English edition

Online edition: ISSN 2188-8264
Print edition: ISSN 2188-8256

Language Teacher Education੉ୁઇపઇ୘
ْVol.10 No.2ٓ
JACETSIG-ELE Journal
JACETᩍ⫱ၥ㢟◊✲఍ ఍ㄅ

JACETSIG-ELE Journal

Language Teacher Education and Related Fields

August 2023
JACET SIG on English Language EducaƟon
hƩp://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/

【English edition】             Online edition: ISSN 2188-8264
Print edition: ISSN 2188-8256

Language Teacher Education
言語教師教育 2023
【Vol.10

No.2】

JACETSIG-ELE Journal
JACET 教育問題研究会 会誌

August 2023
JACET SIG on English Language Education
http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10, No. 2, JACETSIG-ELE Journal
Published by the Special Interest Group of the Japan Association of College English
Teachers on English Language Education
c/o Fumiko Kurihara, Faculty of Commerce, Chuo University742-1 Higashinakano, Hachioji-shi, Tokyo 192-0393© JACET SIG on English Language Education 2023
Online edition: ISSN 2188-8264 Print edition: ISSN 2188-8256
No part of this journal may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from
JACET SIG on English Language Education.

Printed by Tobunsha for the JACET SIG in Japan.

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Table of Contents

Editors, reviewers and contributing authors ……………………………………
【Research Paper】
Developing and Practicing a Methodology to Promote Deep Reflection acrossPrimary and Secondary School Levels in a Secondary-Education Educational
Practice Seminar………………………… Shun Morimoto
Sakiko Yoneda

(ii)

1

【Research Paper】
Exploring More Effective Use of Reflection Tools in a Pre-service Teacher
Education Course……………………………Satsuki Osaki

22【Research Note】
Considerations on Rubric Assessments within High School Cross-Cultural
Understanding Classes Using J-POSTL…………………………… Yoshio Hoso

45

【Editing Record】
Compiling an English Draft of Self-assessment Descriptors of J-POSTL
Elementary………………………… Ken Hisamura

61

Chronicle: April 2022—March 2023…………………………………………

79

Submission Guidelines………………………………………

82

（ⅰ）
( i )

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Language Teacher Education Vol.10 No.2

Editors, Reviewers and Contributing Authors

Editors
Chief Editor:
Satsuki Osaki (Associate Professor, Soka University)
Associate Editors:
Hiromi Imamura (Professor, Chubu University)
Kaori Yoshizumi (Part-time Lecturer, Rikkyo University)
Eri Osada (Associate Professor, Kokugakuin University)
Fumiko Kurihara (Professor, Chuo University)
Takane Yamaguchi (Full-time Lecturer, Shumei University)
Editorial Advisor
Ken Hisamura (Professor Emeritus, Den-en Chofu University)
Reviewers
Kouichi Ano (Professor, Bunkyo University)
Emiko Izumi (Professor, Kwansei Gakuin University)
Kazuhiko Katagiri (Professor, Senshu University)
Yoichi Kiyota (Professor, Meisei University)
Yuri Nagakura (Professor Emerita, Tokoha University)
Eri Osada (Associate Professor, Kokugakuin University)
Yasuko Shiozawa (Professor, Bunkyo University)
Akiko Takagi (Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University)
Contributing Authors (in order of mention)
Shun Morimoto (Associate Professor, Tamagawa University)
Sakiko Yoneda (Professor, Tamagawa University)
Satsuki Osaki (Associate Professor, Soka University)
Yoshio Hoso (Teacher, Waseda University Honjo Senior High School)
Ken Hisamura (Professor Emeritus, Den-en Chofu University)（ⅱ）( ii )

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

【Research Paper】

Developing and Practicing a Methodology to Promote Deep Reflection
across Primary and Secondary School Levels
in a Secondary-Education Educational Practice Seminar
Shun Morimoto and Sakiko Yoneda

Abstract
This study developed a methodology to promote deep reflection by students througha collaborative reflection activity that fourth-year university students performed in
the fall 2022 the Seminar for Educational Practice (Junior and senior high school).
The features of the approach include: (1) making students aware of the collaboration
between school types by presenting Self-Assessment Descriptors (SADs) of theJapanese Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (J-POSTL) for Pre-service
English Teacher Education and J-POSTL for Elementary-school Teacher Education(J-POSTL Elementary); (2) developing a reflection sheet (RS) that provides aframework for smooth and accurate reflection activities and its use in individual andgroup reflection activities; and (3) limiting reflection to speaking activities toencourage deep reflection. As a result of the thematic analysis of the RS texts, a totalof 535 segments were extracted and grouped under four major themes: “Discussion in
general,” “Reflections on teaching practice,” “Reflection on teaching and learning
experiences other than teaching practice,” and “What the participants learned from thediscussion and their future aspirations”; each theme, including medium and small
themes, was used in many aspects of the speaking activities. The results showed thatstudents reflected on their speaking activities from multiple perspectives through eachtheme and clarified their future challenges, suggesting that collaborative reflection
activities enable students to come into contact with the experiences and opinions ofothers beyond their own experiences, leading to deeper reflection.
Keywords
J-POSTL, J-POSTL Elementary, reflection,
collaboration between primary and secondary school, teacher training
1. Research BackgroundIn the 2009 Course of Study (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology, 2020), the achievement goals for elementary and high school English education
were set with reference to the Common European Framework of Reference for Teaching,
Learning and Assessment (CEFR). Pre-service English teacher training programs should thus
incorporate a long-term perspective from elementary to high school with reference to theprinciples of the CEFR, as the field of education, which has focused exclusively on learning in－ 1 －Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

the school type of one’s choice, such as elementary education for elementary schools, isundergoing changes.
Although the CEFR was published in 2002, this line of research has been conductedsince 1971 (Yoshijima & Ohashi, 2004, ix). Research has continued worldwide, including theincorporation of the CEFR into the Japanese Communication Proficiency Test and Chinese
Language Proficiency Test (Association of International Educational Exchange, 2020; HSK
Japan Implementation Committee, n.d.). The CEFR has attracted attention in Japan today partly
because of its action-oriented view of language, and the philosophy of lifelong learning is inline with the current situation in Japan. The Japanese Portfolio for Student Teachers of
Languages (J-POSTL) used in this study is an adaptation of the European Portfolio forStudent Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL), which was developed based on the CEFR. It is
intended for use by in-service and pre-service teachers to reflect on, internalize, and bringthemselves closer to the practical skills they have learned (JACET SIG on English Language
Education, 2014). Like J-POSTL, the Portfolio for Elementary School English Teachers,
namely J-POSTL Elementary (JACET SIG on English Language Education, 2021), created in
response to the 2017 Course of Study, follows the same philosophy of an action-oriented viewof language and lifelong learning. In the action-oriented view of language, the basic teaching
method is compatible with communicative language teaching (CLT), which is based on
situational, notional, and functional syllabi and focuses on human interaction (p. 1).
For lifelong learning, students should be able to set long-term goals in which they initiate
and manage their own English learning and gain a lifelong practical sense that learning English
is useful and enriches their lives (JACET SIG on English Language Education, 2014).
Portfolios based on these principles have the following five objectives (ibid, pp.1-2): specifying
the teaching skills required of English teachers; encouraging reflection on teaching skills andbasic knowledge and skills that support them; facilitating discussions and collaboration withcolleagues and supervisors; encouraging self-evaluation of instructional practices; andmonitoring growth. The criteria “self-evaluation (reflection) of one’s own teaching practice”(J-POSTL) and “critical reflection and evaluation of one’s own teaching” (J-POSTL
Elementary) confirm that individual reflection and discussion based on actual teachingexperiences are considered essential for reflection and growth as a teacher.
2. Literature Review
Many studies and teaching practices have been conducted using J-POSTL and J-POSTL
Elementary (e.g., Takagi, 2015; Osaki, 2016; Yoneda, 2021; Iwanaka, 2022; Hoso & Kurihara,2022; Nagakura, 2022).
Takagi (2015) investigated the effectiveness of J-POSTL as a reflection tool for 76
students in an English teacher training course, determining which parts of the Self-Assessment
Descriptors (SADs) students focused and reflected on after taking the course for one year.
Students discussed several SADs related to topics covered in the course, and the second of fiveessays in which they reflected more deeply on each SAD was analyzed. Six themes emerged:－ 2 －Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

