second rating
basically supported the findings from the first rating but
provided more reliable information. As seen in Table 4,
the most problematic area was reasons, with 77% of therefusals being judged as problematic with their reasons.
The second-worst area was abruptness of the refusals,with 53% of the refusals being judged as abrupt andfound most in Situation 3. Furthermore, on politeness,
only 31% of the refusals was judged as polite enoughwhile 25% was judged as rude. Rudeness was indicatedmost in Situation 3. Regarding clear communicationof the message, only 49% of the refusals were evaluatedas satisfactory.

Discussion
1. What Aspects of the Japanese Students’
Refusals May Hinder Their Appropriatenessin Each Situation?
Even though the Japanese students’ English
refusals were generally understandable, they had
certain pragmatic problems. They included abruptnessof the refusals or too short refusals such as “I’m sorry. I
can’t go there.”, unconvincing excuses such as “I have aschedule.” (The student wanted to say, “I have plans.”)or “I am busy.”, and a lack of excuses. Japanese raters’
evaluation of Japanese refusals showed the similartendency even though the number of inappropriate
refusals was much smaller than the English equivalents.
This similarity might be interpreted in two ways. One
is that some Japanese students’ pragmatic competence
was still immature even in their native language. The
other is that the problems of the Japanese students’refusals could be their L1 transfer because Japaneserefusals tend to be short and a lack compelling reasons.
Japanese raters might have judged short refusals and

264 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

refusals without compelling reasons as inappropriate
because they have been accustomed to English norms.
Furthermore, linguistic items which American
raters evaluated as offensive include direct negative
willingness such as “I really don’t feel like going.”, “I
don’t want to go.”, “I won’t join”, and “I don’t go to theparty.” One of the raters additionally suggested that
“I want to decline” should be changed into “I haveto decline.” This finding indicates that polite refusals
should include strategies to show the speaker’s wish or
desire to accept an invitation and strategies to show the
speaker’s regret for impossibility of doing that.

2. How Could a Difference in Interlocutors’Social Status Impact the Appropriatenessof Japanese Students’ Refusals?
American raters evaluated the refusals given to alower-status interlocutor as most inappropriate. They
judged 67% of the refusals in Situation 3 as abrupt
and 84% of them as a lack of reasons or need of morecompelling reasons. They also judged 35% of them,
most among the three situations, as rude while Japaneseraters judged Japanese refusals given to a higher-statusinterlocutor most rude. It might reflect Japaneseculture in which people are most careful when refusing
higher-status interlocutors.

Conclusion
This study was designed to identify major problemsof Japanese EFL learners’ refusals which might hinder
their appropriateness. The study also investigated theimpact of an interlocutor’s social status on Japaneselearners’ refusals. The first evaluation revealed thatthe students’ English competency might not have
impacted their pragmatic performance so much. Somestudents’ pragmalinguistic and sociocultural negative
L1 transfer was also found. The second evaluation
identified major reasons of the Japanese students’
inappropriate performances. They are abruptness ofrefusals, unconvincing excuses, and lack of excuses.
Regarding the difference in interlocutor’s social status,
American raters judged the refusals given to a lowerstatus interlocutor as most rude even though Japaneseraters judged less rude. Japanese raters’ assessment ofPragmatic Appropriateness of English Learners’ Refusals, pages 260-268
Japanese refusals shared the same tendency which may
show their immature pragmatic ability even in theirnative language.
The limitations of the study are twofold. One is alack of native speakers’ data for comparison while theother is a limited number of raters. In the preparation
stage for this study, American high school students’refusals were to be collected with the same DCTs using
SurveyMonkey, but the negotiation with the instructor
ended unsuccessfully. Therefore, the alternatives fromthe author’s previous study were used.
In conclusion, when we teach Japanese students
refusals of an invitation, we should encourage them
to begin their refusals with their wish to accept theinvitation and/or their gratitude for the inviter’s
goodwill, and then produce longer utterances withcompelling and specific reasons to make their refusals
sound polite enough.

ReferenceAllami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic
study of refusals: An analysis of pragmaticcompetence development in Iranian EFL learners.
Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 385-406.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990).
Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella,
E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing
communicative competence in a second language(pp. 55-73). New York, NY: Newbury House.
Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Bella, S. (2011). Mitigation and politeness in Greek
invitation refusals: Effects of length of residence
in the target community and intensity ofinteraction on non-native speakers’ performance.
Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1718-1740.
Chang, Y. (2009). How to say no: An analysis ofcross-cultural difference and pragmatic transfer.
Language Sciences, 31, 477-493.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching andlearning pragmatics: Where language and culture
meet. Harlow, England: Person Education
Limited.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence betaught? NetWork, 6. Honolulu, HI: Universityof Hawaii, Second Language Teaching &Curriculum Center. Retrieved from http://www.
nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/
Koseki, K. (2013). Japanese L1 transfer in refusals in
English. In R. Chartrand, S. Crofts, & B. Gavin(Eds.), The 2012 Pan-SIG Conference Proceedings(pp. 148-154). Tokyo, Japan: JALT.
Nelson, G. L., Carson, J., Al-Batal, M., & El-Bakary,W. (2002). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Strategy
use in Egyptian Arabic and American English
refusals. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 163-189.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The
development of pragmatic competence byJapanese learners of English. Japan Association of
Language Teachers Journal, 8(2), 131-155.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure.
Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-109.

Author’s Biography:
Kimiko Koseki received her MA in TESOL from Teachers College Columbia University. She has
been teaching at Denenchofu Futaba High School for thirteen years.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

265

KosekiAppendix A
Discourse Completion Tasks
Situation 1
Your boss who you are working for part-time invited you to a party that the company is arranging. You don’t feellike going and want to refuse her invitation.
Boss: We are planning a Christmas party from 7:00 p.m. on December 21st, Friday at a restaurant close to ouroffice. I strongly recommend you come because you can get to know your colleagues better there. Can you joinus?
You:
Situation 2
Your close friend invited you to a Christmas party that she and her friends are arranging, but you don’t feel likegoing and want to refuse her invitation.
Friend: We are arranging a Christmas party from 6:00 p.m. on December 22nd, Saturday in Shibuya. Can you
join us?
You:
Situation 3
Your school club junior invited you to a Christmas party that she and her friends are arranging, but you don’t feellike going and want to refuse her invitation.
Junior: We are arranging a Christmas party from 6:00 p.m. on December 22nd, Saturday in Shibuya. Can you
join us?
You:

266 The 2013 PanSIG Conference ProceedingsPragmatic Appropriateness of English Learners’ Refusals, pages 260-268

Appendix B
Instruction for the First Rating(1) Do you think most Americans can understand what the student wants to say if she produces it in the USA?
Could you grade the following English refusals on the scale of 1-5 in terms of its comprehensibility and its
appropriateness and type it in to the right side of each refusal?
5 I think most Americans can clearly understand what she wants to say.
4 I think most Americans can understand pretty much of what she wants to say.
3 I think most Americans can get a general idea of what she wants to say.
2 I think it is difficult for most Americans to understand what she wants to say but I think they canat least understand her intention of refusal.
1 I think it is very difficult for most Americans to understand her intention of refusal.
(2) Then, could you mark the words/phrases which could hinder Americans’ comprehension with underline ormarkers if any? You are also welcome to type in comments in RED.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

267

KosekiAppendix C
Instruction for the Second Rating
Could you choose a statement that best fits how you feel about each refusal based on American norms? ( Japaneseraters, could you judge each refusal based on Japanese norms?)
1. Clear communication of the writer’s intention of refusing:a. The writer’s intention of refusing is clearly communicated.
b. The writer’s intention of refusing can be somehow understood.
c. The writer’s intention of refusing is difficult to be understood because of the writer’s lack of linguistic
ability.
d. The writer’s intention of refusing is difficult to be understood because of the writer’s lack of ability to
discuss logically.
2. Politeness:a. The refusal is polite.
b. The refusal is not very polite but probably doesn’t cause any offense to the interlocutor.
c. The refusal is rude.
3. Formality of the language:a. Appropriate
b. Inappropriate
4. Abruptness:a. The refusal has no problem with abruptness.
b. The refusal is abrupt.
5. Reasons / Excusesa. The reason is persuasive.
b. The reason is not very persuasive but works.
c. The reason is too vague.
d. The reason is too honest.
e. The refusal needs better reasons.
f. The refusal lacks reasons.

268 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Resources for Technology-Supported Learning in the
EFL Classroom

Andrea Carlson
Nagoya University ofCommerce and Businesscarlson@nucba.ac.jp
Technology-enhanced instruction has made possible new opportunities in language teaching.
However, as language teachers, we know well that technology is only as good as its application. In
this paper, I outline how and why I am using technology in my classes, and describe some of theapplications I have found to be useful. I then outline some key themes in students’ perceptions of theroles various types of technology supported instruction play in their learning.
技術強化した教育は語学指導に新たな機会をもたらす。
しかしながら語学教師にとって技術は単に道具の一つとしてしか理解されていない。
この論文では私が授業でどのように、どのような理由で技術を利用しているかに言及し、有用なアプリを紹介する。
そして生徒の学習を支援する様々な技術の役割を生徒の知見からいくつかの鍵となるテーマで概要を示した。

Introduction*

Technology-enhanced instruction has made possible
new opportunities in language teaching. However,as language teachers, we know well that technology
is only as good as its application. As with Internet
use in society in general, how technologies are used,
and whether the use of technology results in positive
outcomes, are the important issues in education. Thatis, what teachers do with technology, and even more
importantly, what technology can help teachers to get
students to do, are the points that deserve attention.
The Web-based Education Commission (2000,
web, 69) has stated that, “Dazzling technology has
no value unless it supports content that meets theCarlson, A. (2014). Resources for technologysupported learning in the EFL classroom. In R.
Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan(Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp.
269-274). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

needs of learners.” That is, technology is only as goodas its application (Hess, 2012; Park and Son, 2009).
Warschauer (2000, web) writes that, “Technology
itself does not determine human behavior, such as how
we teach. However, it does create the possibilities for
new forms of behavior and education.”
Over the past two years I have developed
websites for each of my university skill-based English
courses with the aim of extending student learning
by integrating technologies into the online learning
environment. I have had two aims in doing this. First,
I wanted to make resources, materials, activities andassignments easily and readily accessible to students
within what I hoped were interesting and attractive
online environments. I sought to avoid the dry andsomewhat colorless environment that some virtual
learning environments or course management systems
tend to have, and to create visually rich and easy-tonavigate environments. In creating custom websites
for each course, and in developing a range of online
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings269

CarlsonFigure 1.

materials, I hoped to provide extra opportunities
for students, particularly those with less English, tounderstand, practice and review what we learn in class.
Second, I hoped that the websites would also serve asa place for students to showcase and share their work,
as well as to give and receive feedback and collaborate
on a range of projects. For these reasons, each website
has pages with:
1. Short videos and slideshows for use as prompts,
background information and a range of listening
and vocabulary building activities.
2. Links to online quizzes, games and otheractivities that have been developed for eachcourse.
3. Course documents, templates, presentations
and handouts for students to view anddownload.
4. Password-protected areas with student work or
links to student pages.
5. Password-protected pages with materials forteachers.

270 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Course Websites
I am using Weebly to develop customized websites foreach of my classes. Creating a website using Weebly
is inexpensive and relatively straightforward. I chose
Weebly primarily because it allows the user to easily
add or create a wide variety of elements, including
slideshows, video and audio resources, surveys, blogs,
student websites, password-controlled pages and othercomponents. Weebly also allows the teacher to add
other teachers as editors of all or part of a website, as
well as to see how many people are visiting the site eachday and which pages are most often viewed.
My course websites have pages with standard
course information, such as course syllabus andschedule, my contact details, and information about
assignments and exams. In addition, each website is aplatform for a variety of other online applications. In
the following discussion, I will outline my aims in using
these applications, and will describe the applications
themselves. I will then discuss student responses andfeedback regarding learning in this type of technologysupported environment.

Resources for Technology-Supported Learning, pages 269-274

Figure 2.

Teacher Developed Videos
I use VoiceThread, GoAnimate and Animoto to create
short videos, which are then uploaded to a given
website. My aim in creating and using these types ofvideos in class is to introduce material, add interest andgive students additional ways to learn and understandthe course content. I find these types of materials canbe especially helpful to students who need some extra
support in their language learning.
VoiceThread is an online application that allows theuser to add his or her voice to a video or PowerPoint,
and for others to then add their spoken comments aspart of a thread. I have used VoiceThread primarily asa model for student presentations, to prepare listening
activities related to the topics and themes being
covered in class and for short tutorials about specificskills or language points.
GoAnimate videos naturally look quite different
from those made using VoiceThread, but can also be
used in much the same way. In my classes, I often create
short GoAnimate videos to introduce functionaland grammatical aspects of the conversations we arefocusing on in class.
Animoto is essentially a slideshow-style video madeup of whatever images and text the teacher includes,
accompanied by whatever music the teacher chooses.

I often create Animoto videos to introduce a topic ora theme, such as sports or music. For example, I also
sometimes upload images of student work as a way toshare them with the class.

Online Quizzes and Activities
I use both Quia and Quizlet to create online quizzes
and activities, which are then linked to the course
websites. My purpose in doing this is to add interest
to course content, gather information about how wellstudents understand what they are learning and give
students a variety of ways to review specific material
outside of class. An additional aim is that students
benefit from receiving immediate feedback about theiranswers.
In making Quia quizzes a teacher can choose froma number of question types. A quiz can, therefore, becustomized to include, among others, multiple choice,fill in the blank, short answers questions in one quiz.
Both images and audio can be added to the questions.
Upon completing the quiz, students receive immediate
feedback about their answers. Teachers can require
students to provide their names, or can make thisoptional, and can limit the number of tries a student
can have for a given quiz. Quia also provides a range
of information to the teacher, including how students
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings271

CarlsonFigure 3.

have done individually and as a group. Additionally, ateacher can copy an already developed quiz, and edit it
to create a new or different quiz. Images and audio canbe added to quiz questions.
Like Quia, teachers can use Quizlet to make various
types of questions within a test, and images and audio
can be added to the questions. With Quizlet, however,questions are generated automatically after the teacher
enters terms Quizlet generates . Another difference
between the platforms is that with Quizlet, simply byentering terms and their matches, both quizzes andgames are generated and displayed. Students can thenFigure 4.

272 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

choose the activities they wish to try.
Both Quia and Quizlet allow teachers to create
games and activities, such as matching activities
and flash cards. Using Quia, teachers can create amuch wider range of materials, including two-player
jeopardy-style games and ordering and cloze-styleactivities. A drawback with the Quia activities is that,
unlike the quizzes, teachers are not able to track student
progress. Quizlet games, although more limited, are
timed and students seem to enjoy competing against
the clock and against their best time.

Resources for Technology-Supported Learning, pages 269-274

Online Student Portfolios
Another component that I have integrated into thecourse websites has been student online portfolios.
I have two aims in doing this. First, I want to give
students an opportunity to showcase their work andto give and receive feedback from peers. Secondly,
I hope that writing for an authentic audience andknowing that their work will be read by their peers willencourage students to do their best work.
Using Weebly, teachers can give each student theirown website, whilst maintaining control over security
and content. Students can easily choose a designand layout and add images and information about
themselves. As with the Weebly teacher websites,
the student websites allow students to, among otherthings, add slideshows and embed videos.

Investigating Student Perceptions ofTechnology-Supported Materials
To learn about student perceptions of using technology
in these courses, I invited students from my two
Reading classes to participate in an informal, focus
group style unstructured discussion about the way
technology is being used in the course. Such methods
have become widely used in educational and social
research and evaluation, as part of what has beentermed a ‘narrative turn’ (Chamberlayne, et. al. 2000;
Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). The discussion lasted
45 minutes, and I recorded and later transcribed theconversation. Ten students joined the discussion. The
group was of English mixed ability and students werealso mixed in terms of how much effort they put into
learning English. We met in our usual classroom, amedium-size computer room. I first explained that I
am hoping to learn from the students about what theyfind helpful and not helpful and to hear their ideas
about how the online materials and activities might
be developed and improved in the new semester. I
asked the students to turn on their computers, sothat they could refer to the website and applications.
At the beginning of the discussion, all of the students
commented very positively that they find the online
materials to be fresh, interesting and helpful to theirlearning.

Students were strongly in agreement about five
points:
1. Having material in one place, the course website,
is very helpful and convenient.
2. They enjoy the online quizzes and activities
and believe the materials are helpful to theirlearning, but only the more motivated students
reported using them outside of class regularly.
The less motivated students reported using thematerials the day before an exam only.
3. They enjoy sharing their work online and seeing
other students` work, but feel considerable
stress about not being able to communicate inEnglish as well as some of their peers.
4. They appreciate having online materials as they
can access them almost anywhere and anytime.
5. They like having handouts and other course
materials and information uploaded to thewebsite.
The students also had some ideas for making thetechnology more useful and interesting. They were in
general agreement that in the new semester it would be
helpful to:
1. have more images integrated into the online
quizzes and activities.
2. have any difficult terms students have used intheir writing highlighted and hyperlinked sothat by clicking on a word a simple definition
appears.
3. have students prepare some of the quizzes andanimated videos to go on the website.

Conclusion
My aim in using technology in my teaching is for thetechnology to enhance, support and extend students`
language learning, and for it to play a positive role inhelping students to develop agency and autonomy
as language learners by having students showcase
their work on their own webpages and providing
opportunities to reviews materials in various online
formats outside of class. By doing more research in thearea of technology in the student-centered classroom,
I hope to learn more about how students experiencelearning with technology and about how technology
can best be used to help students achieve.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings273

Carlson

References
Blake, R. (2006). Brave new digital classroom:
Technology and foreign language learning.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Chamberlayne, P., Bornat, J. & Wengraf, T. (2000). The
Turn to Biographical Methods in the Social Sciences;comparative issues and examples. London, England:
Routledge.
Hess, C. (2012). Using Technology in the languages
classroom from the 20th to the 21st Century:
A literature review of classroom practices andfundamental second language learning theories.
Babel, 46(2-3), 4–11.

Hollway, W. & Jefferson, T. (2000). doing qualitative
research differently. London, England: Sage.
Kerrey, R., & Isakson, J. (2000). The power of theInternet for learning: Moving from promise topractice. Washington, DC: Web-Based Education
Commission.
Park, C. & Son, J. (2009). Implementing computerassisted language learning in the EFL classroom:
Teachers’ perceptions and perspectives.
International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning,
5(2), 80-101.
Warschauer, M. (2000). The death of cyberspace andthe rebirth of CALL. English Teachers’ Journal,
53, 61-67.

Author’s Biography:
Andrea Carlson has been teaching at Nagoya University of Commerce and Business since 2007.

274 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Responses to an Email Magazine: How Do Writers Grow?

Douglas Jarrell
Nagoya Women’s University
djarrell@nagoya-wu.ac.jp
This paper examines the potential of an email magazine to encourage extensive writing. The author
examines responses of one reader to an email magazine designed for Japanese learners of English.
The reader chose to respond to the email magazine instead of writing a diary, and the data consists of
one year of her responses, a total of 228. The paper looks at how reading the email magazine affected
her choice of topic, if there were any clear patterns of language used in her responses, and whether
there was evidence of a change in her writing over the one-year period. Pedagogical implications are
discussed in the conclusion.
本論はメールマガジンがエクステンシブライティングを促す可能性を探ることを目的とする。筆者は、ある読者が日本人英語学習者向けメールマガジンに英文日記代わりに送付した、1年分228回の英語の応答コメントを分析し、メールマガジン講読がコメントのトピック
選択に与える影響、言葉づかいのパターンの有無、1年間でのライティングの変化について検証する。結論では教育方法論的見地からの論を展開する。

This paper will examine the potential of anemail magazine to encourage extensive writing.
Jaremaga < http://catchawave.jp/jm/> is anemail magazine designed for Japanese learnersof English, and although it was intended forextensive reading, one of the readers began touse it for extensive writing. The paper seeks
to discover 1) how reading an email magazine
affected the topic choice of this particular
writer, 2) if there were any clear patterns in
her responses, and 3) whether there was any
evidence of change in her language over a oneyear period. Pedagogical implications will be*

Jarrell, D. (2014). Responses to an email magazine:
How do writers grow? In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 275-279). Nagoya,Japan: JALT.

*

discussed in the conclusion.

The Need for Extensive Reading
Reading and writing are often seen as more difficultand less interesting than listening and speaking among
English learners in Japan. The stereotype of the Japanese
student who does well on written tests but cannot speak
English is changing. This is no doubt due to the shift in
the goals of English education in Japan over the past
25 years. With an increased focus on communication
skills and a decrease in the size of English vocabularytaught in junior high and high schools (Tahira, 2012),
students have better listening skills but poorer reading
skills. At the writer’s university, for example, the vast
majority of incoming English students score higher
on the listening section than on the reading section of
TOEIC.
Another reason for the change is the mobile
phone. It has become the main source of reading
and the preferred medium of writing for many
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings275

Jarrell
students. There are numerous studies that point to
the importance of reading for developing vocabulary
and critical thinking, but many students would rather
have a conversation. How can we get them to enjoy
the experience of reading? One solution comes fromthe extensive reading approach which recommends
that foreign language learners read materials within
their comfort zone. They read materials that can beunderstood without using a dictionary (5% or lessunknown vocabulary) (Hu & Nation, 2000), they read
what they like, they read a lot, and they read regularly(Bamford & Day, 2004).

The Email Magazine
Jaremaga was begun as a way to push extensive readingmaterials at English learners. There are reports from asearly as 2001 indicating almost 100% mobile phoneownership among university students (Thornton &Houser, 2002), so an email magazine was seen as having
great potential to get them to read. Posts are sent out 5days a week, from Monday to Friday, at approximately
7:30 a.m., and the length is limited to 100 words tomake it easy to receive and view the posts on mobile
screens. Another advantage of short passages is thatthey can be read in just a few minutes, requiring only asmall investment of time for the readers.
In order to satisfy the interests of a varied readershipwhich includes junior high and high school students,
their English teachers, university students, middleaged workers, homemakers, and retirees, the magazine
posts deal with a variety of topics: animals, reading,current events, history, education, family, food, foreigncountries and culture, health, travel, interculturaldifferences, Japanese culture, language, movies and TV,
music and dance, sports, quizzes and jokes, odd news,
technology, the environment and science, and weather.
The stories are kept at the reading level of firstyear Japanese high school students, and the grammar
is kept simple ( Jarrell, 2011). There are times when,
due to the nature of the topic, unknown vocabulary
cannot be avoided, but in these cases, the more difficult
vocabulary items are glossed in Romanized Japanese.

276 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

One Reader’s Extensive Writing
The email magazine was not originally intended as asource of inspiration for writers, but readers started tosend in comments and their own stories. To encouragethese reader-writers, Friday has been designated as
the Readers’ Corner since the beginning of 2011.
Appropriate stories are chosen and edited for lengthand mistakes before being sent out.
In September 2011, one reader, who for the sakeof convenience will be referred to as Yoshiko in thispaper, started to send messages on a regular basis in
September 2011. The quotes have been reproduced
exactly as received, without correcting grammar orcapitalization, with the exception of several language
chunks that have been italicized for emphasis.
At the beginning of 2012, she sent the following
message:Jan. 5, Yoshiko
I want to decide my resolutions as follows: I have
two resolutions. One is to write a reply to yourjaremaga mail as much as I can instead of writing
a diary. I enjoy your jaremaga mail because thecontents are full and interesting. Another is toread as many books as I can.
During the course of 2012, a total of 260 Jaremaga
posts were sent out, and Yoshiko sent in 228 messages.
In response to a questionnaire sent to all the readerwriters, she identified herself as a doctor over the age of
60. While she may not be typical of the average English
learner in Japan, her writings may provide clues as tohow email magazines can be used to encourage learners
to write more.

TopicsAn analysis of Yoshiko’s output shows thatapproximately 80% of her messages (184 out of 228)
were directly connected to the topic of that day’s post.
Most of the remaining 20% (44 messages) are typicalof diary entry topics. They deal with personal feelingsand events such as Valentine’s Day, discuss what she
is reading, and talk about meeting a friend, traveling,buying an iPhone, and writing New Year’s cards. On
the other hand, Yoshiko is aware that she is writing toResponses to an Email Magazine, pages 275-279
an American (the writer of Jaremaga) and takes theopportunity to explain certain aspects of Japaneseculture.
Mar. 17, Yoshiko
Today is the start of “Higan” or “Ohigan.” It
continues 1 week, from 17th May to 23rd Mar. It
is the particular period like “Obon” in summer.
Many Japanese people pray for ancestors. I willvisit the ancestors’ grave tomorrow. By the way, inJapan, there are two Higan. One is in March andanother is in September.
Yoshiko doesn’t always keep to the same topic in
one message. There are 25 instances of “by the way”
being used to change topic within a message.
Aug. 9, Jaremaga
I saw two new convenience stores being built
yesterday. I asked myself why there were so manyin Japan. Then, I thought back to the time when
I first came to Japan. At that time, there weremany small stores in my wife’s neighborhood.
There was a small grocery store, a small fish store,
and a very small shoe store. I wonder if people
like convenience stores because they are small. I
certainly like the convenience of shopping in myneighborhood.
Aug 9, Yoshiko
Many people like to shop in a convenience store
like Lauson, etc. And they like to shop in large
stores, not small stores. Because, people can buy
many kinds of things in a large store. Surely thisis very convenient. But many small stores wentbankrupt. I think this tendency applies to othercountries. By the way, London Olympic is coming
soon to the last. I hope Nadeshiko Japan will get
the gold medal.