“Overall awareness,” “What was learned over the year,” “Reasons why student teachers felt
they acquired particular didactic competencies,” “Challenges that need to be solved,” “Reasons
why student teachers found particular elements challenging,” and “Future aspirations.” The useof J-POSTL enabled the students to reflect on their learning over the year, clarify what they
had acquired and what problems they faced, and provide aspirations to overcome problems andimprove their qualities and abilities. The effectiveness of J-POSTL and the content of thereflections were clarified, suggesting the importance of reflection using J-POSTL.
Nagakura (2022) reported on the use of J-POSTL Elementary in mock lessons by 120
third-year students taking the required course “English Language Teaching Methods” in anelementary education program, focusing on (1) group activities like examining lesson plans
and mock classes (rehearsal and performance), (2) J-POSTL Elementary, and (3) the use of“Micro Teaching Strategies 20” to incorporate the above into the practice of mock lessons. The
students’ reflections (free descriptions) led them to recognize the enhancement of selfreflection skills as indispensable for teachers’ growth.
Iwanaka (2022) attempted to improve students’ reflection skills by discussing SADs at
the J-POSTL Elementary. Students were asked to read the 12 SADs in “A-1. Spoken Interaction”
and “A-2. Spoken Production” and discuss in pairs how to achieve them. At the end of the 15th
lesson, they submitted an essay on what they noticed and discovered from using a portfolio.
This study suggested that learners with good English communication skills tend to have ahighly experiential view of learning, and elementary English teachers should conduct lessons
in which students are mainly engaged in activities. Iwanaka concluded that teachers shouldhave an experiential view of language learning.
As described above, many efforts have been made to investigate the importance and roleof reflection activities using J-POSTL or J-POSTL Elementary, but the following points remain
to be addressed: First, most studies conducted reflection activities using either J-POSTL or JPOSTL Elementary, but not both, to make students aware of the connections between school
types. Second, as in most studies students self-evaluated multiple SADs, reflection on
individual SADs was shallow or the choice of SADs was arbitrary when students chose the
SADs. Finally, few studies have reported on teaching practices in the Seminar for Educational
Practice, which is a capstone of four years of pre-service teacher training that students takeafter completing at least the teaching practice for their primary license and gaining richteaching experience in schools that cannot be obtained only through mock lessons at university.
Therefore, the depth of reflection and perspectives are expected to differ qualitatively frombefore the teaching practice. Therefore, in this study, we designed and implemented a series ofactivities to promote deep reflection on specific SADs in both J-POSTL and J-POSTL
Elementary in students attending this seminar.
3. Purpose of the Study
The following research questions were formulated.
RQ1: How deeply were students taking the Seminar for Educational Practice (Middle/High－ 3 －Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

RQ2:

School) able to reflect on the target SADs through reflection activities using J-POSTL
and J-POSTL Elementary?
To what extent did reflection activities using SADs in J-POSTL and J-POSTL
Elementary raise students’ awareness of collaboration between school types?
4. Method

4.1 Research Settings
4.1.1 Course overview. The Seminar for Educational Practice (Middle/High School), a
required course for a teaching license conducted in the fall semester of the fourth year, is theculmination of the pre-service teacher-training curriculum. As shown in Table 1, the course has
four main topics: “Student understanding and classroom management,” “Sociality andinterpersonal relationships,” “Instructional skills,” and “Final project.” The first two topics
were taught by a visiting professor and outside lecturer with experience as principals, while theremaining sessions were taught by the two authors of this paper, with the students divided into
two classes of 20 students each who covered the same content.
In Week 1, after an explanation of the syllabus, the visiting professor gave an
introductory lecture. In Week 2, J-POSTL and J-POSTL Elementary were distributed to
students, who watched an introductory video on J-POSTL Elementary. Based on Tamai,
Watanabe, and Asaoka (2019) and Tanaka, Minami, and Takagi (2022), the instructors
explained what reflective practice is and its significance and emphasized that reflective activity
plays a vital role in this course. As shown in Table 1, the instructional skills sessions were held
five times (Weeks 2, 3, 6–8), and the students engaged in a series of reflection activities basedon SADs in J-POSTL and J-POSTL Elementary selected by the instructors (see the next section
for procedures). In the final project, students designed lessons for a given school and grade
based on the selected SADs and gave a group presentation on the content of the lessons in
Week 12. In weeks 13–15, each group conducted a 30-minute mock lesson using the feedback
they received in Week 12.
Table 1
Syllabus for the Seminar for Educational Practice (Middle and High School), AY2022
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Contents
Course orientation, Introductory lecture
Importance of reflection, Instructional Skills 1: Grammar instruction
Instructional Skills 2: Speaking activities
Student understanding and classroom management 1
Student understanding and classroom management 2
Instructional Skills 3: Language use in the classroom
Instructional Skills 4: Learner engagement
Instructional Skills 5: Utilization of ICT
Explanation and preparation of final project
Sociality and interpersonal relationships 1
Sociality and interpersonal relationships 2
Final project (Group presentation)
Final project (Mock lesson 1)

－ 4 －

Class
Joint
By class
By class
Joint
Joint
By class
By class
By class
By class
Joint
Joint
By class
By class

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

14
15

Final project (Mock lesson 2)
Final project (Mock lesson 3), Wrap-up

By class
By class

4.1.2 Procedures for instructional skills 1–5. The goal of the Instructional Skills 1–5 sessions
was to reflect on past teaching experiences, including teaching practice, confirm students’current situation, and clarify future challenges. The procedure is as follows:(1) Presentation and explanation of SADs (5 minutes)(2) Completing the reflection sheet (RS) (15 minutes)(3) Group collaborative reflection activity (10 minutes × 3–4 rounds)(4) Whole-class sharing and discussion (30 minutes)
In (1), the instructor presented the target SADs to the class on a PowerPoint slide andexplained the key points in interpreting them. This took approximately five minutes. The SADs
translated by the authors and utilized in this class are listed in Table 2.
Table 2The SADs covered in Instructional Skills 1-5
Week

Topic

2

Grammarinstruction

3

Speaking
instruction

6

Language use in
the classroom

7

Learnerengagement

SAD
Teaching method: Grammar【 E 】I can recognize that grammar supports
communication, and be able to teach grammar bypresenting situations in which the target grammar is used,
relating it to language activities, and having children beaware of it【JH】 I can recognize that grammar supports
communication, and be able to teach grammar in relation
to language activities by presenting situations in which thetarget grammar is used.
Teaching method: Speaking activities【 E 】(Interaction) I can design activities related to everyday, simple
matters in order to nurture skills for sharing one’s feelings
and ideas.
(Production) I can design activities in order to nurture skills
for talking about everyday things and lives, using basic
words and expressions.
【JH】 I can design activities for nurturing skills for communicating
about one’s opinions, everyday lives, and the culture of
his/her own country.
Ⅴ Teaching practice: Language use in the classroom【EJH】 I can deliver lessons in English while using Japanese effectively
when necessary
Ⅴ Teaching practice【 E 】C. Interaction with children
3. I can encourage the participation of children, to theextent possible, in the preparation, planning, andimplementation of lessons【JH】 C. Interaction with learners
3. I can encourage learner participation, to the extent possible,
in the preparation and planning of lessons－ 5 －Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

8

Utilization of
ICTⅢ Sources of teaching materials【 E 】6. I can devise teaching materials and activities using ICT thatare appropriate for children.
【JH】 5. I can devise appropriate teaching materials and activities
for leaners※E: Elementary school, J: Junior high school, H: High school.
※SADs were translated by the authors.

In selecting the SADs, we considered two points: ①they should be ones experienced
by as many students as possible during their teaching practice; ②they should not be limited
to teaching language materials and skills but should include those that students should deepen
their understanding of their future teaching careers, such as language use in the classroom,
learner engagement, and the utilization of ICT.
After the presentation and explanation of the SADs, (2) the students downloaded the RS(WORD file) uploaded on the Learning Management System (LMS) to their own PC (seeAppendix 1). In Step 1, the students self-evaluated the extent to which they achieved the target
SADs, circling the most applicable number from 1 to 5 and provided reasons for their selfevaluation. In Step 2, the students selected and reflected on a specific example from their own
experience in teaching practice or school volunteer work that supported their self-evaluation in
Step 1. Six questions were presented in this section: 1) What was the goal of instruction?
(Aim/Goal); 2) Who was the target of the instruction? (Who): grade, number of students, classcomposition, proficiency level, etc.; 3) What and how did you teach? (What and How); 4) How
well did the instruction work? (Self-evaluation); 5) How did the students react to yourinstructions? (Reactions from learners); and 6) What feedback did you receive from yoursupervising teacher about your teaching? (Feedback from the supervising teachers). Students
were given approximately 15 min. to complete Steps 1 and 2.
When the RS was completed, the students were divided into three or four groups, and(3) a collaborative reflection activity by group was conducted. The groups were assigned bylot. Each student was given three minutes to present what they wrote in Steps 1 and 2, andseven minutes were given for group discussion, for a total of three to four 10-minute rounds.
Instructors acted as timekeepers. If there were no presenters in a round, the students discussed
the previous topics. During the discussion, students were asked to take notes on their RS torefer to in Step 4. In addition, students were reminded to consider the perspective of reflection,
listen carefully to others, speak constructively, not impose their opinions, and ensure that the
speaker had clear time management, focus, and points of discussion.
After the group collaborative reflection activity, (4) whole-class sharing and discussion
sessions were conducted for approximately 30 min. In this session, a representative of eachgroup reported the content of the group discussion, and the entire class discussed it. Here, thepolicy that “mentors do not insert their interpretations, judgments, or analytical views into the
feedback they give as much as possible” (Tamai, Watanabe & Asaoka, 2019, p.61) was
thoroughly enforced so that the students themselves would be the main actors in the learning
process, and the instructor served as a facilitator without giving prescriptions on the issues.

－ 6 －Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Students were asked to complete Step 4 of the RS assignment by summarizing their thoughts
and findings based on Steps 1–3 in 700 characters or more and submit it to the LMS by the duedate.
To make the discussion efficient and complete, the reflection topic was announced before
class using the announcement function of the LMS. In the speaking activities class, which isthe subject of this study, the following announcement was made: “In this week’s class, we willreflect on the speaking instruction you provided during your teaching practice or other settings.
Please remember at least one specific example so that the content can be shared with the class.
If necessary, prepare to share the teaching materials you have used.”
4.2 Participants
The participants in this study were 40 fourth-year students (19 males and 21 females)
enrolled in the Seminar for Educational Practice (Junior and senior high school) in the fallsemester of 2022 at the private university where the authors worked. All students were in a preservice teacher training course and were planning to obtain junior high school and high school
English teaching licenses as their primary licenses. Ten students were enrolled in the Dual
Licensure Program and planned to obtain a second class teacher certificate (for all subjects)
as their sublicense, and 39 students had already completed teaching practice for their main
license at junior high or high schools in the spring semester,1 and those in the Dual License
Program had completed teaching practice at elementary schools in the fall semester. Of the twoclasses, one consisted entirely of students who had completed their teaching practice in juniorhigh or high school, the other students who had completed their teaching practice in elementary
schools as well.
4.3 Data
In this study, the texts students produced in Step 4 of the RS regarding speaking activities
were analyzed. There were 37 students who submitted their RSs by the due date. The main
purpose of the RS was to summarize the learning gained in class and encourage students’ own
reflection, not primarily to collect research data. We obtained consent from the students to use
their data for academic purposes and explained that no personal information would be disclosed.
4.4 Data analysis
Following Takagi (2015), thematic analysis, which is widely used in qualitative research,
was used as the analytical method. The students’ texts were combined into an EXCEL file andstudent IDs assigned. After carefully reading each text, it was divided into segments—clustersof meanings (segmentation). Codes and subcodes were assigned to each segment and acodebook was created by calculating the frequency and number of students who wrote eachcode. The maximum number of segments was 25, the minimum was 9, the average was 13.2,
and the total number was 535. Deductive coding was used to explore the data without beingbound by the SAD framework in J-POSTL and J-POSTL Elementary. To ensure inter-rater
reliability, each author conducted coding independently, and the results of both authors were

－ 7 －Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

discussed and agreed upon after a later analysis.
5. Results
Four major themes (“Discussion in general,” “Reflections on teaching practice,”“Reflections on teaching and learning experiences other than teaching practice,” and “What theparticipants learned from the discussion and their future aspirations”), 16 medium themes, and35 small themes emerged (see Appendix 2 for the list, frequency, and number of students). The
following is a summary of students’ reflections on each of the four major themes. Due to space
limitations, discussion is limited to themes that are relatively common or distinctive enough tomerit a report. The numbers in parentheses at the end of each quote indicate the student andsegment numbers.
5.1 Discussion in general
For “Discussion in general,” five medium themes were extracted: “Discussion topic” (34segments), “Reference to SADs” (23 segments), “Perspectives of others” (79 segments),“Consensus reached through the discussion “ (10 segments), and “Comments on the discussion”(5 segments). The main items listed under “Topics for Discussion” were: “how to develop theability for spoken interaction,” “the importance of having students speak English,” “how toincorporate speaking activities in the classroom,” and “how to involve students who havedifficulty communicating in pairs.” For “Reference to SADs,” 23 segments by 20 students(54%) mentioned the SADs. The most common medium theme was “Perspective of others,”
which refers to the perspectives of other group members mentioned during the reflection
activity and consists of “Experience of others” and “Opinions of others.” The former refers to
the experiences of other students during their teaching practice, the latter to the opinions otherstudents shared in the collaborative reflection activity. This theme was identified in 79
segments produced by 25 (approximately 70%) students.
5.2 Reflection on teaching practice“Reflection on teaching practice” consisted of five medium themes: “Teaching contents”(8 segments; hereafter “seg.”), “Actual conditions of students” (16 seg.), “What the participants
gained confidence in” (4 seg.), “Issues and reflections on teaching practice” (55 seg.), and“Instructions and advice from supervising teachers” (14 seg.).
The most frequent theme was “Issues and reflections on teaching practice,” comprisingeight sub-themes: “Student reactions” (12 seg.), “Setting up activities” (10 seg.), “Procedures
for activities” (8 seg.), “How to provide feedback” (7 seg.), “Time allocation” (6 seg.), “Making
activities full of learning” (5 seg.), “Setting the scene” (4 seg.), and “Other” (3 seg.).
The following descriptions were mainly found in the “Student reactions.” In all cases,
students did not react as expected, which was difficult to deal with.
・In addition, although I told the students to consciously try to communicate with others, it－ 8 －Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

was difficult to have a good quality discussion because some students used Japanese when
I was not looking, and some students used English sentences directly from the textbooks.
(5.7)
・At first, I expected the children to help each other in making sentences, so I did not say
anything, but it did not go as smoothly as I had expected, and I ended up having to explain
myself. (20.6)
・Through teaching practice, I found it difficult to teach students who communicated only inJapanese or words. (28.10)“Setting up activities” concerns whether the speaking activity itself could be
implemented in the classroom. As the following examples show, several students were unable
to incorporate speaking activities into their classes. Student #7, who practiced teaching at ahigh school, was unable to conduct speaking activities primarily because of the nature of thegrammatical items covered in class (7.4). He also reflected that it was possible to incorporate
speaking elements even if the setting of the purpose, situation, and occasion were not authentic(7.5). Student #35 stated that she was not able to incorporate speaking activities because theclass was designed to cover the scope of the exam.
・Therefore, I was not able to devise ways to incorporate speaking activities; moreover, it wasdifficult because I was in charge of inanimate subjects and nominal constructions (7.4).
・However, if I had tried to incorporate speaking activities, I could have asked the students tomake sentences using inanimate subject constructions about their opinions, theirsurroundings, and their own country and have them present them to each other in pairs (7.5).
・The actual classes were mostly to complete the scope of the test. I was not able to incorporate
speaking activities into my class. (35.2)
In the “Procedures for activities,” the following reflections were observed: Student #11
mentioned the need to develop the activity in small steps. Student #24 mentioned the need toensure the learners’ understanding of the explanation before the activity. Student #28
mentioned the transition from a paired conversation to a wrap-up as a problem.
・I think during the three weeks of teaching training I should have had the students work on
the activities in small steps and give them constant feedback. I think that is what I shouldhave done during the three weeks of training. (11.12)
・In addition, because I only gave an explanation and started the activity, the learners did not
get a picture of how to work on the activity. Therefore, I ended up giving the same
explanation. (24.8)
・I also realized that it was important to think about how to end the activity rather than justletting the pairs talk. (28.12)
Next, “Instructions and advice from supervising teachers” was divided into four sub-－ 9 －Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

themes: “Goal of the activity” (4 seg.), “Language use” (4 seg.), “Differences in instructions
by supervising teachers” (4 seg.), and “Other” (2 seg.).
As mentioned above, while most comments concerned problems and challenges, somerelated to “What the participants became confident in.” Student #20, who conducted herpracticum in an elementary school, mentioned that she was able to capture the interests of thechildren, as she had expected, by developing a goal based on her supervisor’s instructions.
Student #30 also felt a sense of accomplishment in being able to put what he thought was
important into practice.
・This time, my supervisor asked me to give a lesson that would be fun for the children while
they were reviewing the what-do-you-do and where-do-you-do questions during elementary
school exercises (20.1). The goal was set as “A school trip to Tokyo! The destination is up
to you!” I tried to make the content as interesting as possible for the children (20.2). As
expected, they showed interest as soon as they wrote about their destination (20.3).
・First, I thought it was important to choose a topic with a high degree of freedom that would
arouse students’ interest (30.3). In this respect, I designed an activity in which students
talked in pairs about their favorite season and why, using the conjunction “because,” which
I felt gave them a chance to express their own opinions to some extent (30.4).
5.3 Reflection on teaching and learning experiences other than teaching practiceFor “Reflection on teaching and learning experiences other than teaching practice,” three
medium themes were extracted: “Participation in projects at elementary schools” (6 seg.),“Self-learning experiences” (2 seg.), and “Teaching experiences at tutoring schools” (1 seg.).
Although only one student mentioned “Participation in projects at elementary schools,” thefollowing statements were worth citing.
・I conducted an activity called “Let’s Make a Dream School Lunch” at an elementary school,
setting the purpose, scene, and situation of the activity. However, there were some points tobe improved, such as children’s motivation decreasing, and the flow was not smooth. I
thought I had set the purpose, scene, and situation of the SAD and activities to promote thechildren’s ability to communicate their opinions to each other, but I could not provide
procedures or clear explanations. My poor teaching skills were the reason for my poor
performance. I also felt that the quality of the activities changed depending on my teachingskills and other aspects of classroom management. (21.17–21.20)
Students showed deep reflections on the experience of teaching practice in elementary
school, such as the fact that the flow of the lesson was not smooth, the motivation of thestudents decreased, the quality of the activities varied depending on the teaching skills, and thesuccess or failure of the English lesson was related to classroom management skills.
Student #21 reflected on his junior and senior high school days and how he perceived
speaking, while Student #13 self-evaluated his ability to implement what he had learned in the－ 10 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