Patterns
Yoshiko frequently asks questions. She seeks

confirmation with questions such as “Is that true?”(Feb. 1) or asks for additional explanations, for example,“What is a president’s day? Is that like a Emperor’sbirthday in Japan?” (Mar. 7). Her questioning style
can be seen in the following quote, which also has an
example of “surely,” one of her most common discourse
markers, appearing in 22 of her messages. She uses it
to show her emphatic agreement with an idea in theoriginal post.
Feb. 8, Jaremaga
Now you can get a special app for your smart
phone to help you at restaurants in foreigncountries. When you don’t speak the language ofthe country, ordering food at a restaurant can bedifficult. This app will “read” the menu using thecamera on the phone. Then it will translate themenu into your language. That’s so easy! Now
I understand why they are called smart phones.
Even so, I think I prefer to ask the waiter about
the menu.
Feb. 8, Yoshiko
What name is the special app.? Which cellphone
has the app. I have an iPAD, but I don’t have an
iPhone. After I bought a docomo’s smart phone,
I found out iPhone had much more convenient
app. than other smart phone. I plans to change
my smart phone to new iPhone when Apple willsell iPhone5, maybe this summer. Surely, smart
phone is smarter than other phone.
While “surely” may seem stilted, it demonstrates her
ability to interact with the posts.
Her anaphoric references abound with words
such as “that” as in “That might be reasonable for
Melbourne’s people” (Apr. 3) referring to the earlyclosing of stores in Australia. Another example is foundin the example below, “like that.” She also uses “similar”
as in “Sometimes, I do similar things as you did, too”
(Aug. 8) referring to how the author went swimmingand broke his mobile phone.
Feb. 10, Jaremaga Readers’ Corner
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings277

Jarrell
One reader wrote: I work at a night school in
Gifu Prefecture. Some students are from Japan,of course, but many are from Brazil and othercountries. Siri has become popular among theinternational students. Siri is the name of theiPhone 4 search engine. The students can talk to
her in English (it has a woman’s voice). Whenthey ask her, “How about dinner with me later?”she replies, “I’m sorry but that’s not my business.”

above.
The concordancing program AntConc (Anthony,2011) provided the ratio of word types to word tokens,
thought to be an indication of lexical density. Of the9,180 word tokens in Yoshiko’s messages, AntConc
identified 1,930 word types, over 20% of the total
words. The Jaremaga posts, by comparison, had 22,663
tokens and 3,330 types, a percentage of just under 15%.
This indicates that her texts were at least as lexicallydense as the Jaremaga posts themselves.

Feb. 10, Yoshiko
When iPHONE4 was put on sale, there wereseveral news about Siri like that in You Tube.
Anyway, Siri is clever. It is funny. :-)She indicates her surprise at new information on 15
separate occasions with the phrase “I didn’t know” ascan be seen in the following example.
Jun. 27, Yoshiko
I didn’t know New York city is very hot now. The
city opens some fire hydrants in hot days? Whata risky state it is !! By the way, I like ice cream, too
though I can’t imagine there aren’t enough ice
cream to eat.
Yoshiko’s messages demonstrate clear patterns ofinteraction with the e-mail posts.

Changes
Trying to discover evidence of change in her writing
has proved very difficult. There was no observablechange in the length of her messages over the year. Heraverage is 40 words per message (compared to 80-100
for each Jaremaga post). While her longest messages
came at the end of the year (151 words on December
24 when she talks about 2 different topics and 106
words on November 5 describing her trip to Tokyo
in which she lists the places she had been), many ofher later messages are as short as two sentences. The
average word count for January messages was 40, thecount for February also 40, and for November it was
39. December’s average of 48 words is skewed becauseof one unusually long 151-word message mentioned

278 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Pedagogical Implications
Yoshiko made the decision to respond to an email
magazine rather than write a diary. Without an exampleof Yoshiko’s previous diary entries, it is difficult to makeany claims about changes in her writing. However, it isuseful to make comparisons with student diaries to get
an idea of the power of this kind of writing task.
Anyone who has assigned diaries as homeworkknows that the results can be tediously repetitive. Thisis the nature of a free writing assignment because, as one
teacher has pointed out, students do not know what
to write about (Deaux, 1993). Without any guidance,
many students endup describing their daily routines
ad nauseam. Free writing that goes unchecked by theteacher may even encourage students to repeat theirEnglish mistakes. While there is no doubt that, withguidance and teacher response, diaries can become
very useful pedagogical tools (Pickett, 1993), email
magazine responses seem to push the writer to use new
vocabulary. It is clear from Yoshiko’s data that she uses
a wide range of vocabulary, and her topics are as varied
as those of the email magazine.

Conclusion
This paper has examined the responses of one writer
to an email magazine and showed that this kind oftask can encourage a wide range of writing on different
topics. Because the task involves responding, it also
requires the writer to use appropriate interactional
strategies. Yoshiko has stated in a questionnairethat thanks to the email magazine, she writes more
frequently. She enjoys getting news from around theworld and reading the stories by other readers. She feels

Responses to an Email Magazine, pages 275-279
that the email magazine helps her to write, but she saysthat she still worries about how to express herself. But
doesn’t every writer?

References
Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc (Version3.2.4)[software]. Retrieved from http://www.antlab.sci.
waseda.ac.jp/antconc_index.html
Bamford, J., & Day, R. R. (2004). Extensive reading
activities for teaching language. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Deaux, G. (1993). Tradition and the student journal.
In C. P. Casanave (Ed.), Journal writing:Pedagogical perspectives (pp. 31-47). Tokyo, Japan:
Keio University.

Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Vocabulary density
and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 12(2), 355-380.
Jarrell, D. (2011). Using a database of easy-to-readstories. LET中部支部研究紀要,23.
Pickett, R. A. (1993). Journal writing: A teacher’sreflections. In C. P. Casanave (Ed.), Journal
writing: Pedagogical perspectives (pp. 87-94).
Tokyo, Japan: Keio University.
Tahira, M. (2012). Behind MEXT’s new course of
study guideline. The Language Teacher, 36(3),3-8.
Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2002). M-Learning:learning in transit. In P. Lewis (Ed.), The changing
face of CALL (pp. 229-243). Lisse, Holland:
Swets & Zeitlinger.

Author’s Biography:
Douglas Jarrell is a professor of TEFL at Nagoya Women’s University. His main research areas are
CALL, extensive reading, and intercultural communication.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings279

NehlsStudent Feedback on the Value of Impromptu Speeches

Paul Notebaart Nehls
Yokohama City University
nehlspaul@hotmail.com
This paper showcases three years of collected student feedback regarding how certain speech
activities were received by multiple classes of students at various levels of English at Yokohama City
University. In detail the paper will share the results of student surveys which show the student’s
feedback and perceptions of impromptu speech work. The value of classroom impromptu speeches
will be explored as well as the importance of this ‘perceived value” by the students. Questions for
future inquiry based on these results are also detailed in this paper.
本研究は、授業内で行ったスピーキング活動を学生達がどのように受けとめているかを3年間に渡って調査したものである。調査は横浜市立大学の習熟度の異なる複数英語クラスの学生を対象とし、書面によるアンケートにより行われた。詳細では、即興によるスピーチ
活動に対する学生のからのフィードバックと認識について掘り下げる。
そして、授業内で行う即興スピーチ活動の価値と学生自身による価値認識の重要性の両方について考察する。本研究の結果に基づいて、今後の研究課題についても本論分で考察する。

The information and analysis in this paper was bornfrom teacher research taken place for the purpose of
improving coursework and student experiences in theclassroom. The methodology I employed was intended
to capture what the students found effective about thecourse, as well as whether or not they had enjoyed it. I
used the collected feedback to improve the course on asemester to semester basis, to determine what activities
were genuinely helpful to the students and to identify
which activities students had found particularly
engaging.
Over the course of this data collection, I discovereda pattern in the responses that brought forth somequestions. Firstly, how important is it that students
enjoy an activity? Secondly, how well do students*

Nehls, P. N. (2014). Student feedback on the valueof impromptu speeches. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 280-284). Nagoya,Japan: JALT.

*

280 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

gauge the effectiveness or usefulness of an activity?
Furthermore, are student enjoyment and perception of
usefulness/effectiveness necessarily related?

MethodResearch Setting
The course in which I conducted this research was,“Advanced Practical English Two” (APE2), which is
focused on academic speaking. The course included
a variety of speaking activities such as speech,
presentation, debate and discussion. Presentation andpublic speaking skills were a recurring theme uponwhich most of the activities were based. One of theofficial goals stated in the syllabus for the course wasthat students would acquire the public speaking skills
required to be successful in university classes in the
U.S. or Canada. One particular activity, impromptu
speeches, is the specific focus of this paper.
Classes were limited to 15 students, and typicalenrollment was 8 to 15 students. To qualify for theStudent Feedback on the Value of Impromptu Speeches, pages 280-284
course, students had to have a score of at least 510 on
the paper based Test of English as a Foreign Language(TOEFL) or have passed the prerequisite “Advanced
Practical English One” (APE1) course which is afour skills course. The APE1 course only accepts
students with a score of 500 or more on the TOEFL.
Students who had alternative test scores such as theTest of English for International Communication(TOEIC) Eiken or internet based TOEFL test werealso accepted into the course(s) based on their score’s
relative equivalent to the paper based TOEFL score.
Although the prerequisites gave a generalexamination proficiency profile of the type of studentthat takes APE2, the actual student background of
English study and experience of the students could
have varied widely. As an example, this class had
been attended by students with high test scores but
limited speaking experience as well as native speakers
of English who were looking to improve their public
speaking skills.
The majority of the students were Japanese,
although out of 151 students there were also four
Chinese students, two Korean students, one Indian
student and three Japanese citizens who had lived
most of their lives overseas and were effectively native
speakers of English.

Data collection
Data was collected from a total of 15 classes over sevensemesters. On the final day of the course students were
given a list and a short reminder/explanation about
every activity completed in the class over the semester.
Then, the students were asked two questions about
each of the activities, using a simple 1 to 5 Likert scale
for their response.
How much did you enjoy this activity?
How useful did you find this activity?
At the end of this list of activities, students wereasked five additional questions:
Which activity did you enjoy the most?
Which activity did you enjoy the least?
Which activity did you find the most useful?

Which activity did you find the least useful?
Which activity did you find to be the mostdifficult?
For the class I used these opinions to review thecourse and help plan for the next semester. For example,
in the first few semesters of the course I used a “neutralmask” exercise in which students wore a white maskwith no expression in order to work on posture andmake students more conscious of their body language.
This activity was almost universally disliked as wellas consistently rated “least useful” by the students. I
subsequently cut this activity in order to pursue a more
successful activity in its stead.

Results
Data collected
One interesting pattern emerged from this datacollection. The answers given in the Likert scale survey
found that student opinions tended to show thatmost tasks in the class were considered “useful” andmost activities received either ratings of “enjoyable”
or neutral. However, one of the activities in class,impromptu speeches, was consistently rated highest
on the Likert scale as a useful task and was often citedas “most useful”. At the same time, this activity was
rated by the majority of students as “difficult” andnot particularly enjoyable. So in the midst of tasks
that were generally seen as both useful and at least
somewhat enjoyable, we have one task that stands out
as being considered by students as more useful, butless enjoyable. One of my colleagues suggested thatthe students were thinking of impromptu speeches as
being alike to “eating ones vegetables”, i.e. you know it
is good for you, even though you would rather not.
Impromptu speeches were carried out twice persemester. The setup was simple: students are seated ina circle and the order of the students giving the speech
is chosen at random. Each student will be given twoturns (speeches) during a single class. They are allowed
one (1) pass of a topic, meaning they may refuse a topic
they do not wish to speak about. However, if they haveused their pass on their first impromptu speech, theymust accept the second topic they receive. When it
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings281

Nehlsis a particular student’s turn to speak, they choose anumber between 1 and 36. This will assign them their
topic. During the first day of impromptu speeches
the topics concern very broad world issues such as
capital punishment. The second session uses more
Japan-specific topics, such as the use of nuclear energy
after the Fukushima incident. Once the students havetheir topic, they are given 30 seconds to think about
it, and then they must speak for two minutes. I havealways made sure to emphasize that the purpose is
to see whether or not they can speak on an issue fortwo minutes and that perfect grammar or perfectly
formed opinions are not necessary. I tell the students
that it isn’t necessary to even give an opinion, although
they may if they wish, but that summarizing the issue,or comparing different opinions is also acceptable. I
ask them to imagine they are with a group of English
speakers and someone turns to them and asks, “SoYuya, what do you think about X ?
Here are the results of the student surveys about
impromptu speeches. One hundred and fifty one
surveys from 15 classes were collected over a three anda half year period (7 semesters).
“Usefulness”
90% of students (136/151) found impromptu
speeches to be “very useful.” Only 4.6% (7/151)
found impromptu speeches to be “not useful,” while 8
students (5.2%) appeared to find the activity neither
useful nor not useful.
68% of the students (103/151) stated thatthe impromptu speech activity was “most useful”.
Common answers for other “most useful” activities
were “final presentation,” “self-evaulation,” as well as“in class speeches.”“Enjoyment”
49.6% of students (75/151) rated impromptu
speeches as a either a 1 or a 2 (not enjoyable) on the
Likert scale. 15% rated the activity as “enjoyable”
Table 1
Usefulness
Very Useful

Not Useful

Neither

136 (90%)

7 (4.6%)8 (5.2%)282 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Table 2
Enjoyable
Enjoyable

Not Enjoyable

Neither23 (15%)75 (49.6%)

53 (35%)(23/151) while the rest rated the activity as neither
enjoyable or un-enjoyable.
“Difficulty”
66% of students (99/151) rated impromptu
speeches as the “Most Difficult” activity of their APE2class.

Discussion
Analysis
To analyze what may be happening here, I began
looking for research that analyzed student perceptionsof classroom tasks and what those perceptions mightmean for motivation and learning.
I first looked at how this data may be linked tosome theories of motivation. Until recently motivation
was primarily identified as two different categories,
extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation (Dev,
1997; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Researchers who used
these classifications generally agreed that intrinsic andextrinsic motivation may work simultaneously, withevidence supporting intrinsic motivation as markedly
assisting the learning process with successful learning
leading to increased self-efficacy (Caulfield, 2010).
Bandura (1997) defines self-efficacy as believing in one’s
ability to initiate actions to achieve a desired outcome
and “is task specific versus being a general measure”(emphasis mine). This suggests that my students
possess a level of self-efficacy in order to undertake theimpromptu speech task where the “desired outcome” isto speak on a topic for two minutes.
With the expectancy theory of motivation, if
students value an outcome they will assess the difficultyof an activity and if they determine that the outcome
is achievable, they will then put forth the necessary
effort to achieve the task (Caulfield, 2007; Vroom,1964). Furthermore, if students understand that poor
performance at the task is related to lack of skill (orexperience) then they are more likely to engage inStudent Feedback on the Value of Impromptu Speeches, pages 280-284
the task (Brewster & Fager, 2000). From this data, we
see that students value impromptu speech activities
and although they rate it as difficult, they apparently
see the outcome as achievable. There has yet to be asingle instance of a student failing to make any effort
whatsoever in an impromptu speech.
If we combine the ideas of self-efficacy andexpectancy theory, we can then achieve a model thatappears applicable to the students in this study. The
process happens as such; the students see the value of
impromptu speeches, they recognize their own lack ofability, yet they believe that through trying they can
successfully perform an impromptu speech. Therefore
we have a reasonable explanation as to why the students
believe the activity is useful.
However, when we apply the more recent model ofmotivation, the idea of an ideal L2 self (Dornyei, 2011)
it appears that we have an even more likely synthesisof the ideas above and therefore a better explanation
for the perceived usefulness of impromptu speeches by
the students. The “ideal self ” is an individual’s image ofthe person they would like to become when speaking
an L2, and this becomes a powerful motivator becauseof the “desire to reduce the discrepancy between ouractual and ideal selves” (Dornyei, 2011, p. 86). So
students can easily identify the gap between what they
are capable of with impromptu speeches and their ideal
L2 ability needed in order to speak on a topic withlittle or no preparation. This ideal L2 self motivatesthem and helps create their perception of impromptu
speech activity value.
One question remains. Can the impromptu
speech activity really be “useful” when it is not
actually enjoyable for the students? In other words,
is it possible to explain why students find impromptu
speeches useful but not enjoyable? In Caulfield’s 2010
study, he found something very similar in his data to
the responses in my own data, namely, that student
value and effort were highly predictive of student
engagement in the task, particularly adhering to thestudent’s idea of value. However, in Caulfield’s study
he found that students also performed more favorably
in assignments that they identified as enjoying themost. The most frequently cited reason for disliking
assignments was that the assignment could have beenvaluable, but was very difficult and therefore the actual
value was “ambiguous.” This does not align with thestudents in my course who found the impromptu
speeches to be quite difficult or often “most difficult”,
yet who still held strongly to believing in the usefulnessof the task. What may be at work here however isthat despite the difficulty, the students found theimpromptu speeches very applicable to their growth
as English speakers and to potential future situations
where they might be “put on the spot” so to speak.
The second most cited reason for disliking an activity
in Caulfield’s study was the perceived inapplicabilityof the assignment to the student’s lives. This was not
the case for my students, who have confirmed that they
could imagine situations where impromptu speaking
skills are applicable to their lives. Finally, Caulfieldconcludes that if the assignment was both perceived
as valuable and challenging, it was engaging for the
students. This conclusion seems to concur with myown students’ perceptions of impromptu speeches.
Caulfield states that it is important for teachers to
explain the value of their assignments so that students
can better relate the task to their lives in order to feel astronger motivation to perform. I could not agree withthis assertion more.

Future research questions
The data analysis raises some interesting questions that
I will seek to address as this research moves forward
into the next stage. First of all, how do the students
define “usefulness”? One might assume this questionis self-explanatory, but it is a point that should be
investigated for the sake of accurate analysis. Also,
what considerations are students making when they
consider an activity to be “enjoyable?” For example,
the possibility exists that students might enjoy the
impromptu speeches if they were done in a different
format, or with different topics. The lack of enjoyment
may not actually be due to the difficulty, but rathersome other factor. Without collecting some student
definitions of usefulness and enjoyment, this is difficult
to answer adequately.
Another consideration for the research is toattempt a replication in Japan of Caulfield’s 2010 study
because that research took place in the United States.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings283

NehlsBy replicating the study in Japan, it would be possible
to see if the environment of a Japanese university or
Japanese cultural norms would affect results.

Conclusion
From the data and the literature reviewed, myconclusion is that impromptu speeches are clearlyconsidered valuable by students, despite their also
being perceived as a difficult task. Furthermore, thisperceived value maintains the activity as a strong
motivator for students whether or not they enjoy the
impromptu speech activities. Impromptu speeches
will therefore remain a core component of my APE2
academic speaking course, and I also highly recommend
this activity to anyone teaching a similar course.

References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise ofcontrol. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
Brewster, C. & Fager, J. (2000). Increasing student
engagement and motivation: From time-on-task
to homework. Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory Hot Topics Booklet, 14(1). Retrieved
from http://www.nwrel.org/request/oct00/
textonly.html

Caulfield, J. (2007). What motivates students toprovide feedback to teachers about teaching andlearning? An expectancy theory perspective.
International Journal for the Scholarship ofTeaching and Learning, 1(1), 1-19. Retrieved
from http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.
edu/ij-sotl/vol1/iss1/7/
Caulfield, J. (2010). Applying graduate student
perceptions of task engagement to enhancelearning conditions. International Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 1-18.
Retrieved from epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=cps_fac
Dev, P.C. (1997). Intrinsic motivation and academic
achievement: What does their relationship imply
for the classroom teacher? Remedial and Special
Education, 18(1), 12-19.
Dornyei, Z & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching andresearching motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow,
England: Pearson Education Limited.
Pintrich, P. & Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in
education: Theory, research and applications,
Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New
York, NY: Wiley.

Author’s Biography:
Paul Notebaart Nehls is an Assistant Professor at Yokohama City University. He holds an MA in
Applied English Linguistics from the University of Wisconsin – Madison.

284 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Teacher’s Manuals: The Bridge Between
Teachers and Authors

Azusa Sato
Tokyo University of Scienceazusa.sato.homer@gmail.com
Teachers sometimes spend lots of time figuring out how to use their textbooks before they use
them in class. Teacher’s manuals may be able to help teachers understand textbooks better. Using
textbooks effectively is essential. However, misunderstandings about the intended use of the
textbooks are something that both teachers and authors want to avoid. This workshop looked at
how teacher’s manuals can act as a bridge between the teachers that use the textbook and the authorsthat write them. We discussed the perspective from three different perspectives: those of the teacher,the author and the publisher.
テキストを使う時、教師はまずテキストを理解するために、多くの時間を割きます。
そして、自分のやりやすいように、
またクラスのレベルに合うように、
テキストの問題の順番を変えたり、練習問題に手を加えたり、あるいは他の教材を追加することもあるでしょう。
テキストを使うことは、実際多くの時間を必要とします。
そのときに役立つのが教授用書のはずです。
テキストの解答だけではなく、たくさんの情報やアイデア、
そして著者の思いが詰まっています。
教授用書がどのように役に立つのか、
このワークショップでは教師、著者、出版社の３つの立場から考えます。

Teacher’s manuals are the bridge between teachers
and textbooks. One of the main purposes of ateacher’s manual is to provide answer keys, but theyoften contain a lot of other information as well. For
example, they usually include information about
the aims of the textbook, its structure, audio scripts,
and advice on how to teach the various sections.
Sometimes, they also include additional exercises,
for example, on how to develop each activity more
fully, extra homework ideas, unit tests, term exams,
and even information about online resources.
*

Sato, A. (2014). Teacher’s manuals: The bridge
between teachers and authors. In R. Chartrand, G.
Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp. 285-288).
Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

Teacher’s manuals are also the bridge between theirauthors and the teachers who use them. Information
about the background of the author and the foreword
help teachers understand what the author had in mind
when making the text, and why the author made thetext in the first place. Reading about the author’s
ideas and research results and how this informationinfluenced the text can be useful and even inspirational
for teachers. Understanding an author’s teaching
philosophy and educational goals can help teachers
make using a textbook more enjoyable, and in the bestcases a good teacher’s manual can really support theteachers that use them.
At the same time, I sometimes wonder to what
extent teachers really use these manuals. What exactly
should a teacher’s manual contain? Do teachers benefit
from having a teacher’s manual? Do authors think
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

285

Sato
carefully enough about the design and content of theirteacher’s manuals? I’ve been involved in the textbook
publishing industry for more than ten years, and these
are the questions I have been asking myself for sometime now.
There are at least two reasons for why I started
thinking about teacher’s manuals. The first reason isthat I often received questions about teaching manuals
from teachers when I worked as a representative of an
English textbook publisher. Teachers often contacted
us to ask questions about the textbooks that they wereusing, or to request extra material. Sometimes they
asked questions even though the answers to thosequestions were contained in the teacher’s manual. For
example, I often spoke to teachers that did not realizethat the teacher’s manual had the answer keys until thesemester was almost over! The second reason is that I
have also worked as a textbook designer, which meansthat I have experience working with textbook authors.
These authors often have very specific ideas about whatshould be contained in the manual, and it is sometimes
difficult for publishers to include all of this material.
Knowing both the needs of the teachers as well as
author’s ideas and opinions, I have learned that it is not
as easy as you might think to decide what the format
should be and what information should be included.

The workshop
The purpose of the workshop described in thispaper was to discuss how teacher’s manuals could be
improved. I believe that when teachers, authors, andpublishers all agree about what a teacher’s manual
should be, teachers will be able to use them more
effectively. In addition, authors will have a better ideaof what sort of information will be the most useful forthe teachers. Publishers also will be able to create better
guidelines for authors in order to make textbooks
easier for teachers to understand and use.
Seven current English teachers participated in thisworkshop. Five out of seven have experience in writing
and publishing their own textbooks.
Given the three perspectives associated withmaking teacher’s manuals, this workshop was divided
into three sections each representing one of theperspectives: teachers, publishers, and authors. The use

286 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

and the purpose of the teacher’s manual were discussed
from each point of view, and these discussions are
summarized below. At the end, ideas generated ineach section were summarized with the help of theparticipants. The total duration of the workshop was
sixty minutes.

Teacher’s perspective
The first question we discussed was how teachers usually
go about selecting textbooks for their classes, and themain factors they consider when choosing a textbook.
Some of the participants look at publishers’ catalogs
and ask for inspection copies or go to publishers’
booths at conferences to get information, while others
ask their colleagues for recommendations. All of theparticipants mentioned that the both the target level
and the type of content are important factors, and eachparticipant believed that that the level of textbook
should match the level of students Finally, everyone
felt that the content should be appropriate for the class.
The participants also said that they usually thought
carefully about whether the textbook would help theirstudents achieve the goals of the class.
The next question we discussed was whether theparticipants use extra material such as the teacher’smanual, answer keys, extra activities, and attached online
resources. Most of the participants said that usually,
they only use answer keys and read the introductionsof how the textbooks are organized and structured.
One participant said that if teachers can understandthe textbook just by reading the introduction, thenit is a good textbook. Other participants felt that theadditional information in the teacher’s manuals issometimes helpful, but they do not use it very much.
The conclusion of the group was that extra information
like this is not a total waste because teachers may use
some of it; however, many of the participants said
that they found a lot of information overwhelming.
In particular, one or two participants said that large
teacher’s manuals are too heavy to carry around, andthat they felt that many teachers wouldn’t use them forthis reason. These participants said that they preferredto have small guides that only contained the answer
keys. When asked about other materials, they said
that they usually add their own material from outside

Teacher’s Manuals, pages 285-288
the text anyway, so they do not need supplementarymaterials in the manual itself. Another point that was
raised was that many of the participants do not use theentire textbook; instead, they only take certain sections
from it. Finally, some of the participants mentionedthat sometimes the teacher’s manuals contain a lot ofmaterials in Japanese. If this material is not translated
into English, then it is difficult for teachers that cannot
read Japanese to use this material.

Author’s perspective
The first question for this part of the discussion was
where authors get their ideas for writing textbooks. The
participants who had published their own textbooks
said their ideas came from their own experiences
teaching in the classroom. Some of their activities
had been inspired from the textbook as they use it
in class. They often tried out part of the textbook bythemselves, or they asked other teachers to try it. If thereaction from the students and any other teachers thatused this material was positive, this encouraged theteachers to organize these materials into a book that
could be published.
When asked about supplementary materials, theparticipants with publishing experience said that when
they wrote textbooks, they thought of making answer
keys, but not the other information and activities. For
them, the focus was on making the textbook itself. Twoof the participants that had experience publishing a
textbook said that prior to publishing their textbooks,
they gave a rough draft of their materials to otherteachers to try. Even though they believed that they
had enough instructions for how to use the material,
these teachers asked them many questions, and thislead to improvements in both the material and the
instructions. Some of the participants said that theysometimes could not understand how to use someof the activities they found in the textbooks, and in
those cases they would look at the teacher’s manual
for information. One participant said that whenever
he had a chance, he would try to meet the author of
textbooks that he particularly liked. He did this to try
to get more information about how to use the textbook
more effectively. The section concluded with a short
discussion about how even though authors think theirinstructions on how to use textbooks are clear and easy
to follow, the reality is that teachers still have trouble
understanding what the intentions of the author were.

Publisher’s perspective
In the final section, we looked at the publisher’s
perspective. Without any hesitation, participants
believed that the primary reason why publishers
publish textbooks is for money. This raised thequestion of whether the publishers are really trying
to be a bridge between the authors and teachers. The
consensus from the participants was that publishers are
not thinking of teacher’s benefits, but their own. The
example they used to support this was their productcatalog. Product catalogs usually only contain picturesof the textbooks cover and short descriptions; as aresult they do not contain enough information forteachers to understand the purpose of the textbook or
the content. Consequently, teachers have to contact
the publisher in order to get more information orreceive an inspection copy and this was viewed as
being somewhat devious. Many of the participants
believe that this suggests that the publishers are notvery committed to helping teachers understand what
the authors are trying to do in the textbook.
On the other hand, one or two of the participantsargued that in fact publishers are trying to create better
textbooks and better teacher’s manuals. In addition,some publishers are working hard to develop newtechnology to support their textbooks. For example,
many teachers are using computers and tablet
computers in the classroom, and some publishers aremaking their content available on these platforms.
One example that was viewed favorably by theparticipants was having the teacher’s manual in PDF,
or as an online guide. Another was having audio tracks
as downloadable MP3 files; this was viewed as being
convenient both for teachers and for students. Other
examples included are extra videos, collaborative
online platforms such as Blackboard or ItsLearning,or even just using email. All of the participants werepositive about these advances. However, it was clear
in the minds of at least some of the participants thatpublishers are not always looked on in a very favorable
light by either authors or teachers. This may be because
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

287

Sato
publishers are less focused on being a bridge between
authors and teachers, and more focused on selling
textbooks.

Conclusion
For most teachers, teacher’s manuals that are large incontents and comprehensive are helpful. The belief
was that they should contain as much information as
possible just in case such material is needed. On theother hand, some teachers prefer teacher’s manuals
to be as simple as possible so that they can spend aminimum amount of time to understand the textbooks
and use parts where they want in order to combinewith other materials they have.
From the author’s point of view, the teacher’smanual is a representation of authors’ ideas about
how to use the material. However, it seems that theintentions of the author are not always immediately
clear to other teachers. One thing that can make theconnection between the authors and the teachers
stronger is for the author to provide the material toother teachers before publishing the textbook. Having
other teachers use the textbook and give the author
feedback helps the author to prepare a better teacher’smanual that is more appropriate and easier to use.
Finally, the general consensus was that mostpublishers are out to make as much money as
possible and that this sometimes overrides the needsof both the authors and the teachers. As a result, it
sometimes appeared to the participants that financial
considerations were determining what kind of
information ends up in the teachers’ manuals.
What the participants agreed on though was that
putting teacher’s manuals online could help to resolve
some of these problems. Teachers can then only lookat the information that they need when they need it,
and material could be updated much more quickly.
More importantly, for those teachers bringing laptop
computers or tablets to their classes, this would
eliminate the need to carry around heavy texts.
It was clear from this workshop that there wasa gap between the needs of the teachers, authors
and publishers of textbooks. Teacher’s manuals cansometimes help to bridge these gaps, but there aredefinitely issues with how teacher’s manuals are createdtoday. However, it also seemed clear that there is adefinite potential for new technologies to resolve someof these issues.

Author’s Biography:
Azusa Sato has been working in the textbook publishing industry for more than ten years. She iscurrently teaching English at Tokyo University of Science and Ferris University.

288 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Teaching Speaking: Content and Methodology

John Campbell-Larsen
Momoyama Gakuin University
joncamlar@hotmail.com
Findings from the study of corpora (E.g. O’Keefe, McCarthy, Carter, 2007) and from the field ofConversation Analysis (e.g. Schegloff, 2007) have shown that spoken language differs markedly
from written language in lexis and grammar and functions on a level of interactive, emergent
meaning. This paper will highlight some of these key features of spoken language and briefly describe
classroom implementation. The paper will conclude by suggesting that a small number of items arecentral to all spoken interaction and should be thoroughly taught to learners.
コーパス(O’Keefe, McCarthy, Carter, 2007 )と言語分析(Schegloff, 2007)の研究結果によると、会話言語と文書言語では相互の語彙や文法の機能の果たし方は全く異なる。本文は会話学習方法での、いくつかの重要な特徴を簡潔に説明している。学習者に難解であるこれらのアイテムを使用した、会話のやりとりを提案し本文を締めくくる。

Usually, we ask if a person can speak a language as
speaking seems to lie at the heart of what we consider
language ability to be. Consequently, in learning aforeign language, speaking is, or should be, the central
skill.
Speaking is a broad term that covers multiple
different activities. Giving lectures or presentations
is certainly speaking, but equally certainly, does not
figure prominently in most people’s daily languageuse. Likewise, the kinds of activities that are associatedwith notional-functional syllabi, such as orderingin a restaurant, and so on, account for a very small
proportion of daily speaking. The speaking that does
occupy most of our language use is that of conversation,
face-to-face interaction in real time. Wong and Waring(2010, p. 1) state; “The importance of conversation
as the foundation of all language learning cannot be*

Campbell-Larsen, J. (2014). Teaching speaking:Content and methodology. In R. Chartrand, G.
Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp. 289-294).
Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

overstated.” So, in saying that speaking is the primarylanguage skill, I mean interaction. Schegloff (2007)
states that in order to avoid the connotations oftriviality associated with the term conversation, thepreferred term is “talk-in-interaction.”
Not only is interaction central to the external,social world, it is also characteristic of “language in thehead” Langacker (2008) states; “In no small measure,
our verbal thought takes the form of an imagined
dialogue, if only with ourselves.”(p.459).
If the centrality of spoken language is granted, and
it is further granted that this mostly takes the form of
dialogic interaction, then it follows that for language
teachers, a central aim of our teaching should be toenable learners to engage in interaction in the target
language.

Speaking in the Here and Now
Even the briefest overview of language will confirm
that written language is not spoken languagetransferred to the page, nor is spoken language simply
written language read out loud. Such is the nature of
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

289

Campbell-Larsen
talk-in-interaction that it was not practically possible
to investigate its contours and tease out its empiricalstrands before the advent of two key technologies.
The first was the availability of reliable recording
equipment, such as digital video cameras. The second
was the development of computing power that enabledresearchers to analyze large amounts of data in corpora.
Since the development of these technologies it has
become clear that far from being too disordered andchaotic to yield any useful insights into language, daily
talk-in -interaction has delicate structures which exist
on a largely subconscious level. These structures allow
participants to co-create meaning and social identity,
and thus achieve at one and the same time the creationof mutually intelligible propositions about the world
and also carry out the far more important task ofphatic interaction. In Conversational Analysis (CA)terms participants talk a world into being in the hereand-now and then position themselves within it.

Teaching Speaking
Previous generations, lacking the technologies
mentioned above, can be forgiven for relying on
intuition, concocted examples and recourse to written
texts as a basis for second language (L2) teaching.
Happily, we are on firmer ground now when we makeassertions about how speakers actually speak a given
language. Although there is a wide and varied literatureon what constitutes spoken language, and many
findings are somewhat fractal-edged, the following
sections will outline some key points.

MarkingMarking is central to spoken language. Use ofcommon markers (sometimes called smallwords) isa key indicator of fluency (Hasselgreen, 2004). The
frequency of common markers such as “Well”, “Youknow”, and “I mean” is extremely high. McCarthy(2010) citing corpus evidence, places these words in the
top 15 in spoken English use. Although Hasselgreen’s
definition of small words states they do not contributeto the meaning, it is clear that they often perform vitalroles in talk-in-interaction. For example, Schegloff andLerner (2009) detail the role of “well” in its position as

290 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

an opener in response to a “Wh” question, and in thisplace it signals non-straightforwardness in answering.
These markers are often uttered more quickly and more
quietly than the surrounding discourse.
The role of markers in speaking can be likened topunctuation in writing. A teacher would immediately
give a failing grade to any piece of student writing thatwas devoid of punctuation, no matter how skillful thegrammar and lexis use was. Speaking without marking
should be seen as equally deviant.

Backchanneling
Listeners do not remain silent while the other takes
a turn. Rather, they make brief utterances at certain
places to signal a variety of important interactional
meanings; understanding, agreement, surprise,
continued acceptance of other’s speakership andso on. This kind of language is commonly termed“backchannel” (Yngve, 1970). For Japanese students ofEnglish there are two separate issues when it comes tothis aspect of language. The first is the use of silence
as an interactional resource, and the second is theunconscious reversion to Japanese style backchannel,
termed Aizuchi in Japanese (Locastro, 1987) during
English-speaking interactions. Perhaps because
Japanese Aizuchi are often non-lexical in nature, (Ehh,
Uhnn, etc) whereas English backchannels (or receipt
tokens as they are sometimes called) are often lexical(I see, yeah, right, really) it may be hard for Japanese to
break away from the unconscious uttering of Aizuchi
during English speaking. Nonetheless, students must
be oriented towards using the English versions andavoiding the Japanese versions, otherwise, although
one party may be speaking English, the other party canbe said to be listening in Japanese.

Vague Language
Channel (1994) makes the point that non native
speakers of English can often sound pedantic or overliteral in their language. This is because of a tendencyof native speakers to be purposefully vague. Numbers,
amounts, times, prices and so on are often not given
in precise terms. Two or three people go out for a
few drinks, plans are made to meet at six-ish, they
will spend twenty or thirty dollars on dinner, andTeaching Speaking: Content and Methodology, pages 289-294
probably be back at twelve, twelve thirty. These kindsof language use are typical and teachable. Channel(1994) investigates some of the internal structuringof these vague expressions. For example one can say“twenty or thirty dollars” but not usually “thirty or
twenty dollars.” Nor can one go beyond particularscales of amount vagueness. It is not usual to say “tenor thirty people came to the party.”
Related to the use of vagueness in amounts there
is also a wide variety of expressions which are termed“vague category markers,” such as “something like
that,” “and stuff,” and “or anything.” These kinds ofitems serve a variety of functions. McCarthy (2010)
states that they have a “marked tendency to trigger
speaker change” and also fill a larger social function inthat they “invite the listener to fill in absent membersof categories from shared knowledge” (2010, p8),
creating a convergent epistemic world within which
the interactants can position themselves.

Assessments and Upgrades.
The theme of convergence is also a feature of theways in which interactants give assessments andreact to assessments. Pomerantz (1984) discusses thepreferred status of agreements to disagreements ingiving assessments. One manner in which agreements
are done in conversation is by upgrade of the originalassessment using limit adjectives. “Cold” can be
upgraded to “freezing,” “dirty” to “filthy” and so on.
Pomerantz states that “upgraded agreements often
occur as parts of clusters of agreements” (1984, p, 66).
In Japanese spoken interaction, agreement is often
done with repetition. Assessment that today is samui(cold) will be agreed with by repetition, possibly witha tag (Samui desu ne? ‘Yes, it’s cold, isn’t it?’). In tests
carried out by the author, students’ knowledge of limit
adjectives is often limited. This constitutes a noticeable
gap in learners’ vocabulary and pragmatic awareness.
In addition to upgrade of assessment, anotherfeature of spoken English is the use of hedging devices
to make assessments, especially negative or potentiallyface-threatening assessments, less blunt. Common
hedges include “sort of,” “a little bit,” “kind of,” and“a bit.” Like discourse markers, these are pronounced
as hearable chunks, often spoken slightly quicker andslightly quieter than the surrounding discourse. So
rather than charting a middle course in which winterdays are cold, they could be absolutely freezing, or justkind of cold. A test might be absolutely impossible ora bit hard, and so on. A world in which assessments arenever upgraded or hedged leads to language which is
described by McCarthy (1991, p53.) as “bland,” “flat”
and “jejune.”

Reported Speech
The centrality of reported speech in daily conversation
can hardly be overstated. Bakhtin writes that, “Thetransmission and assessment of the speech of others,
the discourse of another, is one of the most widespreadand fundamental topics of human speech” (1992,
p.337).
The sentiment is echoed by McCarthy, “…it is hard
to imagine a day of our lives when we do not at somepoint support our discourse with direct or indirectreference to someone else’s words. It is equally hard
to imagine, therefore, any second language pedagogy
claiming real adequacy that did not take the matter ofspeech reporting very seriously and give it a place in thesyllabus” (1998, p.150).
Reported speech is typically dealt with from thepoint of view of backshifting of tenses, but backshifting
is not a central feature of reported speech and native
speakers often do not backshift in their reports in allcases. However, one problem that does present itself
to learners is the semantics and syntax of the reported
speech verbs, “say,” “speak,” “talk,”and “tell.” Dirven,
Goossens, Putseys, and Vorlat (1982) devote 171 pages
to descriptions of the syntax and semantics of thesewords. Clearly, this level of detail is not appropriate
for most language learners, and in any case, is beyond
Table 1
Reported Speech Verbs
Say

Report information, listener optional.

Speak

Report topic, listener optional.

Talk

Report topic: listener optional.

Tell

Report topic or information, listenernecessary.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

291

Campbell-Larsen
the intuition of most native speakers. However, a basic
schema of the four words can be presented as seen in
Table 1.
This basic description of the verbs (and it isconceded that other important senses exist) serves toraise awareness that there is a deal of optionality inthe verb choice, depending on whether the reporter
wishes to report topic or information, to mention alistener or not. McCarthy (2008) also reports thatthe past continuous is a prominent tense in reporting
episodes. Taken together, this can lead to naturalistic
utterances such as “I was talking to my friends about
work and I was telling them that I’m going to quit.” Oralternately, “I was talking about quitting my job.” Or,“I was saying to Jim that I’m going to quit my job.” It
is argued here that rather than nestling in the syllabus
between passives and perfect tenses, reported speech,
its grammar and syntax, should be a prominent andrecurring feature in ongoing teaching of the spoken
language.
These few items seem to be important for theteaching of spoken English for several reasons.
Firstly, items such as marking and backchannelingare specific to the spoken form of the language. Evenin language textbooks, these forms are often absent
from the conversations that illustrate language usage.
Hasselgreen (2010) comments that,“ …dialogues incourse books still tend to be cleansed of many of the very
words and phrases that characterize living dialogue”(p.23). If a student’s exposure to English comes mainly
from textbook dialogues, then it will be no surprisethat spoken markers do not feature in their language
output. Secondly, marking and backchanneling seemto exist on a largely subconscious level of linguistic
awareness. Or, if the awareness becomes conscious, it
may carry negative assessments. Watts (1989) suggeststhat speakers may judge use of discourse markers
negatively, but comments that, “Paradoxically, speakers
seem entirely unaware of the fact that and the extent towhich they themselves make use of discourse markers”(p. 203).
A further reason why the language referred toabove is important, is that it operates on the interactive
level. Language users do much more than makepropositional statements about the objective world

292 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

or conduct transactional business. The central use of
spoken language is that of interaction, of constructing
turns based on the prior speaker’s turn, of creating andmaintaining social bonds, avoiding conflict, saving facethrough politeness strategies and co-constructing ashared, social reality. The language referred to above isvital in contributing to this alignment. Regardless ofthe topic of conversation or any transactional businessat hand, marking, backchanneling, assessments andapproximation will likely figure in the unfolding
discourse. The attainment of native-like proficiency
in the target language is tacitly acknowledged by most
students and their teachers as being an unrealistic goal.
However, certain language goals are seen as being
within reach. Cook (1989) comments that, “…if the
difficulty with conversation classes is widespread, so
too is the desire of students to converse successfully inthe language they are learning” (p.116).
The above section described some findings from
Corpus Linguistics and Conversation Analysis thatare recurrent in all talk-in-interaction. There are manyother important findings but lack of space precludes
further description here. The business of how to teachstudents these kinds of items is addressed below.

Classroom PracticeFirstly, it must be stated clearly that while marking,backchanneling and so on can be the central topics
of an entire lesson or series of lessons, they must also
figure as a constant backdrop to all lessons, regardlessof the main ‘target’. To this end, the establishment of atemplate turn structure that includes markers serves as
Table 2
Example of a Basic Expanded Turn Pattern
Step one

An opening marker or group of
markers; Well/ Actually

Step two

A statement

Step three

A marker: You know/ I mean

Step four

An expansion

Step five

A closing marker; You know/ You knowwhat I mean/ Something like that

Teaching Speaking: Content and Methodology, pages 289-294
Table 3
Unrehearsed Conversation Showing Marking
01
02

A: Well, eh, what kind of car do you want todrive?

03

B: Well, actually I, I’d like to drive a small car

04

A: Yes

05
06

B: You know, like I mean, I can’t maybe big,
drive big car

07

A: Yeah08
09

B: you know, like Alpha, Estima something
like that you know?

10

A: Yesa solid foundation for students to habituate themselves
to using the markers unconsciously. The turn structureis outlined in Table 2.
Habituation to this kind of template can lead to
student speaking which is much more naturalistic thanis often the case. Consider the transcript of unrehearsed
dialogue in Table 3 between two students who had
been habituated to this utterance template.
Students must be given ample opportunity toengage in speaking in the class, and the teacher must
make efforts to monitor speaking and provide real-timecommentary on the ongoing discourse and interject
when necessary to encourage use of the necessary
language. At turn openings, closings or during pauses
the teacher as an over hearer says (or whispers) thetarget word(s) to the student. Habituation leads toan intermediate phase where students engaging in
speaking, with the teacher as over hearer, will selfcorrect and insert relevant markers or backchannel,
usually accompanied by gaze shift to the teacher.
Finally, insertion of markers and backchannels becomes
habitual and automatic, but may still have elements ofpatchiness, especially when students think the teacher
is elsewhere engaged. A similar process of repeated andpersistent monitoring and correction will also lead tothe automatic use of vague terms, hedged or upgradedassessments and backchannels.

Conclusion
One view of language teaching may define
accuracy as the ability to manipulate lexis and morphosyntatcical elements at the level of the sentence toproduce language which would be acceptable as
written language. This paper proposes a wider viewof accuracy, namely, a view which enables learners tobe accurate interlocutors by habituating them to use a
relatively small number of spoken forms during talk-ininteraction. Or, to phrase it in spoken terms: “Well, youknow, I was saying that it’s kind of difficult to decide
what to teach. I mean, I’ve taught students how to use
the past tense, and stuff like that, but, you know, they
still sound kind of strange when they speak. Anyways,
I think that focusing on four or five key things and justkeep doing them, really works, you know?”

References
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. (C.
Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans). Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.
Channel, J. (1994). Vague language. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Dirven, R. Goossens, L. Putseys, Y. and Vorlat, E.
(1982). The scene of linguistic action and its
perspectivization by speak, talk, say and tell.
Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Hasselgreen, A. (2004). Testing the spoken English
of young Norwegians: A study of test validity
and the role of “smallwords” in contributing topupil’s fluency. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Langacker, R.W. (2008) Cognitive grammar: abasic introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Locastro, V. (1987). Aizuchi: A Japaneseconversational routine. In Smith, L.E. (Ed.),
Discourse across cultures: strategies in world
Englishes (pp. 101-113). London, England:
Prentice Hall.
McCarthy, M.J. (2010). Spoken fluency revisited.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

293

Campbell-Larsen
English Profile Journal, 1(1), 1-15.
McCarthy, M.J. (1998). Spoken language and applied
linguistics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
McCarthy, M.J. (1991). Discourse analysis for language
teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
O’Keefe, A., McCarthy, M, J., & Carter, R. (2007).
From corpus to classroom: Language use andlanguage teaching. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing
with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson, & J.
Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies
in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101).Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequence organization ininteraction: A primer in conversation analysis,(Vol. 1). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Schegloff, E, A. and Lerner, G, H. (2009). Beginning
to respond: Well prefaced responses to Whquestions. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 42(2), 91-115.
Watts, R.J. (1989). Taking the pitcher to the ‘well’:Native speaker’s perception of their use of
discourse markers in conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics, 13, 203-237
Wong, J. & Waring H,Z. (2010). Conversation
analysis and second language pedagogy. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Yngve, V. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise.
Papers from the sixth regional meeting, Chicago
Linguistics Society (pp. 567-577). Chicago, IL:
Chicago Linguistic Society.

Author’s Biography:
John Campbell-Larsen received his MA TESOL from Birmingham University and currently
teaches in Osaka. His main research interest is spoken language.

294 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Testing People: A History of a Placement Test

Myles Grogan
Momoyama Gakuin University
myles1000sei@gmail.com
This paper considers how teacher and administrative perceptions of a university placement test
evolved over time. The narrative follows five years of change for a placement instrument used to sort
more than 3,000 students every year. Although a knowledge of testing has been important, it has
been the building of a community in the test development process that has been key in the successof the current test. This paper explores how teachers collaborated to produce the test in its current
form (based around Davidson & Lynch, 2002), and uses four episodes to examine how the testdevelopment community reached its current level of success.
本稿では、大学のクラス分けテストに対する、教師や大学管理の認識について考察する。
毎年３，０００人以上の学生をレベル分けする為のテストが、５年の間に変化してきた様子を解説した。
テスト・評価の知識が重要であったが、現在のテストの成功により重要であったのは、​​テスト開発プロセスにおける大学のコミュニティであった​​。教師陣がどのように協力し（Davidson ＆Lynch、2002をベースにした）、
４つのエピソードを元にテスト開発コミュニ
ティが現在の状態に達するまでを探る。

Tests are made by people. These people havedifferent perspectives, and desire different
outcomes from those same tests. The relationshipbetween the people in the testing process istherefore of paramount importance in developinga test. This is part of what is covered in Testcraft,
the seminal work by Davidson and Lynch (2002).
This article relates to the ongoing developmentof a placement instrument in a mid-level private
university in Japan. The purpose of this article is
to look at factors besides measurement of language
abilities that shape the way this instrument wasmaintained and adopted.
This paper represents a history of five years for aplacement instrument used to sort more than 3,000

students every year, and documents the process ofchange within that history. Although a knowledge oftesting has been important, it has been the buildingof a community in the test development process thathas been key in the success of the current test. Aftera brief introduction of the environment, I give atimeline of the instrument, and introduce the starting
position for those involved in putting the instrument
together. Next, I consider theoretical issues. Following
this, I introduce some critical incidents in the testdevelopment process, and try to illustrate key learnings
from these points. These incidents had great bearing on
the perceptions of the instrument within the school.
Finally, I discuss some of the ways the instrument
combines with broader issues in the school.