research seminar at university, raising corrective feedback as an issue.
・I myself was relatively good at reading and listening in English in junior high and high school
because I could get high scores and there were plenty of assignments outside class, but I still
have a strong feeling that I am not good at speaking because I just sort of work on it. (21.17)
・There was an opportunity to discuss content related to corrective feedback once in a researchseminar and to learn knowledge and application methods (13.3). I was able to put the theory
I learned into practice, which I think was good. (13.6).
5.4 What the participants learned from the discussion and their future aspirations
This topic had the largest number of segments among the four main topics. It included“Thoughts and learning from the discussion” (202 seg.), “Questions raised throughout thediscussion” (4 seg.), and “Future aspirations” (72 seg.).
The most common responses to “Thoughts and learning from the discussion” were“Activity design” (93 seg.), “Affective factors” (25 seg.), “Teaching techniques” (17 seg.),“Status quo and issues in English language education” (11 seg.), “Creating a learning
environment” (8 seg.), “Lesson design” (8 seg.), “Implementation of activities” (7 seg.),“Language use” (7 seg.), “Bridging elementary and junior high schools” (7 seg.), “Difficulties
in teaching” (6 seg.), “Views on Learning” (5 seg.), “Assessment” (5 seg.), and “Qualities andcompetencies of the teachers” (3 seg.). The largest number of segments was for “Difficulties
in teaching” (6 seg.). Of these, “Activity design” had the largest number of segments. In“Activity design,” 11 items were listed (Table 3). The most common item was how to enhancelearners’ readiness for speaking activities, as shown in the following description: theimportance of scaffolding, such as presenting a model, allowing time for practice before theactivity, and presenting the vocabulary and expressions needed for the activity. Scaffolding isa technical term used in pedagogy to indicate that students understand their experiences throughtheoretical concepts.
Table 3Breakdown of “4.1 Activity Design”
Code
How to enhance readiness
Quality of activities
Activity options
Aim/goal of the activity
Setting of purpose, scene andsituation
Adjustment of difficulty level
Significance of activities
Topic selection
Form of activity
Activity procedures
Establishment of language materials

Frequency

29
11
11
8

# of Students

17
6
8
6

8

7

7
5
5
3
3
3

4
4
5
2
3
2

・Instead of giving instructions and waiting for students to work on them, presenting the－ 11 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

expressions and words to be used and even checking pronunciation can reduce the numberof “mistakes” that students fear the most. Other suggestions include not letting students
speak English to their partner or teacher but letting them first think about what they want to
say and summarize what they want to say and carefully guiding them beforehand so thatthey can take the first step toward speaking English and gradually develop the habit of
speaking English. (11.7–11.9)
・I was also reminded of the need for scaffolding to determine how much assistance is needed
for students who understand Japanese but do not know how to express themselves in English.
Although some teachers do not have much time to allocate to speaking activities, I
personally felt that teachers are required to know the effectiveness of the activities andprovide hints and models to expose students to new grammar and to increase theirproficiency in learning while raising their level of understanding. (19.3–19.5)
・I learned that it is important to devise scaffolding, spend a lot of time practicing, and beaware of how to enhance readiness because first-year students are limited in what they canuse. (27.10)
The next two most frequent descriptions were “Quality of activities” and “Choice ofactivities.” The following statements pertain to the former. For example, Students #8 and #37
expressed a need for activities that involved authentic interactions, while #10 stated that merely
allowing students to have pleasant conversations was insufficient.
・In everyday life, there are few conversations, if any, where we know what the interlocutor istalking about. (8.9)
・I strongly felt that activities in which students enjoy talking cannot be called true speaking
activities. (10.3)
・ If scripts and conversation templates are provided, they will no longer be authentic
communication, but mere reading-aloud or speech. (37.5)
For the second description, the following statements indicate students’ reflections on
how speaking activities can be enhanced by using reflection sheets, ICT, and handouts.
・It is considered that the reflection sheet is effective in making students aware of small steps.
(16.10)・If ICT equipment is used not only in English classes but also in other subjects on a daily
basis, the level of understanding and use of rules can be improved. (21.23)
・I think having students listen to model sentences repeatedly and putting a word box that listed
the verbs to be used in the handout helped the activity flow smoothly and made students
enjoy it. (31.8)
The “Activity design” section also included the themes of “Goal of the activity,”“Establishment of purpose, scene, and situation,” and “Adjustment of difficulty level,” all－ 12 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

points to be considered in the design and implementation of speaking activities.
The “Affective factors” included 25 segments that all point out that for students to beable to actively engage in speaking activities, besides increasing their motivation and selfesteem, it is necessary to take care of their affective aspects, such as eliminating excessive
anxiety and shame about errors and stimulating their interest in other cultures.
・The most important thing that I noticed about speaking and speaking interactions was how
important it was to keep students engaged and motivated. (17.1)
・I felt during the discussion that speaking activities were important for raising my self-esteem
and eliminating a sense of weakness in English. (21.7)
・I thought it would be good if I could set up activities that would provide an opportunity forfirst-year junior high school students who were beginning to learn English to develop aninterest in different cultures. (27.12)
・Therefore, I believe it is important to remove the pressure on students that they do notconsider speaking English unless they have the skills to score hundred points, both
grammatically and phonetically. (36.3)
・The teacher’s way of drawing out students is very important, since speaking is an activity inwhich relationships, shyness, confidence, and motivation are especially involved before
students learn to speak. (37.11)“Teaching techniques” included 17 segments: “Dealing with errors” (4 seg.), “Dealing
with different proficiency levels” (4 seg.), “Individual response” (3 seg.), “Giving feedback”(3 seg.), “Giving directions” (2 seg.), and “Keeping the conversation going” (1 seg.). These are
all instructional skills teachers need to promote speaking activities. The main descriptions are
as follows:
・In addition, pointing out students’ errors individually would be quite burdensome for teachers,
and it would be necessary for teachers to speak English like native English speakers on adaily basis. Therefore, I thought that I should not insist on perfect English in speaking
activities but respect the students’ experience and opportunity to speak English and givethem appropriate corrections and feedback for a short time at the end of the activity. (1.9)
・Through this discussion, I think that it is important to clarify the speaking level required of
students according to their proficiency level; for example, first-year junior high school
students should speak in English without relying on Japanese; even if it is just words, firstyear high school students should speak in sentences, and third-year students should speak
in sentences using conjunctions. (16.3)
・However, even when providing feedback, teachers have different priorities in terms ofwhether they prioritize feedback on grammatical errors or content. (25.8)
・In addition, I recognized the need for the teacher to incorporate the items already learned inelementary school and devise activities to keep the conversation going by responding
appropriately on the spot to questions from the interlocutor by asking related questions. (3.7)－ 13 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Finally, 72 segments were listed for “Future aspirations,” divided into eight sub-themes:“Improving activity design skills” (19 seg.), “Improving teaching skills” (13 seg.), “Improving
lesson design skills” (12 seg.), “Improving responsiveness to affective factors” (9 seg.),“Improving teaching techniques” (7 seg.), “Creating a learning environment” (5 seg.),“Implementing activities” (5 seg.), and “Improving assessment” (2 seg.). The following are
representative descriptions of the eight sub-themes. Student #17 noted that through reflection
activities, he became aware of points that he had not noticed before. In addition, as describedby Student #27, some students achieved the goal of improving their teaching skills by being
exposed to various ideas through reflection activities that they could not achieve individually,suggesting that deep reflection took place.
・Language activities that develop communication ability can be established for children withlow proficiency levels. (6.9)
・I want students to learn to use English to express their feelings and not just read what is
written in English. I want to make them realize how fun it is. (14.8)
・I have never thought about how to support such students and encourage them to speak theirown opinions, so I want to think about how to deal with this as a future issue. (17.7)
・I want to incorporate a point that will make students feel happy studying together at the endof the class. (20.9)
・I would like to create an environment in which it is easy to speak and to create an environment
in which it is acceptable to make mistakes not only in English classes but also in otherclasses. (23.14)
・I would like to continue to improve my practical teaching and design skills by coming into
contact with a variety of ideas as I did in today’s class. (27.15)
6. Discussion
One of the authors (Yoneda), who has conducted research using J-POSTL since 2014,
considers the student discussions in this study noteworthy for two reasons: the formation ofreadiness through prior announcements and the use of RS to navigate self-reflection andcollaborative reflection. These helped students focus, enabling them to describe theirexperiences within the framework of (1) the aim/goal of the lesson, (2) the topic of the lesson,(3) what and how they taught, (4) how well the lesson worked, (5) the learners’ reactions, and(6) feedback from supervising teachers. In addition, while explaining their practice most
students showed PowerPoint presentations they had used in their teaching practice, as if
reproducing a mock lesson, which we believe was a good opportunity for them to relive theirexperiences.
The first RQ was “To what extent were the students of the English course who took the
Seminar for Educational Practice (Middle/High School) able to reflect deeply on the target
SAD through a series of reflection activities using J-POSTL and J-POSTL Elementary?” Thefour-level division of the categories from the thematic analysis (major, medium, minor, and－ 14 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

minor sub-items) supports the idea that students delved deeper into their thoughts and wereable to reflect deeply. In addition, as noted in their comments, there are references not only toteaching practice, but also to the four years of learning at the university, indicating that thiscourse is appropriate as a summary of the prospective teacher training curriculum. The second
RQ was “To what extent did the reflection activities using J-POSTL and J-POSTL Elementaryraise students’ awareness of collaboration between school types?” As shown in Appendix 2,five of the 20 students stated “Bridging elementary and secondary schools,” with a frequencyof seven, so the methodology was not effective in raising student awareness on this point.
However, after participants in the Dual License Program returned from their teaching practice,
we observed that they mentioned more cases in elementary schools.
7. Conclusion
In the present study, we developed and implemented a methodology to promote deepreflective activities in the Seminar for Educational Practice (Junior and senior high school),which is the culmination of four-year academic studies at universities. The main features ofthis study were as follows: (1) SADs both in J-POSTL and J-POSTL Elementary were
presented to students together; (2) individual reflection and group collaborative reflection
activities were combined; (3) RS was used as a scaffold for reflection; and (4) all students wereasked to reflect on a specific area of the SAD to promote deep reflection. The results showedthat the methodology promoted deep reflection on various aspects of speaking instruction. In
particular, the topic of “What the participants learned from the discussion and their futureaspirations” was reflected on at a very deep level, branching into “Activity design,” “How to
improve readiness,” and eight other topics. This would not have been possible if participants
had reflected on several SADs simultaneously.
Since this study analyzed the content of reflection on speaking activities, there remains
a need to investigate what kind of reflection was promoted on other topics covered in class (i.e.,language of instruction, learner engagement, and utilization of ICT). In addition, it is necessary
to conduct research on SADs not covered in this study. In addition, since the participants inthis study, except for a few students, used J-POSTL and J-POSTL Elementary for the first time
when they started the Seminar for Educational Practice (Middle and High school), it was notpossible to capture how their English teaching abilities changed from a long-term perspective.
In the future, it will be necessary to verify how students’ self-evaluations change over time bysystematically incorporating reflective activities using J-POSTL and J-POSTL Elementaryfrom the beginning of the course.
Notes
1. One of the 40 students was supposed to practice teaching in the spring, but because of thecircumstances of the school, it was postponed until the fall, so the second class was held
before her teaching practice.
2. Although it is difficult to draw a clear line between “What I learned from the discussion”－ 15 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

and “Future aspirations,” in this study we coded as “Future aspirations” those statementsthat used expressions such as “want to do,” “should do,” “think I should do,” and “willdo,” and those that the two researchers agreed corresponded to future aspirations.
3. This manuscript was originally published in Japanese in Language Teacher Education,
Vol.10, No.1.
References
Association of International Educational Exchange. (2020). Nihongo shiken to eigo shiken no
CEFR jiku hyoukahyou [A comparison table for the CEFR and Japanese and English
language proficiency tests]. https://jlcat.org/comparison_cefr.html
Hoso, Y., and Kurihara, F. (2022). J-POSTL wo katsuyoshita Eigo no jugyokaizen: 2 nenkanno ibunkarikaijugyo no furikaeri. [Improvement of English classes using J-POSTL:
Reflections on two years of intercultural understanding classes], Language Teacher
Education, 9(1), 84-98. http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/VOL9NO1.pdf
HSK Japan Implementation Committee. (n.d.). Nihon to sekai de ichiban ukerareteiru
chugokugo kentei [The most taken Chinese proficiency test in Japan and the world].
https://www.hskj.jp/cefr/
Iwanaka, T. (2022). Jikohyoka kijutsubun wo mochiita hanashiai katsudo: Jukosei noseisatsuryoku kojo no kokoromi [Discussion activities using self-assessment descriptors:
An attempt to improve students' reflection skills] in Yoneda, S., Yamaguchi, T., andOsada, E. (Eds.), Shogakkou Eigo shidosha no potoforio J-POSTL Elementary:
Kyoshoku katei ni okeru katsuyo jissen [Portfolio of Elementary School English Teachers
J-POSTL Elementary: Practical application in student teacher training], 15-24. JACETSIG on English Language Education.
JACET SIG on English Language Education. (2014a). Seicho no tameno seisatsu turu: Gengokyoushi no potoforio [Eigo kyoushi kyouiku zenpen] [Japanese Portfolio for Student
Teachers of Languages (Full version: For English Teacher Education) ].
http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/FullVersionJPOSTL.pdf
JACET SIG on English Language Education. (2014b). Seicho no tameno seisatsu turu:
Gengo kyoushi no potoforio [Eigo kyoushokukateihen] [J-POSTL for Pre-service English
Teacher Education].
http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/PreServiceVersionJPOSTL.pdf
JACET SIG on English Language Education. (2021). Shougakkou eigo shidousha no potoforio(J-POSTEL Elementary) [J-POSTL for Elementary-school Teacher Education].
http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/CompleteJPOSTLElementary.pdf
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2020). Gaikokugo kyouiku
no bapponteki kyouka no imeji [Image of Radical Strengthening of Foreign Language
Education]. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/000025257.pdf
Nagakura, Y. (2022). Mogi jugyo ni okeru J-POSTL Elementary wo mochiita jikoseisatsuryoku
no kanyo [Cultivating self-reflection skills using J-POSTL Elementary in mock lessons]in Yoneda, S., Yamaguchi, T., and Osada, E. (Eds.), Shogakkou Eigo shidosha no－ 16 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

potoforio J-POSTL Elementary: Kyoshoku katei ni okeru katsuyo jissen [Portfolio of
Elementary School English Teachers J-POSTL Elementary: Practical application in
student teacher training], 92-101. JACET SIG on English Language Education.
Osaki, S. (2016). Shougakkou eigo shidousha no tameno gengo kyoushi potoforio (J-POSTL)
kaihatsu: Bunken kenkyu ni okeru jikohyouka kijutsubun no kento [Development of aportfolio for elementary school English teachers (J-POSTL): A literature review of selfassessment
descriptors],
Language
Teacher
Education,3(1),61-78.
http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/VOL3NO1.pdf
Takagi, A. (2015). Eigoka kyoushokukatei rishuusei niyoru seisatsu: Gengo kyoushi no
potoforio (J-POSTL) wo mochiite [Reflection in pre-service teacher education: Using theJapanese Portfolio for Student Teachers of Language (J-POSTL)], Language Teacher
Education, 2(1), 59-77. http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/VOL2NO1.pdf
Tamai, K., Watanabe, A., & Asaoka, C. (2019). Rifurekutibu purakutisu nyumon [Anintroduction to reflective practice], Hitsuji Shobo.
Tanaka, T., Minami, Y., & Takagi, A. (2022). Eigo kyoiku ni okeru kyoshi no kyoudouteki
seisatsu no kanosei: Kyoushi ni yoru seisatsu to seisatsuteki jissen no riron to kadai wo
fumaete [The potential of teachers’ collaborative reflection in English language teaching:
In light of theories and problems of teacher reflection and reflective practice]” Language
Teacher Education, 9(1), 41-54. http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/VOL9NO1.pdf
Yoneda, S. (2021). J-POSTL Elementary no keinen shiyo kara mieta shougakkou eigo kyouin
yousei niokeru gakusei no seichou to manabi [Students’ growth and learning inelementary English teacher pre-service education: Follow-up research using the JPOSTL Elementary over time], Language Teacher Education, 8(1), 71-85.
http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/VOL8NO1.pdf
Yoshijima, S., & Ohashi, R. (2004). Gaikokugo kyoiku II: Gaikokugo no gakushu, kyoju,
hyouka no tameno yoroppa kyotsu sanshowaku. [Foreign Language Education II: The
Common European Framework of Reference for Learning, Teaching and Assessment of
Foreign Languages], Asahi Press.