Grogan, M. (2014). Testing people: A history of aplacement test. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter,& M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference
Proceedings (pp. 295-300). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

Environment**

The testing instrument is mostly for non-English
majors at a private Liberal Arts university in Kansai,
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings295

Groganwith most learners being false beginners. Four out offive faculties give compulsory English classes over two
years, with the fifth completing all credits in a single
year. Most students will take two classes per semester,
one taught by a Japanese English teacher, and anotherby a non-Japanese English teacher.
Although a curriculum exists, it is not a strict
curriculum, and assessment is generally left up to
individual teachers. The instrument in this article istherefore normative. Students are ranked by test score,
and then divided into groups in order of score for agiven slot in the timetable. There are no pre-conditions
to acceptance on the program, nor any level-specificrequirements in terms of a study program.
Most language programs are run through theLanguage Centre, an inter-faculty agency providingclasses for members of the various faculties. Theinter-faculty committee responsible for the Language
Centre is generally made up of revolving members
from the client faculties. Members generally
serve two years. Similarly, members of the school
administration change, although generally with lessfrequency. Committee members, including the Centre
Director, are not required to have any TESOL-related
knowledge or qualifications. The net result is that the
management of the language programs has a shortinstitutional memory, and decisions may have to be revisited from time to time.

A Brief Timeline
The current placement instrument replaced a big “test”,
developed when the current Language Centre was set
up, prior to the employment of the author. The original
test had all the hallmarks of a high-stakes test. Mostly
for reasons connected to the logistics of testing up to2000 people more-or-less simultaneously, the decision
was taken to make the test for incoming students a mailhome test for incoming first year students. Students
progressing to their second year would take the test inclass, or be assigned a time in which to take the test
if they did not attend class. This was implemented forthe 2008/9 academic year, and involved considerable
test re-design. The new instrument passed throughcommittee on the following grounds:•• The new instrument was easier to administer,

296 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

and much easier to follow up on if students did
not do it.
•• Having students take the test in their own time
fosters personal reliability and autonomy.
The new test was lightly analyzed and some items
changed following the first delivery. The test was
generally considered a success. Although the new
testing instrument did not have a listening section, thetest was felt to be giving sufficient information for the
purpose of dividing people by general English ability.

Some Principles for the Test
The new instrument is considered a low stakes
instrument. No one taking the test is going to lose aplace if they perform poorly, nor will opportunities bedenied. Indeed, one problem with the former test wasparticipation, in that the last test under the old system
had less than a 90% attendance rate. Those who did notattend were simply placed in mid- to low-level classes,
regardless of their level. The main consequence of
misplacement is therefore motivational. Being placed
too high may make the classes too challenging, and too
low may be too boring.
When talking about test development, somekind of template is often referred to in applying aparticular theoretical approach to reliability andvalidity. For example, Bachman and Palmer (1996)
refer to blueprints, and Davidson and Lynch (2002)
refer to specs (and this term is the one used in ourown process). More recently, Fulcher & Davidson(2009) have extended this to include a metaphor ofarchitecture. Such underlying principles, approaches,and models of language underpinning the process oftest development help to produce quality testing.
Unfortunately, the teaching team that createdthis new instrument was largely unaware of this bodyof work. The primary focus was on face-validity. We
were asked to rewrite the multiple forms of the test
by a process of reverse engineering, in order to createa test with a similar feel to the previous instrument.
Experience with testing among the teachers doing
the revisions was in short supply, and little help wasforthcoming elsewhere. Although all teachers had
MAs in the field, none of them had studied testing per
se as part of their various programs. This meant that

Testing People, pages 295-300
there was a substantial lack of knowledge with regard
to issues in test creation and analysis.
That situation has changed, however. The teachersof the Language Centre have been able to develop a
more conscious knowledge base of how to design tests,
evaluate concepts such as reliability, and to modify tests
using data from the results. Besides the purely statistical
approach to the effectiveness of items, other data is
being sought. In particular, all teachers of Language
Centre classes (not simply those on fulltime contracts)
have recently been given access to placement data,
including copies of the test itself and results from their
specific students for the first time. Teachers’ feedback
on how well classes are divided is being sought and usedin the design process. In addition, curriculum review
work being done at present is helping to tie classroom
work and the placement process where possible.

reliability were good.
A final barrier was the amount of data for processing
and the format it arrived in. When it arrived, the data
was spread over several pages of a workbook, withspaces between each test-taker. Although I am now
reasonably adept at skills such as removing blank lines
and filling blank cells, acquiring these skills was aprocess of trial, error, and frustration.

Episode 1 – First Analysis

Episode 2 – Paralysis

Following the results of the first test, methods weresought to find out if the test was a good test. Among
the Language Centre teachers, however, educational
assessment had at best been optional on most of the
MA programs attended by members, and no one had astrong background in testing. Follow-up on test design
was not required, but left as an option for teachers.
The data from the test itself took some time toget, but finally arrived in the form of a spreadsheet,with four years of data from the old test as well. The
format of the spreadsheet did not lend itself to easy
manipulation. Statistical packages such as SPSS were
not available to us and prohibitively expensive to buy.
Although the desire to analyse the test was strong, it
did not look like there was a simple way to do it.
After some time and effort, a short, simple, helpful
paper was found to get us started (Elvin, 2003). This
paper gave a simple guide to the steps of test analysis
with nine fictitious students. Analysis used Excel,
meaning no complex software was needed and most
calculations were fairly simple. Although concepts such
as Item Facility and Item Discrimination were easily
grasped, the paper simply showed how to calculatereliability and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM).
Many questions remained, such as what kind ofreliability we should be aiming at, or what measures ofDespite being unsure of ideal targets for reliability or
SEM, I was able to produce a list of items that seemed towork and items that definitely needed changing for thesecond year of the test. After announcing these, I was
asked to make the changes I had identified. Although
this request was flattering and the work rewarding, thetest was essentially a single-handed operation. While
students going into their second year would have seensome items before, there was a good balance of new
items, so the test still appeared fresh.
Results from the second year of testing were
presented to teachers shortly before the deadline for
production of the third year test. This particular year
had seen new teachers, new staff in the centre, and newpeople in management. Essentially, the editing of thetest had slipped under the radar. The general consensus
among the teachers was that there was insufficient timeto edit a low-stakes test. It was considered unlikely thatany given student would remember specific items. For
this reason, the second and third iteration of the test
were the same.
Students advancing to the second year were given
the test in class. Some teachers from these classes noted
the test items were the same, and thought that was
detrimental to students. Members of the management

Lessons Learned
Actually seeing how the process works on Excel wasinvaluable. Recently, tutorials on the processes foranalyzing test items have become easily available on
YouTube. J. D. Brown’s book on test analysis (Brown,2005) was a great help. More recently, books comewith CD ROMs and instructional video (e.g. Carr,2011).

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings297

Grogancommittee were also unhappy about the lack of change.

Lessons Learned
Because of the nature of contracts at the Language
Centre, it is hard for people on temporary contracts
to follow a test cycle. Other stakeholders had alsochanged that year, and the workflow of the centre hadsuffered disruption. A yearly plan of when certain tasks
can be expected will help to avoid particular times (notjust testing cycles!) from slipping under the radar.
Additionally, working in teams leads to a greaterawareness of when relevant items should appear onschedule. Some kind of “buddy” system helps everyone
to notice when schedules are not being kept.

Episode 3 – Good news
As soon as data was received for the 2011/2 iteration
first year students, I organized a professional
development workshop to take my colleagues throughthe basics of testing, using our own data as a base.
With a view to creating more skills for employment,
the workshop idea was welcomed. Participants hadvarying backgrounds in and beliefs about testing andstatistics. During the workshop, we followed a classicalmodel of testing, rather than using Item Response
Theory. Although the models are complementary, aclassical model can (in theory at least) be done witha calculator, and is much easier to grasp for those new
to testing.
Starting with some of the theoretical backgroundfor good testing, we were able to build a common
lexicon and core concepts. All participants
manipulated the items to produce Item Facility and
Item Discrimination scores, and were able to get as far
as calculating the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 for
reliability. Although we did not calculate the SEM forthe data we had, the idea was covered in theory.
When all the data for that iteration was available,
we were able to approach the test better as a team.
During a one-day session at the end of the 2012/13
spring semester, the workshop participants met again.
The instrument was re-designed, items changed, anda set of specs was recorded and made available to allparticipants via Moodle.

298 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Drawing on the testing theory and experience I had
developed addressing the test on my own, I facilitatedthis meeting. The day began with a discussion of
who was involved in the testing (from students toadministrators), the expectations of the test, andpotential issues to be raised and dealt with. After amorning of discussing these issues and designing thespecs, smaller teams were made and created specificparts of the test. In this way, we created all thecomponents of the final test quickly and efficiently.
The final test actually took a little longer thanplanned to construct, but the day was well received. The
notions underlying the test were all discussed within
the context of the existing curriculum and proposed
curriculum changes. Teachers reported that they had
been worried about spending a day working on testing,but were all pleased with the result. Knowledge of theway the test would be analyzed, along with hard datafrom the past, helped keep things concrete.
End-of-day feedback showed that having someone
knowledgeable about tests was useful. It was suggested
that, had we tried the same thing a few years earlier, theresults would have been counter-productive.

Lessons Learned
The testing cycle needs to be a visible and valued
part of a teaching team’s work. The initial impetus ofcreating marketable experiences in testing served toraise awareness and promote interest. Tying the test
to work that was ongoing or of interest to teachers
generally was also useful.
Additionally, my own experience and knowledge
was well-received. Although I am far from a testing
expert, I was able to focus the needs of the workshop
and facilitate good results that participants weresatisfied with. I should add that I would not have beenable to do this at the earlier iterations of the test. My
earlier frustration and failures had been channeled,and used to create to a generally positive result.

Episode 4 – Bad news?
Within a month or so of completing the test throughthe teacher workshop, I learned that members of theGeneral Affairs department were looking to purchaseTesting People, pages 295-300
a commercial test to replace the test we had just made.
The discovery of this news was made by accident.
It seems I had overlooked several important factors
contributing to the success of a test.
The process of the workshop for test creation, andthe use of Moodle for test specs, was a solution to thetesting problems as perceived by fulltime contract
teachers. The main objections to the test from theGeneral Affairs department was that the test is scoredin a single evening, when all data has to be checked
and re-checked. This is a stressful experience thatthey would prefer to pass on to others. In addition,
there is a perception that branded tests would allow
more communication between feeder schools and theuniversity. This can be used to show that students being
sent to the university are making progress.

Lessons Learned
A very important segment of stakeholders had been
overlooked in attempts to fix the instrument. More
importantly, that segment was a key decision makerin school processes. The General Affairs department
have their own set of needs which needed addressing.
In general, they were unaware of much of the processof change being undertaken, and had moved to address
the needs for test revision that they perceived.
Many of the issues raised are being addressed now,
including looking at the feasibility of making our own
test available online, feedback to students and schools
based on the test, and reviewing the curriculum in an
attempt to show progress to feeder schools and otherstakeholders.

Conclusion
The placement instrument at present shows areasonable level of reliability (alpha of 0.86, SEM
3.04). Most significantly, however, is that teachers feel
it is adequate at the job of putting students into groupsof similar ability. Added to the sense of ownership, andthe ability to change it to meet future curriculum goals,

the current instrument and process is being continued
for the present, while more work on curriculum isundertaken. The feasibility of continuing our own
placement test now rests on keeping it simple andpractical to administer.
More importantly, however, the discussion ofvalidity is now shifting as well. While much discussion
has been had on the placement validity, in order to show
feeder schools and other stakeholders it is effective, theemphasis of the validity argument is now shifting on
creating a validity argument for the curriculum.
The test has shown holes in the structure of theorganization of our systems, and we have been able touse the data to respond to the challenges presented. In
many ways, it has been a timely warning, highlighting
when problems were around. More than anything else,the history of this test has shown that a language centre
needs a team of people working together to address allneeds with assessment, rather than pure mechanicaltest-creation skill. The expertise in testing that wehave developed has been a big part of making a team.
It is the team itself, however, that makes a language
program stand or fall.

References
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language
testing in practice. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs.
New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Carr, C. T. (2011). Designing and analyzing language
tests. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Elvin, C. (2003). Test item analysis using Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet program. The Language
Teacher, 27(11), 13-18.
Fulcher, G. and Davidson, F. (2009). Test
Architecture, Test Retrofit. Language Testing,26(1), 123–144.
Lynch, B., & Davidson, F. (2002). Testcraft. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings299

Grogan

Author’s Biography:
Myles Grogan has been teaching for more than fifteen years. Besides testing, his research interests
include pronunciation, reading, and the use of computers in education.

300 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

The Effect of Vocabulary Use on EFL
Learners’ Writing Fluency

Mutahar Al-Murtadha
Kanazawa Institute ofTechnology, Japanmurtadha77@yahoo.com
Research has shown that L2 learners’ receptive vocabulary knowledge is larger than their productive
knowledge. However, students’ productive knowledge can be increased through both study
and practice. This study investigates Japanese university students’ progress in using vocabulary
productively over the course of one semester. Students produced 217 sentences containing
vocabulary they learned from a reading textbook. All the sentences were collected and examinedby the researcher, and issues such as fluency, correctness, comprehensibility, and creativity were
investigated. The results indicated that this productive activity improved students’ comprehensibility
and fluency.
L2学習者の受容語彙の知識の研究は、その生産性の知識よりも大きいことを示している。
しかし、学生の生産的な知識は、研究と実践の両方を通って増加させることができる。
この研究は、1学期の過程で生産的に語彙を使って、日本の大学の学生の進捗状況を調査します。学生は読書の教科書から学んだ語彙を含む217の文章を作成した。すべての文章を収集し、検討研究者によって、そのような流暢さ、正確さ、わかりやすさ、そして創造性などの問題を調べた。

Vocabulary development is a slow process that requires
both time and effort on the part of L2 learners.
It develops gradually from unknown to knowing
before having full mastery. According to Henriksen(1999), vocabulary knowledge is a multi-dimensional
construct with three dimensions: the partial to precise
dimension, the receptive-productive dimension andthe depth dimension.
This paper focuses on the receptive and productive
dimension. According to Waring (1997) and Webb*

Al-Murtadha, M. (2014). The effect of vocabulary use
on EFL Learners’ Writing Fluency. In R. Chartrand,
G. Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp. 301-305).
Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*(2008), receptive knowledge refers to L2 learners’ability to properly translate a word from L2 into L1
while productive knowledge refers to L2 learners’ability to give a specific L2 translation for an L1 word.
Schmitt (2010) and Nation (1990) define the receptive
knowledge as L2 learners’ ability to recognize boththe form and meaning of a word in either listening
or reading tasks and the productive knowledge as L2
learners’ ability to appropriately produce a word ineither speaking or writing. Receptive knowledge is,of course, a prerequisite for productive knowledge as
learners need to listen to or read the word before being
able to produce it.
Research literature indicates that L2 learners’
receptive vocabulary size is greater than theirproductive vocabulary size and that the gap between
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

301

Al-Murtadha
Table 1Analysis of the sentences
Unit

Correctness

Comprehensibility

Experience-based

7

17%

96%

12%

8

15%

97%

18%

9

17%

99%

17%

10

18%

99%

18%

these two sizes decreases with more language study andpractice (Laufer & Paribakht, 1998). Nation (1990)
reports that native speakers of English finish highschool with about 18000-20000 word families while
non-native speakers who finish high school or areenrolled in undergraduate or graduate programs haveabout 4000 word families. Nurweni & Read (1999)
reported that Indonesian university students have an
average of 1226 word families, and Shillaw (1995)
and Barrow Nakashimi and Ishino (1990) found thatJapanese students have an average of 2000-3000 wordfamilies. Nation (2010) argues that students need “the2000 most frequent words of English” ( p. 15) in order
to be able to pursue academic study because those2000 high frequency words cover about 80% of an
academic text. Although L2 learners tend to use highfrequency words from the 1000 to 2000 word level,
Lee and Munice (2006) found some improvementin L2 learners’ productive knowledge after 14 days ofpractice
The present study investigates L2 learners’ ability
to produce, in writing, vocabulary learned previously
at a Science and Technology university in Japan

Methodology
Participants in the study were science and technology
university students at a university in Japan. Students
took this course as a required course. Students
studied selected units from a reading textbook andencountered 10 new words in each unit. At the end ofeach reading unit, students were asked to form groupsof 3-5 and use new words in sentences from their own.
Each group was asked to create one sentence using
one word they learned previously. Then feedback

302 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

concerning grammar, comprehensibility, and meaning
was provided by the teacher and peers. All the sentenceswere collected and examined by the researcher, andissues such as fluency, correctness, comprehensibility,
creativity, etc. were investigated.

Results and Discussion
Students created sentences using vocabulary studied
in 4 units of the textbook. In total, students produced
217 sentences. Then, students’ sentences were analyzed
in terms of correctness (if the sentence is grammaticallycorrect), comprehensibility (if the sentence makes
sense), experience-based sentences (if the sentences
produced are related to students’ daily life rather thanthe content of the reading) and fluency (the time it
took students to produce the sentences).
Concerning correctness, it seems that there was nota significant change in students’ grammar knowledge
as a result of the regular feedback and error corrections
provided by the teacher.
There was a slight improvement in terms ofsentence comprehensibility. When the activity started,
4% of the sentences were incomprehensible but by
the end of the semester, only 1% of the sentences wereincomprehensible.
Concerning writing about the content or about
their experiences, when the activity started, students
wrote about the content rather that creating sentences
about their life experiences. Table 1 shows the results.
Concerning students’ fluency in producing
sentences, one thing that surprised the researcher was
the time it took for each group of three-four students
to finish creating one sentence at the beginning of thesemester. When the time average was calculated, itThe Effect of Vocabulary Use, pages 301-305
Table 2
Sample sentences produced by students

Word

Students’ sentence

Giant

I have seen a giant dinosaur in book.

Physically

Physically, some animals have a tail.

Appearance

She has a friendly appearance.

ExamineWe are examine to the dog.

was found that it took students 10 minutes to write
sentences on unit 7, 8 minutes to write sentences onunit 8, 4 minutes to write sentences on unit 9, and only
3 minutes to write sentences on unit 10. It is obviousthat the time needed to create sentences decreased
gradually from 10 minutes to 3 minutes. This could be
the result of productive practice.
When the activity started, it took students 10
minutes to produce only one sentence using new
vocabulary. This is a long time compared with thesimple sentences many students produced when
they started the activity. Table 2 shows some sample
sentences.
Obviously, it was hard for students to use new
vocabulary in sentences at the beginning of thesemester. Three groups of four-five students could noteven write one sentence. They seemed to think and try
a lot, but it was a hard task.
Why, I wondered, could many students perform
well in the vocabulary sections of the weekly
quizzes students took, but not in using vocabulary
to communicate? In the weekly quizzes, students
answered translation questions as well as fill-in-theblanks questions. Many could get the meaning right,
but when it came to using them in sentences, students
started struggling with this activity. This might be
one explanation as to why many students cannot
communicate with their teachers in English during
office hours. It is probable that many of these students
may have not received this kind of practice before.
However, students’ fluency in writing sentences
improved gradually with practice. The time it took
students to write sentences changed gradually from10 minutes on average at the beginning to 2 minutes

on average at the end of the semester. Students started
to become fluent in using new vocabulary in sentences
although the kinds and numbers of mistakes remained
almost the same in all units. But the purpose of thisactivity was fluency rather than accuracy. This shows
the importance of using the vocabulary in sentences
for fluency purposes.
Concerning the effect of the feedback received
from the teacher and peers, there was not a significant
change in the number of errors made by students. In
total, sentences about unit 7 contained 13 grammaticalmistakes, sentences on unit 8 contained 13 mistakes,
sentences on unit 9 also contained 13 mistakes, andsentences on unit 10 contained even more mistakes(15). In class, students received feedback on grammar
and usage, especially about basic grammar errors suchas tenses: deleting “s” or using –ing form of the verb
without verb to “be”, or adding prepositions. Table 3
shows samples of the mistakes students made whenusing verbs in sentences.
From the in-depth analysis of the sentences
produced by students, it was noticed that the numberof incomprehensible sentences decreased from 8 inunit 7 to 3 in unit 10. One sample sentence from unit
7 is “Gold is completely in gold materials.”
Looking at the correct sentences produced, it
was noticed that students moved from writing about
the content to producing sentences about their life
experiences. In unit 7 students wrote 25 sentences
about their life experiences compared to 40 sentencesin unit 10. Finally, when checking if some parts ofspeech were more difficult than others, it was noticed
that mistakes and difficulty depended on the word
itself rather than the part of speech of the word.

Conclusion
Based upon the results of this study, it is evident thatstudents’ productive knowledge can be increased
through both study and practice. Despite this study’s
limitations, it is still fair to conclude that using new
vocabulary in sentences seems to contribute positively
to improving students’ fluency, comprehensibility,
correctness and productive vocabulary knowledge
in general. The number of the incomprehensible
sentences decreased as a result of the use of this activity.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings303

Al-Murtadha
Table 3Sample mistakes across units
Class
No.

Unit 7

Unit 8

Unit 9Unit 10

ExamineAffectWarn

Indicate1

1EM3-4

The teacher examined
student’s number.

I was affected teacher.

2

1VA1-2I examined the lake.

Kobori was affected bysad news.

3

1BB1-2 I examined about dinosaurs.

I was affected by ateacher.

They warned you a Our future has indicate.
danger.

4

1EM1-2

Scientists examine cell of
human.

He was affected byTakeshi Kitano.

They warn
He indicated that toAmerican football practice baseball for her.
is danger.

5

1EE1-2I examine about dinosaur.

I was affected the book.

6

1EA1
1VE1

I examined about T. rex.

Company was affected The teacher warn us
by economic.
not to talk.

These number are
indicate to importantanswer.

7

1IC3-4I examine dinosaurs.

The problem affect her
life.

I warned to big
voice talk withthem.

I indicate the question’s
answer.

8

1ER1-2We are examine to the dog.

This medicine affectyou deeply.

South Korea wasThat symbol indicateswarning for North
freedom.
Korea’s attack.
The map indicate where
to go.

9

1EE3
1EI1

We examine the dinosaurs.

Soular panel affectecology.

Teachers warn
students to keep
the class rule.

The flag indicate that weare lose.

10

1IM1-2The scientist examine
dinosaur’s egg.

She was affected his
words.

I warned to run inpool side to him.

He indicated the sun.

11

1BC1-2

We examine the T. rex.

I was affected by mygrandfather.

He can warn
people.

My grandfather indicate
treasure.

This indicates that students’ productive knowledge
improved. The productive knowledge, according to
Schmitt (2010), is L2 learners’ ability to appropriately
produce a word in a sentence. Also students’ fluency
improved significantly as a result of using this activity.

304 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

A teacher can warn He indicated this logic.
students.
I warn to him.

I warn you.

The map indicate aplace of treasure.

Pyramid is indicate thatis tomb.

The study highly recommends this strategy after
each reading class. Through using this strategy in class,teachers can help their students move from receptive to
productive vocabulary learning. In classes with students
of varied ability, it is recommended to get students

The Effect of Vocabulary Use, pages 301-305
to work collaboratively in groups. When working ingroups, students can feel responsible towards their own
learning and can receive feedback from and negotiatewith other group members.

References
Barrow, J., Nakashimi, Y. & Ishino, H. (1999).
Assessing Japanese College students’ vocabularyknowledge with a self-checking familiarity survey.
System, 27, 223-247.
Henriksen, B. (1999). Three Dimensions of
Vocabulary Development. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21(2), 303-317.
Laufer, B. & Paribakht, T.S. (1998). The relationshipbetween passive and active vocabularies: Effectsof language learning context. Language Learning,
48(3), 365-391.
Lee, S.H. & Muncie, J. (2006). From receptive to
productive: Improving ESL learners’ use of
vocabulary in a postreading composition task.
TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 295-320.

Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary.
New York, NY: Heinle & Heinle.
Nation, I.S.P. (2010). Learning Vocabulary in Another
Language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Nurweni, A. & Read, J. (1999). The English
vocabulary knowledge of Indonesian university
students. English for Special Purposes, 18(2), 161175.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary. A
vocabulary research manual. Basingstoke,
England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shillaw, J. (1995). Using a word list as a focus forvocabulary learning. The Language Teacher(JALT), 19(2), 58-59.
Waring, R. (1997). A comparison of the receptive
and productive vocabulary sizes of some second
language learners. Immaculata (Notre Dame
Seishin Univerisy, Okayama), 1, 53-68.
Webb, S. (2008). Receptive and productive
vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second
language acquisition, 30(1), 79-95.

Author’s Biography:
Mutahar Al-Murtadha is an English lecturer at Kanazawa Institute of Technology in Japan.
He holds a master’s degree in TESOL from Saint Michael’s College in the USA and has been a
Fulbright scholar.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

305

The Value of Using Student Feedback in the Classroom

David Richard Evans
National College of Nursing, Japanevans@adm.ncn.ac.jp
Self-evaluation forms can make learners think more deeply and realistically about the quality of
their speaking skills and what can be done to enhance them. By reflecting on their own strengths andweaknesses in speaking English and through evaluating the oral performance of peers, students canbecome more aware and adept at how to improve their own skills. This paper will look at how firstand second year students in non-major compulsory communication classes responded to evaluation
forms, and then, at how third year elective students felt about giving and receiving feedback to andfrom peers.
自己評価表は、学習者の自分の会話能力について、より深く、より現実的に考えさせ、そして会話能力を向上させる。英会話能力において、自分の強みや弱みを反映することによって、また仲間の会話能力を評価することを通して、生徒は英会話能力の向上の方法を、より認識し精通することができるようになる。
この論文は、
まず、必修科目ではない英会話授業の1、2年生が、自己評価表に対してどのような反応をするか、考察するものである。次に、選択科目の英会話授業の3年生が、英会話能力を仲間にフィードバックしたり、仲間からフィードバックを受けたりすることについて、どのように感じるか、考察するものである。

Within the typical Japanese college classroom, there
can be a wide difference between the strongest andweakest students. There are also differences between
students in terms of their own strengths and weaknesses.
Some might be grammatically accurate; others may
excel in comprehension, whilst others might havegood pronunciation. There is a wealth of ability thatcan be mined by other students in helping to improvestandards. Students can be trained to develop theirown critical faculties through self and peer evaluation
to become more proficient speakers of English.
This paper does not focus on self-assessment, in
terms of individual students awarding grades to one’s*

Evans, D. R. (2014). The value of using student
feedback in the classroom. In R. Chartrand, G.
Brooks, M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013PanSIG Conference Proceedings (pp. 306-312).
Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

306 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

own performance, as it seems that able, more mature
students, drastically under-grade themselves, whilst
younger, weaker speakers, take the opportunity toover-grade.
Underhill (1987), says that students are alreadyevaluating in an informal way. Each student will have aview on where he or she ranks in the class hierarchy forspeaking ability. However, students will not necessarily
see other students as a resource to improve, and thisis where formalizing it, through teacher-led input,
can be beneficial. Luoma (2004) notes that students
can learn from each other whilst English et al. (2005)
say students become reflective learners noticing thestrengths and weaknesses not just of peers, but theirown too and consequently take action to improve.
Students need to be able to adopt a proactive approachas the teacher will not be there once formal education
has finished.
An important reason to do peer assessment, asThe value of using student feedback..., pages 306-312
highlighted by Falchikov, cited in Walker (2001), is thatit increases students’ responsibility and autonomy. An
unmotivated student who has little interest in speaking
English will try hard to grade classmates fairly, and indoing so, will notice aspects that would otherwise bepassed by. Brown et al. (1994) believe that the skills
used in such assessment will be useful throughout
the working life of a student. Abson (1994) feels thatpeer assessment is motivating, especially if there is acontinuous element, as students are then being assessed
not only when the teacher is monitoring.

The Students
The students involved were from a four-year nursing
college. English communication is compulsory for firstand second year students and optional for third andfourth years. Each course comprises of only 14 classes.
For the first and second years, the aim of the course iscommunication, and to this end students have a final
spoken exam. There are two classes of 25 students inboth first year and second year classes typically. For
the third year students there are usually 18 but on the
day of the questionnaire there were only 12. The testis three to five minutes with an unknown partner, on
an unknown topic. (This is to prevent memorization,and to ensure that students have to ask and answer
questions in real time.)

Procedure
As doing an oral exam is new for most students, theteacher needs to sympathetically introduce themto doing unprepared speaking in English. Some“closed pairs” practice, in which students speak forthree minutes without the teacher monitoring, helps
students to build confidence. Starting at 90 seconds
and building to 180 seconds might help some students.
Every week in class, students will do some form ofclosed pairs talking for a minimum of three minutes sothat it is normal by the time of the final test. Periodicallythe students will do open class demonstrations which
prepare them for the final test. They also give theteacher an opportunity to see what is lacking and toteach accordingly.
Once students are familiar with speaking toa classmate for 3 minutes they do an open classdemonstration. To begin, the teacher chooses an
opening question which is easily extended. For
example, ‘How was your weekend?’ or ‘What’s new?’
The topic should be open enough for students to beoriginal.

Student Responses
Before beginning, students are given a feedback form.
These questions are designed to get students to reflect
on how they did, and to think about how they can
improve. The most common choices for 50 first year
students reflecting on what they did well the first timethey attempted to converse in public are shown in
Table 1.
Students are initially very reluctant to say they
did anything well, so it is important to insist on thisTable 1
Write down three things you did well

Good conversation aspects

Number ofcomments

I smiled

28

I spoke loudly

20

I made eye contact

13

I didn’t stop speaking

13

I gave good answers

13

I asked questions well12

I enjoyed it

9section being filled in. Everyone does manage to thinkof three good points eventually.
It is not so surprising that students have focused onquite simple aspects, as for most, this is the first timethat they have had to speak English in public. Small
victories such as smiling are significant. Some students
are already focusing on more English related aspects as
can be seen in those who wrote ‘asking good questions’or ‘giving good answers’.
With 50 second year students, doing this exercise
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

307

Evansfor the second time, it is possible to see a deeper
understanding of what is important. Being able toconvey their message more fully, more loudly and truer
to what they intended, were regarded as key, as shownin Table 2.

and expressions”.
First year perceptions as to what makes a good
student speaker of English are shown in Table 3.
For second year students, the five most common
reasons given are shown in Table 4.

Table 2Why did you do better?

Table 4
Who was the best speaker today (second years)? Why?

Reasons

Number ofcomments

I spoke more than the first time23

I spoke more loudly

23

I could say what I wanted

20

I smiled

14

I was more fluent

13

I enjoyed it

11

The students were next asked to write down
three things that could be improved on their next
performance.
Both first and second year students highlighted“Speaking more fluently,” as the number one desired
improvement. This helps students understand thebenefit of speaking practice. The first year students’second most common choice was “Use gestures andbody language,” as they notice from watching eachother that they can look very tense. The second year
students, in contrast, wrote, “Learn more vocabulary
Table 3
Who was the best speaker today (first years)? Why?

First year reasons

Number ofcomments

She was interesting/fun

12

She had a loud voice12

She smiled

12

She had good pronunciation

12

She kept speaking

11308 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Second year reasons

Number ofcomments

She spoke fluently18

Her conversation was interesting15

She enjoyed herself

15

She asked good questions

12

She was clear and easy to understand11

The students have come to their own conclusionthat it is important for the speakers to both enjoy theprocess of speaking in English and for what they say to
be interesting. They are also aware of the need for the
speaker to consider the needs of the listener.
The most common reasons as to what made thebest conversation for first years are given in Table 5.
Table 5Which pair had the best conversation today? Why?

First year reasons

Number ofcomments

The topic was interesting

15

They didn’t stop speaking

13

It was natural/normal

13

They sounded natural

12

They had good body language

11

They had fun

10

For second years students there were only threecommon categories, as shown in Table 6.

The value of using student feedback..., pages 306-312
Table 6
Which pair had the best conversation today? Why?

Second year reasons

Number ofcomments

They enjoyed themselves

25

It was natural

21

The topic was interesting17

The students’ comments show that they are gaining
an understanding of what makes good conversation.
The emphasis is on enjoying talking in English,
making the content interesting and having genuine
communication rather than providing a display for theteacher.
Whilst the answers to all the questions are
enlightening in their own right, the answers are not
the goal of this approach. What is valuable is thatall students reflect on how to improve their English
communication skills through both self and peer
evaluation, to reappraise what makes both a goodspeaker and a good conversation.
If the teacher has time, it might be useful for briefcomments to be made on a photocopy of each feedback
sheet, so that the student feels an individual interest is
being taken in his or her performance.
Before the end of year exam, it is helpful forstudents to do a practice run, so that on that day, theyknow exactly what to expect both as performers in thetest and as evaluators (Norcini, 2003).

Peer Assessment
There are potential problems with doing peer
assessment. Cheng &Warren, (1997) note that students
might dislike being given the responsibility of grading
peers. In the set-up described here, fifty per cent of the
final grade comes from the teacher, and fifty per centfrom all the students combined. That means, that if
two tests are done, (students also prepare a learned
nursing dialogue), each student grading in a class of 25
students only accounts for one per cent of the overall
total. If only one test is done, that rises to two per cent.
Pointing this out does allay students concerns. Boud,cited in Walker (2001) notes that peer grading canbe unreliable, but this too can easily be sidestepped,by removing the outliers in terms of grading. Possible
gender bias is a concern for Falchikov & Magin (1997),
and within the nursing college with typically 90%
female students, male students can be under-graded.
This is not the case for those who are outstanding,but weaker students seem to receive lower grades thanfemale students of a similar ability. Knowing this,however, makes it easier to counteract. Abson (1994)
warned that peer assessment could legitimize prejudiceagainst individuals. Again, forewarned is forearmed,
and anomalies can easily be identified from the grade
sheets and rectified.
On test day, the opening question to begin the
dialogue is written on the board. This gives students
a few minutes to think about the topic. They cannot
write anything, but can look up words. Then, theteacher takes around a pot of numbers, and students
pull one out a number at random to determine order of
performance. This shows that the process is fair.
All students are given a grading sheet in which
there is space to award both a grade and to write acomment. The point of the comment is to understandhow the student is grading. As long as students are
told to be consistent and to measure all students in thesame way, the grading should be fair. It is importantthat each student chooses criteria that he or she feels
capable of judging. In practice tests, using criterion
such as “fluency”, “complexity”, “body language” or“voice quality”, alert students to different possibilities,
but for the final test students should be free to choose.
It seems best to ration the number of A+’s, A’s,
B+’s, B’s that students can award, as if given a freehand, they are likely to give all the classmates A’s.
In a class of 25, allowing a maximum of five in eachcategory means that the graded students are reasonably
spread out. The teacher can then convert these sothat an A+ equals 5 points, A is 4, B+ is 3, B is 2, andunmarked is 1. When this is done, it is very easy to spot
any anomaly, and then that paper can be excluded fromthe grading. Next, the teacher tallies the scores and thestudents’ position can easily be seen. If the teacher sowishes, he or she can grade using percentages, and thenuse the students’ order to match the percentage given
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings309

Evansby the teacher. So, for example, if the teacher’s highest
grade is 92%, the student who tallied the highest scorecan be awarded 92% and so on. The scores from theteacher and the students can then be added together
and divided by two to get the final percentage.
The process of assessing peers makes all students
take the task very seriously and in some cases, students
who have no interest in English will make a bigger
effort when asked to do this than in any other aspectof the course.

The reaction of third years to doing
peer to peer feedback
The third year students are more mature and better
at English than the first and second year students. As
they have chosen to come to class, the atmosphere islight and enjoyable. The students have also experienced
what the first and second years have done, so they areused to such an approach.
The third year course is a discussion based course
using ‘Impact Issues 2’ as a course book. Students arewell practiced in conversing. The new component
in the following example is that of students giving
feedback to each other.
As with the first and second years, students weredrawn at random to form pairs, and no topic was
stipulated, though it was just after the Golden Week
holiday and that seemed to be a natural topic for most(but not all pairs). There were 12 students in this classand they were broken down into three groups of four
for feedback purposes. Students were asked to give
feedback for the three other people in their group. The
feedback form was very simple, with one side of theform entitled “Good points” and the numbers 1, 2 and3 written vertically below and on the other “Things to
improve”. The teacher asked all students to be sure to
fill in this section, as if there is no obligation to do so,
the majority of students will leave it blank.
After the pairs had finished their dialogue students
were given some time to finish writing up theircomments. They then conversed with each other inpairs, giving feedback to each other. The vast majorityof students used only English, but they were allowed
to use Japanese if they needed or wanted to use their

310 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

native language.
Having given feedback they were asked to fill in a
feedback form.
Table 7
Do you enjoy watching your classmates perform?
Hate

1

2

3

4

5

5

7

Love

The response to this question is overwhelmingly
positive. Students at all age levels and abilities watch
their classmates with great attention.
These are a selection of third year students’comments.
Every pair had a different topic so it was a naturalconversation
They try to speak, they aren’t ashamed, so I try too.
There are many chances to speak English.
X and Y’s English is so beautiful. I want to speak
like them.
I could learn about what other people are thinking
and feeling during English class.
Table 8Do you find it helpful to watch your classmates perform?
Not at all

1
1

2

3

4

5

Yes, very

11

The one student who chose “1” did so because herconcern was about pronunciation and she didn’t feel
her classmates could help her with it. All other students
chose the highest possible choice and comments below
reflect how beneficial the students find it.
I could learn how other people react and givecomments
Because I notice lots of things to improve myEnglish.

The value of using student feedback..., pages 306-312
Everyone looked like they were having fun, so I
could relax too.
Because I can learn new expressions and new
responses.
Not surprisingly this was not unanimously popular
as giving feedback on how to improve performancecan be nerve-wracking even for experienced teacher
trainers. For these students it was the first time to dosuch a thing in English class, and possibly in any areaat all.
Table 9How do you feel about giving feedback to your classmates?
Awful

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

6

Very usefulI don’t like it very much, but I think it’s useful todevelop our English together.
It’s too difficult for me to find good or bad point forothers.
When I gave feedback they were glad so I felt good.
It was great because everyone watched theperformances carefully.
Selected student comments are written below.
I could learn and improve on my weakness.
Nobody tells me my bad point about English. So it’svery nice to know what to improve.
I think my voice is big but many feedback said thatit’s not. I never knew! And friends tell me my good
points, so I’m happy.
There were a lot of things that I can’t notice.
A very pleasing point that emerges from students’comments is that they enjoyed receiving praise fromtheir classmates. Whilst this is not surprising, it makes
one aware that in large classes it is very hard for teachers
to give individual students feedback on performance.
They were also grateful to receive suggestions for self
-improvement, with peers being able to make valuable
observations.
Table 10How do you feel about getting feedback from a classmate?
Awful

1

2

3

4

5

5

7

Very useful

The rating also shows that students were happier
to receive feedback than to give it. However, as this is
the first occasion they have given feedback, it is to be
hoped that familiarity will lead to greater confidence.

Conclusion
Students not only benefit from being observantof their peers in improving their own language skills,
but they find it very enjoyable to observe as well.
Lower level students can be trained to become awareof how to become better speakers of English throughguided feedback forms, and higher level students canexperiment with giving and receiving feedback too.
These activities put more responsibility on students
to take the lead in developing their own English andteach skills they can also transfer to other areas of life.

References
Abson, D. (1994). The effects of peer evaluation on
the behaviour of undergraduate students working
in tutorless groups. In H.C. Foot, C.J. Howe,A. Anderson, A.K. Tolmie, & D.A. Warden(Eds.), Group and interactive learning. (pp. 153158). Southampton, Boston : Computational
Mechanics Publishers.
Brown, S., Rust, C., & Gibbs, G. (1994). 500 tips on
assessment. London, England: Kogan Page.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second
thoughts: before and after a peer assessment
exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

311

Evans239.
English, R., Brookes, S,T., Avery, K., Blazeby, J, M.,& Ben-Shlomo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness andreliability of peer-marking in first-year medical
students. Medical Education, 40, 965-972.
Falchikov, N. & Magin, D. (1997). Detecting genderbias in peer marking of students’ group process
work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 22(4), 385-396.
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking skills. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.
Norcini, J, J. (2003). Peer assessment of competence.
Medical Education, 37(6), 539-543.
Underhill, N. (1987). Testing spoken language
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Walker, A. (2001). British psychology students’
perceptions of group-work and peer assessment
Psychology Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 28-36.

Author’s Biography:
David Evans is an assistant professor of English at the National College of Nursing, Japan. Hisinterests include oral testing, and self and peer evaluation.

312 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

The World, the Language Learner, and Relationships
Jim Ronald

Andy Barfield

Seth Cervantes

Hiroshima Shudo University
jmronald@gmail.com

Chuo University

Tomakomai Komazawa
University

Louise Haynes

Ian Hurrell

Marybeth Kamibeppu

Nagoya City University

Rikkyo University

Toyo Eiwa University

Eleanor Kelly

Kevin MarkRob Olson

Rikkyo University

Meiji University

Tomakomai Komazawa
University

Jane Nakagawa

Erina Ogawa

Donna Tatsuki

Shizuoka JALT

Toyo University

Kobe City University of Foreign
Studies

Lori Zenuk-Nishide
Kobe City University of Foreign
StudiesThis collaborative, interactive forum brought together poster and multi-media displays focused on
two main areas: (a) the connections between global issues, learner development, and pragmatics,and (b) understanding helpfulness and support in the arts of language learning and teaching. The
forum featured consecutive simultaneous presentations, held in four corners of the room, on topics
related to language learning and relationships, critical thinking and social justice, and language
use and identity. These were followed by corner-based discussions, before the forum finished withplenary reports. The focus of each presentation is briefly presented here to strengthen the cross-SIG
links that were explored and developed through this joint collaborative forum.
本フォーラムはポスターとマルチメディア表示を組み合わせた協調的、相互的なもので、次の二つのテーマに焦点をあてました：１. グローバル問題、学習者ディベロップメント、語用論の連携、
２. 語学学習と語学教育における有用性と支援の理解。本フォーラムでは、
４つのコーナーに分かれて、語学学習と人間関係、
批判的思考法と社会的正義、
言語使用とアイデンティティに関する発表とディスカッションを行い、最後に各コーナーの代表に報告をしてもらいました。他のコーナーの発表内容もご理解頂き、本フォーラムの成果を共有していただきたいと思いますので、以下に各発表の概要を紹介します。

What do the Special Interest Groups Global Issues*

Ronald, J. et al. (2014). The world, the language
learner, and relationships. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 313-322). Nagoya,Japan: JALT.

*in Language Education, Learner Development, andPragmatics have in common? And what can we learn
from each other? This was both the purpose and thechallenge of the PanSIG 2013 collaborative forum by
the three SIGs. All three groups are concerned withmatters beyond the classroom: life and social issues,
language use in relationships, and purposeful language
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings313

Ronald et al.
learning, and many of the 10 presentations given at theforum embraced and explored two or three of theseperspectives in combination.
This paper begins with Lori Zenuk-Nishide andDonna Tatsuki’s report of the benefits for language
learners of model United Nations simulations, followed
by Andy Barfield’s focus on migration-related issues as
he explores connections between critical pedagogy
for social justice and learner autonomy. Louise
Haynes reports on the impact of teaching that focuseson the FD1 Disaster, while Jane Joritz-Nakagawa
describes the use of poetry in exploring global issues,
developing critical thinking and promoting personal
growth. In a similar way, Marybeth Kamibeppu andEleanor Kelly explain how global or social issues inlanguage learning may be addressed through drama.
Erina Ogawa explores the use of another medium,educational manga, as a tool for global issues-focusedlanguage learning. Moving towards more of a focus
on pragmatics, Kevin Mark describes an approachthat aims to integrate learner development, global
education and language awareness, with Ian Hurrell
and Jim Ronald both reminding us of the importance ofpragmatic development and sensitivity in and beyond
the classroom. Finally Seth Cervantes and Robert
Olson provide us with a useful pragmatics checklist as
a tool for helping both teachers and learners become
more aware of interactional practices as key aspects oflanguage learning and use.

Benefits of Model United Nations
In EFL contexts, content-based educational initiatives
like the Model United Nations (MUN) can offer animagined community/community of practice. The
MUN’s global content influences the development ofinternational posture and the production of possible
selves that mediate learners’ interest in learning English
and the L2 using ideal self (Yashima, & Zenuk-Nishide,2008; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004).
The benefits of the MUN are numerous (Tatsuki 2009;
Zenuk-Nishide, 2009; Zenuk-Nishide, & Tatsuki,2012), but success requires ‘near peer modelling’(Murphey, & Arao, 2001).
Preparation for a MUN simulation includes
researching about the United Nation and its bodies,

314 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

the topic to be debated, the country the student will
represent as a delegate, and the regional policies related
to the item on the agenda. Templates need to be given
to write a country position paper, resolutions andamendments. In addition, the MUN formulaic rulesof procedure and caucusing/negotiating need to be
introduced and practised. When students negotiate
and co-construct solutions through draft resolutions,
their self-efficacy increases (Zenuk-Nishide, & Acar,2011).

Exploring Contradictions between
Learner Autonomy and Critical
Pedagogy for Social Justice
Grounded in a seminar where second-year students
undertake self-directed research projects on
international migration issues, this presentation
displayed examples of student goals, notes andreflections, as well as key principles of pedagogy forautonomy as (inter)personal empowerment and socialtransformation ( Jiménez Raya, Lamb, & Vieira, 2007)
and critical pedagogy for social justice (Smyth, 2011).
In the seminar, students start by collecting andsorting pictures about migration to create initial“migration concepts and puzzles” for future exploration.
They also map their own Family Migration History
and conduct an interview with an immigrant in theirlocal community to find out about their interviewee’s
migration history. Learning next about different
migration concepts and re-interpreting their previous
work to explore such concepts in action, the students
complete their own research projects on Japan-based
migration issues. On a weekly basis, the students set
learning goals, keep notes, and reflect on how theirunderstanding of migration issues is developing.
In the forum presentation, participants wereencouraged to view the display materials and engage
in discussion with each other. Among many different
points made, the following tensions remain unresolved:
1. The development of learner autonomy isunderstood to start from the individual andwork (ideally) outwards towards the social andpolitical arenas, but the development of criticalpedagogy starts from a social perspective andThe World, the Language Learner, and Relationships, pages 313-322

Figure 1. An initial “migration concepts and puzzles” poster

places much greater emphasis on social andpolitical engagement and transformation: What
does this tension entail for a hybrid pedagogy
that tries to connect the two regimes?
2. The questioning stance of critical pedagogy
invites a shifting of perspective between at least
three positions (teacher, students, communities),
but the questioning stance of learner autonomy
moves mainly between learner and teacher
roles. What might critical pedagogy offer fora political interpretation of the transformative
potential of learner autonomy?

Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Who is involved andwhat help do they really need? This short presentation
looked at how this controversial topic was dealt with byseveral groups of lower-intermediate to intermediate
university freshmen, none of whom were majoring in
English.
At the time of the earthquake, tsunami, andmeltdowns, the students in these classes wereapproaching their last year of high school, getting
ready for the final push toward entrance examinations
for university. Knowing that such study probably took
up most of their time, I wondered how much they

While the central concerns of both schools seem todiverge, together they provide an interesting pedagogic
dialectic for exploring in praxis learner development
and global issues.

actually knew about the effects of the meltdowns on
the people in the local areas near the affected plant,
the rivers, oceans, wildlife, and, possibly, the foodsupply. These class activities also developed out of
my observations on how major media have not given
consistent coverage of the disaster from a wide varietyof viewpoints.
This topic, one of many global issues covered during
the semester, was one that was timely and extremely
important to the lives of the students. Regular weekly
homework assignments included writing comments onan assigned video from TED.com related to the topic

Raising the Topic of the Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Disaster“The scales fell from my eyes,” writes a freshman in
her weekly homework. One of the most important
global issue currently facing our students, if not theentire planet, is the on-going disaster at the Fukushima

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

315

Ronald et al.
for the week. In the week preceding our discussion on
the situation in Fukushima, the students were asked
to watch and to respond to a German documentary(ZDF, undated) with Japanese subtitles.
In the following class, I pointed out that there
were many other voices (e.g., governments, farmers,
fishermen, IAEA, business owners) that were notshared in that video and that the students would
be including a few of these other voices through1-minute speeches in front of an imaginary “Special
UN Committee on World Safety.” The students wrote
their speeches and presented them in front of the class,before discussing prepared questions in small groups.
Several students noted that this particular class offeredthem new insights into a problem directly impacting
their lives.