－ 17 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Appendix
Appendix 1 Reflection sheet used in class
Fall Semester, 2022
Seminar for Educational Practice (Week 2)

English Teaching Skills (1) Reflection Sheet≪
Student ID#：
Name：≪
【Today’s SAD】
Teaching Method #5
Grammar[SH] Be able to recognize that grammar supports communication and teach grammar in relation tolanguage activities by presenting situations in which target grammar is used.
[E] Be able to recognize that grammar supports communication and teaches grammar by presenting
situations in which the target grammar is used, relating it to language activities, and making children
aware of it.
Step 1≪ ≪ Self-assess the SADs above (circle the number that best applies).
1

2

3

4

5

≪
※1-Unable，2-Not very able，3-Neither，4-Fairly able，5-Able

Reason for your self-assessment:

Step 2 In support of your self-assessment in Step 1, select one specific example of your own experience inteaching training, school volunteer work, and so on, and reflect on it. (15 minutes)*Adjust cell width as necessary.
1) What was the goal of the instruction? (Aim/Goal)
2) Who was the target of instruction? (Who): Grade, number of students, class composition,
proficiency level, etc.
3) What and how did you teach? (What & How)
4) How well did the instruction work? (Self-evaluation)5) How did the students react to your instruction? (Reactions from learners)
6) What feedback did you get from your supervising teacher about your teaching? (Feedback fromthe supervising teachers)－ 18 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023
Step 3 In groups of four, discuss the issues based on Steps 1 and 2 (three minutes for reporting and sevenminutes for discussion). The content of this discussion is directly related to the preparation of the proposal, so
please be punctual.
Discussion Notes

Step 4 Summarize your thoughts and findings based on the discussion content in at least 700 characters.
【Today’s Assignment】
（〇〇〇 characters）≪
Appendix 2Final list of codes, frequency of occurrence, and number of students(examples omitted)
Code

1.3.1 Experience of others

Discussion topics, reference to SAD, perspectivesof others, consensus of opinion, and comments on
the discussion
What topics were discussed?
To what extent were SADs mentioned in thediscussion?
What speaking activities did the other groupmembers experience and what opinions did they
have?
What experiences did other group members have?

1.3.2 Opinions of others
1.4 Consensus reached through thediscussion
1.5 Comments on the discussion

What opinions did other group members have?
What was the consensus of the group as a wholethroughout the discussions.
Comments on the discussion

1. Discussion in general

1.1 Discussion topics
1.2 Reference to SADs
1.3 Perspective of others

2. Reflections on teaching practiceDefinition

2.1 Teaching contents

What kind of experiences did the participants havein teaching practice and what kind of instructions
and advice did they receive from supervisingteachers?
What kind of instructions did the participants do?

Freq.

#o
f
Ss

151

33

34

20

23

16

79

25

42

19

37

19

10

6

5

5

97

27

8

8

16

8

4

4

55

21
9

2.2 Actual conditions of students
2.3 What the participants gained
confidence in
2.4 Issues and reflections on teachingpractice
2.4.1 Student reactions

What were the actual conditions of the students?
In what ways did the students gain confidence inteaching practice?
What challenges did the participants face during
teaching practice?
How did students respond to the speaking
activities?

12

2.4.2 Setting up activities

How did the participants set up speaking activities?

106

2.4.3 Procedures for activities

What procedures were used for speaking activities?

87

2.4.4 How to provide feedback

What kind of feedback did the participants give
during the speaking activities?

73

2.4.5 Time allocation

How the participants allocated time for speaking
activities

65

2.4.6 Making activities full oflearning

The extent to which speaking activities involve
learning rather than just speaking

55

2.4.7 Setting the scene

The extent to which the participants were able todesign activities with clear scene setting

43－ 19 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

2.4.8 Other

2.5.1 Goal of the activity

Content not classified above
What kind of instructions and advice did theparticipants receive from supervising teachers
during teaching practice?
How to set the aim of the activity

2.5.2 Language use
2.5.3 Differences in instructions
by supervising teachers
2.5.4 Other

What language should be used in instruction.
Whether there were differences in instructions bysupervising teachers
Content not classified above

2.5 Instructions and advice fromsupervising teachers

3. Reflection on teaching and learning
experiences other than teaching practice

3.1 Project participation in elementary
schools
3.2 Self-learning experience
3.3 Teaching experience at tutoring
schools

4. What the participants learned from thediscussion and their future aspirations


4.1 Thoughts and learnings from thediscussion

4.1.1 Activity design
4.1.2 Affective factors
4.1.3 Teaching techniques
4.1.4 Status quo and issues inEnglish language
education
4.1.5 Creating a learning
environment
4.1.6 Lesson design

2

4

1

2

2

9

3

6

1

2

2

1

1

278

37

202

37

93

27

25

14

17

13

Status quo and issues in English language educationin general

11

5Creating a learning environment for implementing
speaking activities

88

Key points in designing the class, including
Activities

8

5

7

5

7

6

7

5

6

4

5

2

5

3

3

3

4

4

72

30

19

12

13

13

12

11

9

8

What did participants reflect on in their teachingexperiences other than teaching practice andlearning at the university?
What kind of teaching experiences did theparticipants have in projects at elementary schools?
What kind of self-learning experiences did theparticipants have?
What kind of teaching experiences did theparticipants have at tutoring schools?
What did the participants learn through thediscussion and what future aspirations did they
have?
What did the participants think and learn
throughout the discussion?
Key points in designing speaking activities
How to respond to learners’ affective factors inspeaking activities
Teaching techniques required for implementing
speaking activities

Importance of bridging elementary and secondary
schools in implementing speaking activities
Difficulties in teaching speaking

4.1.11 Views on learning

How students view learning
The way assessments should be done in speaking
activities

4.1.13 Qualities and competenciesof the teachers

Qualities and competencies of the teachers requiredfor implementing speaking activities

4.2 Questions raised throughout thediscussion

What questions came to mind throughout thediscussion?
Based on the discussion, what students wanted towork on in the future to improve their own speaking
instruction skills?

4.3.1 Improving activity design
skills

Improving ability to design speaking activities

4.3.3 Improving lesson design
skills

Improving teaching skills required to practice
speaking activities
Improving the ability to design the entire lesson,
including activities

4.3.4 Improving responsiveness toaffective factors

Responding appropriately to learners’ affective
factors for effective speaking activities

4.3.2 Improving teaching skills

94

4.1.9 Bridging elementary andsecondary schools
4.1.10 Difficulties in teaching

4.3 Future aspirations

144

4.1.8 Language use

4.1.12 Assessment

3

4

The extent to which speaking activities are
implemented
Language use in speaking activities

4.1.7 Implementation of activities3－ 20 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

4.3.5 Improving teaching
techniques

Improvement of teaching skills required forspeaking instruction

75

4.3.6 Creating a learning
environment

Create a learning environment for effective
speaking activities

55

4.3.7 Implementing activities

Actively implement speaking activities in class

54

4.3.8 Improving assessment

Improve assessment in speaking activities22－ 21 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

【Research Paper】

Exploring More Effective Use of Reflection Tools
in a Pre-service Teacher Education Course
Satsuki Osaki

Abstract
This study examines how deeply student teachers reflect on their microteaching
using the Japanese Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (J-POSTL). It
also attempts to identify the factors that deepen reflection and suggests more
effective methods for using reflection tools through the combined use of thisportfolio and other reflection tools. The study collected and analyzed student
teachers’ self-evaluations based on the J-POSTL 21 self-assessment descriptors
and their reflection papers. The results suggest that, by classifying the content of
their reflection papers into the five phases of the ALACT model, only 22% of
the participants engaged in deep reflection. Finally, this paper discusses methods
to internalize student teachers’ reflection by utilizing some reflection tools
together and the role of a student teachers’ supervisor as a facilitator to encourage
their deep reflection.
Keywords
reflection, microteaching, ALACT Model, J-POSTL, teacher education
1. Introduction
The Core Curriculum for Teacher Education (MEXT, 2017) outlines the goals ofEnglish language teaching and requires university teacher-education courses to “acquirea perspective on improving teaching through implementation and reflection on
microteaching” (p.7). Therefore, efforts to promote reflection through the use of
portfolios, journals, and group discussions have attracted attention in language education
and all areas of teacher education (Takeda, 2015; Tamai et al., 2019). It has become clearthat the use of these reflection tools promotes students’ reflection, and many studies havebeen reported using the Japanese Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (J-POSTL)(JACET SIG on English Language Education, 2014) (Kiyota, 2015; Nakayama,
Yamaguchi, and Takagi, 2013; Takagi and Nakayama, 2012; Takagi, 2015; Yoshizumi,2018), which is also used by the author. J-POSTL is the adaptation of the European
Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL) (Newby et al., 2007), which takes
into account the educational environment of foreign language teaching in Japan. It is atool for students to continuously record and reflect on what they have learned in theirteaching programs, recognize their own strengths and areas for improvement, and－ 22 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