Poetry, Global Issues, CriticalThinking and Personal Growth
Research in arts therapy education (e.g., Mazza, 2003;
Alschuler, 2006) supports the idea that reading,writing and sharing poems with others in a groupsetting can lead to improved self-esteem, an increased
awareness of self and others, enhanced creative
problem-solving abilities, better communication skills,
better perspective taking, and an expanded view oflife. In her presentation, Jane Joritz-Nakagawa sharedover two dozen poems, ranging in linguistic difficultyfrom upper beginning to advanced, containing themes
such as war, FGM, nuclear power, gender inequality,
animal rights, domestic violence, homelessness,discrimination, and minority identities.
Suggestions for using poems in the classroom
included: (a) have students work in groups to workout together / discuss poems’ meanings and features;(b) use originals together with translations ( Japanese
poems with English translations or English poems
with Japanese translations); (c) pre-teach important
vocabulary items found in the poems; (d) provide
cultural or other background information to introduce
the poem and poet when useful; (e) select shorter
poems or use excerpts of longer works to amelioratechallenge; (f ) have students write and then share theirown poems—either on the same theme as or using a

316 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

similar structure to the model poems; (g) have students
and/or the teacher read poems out loud or use poetry
recordings to learn and/or practice phonologicalfeatures; (h) teach students some basic terms useful for
discussing poetry (e.g. line, stanza, metaphor, sonnet,
rhyme, alliteration, prose poem, poet, speaker in apoem) so that learners can participate in discussions
or write about poems more successfully; (i) use jigsawtype cooperative learning activities such as having one
student individually in a group of four study and reporton one of the following characteristics of a poem:sound, overall structure, metaphor, and meaning(an idea received from writer and teacher Holly
Thompson); (j) use poems and/or poets and poetic
forms (such as haiku) that the students will already befamiliar with in Japanese but in English translation;(k) have students write their reactions to poems in ajournal; and (l) have students prepare written and oral
research reports about a poet or poem.

Connecting Drama and Global/Social
Issues in Language Learning
But language is not purely an intellectual matter.
Our minds are attached to our bodies, andour bodies to our minds. The intellect rarely
functions without an element of emotion, yet
it is so often just this element that is lacking inteaching material (Maley & Duff, 1982, p. 7).
This quote describes an important reason to use
drama-based activities in the language classroom: They
provide students with the opportunity to observe how
emotions are expressed in the target language and to
express their own feelings in that language throughrole-play and acting out original scripts. Using roleplay activities helps students develop empathy forothers (Boudreault, 2010), and it is empathy thatenables students to understand more deeply the issues
people in the world are facing today.
Kamibeppu and Kelly use drama to enable learners
to relate more deeply to the topic being discussed
and to raise students’ awareness of current global andsocial issues. The dramas “Romeo and Juliet” and“West Side Story” can be related to current issues such

The World, the Language Learner, and Relationships, pages 313-322
as discrimination, immigration, refugee problems,
conflicts within and between countries, gang violence,criminal justice, forced marriages, gun violence, andsuicide.
For lower-level students, the dramas can be simpler
while the issues are still relevant. Disney classics like
“Lady and the Tramp” address topics such as poverty,
economic-class discrimination, and animal rights.
“Cinderella” is an obvious choice for discussions on
blended families and bullying. Other movies thatcan be used are: “Kramer vs. Kramer” for discussions
on divorce; “Dances with Wolves” for lessons on
indigenous rights, border disputes, and minority
languages; and “WALL-E” which can be used whenstudying about environmental problems.
The presentation detailed assignments and classactivities that can be used to augment a language class.
Some examples of the activities discussed were: (a)turning down the sound of the video and having thestudents take on the roles and act them out; (b) showing
pictures of different scenes and having teams either
explain the scene or speak for one of the characters;and (c) acting out different scenes or reciting dialog toplay “name that scene” or “name that character”.

Helpful Educational Manga Textbook
Activities
Some teachers may not be aware of the validity of using
educational manga as teaching material, but images areoften an important part of language learning as Monnin(2010, p. 123) comments: “... the use of image literacies
in language learning is much more than an establishedpedagogical practice”. In this presentation, Erina
Ogawa reported on the research she had conducted oncompletion rates of activities from a textbook with a
global employment issues theme. She and a colleague,
Helen Hanae, co-authored this educational manga
textbook.
The innovative and helpful style of teaching
and learning made possible by using an educational
manga textbook lent itself to the design of a variety ofdifferent types of activities to accompany the mangastoryline and promote further language and content
learning. These activity types include: dialogue

completion, chart filling, list making, partial businessdocument writing, checklist ticking, blank filling, quiz
completion, listening comprehension, and journal
writing. In order to know which of these types weremore useful for her students, Ogawa categorized 54
activities, completed by 71 students from two secondyear classes, into 12 different activity-type groups. She
then analysed the completion rates of each group. This
amounted to a total of 3,834 activities and was a far
more time-consuming task than she had anticipated.
However, the analysis did provide some useful data oncompletion rates for the different activity types.
The data (see Ogawa, unpublished, for detailed
results) were presented in pie chart form accompanied
by samples of each activity type. Document-related
tasks, as well as chart completion tasks, showed highcompletion rates. On the other hand, low completion
rates were found for list making, journal writing,checklist making, and sentence writing tasks. To put
it simply, activities that required students to produce
more language had lower completion rates thanactivities that had more scaffolding provided, such asblank-filling activities. This information may provide
some guidance for teachers when deciding activities
for their students.

Integrating Learner Development,
Global Education and Language
Awareness
In the following sentence the first and last words arein the correct position, but the remaining words arejumbled. There is (probably!) only one way in whichthese can be unscrambled so as to create what we
can recognize as a meaningful, well-formed English
sentence.
I would that mean approach what you can think
about to like examples some teaching it illustrate
to integratively.
Can you unscramble them? To make it slightly easier,here is a hint:
I _____ ____ ___ __ _____ _____ ____ __ canmean __ ________ ________ integratively.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings317

Ronald et al.

Figure 2.

And if you were to hear the sentence read aloud once,
it would be considerably easier.
You may doubt the wisdom of employing atechnique such as this for teaching English, yet
this (artificial) example illustrates a set of “Lexical
Approach” (Lewis, 2008) techniques that can support
learner autonomy, content-based learning, andpragmatic awareness. The text in Figure 2 provides
the “answer” to the puzzle. The diagram attempts
to show some of the ways in which this sentence iscomposed of meaningful “chunks.” Actually, there aremany ways of identifying these, and to some extent
the divisions made here are personal. Nevertheless, it
is clear that we do process language in terms of piecesof meaning (Hoey, 2005) and that recognizing theinternal syntactic integrity of pieces, as well as their
combinatorial possibilities and limitations in creating
a well-formed discourse segment, is a complex process.
I see four types of chunk here:•• a simple, linear left-right expansion, with eachsuccessively larger whole adding a piece of meaning•• an increased grammatical focus•• a greater pragmatic, discourse application•• a strong association with the content underdiscussion.
In actual teaching the process works in this way:
1. Prior exposure is given to the content (verbatim
or paraphrase) through listening, reading,
discussion or a combination thereof.
2. Reading aloud or writing, learners workthrough a list of chunks of increasing length,self- or peer-correcting as they do so:[1] I you like would to[2] would to think you like about[3] to it think can about what mean[4] what can mean it approach to teaching
3. Learners may also be asked to fill in the blanks
in a continuous passage.

318 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Introducing Pragmatics: Hearts andminds
The development of pragmatic competence in language
learners is one of the major issues being discussed in
the field of ELT today. There is a wealth of literaturesuggesting that the synthetic materials used in many
textbooks are insufficient for developing a learner’sability to communicate in real-life situations (Gilmore,2007). As a result, it has been widely advocated that
exposing learners to the naturalistic language used inauthentic materials is a more effective way of helping
learners to develop their pragmatic competence(Guariento & Morley, 2001).
However, extensive research also indicates thatthe linguistic and socio-cultural complexity of thelanguage used in authentic materials can be a sourceof frustration and de-motivation for many language
learners. This is often put down to learners commonlylacking the linguistic ability and schematic knowledge
to comprehend authentic language (Ellis, 2002).
This exploratory study attempted to resolve thisissue by training a group of EFL university students
to use discourse analysis techniques adapted from
Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle and Gee’s(2011) Language-in-use model. Comments fromquestionnaires and interviews such as “I thought
that, more than the meaning of the words, themind and intentions of the speaker is important forcommunication” indicated that, through using thesetechniques autonomously in a learner-centred andnon-threatening environment, the students felt thatthey had acquired a set of tools which they could utilize
to access pragmatic meaning in the authentic materials.
They also reported gaining a deeper appreciation of thepragmatic influences on authentic language use.
These results indicate that training learners inusing discourse analysis techniques autonomously toanalyse authentic materials can be an effective means

The World, the Language Learner, and Relationships, pages 313-322
of helping learners to develop pragmatic competence.

Peer Feedback: From Hurtful toHelpfulOne aspect of collaborative language learning is
peer feedback: students rating or commenting oneach other’s presentations or correcting each other’s
writing. Especially when this feedback is public, it may
constitute a Face Threatening Act (FTA): “Utterance
or act which threatens a person’s public self-image”(Yule, 1996, p. 130). In fact, peer correction may
typically involve a number of FTAs, such as those listed
by Brown and Levinson (1978, p. 66): “Expressionsof disapproval, criticism, contempt or ridicule;contradictions or disagreements; challenges”.
This small study was conducted with a class of 17
second-year university English majors. First, students
wrote self-introductions for use in future international
exchanges. Copies of these were then distributed toclassmates with instructions to read and correct eachother’s work. They did this in silence and then the
copies were returned to their authors. My question as
to how this experience felt was met with a long silence,
followed by one quiet “Embarrassing.”
Next, students were told about two painful
experiences of peer correction that the presenter hadgone through: of class observation and of a journal
editor’s correction of a book review. Following this,students discussed in pairs how to make peer correction
a better experience, then wrote their ideas on the board:using compliments and mentioning good points, using
pictures and emoticons, and pointing out gently asadvice rather than correction.
Unmarked copies of the students’ writing werethen redistributed for correction by other classmates.
This second time, a similar number of corrections were
made, but there were also 17 comments, 11 pictures,and various compliments, encouragements and hedged
advice. The exercise ended with students, unprompted,
happily returning each other’s work.
The project started as action research: a problem is
identified, responded to, and evaluated. It turned into
something closer to exploratory practice; as students
became aware of the problem, they suggested solutions,which we tried out and evaluated together. Together,
we found a way to turn peer feedback from hurtful tohelpful.

The Pragmatics Checklist: Building
Awareness of Interactional Practices
In occupations that have no room for mistakes, airline
pilots or surgeons for example, the checklist has provento be a valuable tool to avoid, or at the very least reduce,
mistakes (Gawande, 2011). This is especially the casewhen tasks are fraught with complexity. If a language
teacher makes a mistake, most likely no one will suffer
loss of life or limb, yet the sheer complexity of teaching
is no less daunting. One example of this is the teaching
and learning of pragmatics. Below we briefly describe
the implementation of a pragmatics checklist in thelanguage classroom to build awareness of pragmatics,
particularly interactional practices.
According to Wong and Waring (2011),
interactional competence is made up of four interactional
practices: (1) turn-taking, (2) sequential, (3) overall
structuring, and (4) repair practices. Now, how canteachers use a checklist to teach interactional practices?
To answer that question, we first created the following
checklist.
☐ Does your conversation have an opening/closing?
☐ Do you say more than yes/no?
☐ Do you use Really? + QUESTION?
☐ Do you use (REPEAT) + QUESTION?
We implemented the checklist taking a 5-step
approach.
1. Introduce interactional practices. In the firststep, we introduce openings and closings, which
are related to overall structuring practices.
2. Pair/Group work. Students practice theseinteractional practices in pairs or small groups
by co-writing a dialogue. Once completed, thestudents use the checklist.
3. Perform. Students then have a conversation,
which is recorded. The students are notallowed to use their co-written dialogue andmemorization is discouraged.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings319

Ronald et al.
4. Transcription phase. Students listen andtranscribe either all or selected snippets ofthe conversation. The students review thetranscripts to check if they have done everything
on the checklist.
5. Perform. After this, students practice the same
conversation, which is again recorded. The
students then return to the third step (Perform)
and the process is repeated for fluency
development.
The purpose of using checklists in this case is not
to encourage memorization, but to build awareness ofinteractional practices and to encourage creativity.

References
Alschuler, M. (2006). Poetry, the healing pen. In S. L.
Brooke (Ed.), Creative arts therapy manual. (pp.
253-262). Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.
Boudreault, C. (2010). The benefits of using dramain the ESL/EFL classroom. The Internet TESLJournal, 16(1). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/
Articles/Boudreault-Drama.html
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some
universals in language usage. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affectthe acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 24(2), 223-236.
Gawande, A. (2011). The checklist manifesto: How to
get things right. New York, NY: Metropolitan
Books.
Gee, J. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis:
Theory and method (3rd ed.). London, UK:
Routledge.
Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials andauthenticity in foreign language learning.
Language Teaching, 40(2), 97-118.
Grice, H. G. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P.
Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), System and semantics 3:
Speech acts (pp. 22-40). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Guariento, W., & Morley, J. (2001). Text and task
authenticity in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal,
55(4), 347-353.
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of

320 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

language. London, UK: Routledge.
Jiménez Raya, M., Lamb, T., & Vieira, F. (2007).
Pedagogy for autonomy in language education in
Europe—Towards a framework for learner andteacher development. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.
Lewis, M. (2000). Language in the lexical approach.
In M. Lewis (Ed.) Teaching collocation: Further
developments in the lexical approach (pp. 126–54).
Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The stateof ELT and a way forward. Hove: Language
Teaching Publications.
Maley, A., & Duff, A. (1982). Drama techniques inlanguage learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Mazza, N. (2003). Poetry therapy: Theory and practice.
New York, NY: Brunner and Routledge.
Monnin, K. (2010). Teaching graphic novels: Practicalstrategies for the ELA classroom. Gainesville, FL:
Maupin House.
Murphey, T., & Arao, H. (2001). Reported beliefchanges through near peer role modeling. TESLEJ, 5(3). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej19/
al.html
Ogawa, E. (unpublished). Completion rate analysis of
educational manga textbook activities.
Smyth, J. (2011). Critical pedagogy for social justice.
London, UK: Continuum.
Tatsuki, D. H. (2009). Analysis of multi-party
talk in-interaction at a model United Nations
simulation. In L. Zenuk-Nishide (Ed.),
Experiential learning through model United
Nations simulations: project phase 1 (pp. 21-39).
Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, 77.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning, and identity. Cambridge,UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation
analysis and second language pedagogy. New
York,NY: Routledge.
Yashima, Y., & Zenuk-Nishide, L. (2008). The impactof learning contexts on proficiency, attitudes
and L2 communication: Creating an imaginedinternational community. System, 36, 566-585.
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K.

The World, the Language Learner, and Relationships, pages 313-322(2004). Influence of attitudes and affect on L2
communication: a study of Japanese high school
students. Language Learning, 54, 119-152.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
ZDF (undated).ドイツZDFフクシマのうそ[German ZDF Fukushima Lies]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dailymotion.com/
Zenuk-Nishide, L. (2009). Formulaic sequences toinitiate negotiation. In L. Zenuk- Nishide (Ed.),
Experiential learning through model United
Nations simulations: Project phase 1 (pp. 39-60).

Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, 77.
Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Acar, A. (2011, November).
Model United Nations builds self-confidence.
Paper presented at the 37th Annual JALTInternational Conference, Tokyo, Japan.
Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Tatsuki, D. H. (2012).
EFL student learning from a model United
Nations simulation. In L. Zenuk-Nishide (Ed.),
Experiential learning through model United
Nations simulations: Project phase 2 (pp. 89-106).
Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, 82.

Authors’ Biographies:
Andy Barfield teaches and co-coordinates content-based courses in English at Chuo University
Faculty of Law. His research interests include collaborative teacher education and learnerdevelopment.
Seth E. Cervantes is an associate professor at Tomakomai Komazawa University. His researchinterests include pragmatics and foreign language education in Japan.
Louise Haynes has taught global issues at the university level for 15 years, including such topics as
HIV/AIDS, protest music, and analysis of American Culture.
Ian Hurrell teaches discussion skills at Rikkyo University. His research interests include
autonomous learning and the development of pragmatic competence in language learners.
Marybeth Kamibeppu has been teaching for more than 20 years both in Japan and in the U.S.
Her research interests include pronunciation and learner autonomy.
Eleanor Kelly uses global/social issues as themes in her university English classes and finds that
adding drama activities helps students understand the issues more deeply.
Kevin Mark, a professor at Meiji University since 1991, is interested in the theoretical andpractical aspects of “integrative” or “holistic” curriculum and materials development.
Jane Joritz-Nakagawa, originally from the U.S.A, is a researcher, writer, educator and poet livingin Shizuoka city.
Erina Ogawa, along with educational manga research, is also researching the effects of the Great
East Japan Earthquake on cultural identities.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

321

Ronald et al.

Robert Olson is an associate professor at Tomakomai Komazawa University. His research interests
include nonverbal communication and pragmatics.
Jim Ronald’s interests include pragmatics, learner development, various peace-related global
issues, and vocabulary acquisition and dictionaries. He presents widely and publishes sparingly.
Donna Tatsuki is a faculty member in the Graduate School of English Language Education andResearch at Kobe City University of Foreign Studies.
Lori Zenuk-Nishide is a faculty member in the Graduate School of English Language Education
and Research at Kobe City University of Foreign Studies.

322 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Utilizing Smartphones and Tablet Technology in
CBI Courses to Enhance the Learning Experience

Zane Ritchie

Richard Miller

Rikkyo University, College ofCommunity and Human Service
zane.ritchie@gmail.com

Kobe Gakuin University, Faculty ofBusiness Administration

Technology, when used appropriately, has always enhanced teaching, and as it has improved, it has
become more efficient. This paper will firstly give an example of how to create an original video usinga smartphone in order to improve student concentration and motivation in a CBI (Content Based
Instruction) class. This will be followed by an example of how to go about videoing and uploading
student presentations to YouTube, in order to allow them the opportunity to view themselves andothers in self-reflection and peer-review.
技術は常に教育を向上させた。技術が向上したように、技術を使用するための効率も向上している。本論文では、学生のモチベーションを向上させ、また集中力を高めるためスマートフォンでオリジナルのビデオの撮影の仕方について説明する。
またさらに、学生が自己反省とピアレビューで自分自身と他者を比較できる為に、
タブレットで学生のプレゼンテーシ
ョンを撮影しYoutubeに載せることについて述べる。

Using video and multimedia in the classroom has
been around since at least the 1960s (Williams& Lutes, 2007) but until recently it required alarge amount of coordination on the instructor’spart, as well as a large amount of resources. It isonly in recent years, with the advent of mobile
technologies that incorporate advanced featuresin smartphones and tablets, that things that once
took hours to set up and administer now take justminutes, and cost a fraction of what they used to.
Technology has empowered educators and can*allow them to develop and create instructional
materials that assist students to better engage withand comprehend classroom materials, as well as
to review and reflect upon their own academic
performance. This paper will explain how thevideo camera function of tablets or smartphones
can be utilized in the EFL or ESL classroom tomake lessons more enjoyable, promote motivation
among students and enhance the learning
experience for both students and instructors alike.

Background
Ritchie, Z. & Miller, R. (2014). Utilizing smartphones
and tablet technology in CBI courses to enhance thelearning experience. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks,
M. Porter, & M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG
Conference Proceedings (pp. 323-330). Nagoya,Japan: JALT.

*As second language teachers, more of us are being asked
to create content-based courses, often in subjects weare not entirely knowledgeable about, or comfortableteaching. Content-based Instruction (CBI), which
focuses on the struggle to master content as a means
to deepen language ability, was developed in the 1980s
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings323

Ritchie & Miller(Brinton, Snow and Wesche, 1989) and has become
a popular teaching methodology in ESL/EFL classes(Messerklinger, 2008).
One of the advantages and motivating factors in
CBI is that it allows teachers and students to explore
interesting, relevant and complex topics. However, thechallenge is how to make such material more accessible
and understandable (Stryker and Leaver, 1987). How
can an instructor prepare and introduce complex andunfamiliar topics to learners in a way that reduces
their anxiety and reflects their linguistic level, while
maintaining their motivation? One method that wehave had success with in teaching CBI to Japanese
university students is to use video. This may range
from the more traditional method of screening a video
or DVD, to the more recent such as using Internet
video streaming services such as YouTube. However,these are not always effective or practical. Sometimes,
the content may be unsuitable (in content or level) or
it may be difficult to access (DVDs that do not playin your region) or, merely unavailable. So, why makedo with these content delivery methods when you
can easily create own original video that is available,
accessible, precisely suited to your needs and copyrightfree?

Creating an Original Video Using a
Smartphone
This section provides tips on creating your own video
with a smartphone. The example is a short video“Petroleum Man” that was created for use as the warmup to a module about the amount of energy in our
food. We will discuss the rationale and context for
which the video was created, and then give step-by-step
instructions on how to make a video.
The video was introduced at a Japanese university
to intermediate level students in the final year of acourse on geopolitics and energy that was taught
between 2006 and 2011. In previous years for the
warm-up part of the lesson, a straightforward question
was written on the blackboard: “What did you havefor breakfast this morning”. This was done to activate
students’ mental schema, to personalize the material
and to make the topic more relevant to the students’

324 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

daily lives. After the question was written on the board,
the students had to fill out a table with the foods they
had eaten and where they thought they might havecome from. However, often there were instances of
response resistance, where students would answer:“I didn’t have breakfast”, or similar such comments.
Furthermore, at other times it was discovered that a
few minutes into the exercise, some students would still
not be paying attention, having missed the question
entirely. Yet others were playing with their phones(the irony!) or still unpacking their pens and pencils,
all wasting valuable classroom learning time. Enoughanecdotal evidence showed that the warm-up exercise
was perhaps too dull and boring and was not engaging
enough for them.
Thus to make the lesson more interesting andstimulating, it was decided to make and record ashort video to replace the warm-up part of the lesson.
It was found this helped eliminate several classroom
problems, especially learning resistance as the students
were immediately immersed in the topic throughpictures and sound, which certainly stimulated them—especially when it was mentioned that the instructor
had created the video with a colleague as the “star”.
Originally filmed in 2010, the video follows a man,as he wakes, gets out of bed, moves to the kitchen,
makes, and eats his breakfast. The scripting anddirection was minimal, the star had a hangover, andthe cinematography was shaky with some particularly
nauseating shifts in perspective, due to the fact that weoriginally filmed in portrait mode instead of landscape.
The original footage length was about twelve minutes,
but after about two hours of heavy editing we managed
to condense it down to about a minute, before adding
some catchy music and uploading it to YouTube, theend result being of surprisingly high quality.
Creating your video is easier than you might think.
First, smart-phones these days have advanced video
shooting capabilities, such as the ability to film in 720p
or even full HD 1080p video. Second, once recorded
your video can even be edited right in your phone,should you install the necessary applications (iMovie
for iPhone, for example). Naturally, it is still possible toedit your video the traditional way through a desktop
computer (we used iMovie on a Macintosh computer,Utilizing Smartphones and Tablet Technology, pages 323-330
although Windows or Linux both have similar video
editing software available). You might need some video
conversion software (a popular one is HandBreak for
the Mac) to convert the video format of your phone to
one compatible with iMovie.
Once your video has been edited to your liking,you can then upload it to YouTube from either yourphone or desktop computer, and will be ready to beviewed (Appendix 2). The reason we prefer YouTube
is that it provides an uncomplicated method to upload
the video to the Internet, as well as making it possible
to distribute the URL to students so they can watch itin their own time as homework if need be. Of course,
you can easily set your YouTube privacy settings to
private, or hidden, so third parties cannot search foryour video and view it.

Recording Student Presentations for
Self or Peer Evaluation
Research indicates that allowing students time
for reflection tends to lead to a positive effect on
their academic performance (Grossman, 2009). As
previously mentioned, utilizing the video camera
function on a smartphone or tablet is easier than everbefore and requires little experience on the part ofthe person recording the video. Recording students’presentations and allowing them to view them outsideof the classroom not only allows individual students
the ability to evaluate their own work, but also toevaluate the work of their peers. This self-evaluationand peer evaluation allows the students to comprehend
the grading rubric and how they are graded and gives
them a chance to see that the grades they receive fromthe instructor are not arbitrary but are meticulously
structured. The students themselves are also able tonotice this through their own performances, andgrading that they perform. This is accomplishedthrough watching their own presentations as they canprovide written feedback online, offline or both andon their own time that would be difficult for them do
within the classroom, due to time limitations.
Another option is to give students in different
classes, but within the same university and giving thesame presentation, the chance to review each other’swork. As an example, in a CBI lesson on population
growth, a group of students gave a presentation on the
population growth of Indonesia and then were given
another group’s presentation on the same country
with the same theme, allowing them to see how otherstudents were performing.
As previously mentioned, we prefer to upload ourvideos to YouTube since it is one of the easiest services
to navigate and has many advanced features. Oneof those features is the ability for a registered user tocreate a “YouTube Channel” which can be utilized forclassroom work and is perfect to use for self-evaluation
purposes. Additionally, since 2010, all Google services
have been integrated and now use the same user ID
and password, so if you have a Gmail account you arealready able to access YouTube, including all other
Google services. On your tablet or smartphone, simply
videoing the presentation and then pressing the upload
to YouTube button allows one a quick and effective
method to upload and later access the video on theYouTube channel. Uploading can also be accomplishedduring the subsequent presentation, so that while you
are videoing another presentation you can upload theprevious one. This keeps everything organized andallows you to move forward to the next presentation
quickly without taking up precious classroom time.
Students can then access the YouTube channel on theirdevices at a later date. So long as each group is aware of
their title, or even the name of the channel, they shouldbe able to find their video fairly quickly.
A simple method that works to ensure a basic
level of privacy is to put the video into what we calla “semiprivate” mode and give it a unique title, which
you distribute to your class and have them search foron YouTube. As an example, if the class is English
One and it is on Monday morning and there areseveral presentations then the title for the first group’s
video might be: “Monpd1gp1”. This would represent
Monday Period One Group One. Then adding yourinstitution’s name would make the title even moreunique; just remember that you should not use spaces
in your file names. This unique title for the presentation
gives the students some privacy and will usually negate
unauthorized outside viewing of the material. Just
remember that the video is still in the public domain
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

325

Ritchie & Miller
and might possibly be sound by others.
If your institution (or you yourself ) is stillconcerned about privacy issues, then the YouTube
channel could be made private so that all students need
to be registered with that channel before being allowed
access. The disadvantage of this is that it adds anotherlayer of administration and tends to cut into class time,since you need to explicitly go through the process ofmaking sure the students are registered properly with
Google and that they all know how to access theiraccounts correctly.
Within the YouTube channel under each video
there are spaces for comments, a feature that you
might want to make use of if you want your students to
explicitly record their thoughts on their presentations.
Having students comment on the videos they havewatched ensures that the instructor is able to easily
determine that the students have actually watched
their presentations. One possibility might also be tohave the students perform the self-evaluation part
online, with peer evaluation carried out using paper
and pen that they then hand in to the teacher and not
viewable to other students in the class. This will dependon how the classes are structured and how the students
interact. If they are a mature class, the instructor
may want to ensure the students write more in depth
comments, avoiding short one word phrases such as“good” or “great.” In either case, pre-teaching grading
and comments should ensure successful feedback andreflection.
Recording and taking the time to upload student
presentations to YouTube ensures they take the classes
more seriously and we have found it tends to promote
more active participation and a higher performancelevel. In other words, peer pressure and peer review
appear to affect performance in a positive way as thereis implicit pressure on students because others will
be watching them and there will be a lasting publicrecord. A final benefit of putting presentations onto
YouTube is that other faculty members and colleagues
may be interested in what the students are doing, and
it is quite easy to share this type of information withothers by sending them links or files of the classroom
presentations.

326 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Conclusions
There has never been a better time than now to employ
the use of high powered video cameras that mostof us carry around with us in our classrooms; doing
so is much easier than it used to be and the latest
technology makes it easier and quicker to film, edit
videos and then upload them to the internet. Our firstexample involved creating an original video for use as
the introduction to a CBI module. Overall, it took lessthan 2 hours to edit the video, add music and upload
it. The extra time and effort leaves one with an original
product and a teaching tool that you can tailor toyour own particular needs. Additionally, it may help
resolve some classroom resistance, especially at the
beginning of a lesson, as video/technology is clearly
more intrinsically interesting for students, creates
more interactive lessons, and allows students to see
the materials and enables them to better comprehend
your lesson. And it certainly breaks the ice if students
see the teacher in a new light or as a ‘movie star’ or‘producer’. Our second example also showed that it is a
lot simpler than one might imagine to record student
presentations and upload them quickly to the Internet;
then provide them with ample opportunities for self
or peer evaluation online. These things are a lot moredifficult and time consuming to carry out within the
traditional classroom. These are just two examples of
how we use the video technology in our phones andtablets to both stimulate and motivate students in CBIclasses in our classrooms. However, the sky is the limit
and we think that making an effort to use the very
powerful tools that most of carry around to enhance
our classroom experience can be a very rewarding
experience for both teachers and students alike.
Finally, we want to reiterate that just as with anything
technology related, there will always be a learning
curve, but it is not as steep as you might think.

References
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B.
(1989). Content-based second language instruction.
New York, NY.: Newbury House.
Grossman, R. (2009). Structures for facilitating
student reflection. College Teaching, 57(1), 15-

Utilizing Smartphones and Tablet Technology, pages 323-330
22.
Messerklinger, J. (2008). Language immersion
and content-based language learning, what’s
the difference? A survey of different language
programs. In CELE, 16, 34-41.
Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (Eds.). (1997). Content-

based instruction in foreign language education:
Models and methods. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Williams, R. T., & Lutes, P. (2007). Using video in
ESL classroom. Komatsu Daigaku 48(1), 1- 13.

Author’s Biography:
Zane Ritchie has been teaching and studying at the university level in Japan since 1995. Hecurrently teaches a content-based syllabus in comparative social-welfare systems.
Richard Miller has taught English in Japan since 1995, he also edits the Job Information Centre
column in JALT’s The Language Teacher.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

327

Ritchie & Miller

Appendix A
Classroom plan for whole reading lesson using ‘Petroleum Man’
1. Warm-up: Pre-reading and discussion (Video)
Designed to complement the theme of the lesson and get students thinking about the theme of food. Playthe video and have the students complete a table listing the foods the man ate, and where they think the foods
possibly came from. Then discuss the answers as a class. Possible answers are that the coffee comes from Kenya
or Brazil; the orange juice from China or the US; the banana from the Philippines; the cereal from Europe, andso on. Approaching an introduction with a short video definitely stimulates and excites the students, and is an
uncomplicated way to activate background knowledge of the topic. In addition, it breaks up the lesson and moves
away from a reading lesson to a lesson using video.

2. The principal idea
Students are instructed to read the passage quickly to look for the gist, to get them thinking about what the
principal idea is about, as it might not be obvious from the title. Some of the passage was left blank for follow up
exercises later in the lesson. The point here is to have the students understand that their breakfasts (and indeed allfood) indirectly contain or use fossil fuels (primarily oil) and that it takes more energy to make and get the foodto you than is actually in the food itself. (10 minutes)

3. Comprehension.
Students are asked to examine the text again, and to complete the true or false comprehension exercise toencourage a deeper understanding of the meaning. They are also asked to fix any mistakes if the answers are false.
This way, they are practicing structure / form and it militates against guessing. The teacher should walk aroundmonitoring students/offering encouragement as appropriate. Answers are solicited and put on the board. (20minutes)

4. Group work
1. This section is designed to give students the chance to apply what they have learned in the text at a deeper
cognitive level. This requires students to articulate and process the content and stimulate use of new vocabulary
they have learned up to this point. Note: As there are no exact answers for this, students are encouraged to help
each other devise what they think are the best answers. Each group will put their answers on the board, into threecolumns with information added from other groups in the class until we have what the class considers the mostaccurate. The teacher’s role here is generally hands off, although if one group has too few members, or if groups
look as if they are in trouble, then encouragement should be offered as appropriate. (20 minutes)

2. Encouraging deeper thinking
This is based on lines 42–46 of the reading. In their groups, students consider how they might
determine how much oil is in their food. There is no right or wrong answer here and it is rather an
opportunity for the students to apply what they have learned in the text with their own knowledge/
ideas to devise reasonable and plausible answers. The teacher might mitigate this, and give hints if appropriate
and/or scaffold information as needed. The original text might be displayed on the overhead as a final example.
(20 minutes)

328 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Utilizing Smartphones and Tablet Technology, pages 323-330

5. Homework
Finally, the students are given the chance to think about the situation as Japanese citizens and it is hoped thestatistic that Japan is only 40% self-sufficient in food production will alarm them. Using ideas/vocabulary fromthe text, students are encouraged to devise their own ideas. The question is purposely left open to encourage
extensive responses. This consolidates their knowledge and adds a writing component making it a more rounded
lesson.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings329

Ritchie & Miller

Appendix B“Petroleum Man”, YouTube Link: http://youtu.be/qDkIlVA-z3M

330 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

What Great Teachers Do Differently

Andre Paul Scholler
Interac Ltd.
AndreScholler@hotmail.com
One of the cornerstones of teaching is being professional so one can collaborate and cooperate withboth peers and students within your school and community. This term can be difficult to define asteachers become busy. This paper discusses a field study done on seven interventions that “Great
Teachers Do Differently” as prescribed by Dr John Whitaker and their effect on student performance.
These include competence, establishing clear expectations, creating a positive atmosphere, keeping
personal and professional life separate, planning, decision making and treating people respectfully.
プロ意識を持って教えるには、教育現場の同僚と子どもたちとの協力が必要であるが、これが教師の仕事をさらに忙しいものとしている。
この論文では適性、分かりやすい目標設
定、
よい雰囲気の作り方、
プライベートと仕事の分け方、計画の立て方、決断の仕方、ほかの人への敬意の示し方などの「よい教師が行う相違点」七つの点について論議している。
さらにこれらがクラスでどのように学生の勉強の結果に影響するか議論します。

Why would students look at great teachers? If a student
knows he or she has a great teacher, that student will
inevitably think more highly of their school. Studying
the methodologies of effective teachers is good forbenchmarking ideas on how to improve our own
teaching (Whitaker, 2004). *With some research, one can quickly find various
opinions on teaching programs in Japan particularly
about the JET Programme for ALTs (AssistantLanguage Teachers) (Constantine, 2013). According
to Whitaker the people participating in any program
make it effective or ineffective. When a program bringsout the best in people, it can work very well. Effective
teachers focus on the processes in any program andtry to make it work for their school (Whitaker 2004,2011). For example, several ALTs may resign during
the course of a school year because of unruly students.
Name, G. (2014). What Great Teachers Do
Differently, In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter,& M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference
Proceedings (pp. 331-338). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

However, an ALT who comes from an effective teacher
training program and uses effective interventions will
motivate his or her students and will stay (Amobi,2006). It is better to first focus on the “who” then lookat the “what” (Collins, 2001).

Rationale for Study
A teacher’s attitude toward the profession and students
has a direct impact on the strategies and interventions
that are implemented in the classroom. Therefore,
there is a direct effect on student performance(Dornyei 1990, 2001, Shinde, Karekatti, 2012). By
examining how some of Whitaker’s interventions
impact student performance, there is a strong rationale
behind the importance of analyzing these practices.
Whitaker (2004, 2011) said there are numerous simple
self interventions such as setting clear expectations andbenchmarked decision making that can help makea teacher more effective in the classroom. This paper
explores these interventions and analyzes how they
impact student performance.
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

331

Scholler
Table 1
Total sample group differentiation by class

Experimental Group With Whitaker’s Interventions This
Group: (N=94)
6-1(N=31)

6-2(N=31)

5-1(N=32)

Control Group Without Whitaker’s
Interventions This Group: (N=63)
5-2(N=32)

6-3(N=31)

Total sample size: N=157

Many teachers take a remedial approach toward thelack of student performance by blaming outside socioeconomic and environmental factors. This study showsthat there are a wide array of interventions the teacher
can take toward him or herself to gain an internal focus
and significantly improve student performance inany classroom. A “great teacher”, as Whitaker (2004,(N=63) which consisted of 31 six graders (N=31) in
one class and 32 fifth graders (N=32) in another class.
All classes used the mainstream English curriculum set
by the Ministry of Science and Education (MEXT)
which is the Hi, friends! 1 (Tokyo Shoseki, 2012)textbook for fifth grade and the Hi, friends! 2 (Tokyo
Shoseki, 2012), textbook for sixth grade.

2011) defines it, will use these interventions to his or
her advantage when obtaining specific and measurable
results in the language classroom. These interventions
span multiple types of learners since their common
element is the teacher.

The student population was fairly homogeneous
and was from lower income and middle income classfamilies, which was determined by the boundariesof the school zoning map. For privacy protectionof the students and the school, all names remained
anonymous. Types of data collection included
counting the number of students who successfullycompleted an assignment and measuring the amountof time students took to complete that assignment orobey a teacher’s command. Data was also measured
across a finite amount time of 10 weeks to determine
the trend of the effectiveness of some of Whitaker’sprescribed interventions. All results were recorded andcomparisons were analyzed between the experimentalgroup and the control group.

Research Method and Identificationof Respondent Groups
Multiple prescribed research methods from Sagor(2011) were implemented to construct data collection
instruments in order to accurately quantify theeffectiveness of Whitaker’s interventions on the sample
groups. Table 1 illustrates how these participants weredivided and defines the control and experimentalgroups. The total sample size was 157 elementary school
students (N=157) across five classes. Ninety three
students (N=93) were sixth graders across three classes,
while 64 students (N=64) were fifth graders across twoclasses. Each of these grade levels were divided into an
experimental group in which Whitaker’s interventions
were implemented and a control group in which theinterventions were not implemented. Using this typeof group differentiation allowed accurate observationand compilation of the results. The experimental grouphad 94 students (N=94) which consisted of 62 sixth
graders (N=62) across two classes and 32 fifth graders(N=32) in one class. The control group had 63 students

332 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings“Great Teachers Establish Clear
Expectations at the Start of theYear and Follow Them Consistently”(Whitaker, 2011, p. 31)
Being consistent in everything you do and using simple
language, you can establish expectations your students
will quickly pick up (Rice, 1991). For example, when
I need to calm the class down, I go to the front of theroom, put my index finger up to my mouth and say
one time: “quiet please” and stand there silently. If

What Great Teachers Do Differently, pages 331-338
Table 2Time in seconds taken to quiet classes down with and without Whitaker’s prescribed interventions by grade level across 10
weeks

Week

Experimental Group With Whitaker’s Interventions
This Group: (N=94)

Control Group Without Whitaker’s
Interventions This Group: (N=63)

6-1 (N=31)

6-2 (N=31)

5-1 (N=32)

5-2 (N=32)

6-3 (N=31)

1

30

42

60

72

42

2

42

42

48

68

42

3

30

36

42

90

42

4

42

42

48

84

54

5

36

30

54

96

60

6

36

36

48

90

66

7

42

36

54

102

78

8

42

42

60

96

72

9

30

36

48

108

84

10

36

42

54

120

90

Figure 1. Graphical representation of Table 2 showing the trend of effectiveness for the time it took to quiet the class downwith and without Whitaker’s prescribed interventions of consistent procedures

I use this method, the students quickly realize yoursilence and within about one minute, the class will
be quiet. I use this same procedure every time I need
the class’s attention. Also, a teacher should learn thestudents’ nonverbal body language to gain insight inorder to predict how they may behave (Rivers, 1977).
It is important to set expectations and try to establish
relationships with students so that they want to meetthem (Whitaker, 2004, 2011).
Table 2 and Figure 1 are the results of implementing
this expectation across 10 weeks. Looking at Table 1(1st week) on the top highlighted line, the time it takes
to quiet down the classes is very close together. Classes
5-2 (N=32) and 6-1(N=31) are the furthest apart at a
42 seconds difference (72 minus 30). The results showthat by the (10th week) the difference in time it takes
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

333

Scholler
Table 3Comparison of the number of students who completed an assignment with and without Whitaker’s prescribed interventions(teacher conduct and appropriate strategies )Experimental Group (N=94)

Control Group (N=63)

6-1(N=31)

6-2(N=31)

5-1(N=32)

5-2(N=32)

6-3(N=31)

31/31

26/31

27/32

21/32

23/31

100%

83.9%

84.4%

65.6%

74.2%

Totals in Experimental Group

Totals in Control Group

84/94

44/63

89.4%

69.8%

Total sample size: N=157

to quiet these classes down doubles to 84 seconds (120minus 36). All other variables are the same except for
the teacher being consistent with procedures.
Figure 1 accentuates the effectiveness of thisintervention in a line graph. With all three of thecontrol groups, as already defined in Table 1, theamount of time it took to quiet the class down stayed
relatively the same. However, with the control groups,
where this intervention was not implemented, the time
only increased.

Great Teachers Know They Are
the Variable in the Classroom”(Whitaker, 2011, p. 49)
When a good teacher sees that students are not copingwith an assignment or performing poorly in class, thefirst person that the teacher looks at is him or herself.
The best teachers take responsibility for their own
teaching methodologies and try to understand how it
affects their classroom and their institution. Strategies
such as exploratory learning, guided reading, role plays,
and differentiated instruction will motivate students
by creating a positive classroom experience ( Jamarillo,2013). Also a teacher’s beliefs on language acquisitionand student learning can have a great affect on student
performance (Shinde, Karekatti, 2012).

334 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Looking at Table 3, there is a noticeable difference
between the experimental group, where Whitaker’sprescribed interventions were applied and the control
group where they were not applied. In this case the mainintervention was teacher conduct and implementationof appropriate strategies. The assignment completion
rate in the experimental group was 19.6% higher thanthe control group (89.4% vs. 69.8%). There can be
two different teachers in the same classroom and thestudents will perform differently depending on how theteacher conducts him or herself. Building relationships
and credibility with the students and colleagues is justas important as how well the material is taught (Rice,
1991, Whitaker, 2011)“Great Teachers Create a Positive
Atmosphere in Their Classrooms
and Schools” (Whitaker, 2011, p. 61)
The teacher’s personality has a great impact on theclassroom atmosphere which plays a large factor inattendance (Dornyei, 1990). Part of being professional
is treating everyone with respect, including yourstudents. Even great teachers do not like all of theirstudents (Whitaker, 2004). However, they treat
each student equally and praise the class consistently
without playing favorites. Praise is a proven effective

What Great Teachers Do Differently, pages 331-338

Figure 2. Semantic differntial scale with corresponding values

Table 4Teacher’s rating of student choral practice pronunciation using a semantic differential scale (1 to 5) with and without
Whitaker’s prescribed interventions (using effective praise)
Week

Experimental Group (N=94)

Control Group (N=63)

6-1 (N=31)

6-2 (N=31)

5-1 (N=32)

5-2 (N=32)

6-3 (N=31)

1

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

2

5.0

4.0

5.0

4.0

4.0

3

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

4.0

4

4.0

4.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

5

4.0

4.0

5.0

5.0

4.0

6

5.0

4.0

5.0

5.0

4.0

7

5.0

4.0

5.0

4.0

4.0

8

3.0

3.0

4.0

4.0

3.0

9

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

10

5.0

4.0

5.0

5.0

4.0

Average Per
Class

4.4

4.0

4.6

4.3

3.8

Average Per
Group

4.33

research based strategy that will have a positive impact
on the classroom atmosphere if implemented properly(Dornyei 1990, 2001, Whitaker, 2004, 2011). For
praise to be effective it must be authentic, specific,
immediate, clean and private (Whitaker 2003, 2011).
Table 4 is the compilation of results from asemantic differential scale (Figure 2) that was used torate student choral pronunciation practice across 10
weeks using effective praise. The results are somewhat
inconclusive since there is only a .28 difference (4.33
vs. 4.05) between the experimental group and thecontrol group. However, one can only postulate what
the results would be if the intervention of effective
praise was not used. On the other hand with such a

4.05

small difference, it is questionable whether or not thepraise was “effective”.

“Great Teachers Constantly Filter out
the Negatives That Don’t Matter andShare a Positive Attitude” (Whitaker,
2011, p. 67)
It is surprising how much negativity one can heararound a school. If enough negativity spreads around,
other people will start to believe it, even if it is not true
(Whitaker, 2011). The good news is that the impact
a positive attitude can have on a teacher’s decisions,
implementation of strategies and student performance
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

335

Scholler
Table 5Comparison of the time it took the experimental group and the control group to complete an assignment with and without
Whitaker’s interventions (teacher proximity and individual student assistance)
Week

Experimental Group (N=94)

Control Group (N=63)

6-1 (N=31)

6-2 (N=31)

5-1 (N=32)

5-2 (N=32)

6-3 (N=31)

Hi, friends! 1 P. 31(3 Hint Quiz)

N/A

N/A

4:15

7:00

N/A

Hi, friends! 1 P. 35(Activity: Your Dream Time Schedule)

N/A

N/A

6:30

8:15

N/A

Hi, friends! 2 P. 23(Activity 1: Teacher’s Day and Interview)

3:40

4:20

N/A

N/A

6:30

Hi, friends! 2 P. 40(Interview About Your Friend’s Dream)

6:50

7:15

N/A

N/A

7:45

Hi, friends! 2 P. 40(Declaring Your Dream)

5:00

5:15

N/A

N/A

6:15

Time is in minutes and seconds.

is profound (Shinde, Karekatti, 2012). Regardlessrecorded and compared between the experimentalof the motivation a student has for studying English,that reason becomes secondary to classroom related
motivations like the teacher’s attitude (Dornyei, 1990).
One good way to convey a positive and professional
attitude is to stop calling your teaching job “work”,
especially in front of students (Whitaker 2004, 2011).
Another matter, which is difficult for many people, isto keep your job and personal life separate. A teacher
is a performer who is in front of an audience. The
students do not need to be concerned with whatever
personal difficulties the teacher may be experiencing.

group, where Whitaker’s interventions were
implemented and the control group where Whitaker’s
interventions were not implemented. The assignments
were from Hi, friends! 1 and Hi, friends! 2 (Tokyo
Shoseki, 2012). In this case the intervention wasclassroom management by using proximity control andassisting students individually. In all the assignments
the experimental group completed them considerably
faster than the control group. However, looking
at Table 5 in the highlighted areas, there is a data
anomaly where the experimental group completed
the assignment only 30 seconds faster than thecontrol group. Although reasons for this anomaly areinconclusive, possibilities include a mistake in datacollection, inadvertent application of interventions or
the students may really have completed the assignment“Great Teachers Have a Plan andPurpose for Everything They do”(Whitaker, 2011, p. 83)
One of the homeroom teachers I worked with lastyear told me that every time two particular students
worked together, they caused problems for the class.
One has to wonder why that teacher continued having
them work together. When I was teaching in a juniorhigh school, there was one student who disrupted theclass because he wanted attention. I decided to give it
to him. While the JTE taught the class, I always sat
beside that student. He never disturbed English classagain and I built a good relationship with him.
In Table 5, assignment completion times were

336 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

within the recorded time.

“Great Teachers ask Themselves one
Central Question: What Will the Best
People Think?” (Whitaker, 2011, p.
87)
Too many people settle for a reason rather than asking
for the purpose (Whitaker 2004, 2011). Whitaker(2011) said that great teachers make decisions withthree questions:What Great Teachers Do Differently, pages 331-338
1. What is the purpose?
2. Will this actually accomplish the purpose?
3. What will the best people think?
If a teacher addresses a concern with the whole classregarding poor performance on an assignment, thestudents who did well will wonder why they are being
grouped together with students who did not complete
the assignment well. It also allows students who did
not put in effort to feel more comfortable and they lose
their incentive to improve. However, if the teacher tells
the class how well they did, the students who did not
put in a good effort will think that everyone but them
did better and they will strive to improve on the next
assignment.
In his book From Good to Great, Collins (2001)
talks about the hedgehog and the fox. The fox knows alittle about everything while the hedgehog understands
one large thing. He said that successful companies arelike the hedgehog and focus on one core competency.
Likewise, the best teachers focus on only one part oftheir profession.

Conclusion
What can teachers do before they can connect withstudents’ minds? The first person a great teacher
looks at is him or herself. This study examined seveninterventions a teacher can do to have an internal focus
and have a positive impact on their classes. Four ofthese interventions were quantified with field researchand the results concluded that a small change in theteacher can have a vast quantifiable impact on student
performance. We can stand up in front of the class andteach our hearts out. However, unless students knowthat we truly care for them, they won’t care either.
With just a little change, everyone can become a greatteacher in their own way.