promote their awareness and learning about the teaching profession. J-POSTL consists ofseveral parts, the core of which is a can-do list comprising 180 self-assessment descriptors.
However, while it has become clear that the use of J-POSTL encourages students toreflect, there are issues that need to be addressed to maximize its effectiveness. Theseissues include, insufficient discussion time for collaborative learning in teaching
programs, lack of clear advising methods from supervisors to encourage reflection, andthe current educational system that prevents supervisors from being directly involved inreflection during teaching practicums (Kiyota, Asaoka and Takagi, 2020). Furthermore,
it has been suggested that students’ lack of awareness of reflection may have affected
their reflection. For example, regarding reflection in language learning in Japan, Hori
(2016) conducted a survey on attitudes toward second language learning at universities
in Japan and concluded that in Japanese educational culture, there are few opportunities
or habits for reflection in school education because the results, such as good test scores,
are more important than the content and process of learning. He suggests that reflection
remains an unfamiliar concept in Japan. Kiyota (2017) also pointed out that although the
Course of Study in elementary, junior high, and high schools requires the encouragementof reflection in class, students may be encouraged only to conduct reflection, not engage
in-depth reflection which leads to the cultivation of autonomy. Thus, it is unlikely thatstudents who have grown up in Japanese schools are aware of the importance of reflection
and have acquired the skills to reflect deeply on their experiences before entering
university. It can be inferred that without appropriate guidance, it is difficult to reflect
deeply on microteaching.
In light of the current situation, there is a growing need to understand theimportance of reflection in Japanese education programs, to examine the content andmethods for internalizing reflection, and to explore effective ways of using reflection
tools to deepen the reflection. Therefore, this paper aims to address this issue by
discussing effective ways of using J-POSTL in combination with other reflection tools. It
will review some reflection tools, clarify the current state of reflection, and identify
factors that contribute to deepening reflection among Japanese students taking English
teaching courses.
2. Overview
2.1 What is Reflection?
The concept of reflection was introduced into pedagogy in the early 20th century
by Dewey and Schön. Dewey (1933) defined the concept of reflection as “active,
persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in thelight of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends,
constitutes reflective thought” (p. 9). Dewey also asserted that attitudes of openmindedness, wholeheartedness, and responsibility trigger reflection in the development－ 23 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

of one’s problem. Based upon Dewey’s ideas, Schön (1983) suggested that reflection isbased on experience and emerges as a response to it. Schön (1983) suggested thatpractitioners, through verbal and descriptive communication, should explore what
happened and why they acted as they did at the time. He emphasizes the significance ofpractice-based reflection, where practitioners, through verbal and written communication,
explore what happened, why they did it, what they did, and anticipate the result of theiranalysis and evaluation. Furthermore, Korthagen (2015), in a keynote speech in Germany,
described reflection as a mental process in which one tries to build or reconstruct previous
experiences, problems, existing knowledge, insights, and more, to better understand or
improve one’s actions, and that this process constitutes learning by experience. In theideal process of learning through experience, action, and reflection occur alternately(Korthagen, 2010, p. 53). The importance of experiential reflection is clearly stated in theCore Curriculum. Therefore, the importance of reflection in teacher education has beenrecognized in Japan, leading to proposing of various models aimed to promote reflection.
For example, the cyclic model of reflective practice by Tamai, Watanabe and Asaoka(2019), which incorporates Dewey and Schön’s concept of reflective practice as a modelof reflective practice, and the ALACT model by Korthagen et al. (2001, 2010) haveattracted attention in the field of English education in Japan.
2.2 ALACT Model
The ALACT model (Figure 1), proposed by Korthagen et al. (2001, 2010) presents
an effective five-phase model for reflection: (1) Action, (2) Looking back on the action,(3) Awareness of essential aspects, (4) Creating alternative methods of action, and (5)Trials. The models are named after the first letters of the five phases. The first phase
involved gaining concrete experience, such as microteaching. In the second phase, student
teachers reflected on their actions in response to the situation, such as what they werethinking at the time, how they felt, and how their actions affected the students. During thesecond and third phases, students become aware of the emotions and behavioral
tendencies triggered by their experiences and related childhood school experiences(Korthagen et al., 2001, 2010). In this phase, student teachers notice what the teacher andlearners wanted to do, what they felt, and what they thought. In the fourth stage, thestudent teachers choose a new action based on their essential awareness gained in thethird stage. In the fifth phase, the new action considered in the fourth stage is attempted.
The trial, (5) becomes the action, (1) of the next phase.
By following this ALACT model with their supervisors or peers, teachers areencouraged to learn to enhance their expertise by “delving into the context and meaningof their own practice based on situations that did not go well or made them feel
uncomfortable, and by looking deeply within themselves” (Sakata et al., 2019, p.38). In
this process, Korthagen (2001, 2010) states that it is important to promote “awareness ofessential aspects” in the third phase by carefully reflecting on the experience and－ 24 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

deepening the reflection in the second phase (Korthagen et al., 2001, 2010).
Figure 1
The ALACT Model of Reflection (Korthagen et al., 2001, 2010)

The “eight questions” (Table 1) were developed to support a more adequate
reflection process. These “eight questions” encourage teacher students to carefully
consider specific feelings, thoughts, needs, and actions (Korthagen et al., 2001, 2010). By
asking these questions, either their supervisors or the teacher students themselves, it ishoped that the teacher students will be encouraged to reflect objectively on their actions.
Table 1
Questions Supporting the Transition from Phase 2 to Phase 3 (Korthagen et al., 2010)
0. What is the context?
1. What did I want?
5. What did the students want?
2. What did I do?
6. What did the students do?
3. What did I think?
7. What did the students think?
4. What did I feel?
8. What did the students feel?
In recent years, an increasing number of studies have been conducted on reflective
practice using the ALACT model in Japan (Hoshi, 2021; Sekihara and Okazaki, 2021;
Takeda, 2015). Sekihara and Okazaki (2021) investigated how an English teacher
engaged in reflection using the ALACT model to improve his teaching skills along withhis mentors. They reported that he identified a gap in awareness between the teacher andhis students, which led to a new attempt. However, Sekihara and Okazaki (2021) pointed
out that the use of the ALACT model requires time for reflection and does not lead toeffective reflection unless a mentor carefully explains what each phase in the modelmeans. Therefore, future research should focus not only on the use of the reflection
process but also on how to promote reflection through mentoring. Furthermore, it has
been reported that the application of the ALACT model in teacher training programs
results in an increase in the quality of students’ reflection papers (Kamijo, 2012). However,unlike experienced teachers, these students have not yet acquired the knowledge or skills－ 25 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

necessary for the teaching methods. Therefore, in this study, I explored how this reflection
tool can be used more effectively in combination with J-POSTL, which provides afundamental perspective on teaching skills.
2.3 The ALACT Model and J-POSTL
The ALACT model described above aims to promote the development ofautonomous teachers by encouraging students to reflect on their practices through an ideal
reflection process. Conversely, the author uses J-POSTL, a portfolio for students tocontinuously record what they have learned in the teaching program and their practicum,
and to use it for their personal growth. Specifically, J-POSTL is a tool for students toreflect on their learning in the teaching program and teaching practice through selfassessment. It utilizes 96 descriptors of language teaching competence, such as “I can set
learning objectives which take into account learners’ needs and interests in line with the
Course of Study.” It is important to note that the descriptors are not a checklist, but rather
serve as indicators for students and supervisors to exchange ideas about important aspectsof teacher education in the context of the descriptors. The descriptors serve to enhance
professional development in teaching. However, each supervisor uses J-POSTL
according to their own teaching environment. Therefore, it is important to consider how
to maximize the impact of J-POSTL on improving teaching methods by incorporating the
ALACT model process to promote reflection and instructors’ support methods.
2.4 Advising Strategies and Tools to Facilitate Reflection
In addition to the ALACT model and J-POSTL, other possible tools to facilitatereflection include advice strategies and tools suggested by Kato and Minard (2022) in
Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. In the process of Transformational
Advising in language learning recommended by Kato and Minard (2022), the advisor“supports a learner in going beyond improving language proficiency. The learner’s
existing beliefs are challenged to raise the awareness of learning, translate the learner’sawareness into action, and finally, make a fundamental change in the nature oflearning”(p.9). This same process is used by advisors to encourage student reflection on
microteaching. Transformational Advising comprises four approaches: Promoting Action,
Broadening Perspectives, Translating Awareness into Action, and Assisting
Transformation. According to this study, applying this approach and facilitating learnerprogress require careful and intentional use of advising strategies that are appropriate forthe learner’s learning trajectory. Their trajectory consists of four stages, each representing
the depth of reflection on learning (Table 2). The first stage is the “Getting Started” stage,
characterized by learners who are not yet fully aware of their learning process andlanguage learning needs. The second stage is the “Going Deeper” stage where the learners
can reflect deeply with assistance and question their existing values. The third stage,“Becoming Aware” is when one is able to reflect on one’s own learning process, gain