References
Amobi, F.A. (2006). Beyond the call: Preserving

reflection in the preparation of highly qualified
teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2) 2335.
Collins, J. (2001). From good to great: Why somecompanies make the leap and others don’t. New
York, NY: Harper Collins.
Constantine, P. (2013, January 29). Is the JET
program really necessary for Japan? [Opinion].
Retrieved from http://www.japantoday.com/
category/opinions/view/is-the-jet-programreally-necessary-for-japan
Dornyei, Z. (1990). Analysis of motivation components
in foreign language learning. Retrieved fromERIC database. (ED323810)
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the
Language Classroom. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Tokyo Shoseki (2012). Hi, friends! 1. Tokyo, Japan:
AuthorTokyo Shoseki (2012). Hi, friends! 2. Tokyo, Japan:
AuthorRice, R. E. (1991). Rethinking what it means to
be a scholar. Retrieved from ERIC database.
(ED333938)
Rivers L. W. (1977). The disruptive student and theteacher: NEA professional Studies Series. Retrieved
from ERIC database. (ED144931)
Sagor, R. (2011). The action research guidebook: A
four-stage process for educators and school teams.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Shinde, M. B., Karekatti, T. K. (2012). Pre-service
teachers’ beliefs about teaching English to
primary school children. International Journal of
Instruction, 5(1), 69-86.
Whitaker, T. (2004). What great teachers do
differently: 14 things that matter most. Larchmont,
NY: Eye on Education.
Whitaker, T. (2011). What great teachers do
differently: 17 things that matter most (2nd ed.).
Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

337

Scholler

Author’s Biography:
Andre Paul Scholler has a Master’s in Education and is a certified public school teacher. Proficientin Japanese, he works in Aichi prefecture as an ALT.

338 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

Writing for Academic Publication:
Participation and Collaboration

Paul A. Beaufait

Loran Edwards

Theron Muller

Prefectural University of
Kumamoto
pab@pu-kumamoto.ac.jp

Kansai Gaidai University
loranedwards@mac.com

University of Toyama
theron@las.u-toyama.ac.jp

Pressure to produce academic publications presents challenges for language teachers in Japan, yet
can entail opportunities for collaboration and community building that may help to alleviate thestress and facilitate the process of trying to get published. In this article, three experienced JALT
Writers’ Peer Support Group (PSG) members share advice and describe forms of assistance thegroup offers to writers entering and exploring the realm of academic publication. They explain
its support activities, map out potential venues for publication, suggest available resources andstrategies, and point out the benefits of getting published. They also point out benefits of becoming
a peer-reader with the PSG and provide advice on writing good reviews. This article concludes withcalls for experienced writers to join the PSG and collaborate in its support activities.
日本の語学教師にとって、学術論文の投稿や出版の際の重圧は、解決すべき課題であるが、コミュニティを作って共同で取り組むことにより、そのストレスを軽減し、投稿や出版までの過程を効率よく進めることができる。本稿では、PSG（JALT著者相互支援グループ）の経験豊富なメンバー３人が、学術論文作成における初心者や、更に向上を目指す研究者に助言を行い、様々なサポートの方法を提示する。
そのサポートの中で、執筆や出版の可能性のある研究を提示し、それに必要な資料や成功戦略を提案し、学術出版することの利点や有用性について指摘する。加えて、PSGに参加することの意義を示唆し、良い論評の書
き方も教授する。経験を積んだ研究者や論文執筆者がより多くPSGに参加し、相互にサポート、協力し合い、
コミュニティを広げていくことを目標とする。

The JALT Peer Support Group (PSG) is a teamof writers and teachers, called peer-readers, who
collaboratively assist other writers, who are writing in
English as a first or other language, to develop theirmanuscripts to a (hopefully) publishable level. Writing
is a hard process, and a single paper may need several*

Beaufait, P., Edwards, L., & Muller, T. (2014).
Writing for academic publication: Participation andcollaboration. In R. Chartrand, G. Brooks, M. Porter,& M. Grogan (Eds.), The 2013 PanSIG Conference
Proceedings (pp. 339-346). Nagoya, Japan: JALT.

*

rewrites and reviews before it is ready to be submitted
for publication (Belcher, 2007). The PSG peer-readers
help writers manage that process. They work withauthors to develop overall writing skills, looking at
paper organization and development and providing
feedback on areas that can use more development,
more research or possibly less information. In the
beginning stages of the process, grammar and style will
not be checked. However, writers are encouraged tosubmit subsequent versions to the PSG, so as papers
progress, more sentence-level issues can be addressed.
The PSG is associated with JALT, but is available to
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings339

Beaufait, Edwards, & Muller
help writers looking to publish with any publication.
The three authors, experienced teachers, readers for
the PSG, and writers themselves, consider writing foracademic publication an integral and necessary partof professional development. This article will provide
advice to writers entering and exploring the realm of
academic publication, and describe forms of assistancethat the PSG offers. In addition, it outlines some of thebenefits to becoming a peer-reader for the PSG andprovides some tips and guidelines for writing strong
reviews. Finally, it reiterates a call for experienced
writers to join the PSG and collaborate in its support
activities.

The Imperative for Language
Teachers in Japan to Publish
The conversation in the international academic
community surrounding the professional developmentof language teachers tends to center around theacquisition of teacher identity and skills for classroom
language teaching, such as in Kanno and Stuart (2011)
and Tsui (2007), but in Japan one expectation thatmany higher education employers have is for language
teachers to conduct and publish research, which theJapanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT, 2006) attributes
to the tendency for “a faculty council” (p. 76) to be
responsible for hiring, as Japanese faculty tend to put
a stronger emphasis on research than teaching (Boyer,
Altbach, & Whitelaw, 1994).
The implication for language teachers, whosebackground and training are often not research based, isthat hiring committees, generally composed primarilyof non-language teaching faculty, expect evidence of
academic research and publications when hiring forlanguage teaching positions (McCrostie, 2010). Whilepublications are not the only evaluation criteria used(see McCrostie for examples of other criteria), they canrepresent a minimum criteria candidates are expected
to meet in order to pass early stages of screening
and, in a competitive higher education employment
marketplace, more prestigious publication histories
may facilitate job applicants in reaching final rounds

340 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedingsof screening and job interviews. For full-time faculty,
publications are also a major criterion of promotion(MEXT, 2006), and so interest in academic publishingtends to be ubiquitous throughout language teachingin higher education in Japan.
Research based on European scholars has shownthat access to support networks is important to successin pursuit of academic publication (Lillis & Curry,2010), both in terms of offering support in drafting
and revising submissions for publication and in termsof facilitating access to publications (Curry & Lillis,2010). A complication that many language teachersin Japan face is that the stage at which scholars areoften socialized into the conversation of their field isduring their PhD studies (see, for example, Aitchson,
Kamler, & Lee, 2010). Yet in Japan an MA tends toremain the minimum required qualification for many
language teaching positions (McCrostie, 2010), thus
MA qualified teachers looking to publish their work
may not have had the same socialization into writingfor publication as PhDs.
A further difficulty language teachers based inJapan may face is that undergraduate English teaching
is ubiquitous across majors, which leads many English
teaching faculties to be quite small, meaning many
language teachers may not have access to colleagues
in their local contexts to help provide support for
their academic writing activities (Adamson & Muller,2008). Helping teachers to overcome these disparities
is part of the charter of the PSG, by providing support
to teachers in their academic writing pursuits.

Types of Academic Publications
Standards for evaluating publications in Japan tend to
be based on individual universities and faculties, andthere is considerable criticism of, and debate about,
how publications are evaluated (see Seglen, 1997,
for a critique of the most widely used publication
evaluation systems internationally, the SCI and
SSCI). Nevertheless, this section outlines information
available regarding how publications are evaluated andmany of the publication opportunities available tolanguage teachers in Japan.

Writing for Academic Publication, pages 339-346
Academic Publications and Teachers’ Résumés
The value particular papers are assigned is generally
based on the geographical reach of the publication
it appears in and the nature of the manuscript itself.
Regarding geographical reach, for example, one
faculty promotion review document for a public
university, acquired as part of ongoing research,lists international publications as accruing ten
points, national publications eight points, regional
publications (incorporating multiple prefectures)
six points, prefectural publications four points, city,
town and village publications two points, and finallyinternal university publications (kiyou) one point. It
is important to keep in mind that review committees
consider more than a simple numeric score whenreviewing applicants; ten kiyou publications almost
certainly will not be assigned the same qualitative value
as a single international publication, despite both being
given ten points according to this formal evaluation
scale. Also, how a publication is determined to beinternational versus national may vary across contexts.
Regarding the nature of manuscripts, one public
university application required candidates to ordertheir publications with book chapters first, followedby original articles, review articles, and finally “others”
with the explicit instructions “Proceedings andacademic reports should be listed as ‘Others.’” Thesame document went on to ask for a list of conference
presentations according to international conferences
followed by ‘domestic’ conferences, with each list
further subdivided according to invited speaker,
symposium, and finally individual ‘aural’ presentation.
If order in these lists is a sign of relative importance,
one could interpret items appearing first on the list as
being given relatively more weight than those at theend of the list. Yet most language teachers will nothave book chapters as their first publications, and so
the next sections turn to a discussion of the different
available publications within and outside of JALT.
JALT Publications
JALT publishes two print publications nationally,
The Language Teacher, a bi-monthly publication formembers containing teaching practice articles, and
JALT Journal, a biannual research journal. JALT also

produces online peer-reviewed Proceedings of the
National Conference annually. In addition to thenational publications, every JALT SIG is required tohave a publication. Information about the various
SIGs and their publications is available via jalt.org.
Furthermore, many SIGs, often in collaboration with
JALT Chapters, hold a number of conferences andevents annually, such as the PanSIG Conference,and many of these events offer an opportunity forpresenters to contribute proceedings articles.
Other Venues for Publication
Within Japan, in addition to JALT, there are two
associations that cater primarily to Japanese teachersof English, JACET and JACELE. Both of these havenational conferences in August and regional chapter
meetings at other times of the year. Outside of Japan,
if you are interested in presentation and publication
opportunities, an excellent resource is The Linguist
List (http://linguistlist.org), which advertises calls forupcoming conferences, special issues of journals andbook projects.

A Caveat or Two
If something looks too good to be true, it likely
is, and this goes for presentation and publication
opportunities as well. Some disreputable publishers
solicit manuscripts from lists of conference presenters,
and if you receive such an unsolicited request,
checking the publisher’s name against Beall’s List
(http://scholarlyoa.com) can help to verify whether
the publication is legitimate. Disreputable publishers
charge scholars exorbitant fees to publish their work,
and while charging for publication is not always a signof a disreputable organization ( JACET and JACELE
charge for publication), problematic publishers use
hidden fees that are only made clear after a paper has
been ‘accepted’ for publication. More information
about this issue can be found in Brown and Cook(2013).

Writing and Collaborating with the
PSG
Success in academic writing involves overcoming
several obstacles, including developing a clean writing
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings341

Beaufait, Edwards, & Muller
style, learning to make a point clearly, and addressing
the fear of putting your ideas and beliefs on paper forothers to read and discuss. Often the hardest part inwriting is getting started: finding a suitable topic andangle, deciding on a thesis and figuring out how toapproach your data. There are some things that can bedone before you start writing that can help this part ofthe process be more manageable.
One great way to get started is by reading otherpapers in the same style or on the same topics thatyou are interested in. You can model your own writing
style after these examples and use their format to help
you layout your data. They are also a great place tofind references that support your research. Also, if you
know where you would like to submit your article forpublication, read articles previously published there to
get an idea of what kinds of articles they accept and thewriting style used. Finally, if you are writing in a certainstyle for the first time, try to find an experienced writer
to co-author with. For example, if you haven’t written
a research paper before, find a more experienced coworker to work with in setting up and analyzing yourstudy.
In the beginning stages of writing, correct
formatting for references is not so important.
However, be sure to keep copies of all sources you
use or think you might use. It is a good idea to write
a working bibliography that you can update as you goalong, which lists all the sources you have looked at,used in your paper, or think are interesting, along withall the pertinent reference information. As much as
possible, try to build this working bibliography using
an APA style guide, such as the Publication Manual of
the American Psychological Association 6th Edition(2010) or the Purdue Online Writing Lab (http://
owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/10/). It is easy
to delete sources from a bibliography that are not used,
but getting to the editing stage of a paper and realizing
you cannot find all complete reference information fora key quote or passage is quite frustrating.

Contacting the PSG
Finally, when you have a draft ready for someone else toread, contact the PSG at http://jalt-publications.org/
psg. Most papers submitted to the PSG still require

342 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedingsquite a bit of work to make them publishable, so do notworry if your paper is still rough. In fact, submitting
sooner could save you a lot of time and frustration as
peer-readers often find that writers need to make fairly
large changes to the layout and presentation of theirideas. Rather than writing several drafts on your own,
and then being frustrated by realizing how far the paper
still has to go, working together with a PSG peer may
help you streamline and cut down the drafting process.

What Happens Next
When the coordinator receives a paper from a writer,
she alerts the group and places the paper in a file on
Google drive. Peer-readers can then look at the paperand decide if they are interested in the topic and able
to provide feedback on it. With a growing numberof peer-readers becoming involved in the PSG, themultiple areas of expertise available makes it easier
to match authors and readers. Once two readers arefound, the coordinator contacts the author again to letthem know the paper is in the system and give them atime frame for the reviews to be finished.
It usually takes about a month for the readers toread the paper and write their reviews. When both
reviews are finished and added to the file in Google
drive, the Coordinator contacts the author again
to give them access to the Google drive file with thereviews. In that way, the author can ask direct questions
to the peer-readers through the online system and viceversa. Getting access to Google Drive requires having a
Gmail account, which is free.
PSG readers themselves are keen on getting
feedback on their feedback to writers, in order toenhance and promote the collaborative process. With
this in mind, questions readers append to their reviews
may focus on:•• What sorts of feedback the writers found mosthelpful,•• What suggestions they are likely to follow (oreventually decide not to) as they revise their papers,•• When they expect to complete revision of theirpapers, and•• Whether they would like someone in the PSG to
take another look at their work when it reaches thenext satisfactory stage of completion.

Writing for Academic Publication, pages 339-346

Who Has Used the PSG?
In 2012, PSG records indicated a ratio of individual
non-Japanese to Japanese writers, who had availed
themselves of PSG readership, of almost two to one(9:5). However, two of the Japanese writers had
submitted two or more papers, and occasionallyresubmitted them for second or third readings. So, in
general, the PSG seems to have served both Japanese andnon-Japanese writers nearly equally. To find out how
writers felt about PSG services, the group conducted
an online survey in April 2013, mainly “1) to collectfeedback from writers who have submitted papers to
the JALT Writers’ Peer Support Group (PSG) on one
or more occasions; and 2) to use the information … toimprove and promote PSG activities” (PSG Survey ofWriters, April 20, 2013).
Though the survey went out to eleven writers,
whose active addresses the PSG had, only three
responded. Nevertheless, comments they provided
guide on-going PSG activities. Here are two from themost active Japanese writer:
1. “Comments on overall organization of thepaper and detailed feedback on the paragraphlevel were very helpful to revise my work.”
2. “How helpful and effective it is for writers,in particular non-native writers, to receive
feedback from native speakers who are in thefield of EFL[!]”That same writer also remarked that feedback on
grammar would be helpful, but she would not want towaste it on parts of papers that may not remain in the
final version. Next, here are two comments from nonJapanese writers who had submitted papers only once:
1. “[T]he thing I remember most is the comment
about the lack of unity in our group. ... [T]hisclearly helped us to zoom in on this point andturn it into a positive aspect of the paper.”2. “[P]roofreaders for journals often point out
failings without offering ways to improve. PSG’scomments were constructive and gave clear
ideas for improvement.”Those comments summarize the aims of the PSG.

Becoming a Peer-Reader for the PSG
One way to become more involved in JALT, andthe publishing community at large, is to volunteer
for groups like the PSG. There are many benefitsof becoming a peer-reader. If you are interested inpeer reviewing for other venues, this is a great place
to start. The PSG does not actually publish papers
themselves, so there is less pressure to get it right. All
papers submitted to the PSG will still be reviewed
and edited by the publication they are submitted to.
Also, we use a collaborative review system that allows
less-experienced readers to work with those with moreexperience and gives new readers a chance to readfinished reviews in our archives in order to gain ideas
about what to focus on, the style the review should be
written in, and other aspects of feedback to writers.
Reading what and how other people write is a great
way to not only hone your own writing skills but also
discover other teachers and writers who are interested
in the same topics as you and build a writing networkthat could lead to collaboration in the future or provide
you with valuable insights into your own research.

Providing Effective Feedback
The work of the PSG is, rather than providing authors
with a one-time, impassive reading of their work, more
like an online writing conference in which authors
and readers work collaboratively, possibly over several
versions of a paper, to improve and polish it. The
feedback provided in such a conference (or review)can focus on two areas: feedback on content andfeedback on form (Williams, 2003). Usually the PSG
peer-readers provide feedback on content by helping
authors organize their ideas and pointing out areasthat could use more development, more research or
possibly less information.
However, according to Graves (1982) no matter
what the focus is, there are a few characteristics thatmake up a good review. First, the focus of the review
should be on just a few points; focusing on too many
issues at once can be overwhelming and discouraging.
Also, the reviewer should try to demonstrate solutions
to problems, especially for content or organizational
issues. And finally, the reviewer should help stimulate
pleasure in the writing process by giving positive
feedback and encouragement. While keeping thesepoints in mind, in writing the review, it is best to follow
The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings343

Beaufait, Edwards, & Muller
a 3-step process: pre-review, review, and post-review.
Pre-review
When first looking at a paper, it is important to readit through a few times before writing any notes. Oftenon the first read-through it is hard to digest all that isbeing said and to even see the gems that are in frontof you. The papers received by the PSG are often“diamonds in the rough” and it is not until the third or
fourth read-through that the diamond becomes visible
and a path to that diamond starts to emerge. It is also
important, if provided, to review the writer’s goals forthe paper, what their process has been so far, and tofind out if the paper has been reviewed already andwhat that feedback was. If the writer has any specificquestions, be sure that you read their paper with thegoal of answering those questions.
Writing the Review
The PSG works mainly with emerging writers. We wantto encourage them to build their skills and continue
writing in the future. Therefore, it is important toremember that writing of any kind, at any level, is avery personal activity; by putting words on paper,
writers are placing a part of themselves in the publicarena. The peer-readers should acknowledge this bytaking the writers’ feelings into account and addressing
the topic being written about; the author chose this
topic because it is something they feel strongly about,and have probably put a lot of time into. Here is an
example from an actual review:
Example of Feedback to a Writer… I’ve read through your paper, and feel likeyou have two different papers here: one which is
explaining the efficacy of using <technology> inthe classroom, and another which is reporting
the results of a student survey you conductedon the usefulness of the use of <technology> inyour classroom. I think that the better of the two
papers, and the more meaningful to your readers,is the former, talking about how to implement<technology> in the language classroom, rather
than the latter. I think, though, that your paper
would benefit from reorienting your introduction
to state this purpose at the outset in order to make it

344 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings

clear to your readers what your intentions are fromthe start. …
Giving positive feedback on the interest of theresearch or referencing an interesting fact or finding
first, can help put the writer at ease and help themlisten to more critical comments later (Pryle, 2009).
Next, be sure to address specific questions or concernsthat the author has before addressing areas that you
feel need clarification, expansion, reduction, more
research, or other major issues. As stated above, it is
helpful to provide models for the authors to follow,
so peer-readers often provide sample outlines forthe paper, propose possible section headings and/or
rewrite a passage to demonstrate writing style. Finally,
remind the author that all suggestions are theirs toaccept or reject and that if they have any questions
about your review, they should not hesitate to ask; it
is collaboration after all and in the end the paper isthe author’s, not yours. The review itself is inserted at
the beginning of the paper in the Google document.
Therefore, write all general remarks and comments inletter style.
If you would like to make in-text comments,
it is possible to do this in Google Drive. Use in-text
comments to indicate specific areas you feel the author
can focus on or to ask specific questions. However, use
these sparingly as they can get overwhelming. Also, as
most of the comments will be general in nature and thepaper will probably undergo significant changes before
reaching the editing stage, do not worry about pointing
out typos or grammar/word usage errors when doing
first readings.
Post-Review
Before pasting your review into the Google document,
be sure to read through and review it for clarity andcompleteness. Then, when you are satisfied, paste it
into the document and email the coordinator andother collaborators. Do not worry if it is not perfect;as this is collaboration, the coordinator and others cancomment and provide feedback on your review andyou are able to ask questions yourself, if you would
like. The author will not be granted access to the fileuntil all the reviews are completed and checked by
the coordinator, so any in-house conversations can beWriting for Academic Publication, pages 339-346

Figure 1. JALT Peer Support Group (PSG) workflow, May 2013. This figure represents the coordinated readershipprocess of the PSG.

deleted before the author sees them.

PSG Workflow
When people become members of the PSG, thecoordinator adds them to the PSG mailing list. Then,
when they share a Gmail address with the PSG, they
will get access to PSG resources on Google Drive,
which include a number of received, in-process,and already reviewed papers. This enables new PSG
members to read through papers with reviews written
by other PSG members to get ideas of both the typesof papers we review and how to write reviews. Filesare stored in Google Drive, in a shared PSG resources
folder. The flowchart in Figure 1 represents the PSG
workflow: from writers to coordinator, to readers, andthen back again.
Our current workflow calls for writers to contact
the PSG coordinator, with whom they share papers
in Google Drive, granting the coordinator editing
privileges (steps 1-3). In turn, the coordinator sharescopies of the files with PSG members, in earmarked
sub-folders accessible to the group (step 4). Thenreaders a) volunteer to read particular papers, andb) appraise the coordinator and one another of theirprogress by:
1. Moving annotated papers from one earmarked
folder to the next, and

2. Sending update messages from the papers within
Google Drive using the email collaborators
function.
When annotated papers are ready for return,the coordinator shares them back to the writers, andarchives the copies for future PSG reference.
Hopefully, the preceding overview of PSG
activities, peer-reader responsibilities, and workflow
will encourage more language teaching professionals
in Japan to join the group and get involved incollaborative, peer-to-peer readership and support.

Call for New PSG Members
Now more than ever, with the current job market in
Japan, academic publication is important in getting thatnext great teaching position. The JALT Peer Support
Group is a valuable resource that can help emerging
writers get published as well as build their résumés.
It offers a multitude of other benefits for authors andpeer-readers alike. So, we hope you will contact us withpapers-in-progress you would like assistance with and/or join us as a peer-reader yourself.

References
Adamson, J. & Muller, T. (2008). Evolving academic
journal editorial systems. English Language
Teacher Development and Education (ELTED),The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings345

Beaufait, Edwards, & Muller
11, 45-51.
Aitchson, C., Kamler, B. & Lee, A. (2010). Publishing
Pedagogies for the Doctorate and Beyond. London,
England: Routledge.
Belcher, D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an Englishonly research world. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 16, 1-22.
Boyer, E., Altbach, P., & Whitelaw, M. J. (1994). The
academic profession: An international perspective.
Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Brown, H., & Cook, M. (2013). Unscrupulous
journal solicitations: What they are, what they
do, and how you can protect yourself. The
Language Teacher, 37(3), 48-50.
Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2010). Academic research
networks: Accessing resources for Englishmedium publishing. English for Specific Purposes,
29, 281-295.
Graves, D. (1982). Six guideposts to a successful
writing conference. Learning, 11(4), 76-77.
Kanno, Y., & Stuart, C. (2011). Learning to becomea second language teacher: Identities-in-practice.
The Modern Language Journal, 95(2), 236-252.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing
in a global context: The politics and practicesof publishing in English. London, England:
Routledge.
McCrostie, J. (2010). The right stuff: Hiring trends
for tenured university positions in Japan. The
Language Teacher, 34(5), 31-35.
MEXT. (2006). OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary
Education: Country Background Report ofJapan. Higher Education Bureau, Ministryof Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.
org/education/skills-beyond-school/37052438.
pdf
Pryle, M. B. (2009). Purposeful conferences—powerfulwriting: Strategies, tips, and teacher-student
dialogues for helping kids improve their writing.
New York, NY: Scholastic Teaching Resources.
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor ofjournals should not be used for evaluating
research. BMJ, 314, 498-502.
Tsui, A. B. (2007). Complexities of identity
formation: A narrative inquiry of an EFL teacher.
TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 657-680.
Williams, J. G. (2003). Providing feedback on ESL
students’ written assignments. The Internet
TESL Journal. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/
Techniques/Williams-Feedback.html

Authors’ Biographies:
Paul Beaufait lives and works in Kumamoto, Japan. He is an IT coordinator for the JALT Writers’Peer Support Group (PSG) and has been a member of the group since 2003.
Loran Edwards teaches in Osaka, Japan. She is the Coordinator for the JALT PSG and is amember of the Bilingual and Material Writers SIGs.
Theron Muller is lead editor of Innovating EFL Teaching in Asia, Palgrave Macmillan. He has
been a member of the JALT PSG since 2004.

346 The 2013 PanSIG Conference Proceedings