－ 26 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

more confidence in one’s learning, and link awareness to action. The fourth stage,“Transformation” is the stage where they are able to take control of their own learning.
For example, when using J-POSTL or aiming to promote reflection from the second
phase (reflection on actions) to the third phase (awareness of essential aspects) of the
ALACT model, it may be effective to use other strategies and tools, in addition to the“eight questions” mentioned (see 2.2), to deepen the learner’s reflection (learning
trajectory) from the “Going Deeper” to the “Becoming Aware” stage. Specifically, thestrategies used in the “Going Deeper” stage in Table 2, such as powerful questions and“what if” questions, as well as a journal as a tool, can be effective. According to Kato andMinard (2022), the goal of powerful questions, such as“why,” “how,” “what,” “who,”“when,” “where,” and “yes/no questions”, is to “ask the right questions at the rightmoment to invite and challenge the learner to reflect at a deeper level”(p.110). In addition,
powerful questions “are used to encourage learners to gain a deeper insight or a look at
future possibilities”(p.110).
Table 2
The Learning Trajectory for Learners adapted from Kato and Minard (2022)
The learning
trajectory

Learners
characterized by

Focus areas in advisingsessions

Advising tools【Getting Started】 Being largely
Setting the scene
unaware of theirlearning processes.

・Making goals
・Taking action
・Recording progress・Learning plan,【Going Deeper】

・Promoting deeper

・Reflective journal

thinking by using“powerful” and “whatif” questions
・Challenging existing(written/oral)
・Goal-setting

Moving toward aturning point

Starting to become
more aware oflearning processes
and reasons for
struggles.

diariespyramidvalues【Becoming
Aware】The “aha” momentin advising

Being about to reflect ・Experiencing the “aha”
on their own learning
momentprocesses and feeling ・Building on strengths
more confident about ・Translating awarenesstheir learning.
into action【Transformation】 Being largely aware
Starting to “selfof their learning
advise”
processes.

・Time management
tools
・Self-diagnostic
tools
・Learning log
・Task calendar

・Introducing the concept

・Time managementof self-advising
・Reflecting on your “besttools・Self-diagnostic

self”
tools
・Looking back- and to the ・Learning log
・Task calendar
future－ 27 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

“What-if” questions have three benefits: first, asking about something that has not
yet happened can help learners think from a broader perspective; second, answering thisquestion can help learners identify the real problem; and third, challenging current
assumptions can help them rethink their current thinking. We believe that advisors should
be aware of the appropriate use of these questions according to students’ stages ofreflection, which can promote students’ reflection.
2.5 What is Deep Reflection: the Importance of the Third Phase
What is deep reflection? If we look at the learning trajectory (depth of reflection) in
Table 2, we can say that deep reflection occurs after the third stage, “Becoming Aware.”In the third stage, the learners were able to reflect on their own learning processes andlink their awareness to actions. In other words, this is the third stage of the ALACT model,
in which the unconscious becomes conscious and can be verbalized. Furthermore,
Korthagen and Vasalos (2005) state that this is because if teachers unconsciously comeup with short-sighted solutions to the problems they experience, their strategies(solutions) will eventually become fixed, they will lose the habit of examining thesestrategies, and eventually stop analyzing the problems they have tried to deal with. Thistendency can also be observed in the students’ reflections on microteaching. For example,
I often see student teachers coming to me for advice immediately after teaching in an
English Teaching Methods II class. Students raised in an educational culture unfamiliar
with the concept of reflection may end up formally reflecting in microteaching. If so, they
are missing the third phase, “awareness of essential aspects,” that Korthagen describes asimportant. Sakata et al. (2019) describe the “essential aspect” as the nature of things
behind the discomfort one feels when confronted with the discrepancy between one’s
inner self and actions triggered by practical experiences. Kiyota (2017) notes that“reflection is the act of thinking about the process and meaning of changes in one’s own
learning”(p.45) and that noticing “gaps” in one’s everyday awareness of changes inlearning provides a new perspective. Such introspective reflection on changes in one’s
learning “plays a major role in improving teaching skills and the quality of learning, andin becoming an autonomous teacher” (Yoshizumi, 2018, p.27), and this third stage,“awareness of essential aspects,” is important for the development of teachers who
continue to grow. Therefore, in this paper, we define “deep reflection” as this third phase(awareness of essential aspects), and define it as awareness of the essential aspects and of
a new perspective by challenging the existing values triggered by the practical experience.
This study analyzes the depth of students’ reflection in microteaching by applying the fivephases of the ALACT model to clarify the actual state of their reflection and the factorsthat deepen their reflection, and discusses teaching methods to promote deep reflection
using the above-mentioned J-POSTL and other reflection tools.

－ 28 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

3. Purpose of the Study
Using J-POSTL, this study examines the extent to which pre-service student
teachers reflect on their own microteaching practices. In addition, it discusses how JPOSTL and the ALACT model can be used in English teacher training courses topromote deeper reflection.
3.1 Research Questions
The research questions of this study are as follows:
RQ1: How does utilizing J-POSTL affect pre-service student teachers’ reflections on
microteaching?
RQ2. Are student teachers aware of essential aspects and of a new perspectives bychallenging the existing values triggered by microteaching?
RQ3. What are some of the ways in which reflection tools can be used to raise awarenessof essential aspects and encourage deep reflection?
4. Methods
4.1 Setting
4.1.1 Course descriptions. This study was conducted in the course “English Teaching
Methods II” (fall semester, 2 credits), which is a required course for student teachersaiming to obtain a license to teach English in junior and senior high schools. Most of them
are sophomores and the course took place from September 2021 to January 2022. Its
objective is to improve student teachers’ teaching skills by repeatedly encouraging themto reflect on the teaching skills required of English teachers and the basic knowledge andskills that support these skills through microteaching practices and to improve their selfevaluation and self-reflection skills to improve their teaching. Microteaching has two
focuses: (1) the oral introduction of new grammatical items and drill activities to enable
teachers to realize that grammar affects learners’ oral and written performance, andfacilitating their learning through meaningful contexts by providing a variety of language
activities while adapting English to learners’ stages of learning; and (2) the oral
introduction of new materials at the pre-reading stage of the lesson by relating it to theknowledge and familiar events that learners have and by motivating them to engage withthe subject matter of the unit. In the fifteen lessons, peer teaching was conducted in small
groups of three to four students in the 7th lesson (oral introduction of a new grammar
item), the 9th lesson (drill activity), and the 11th lesson (oral introduction of new material
at the pre-reading stage of the lesson). Additionally, in the 13th or 14th lesson,
microteaching was conducted where 15 minutes of the lesson plan was presented to thewhole class.

－ 29 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

4.1.2 Use of the J-POSTL in teacher education. In order to help the student teachersacquire the perspectives necessary to improve their teaching, the J-POSTL selfassessment descriptors related to the peer teaching and microteaching mentioned above
were utilized. Out of 96 J-POSTL self-assessment descriptors, 21 items were selected thatwere relevant to the aims and content of the course, as well as those of the microteachingpractice and three small-group peer teaching sessions: (1) oral introduction of a newgrammar item, (2) a drill activity, and (3) oral introduction of new material. The categories
and self-assessment descriptors for each of these 21 items are shown in Table 4.
Immediately after the end of each practice, a critique was made when peer student
teachers gave feedback to the microteaching demonstrator and pointed out what was goodand what could be improved in individual teaching. Due to time constraints, peer student
teachers and student assistants (SAs) submitted comments on peer evaluation using
Google Forms. The next day, the comments were compiled and uploaded to eachdemonstrator’s Google Drive folder along with the supervisor’s comments. Student
teachers who conducted peer teaching or microteaching critically observed their videorecorded practices using the J-POSTL self-assessment descriptors. The student teachersthen wrote a “reflection report” based on the comments from other peer student teachers
and the immediate feedback. In addition, after microteaching, the student teachers wrote
a “reflection paper” in which they reflected on the improvement of their teaching skills
and future issues based on their three peer-teaching experiences and their self-evaluationsof the J-POSTL descriptors. During the final class, the student teachers engaged in a
discussion, interacting with each other to interpret or improve their teaching competencies.
They highlighted some self-assessment descriptors that they found challenging or could
not understand well.
4.2 Participants
The participants of this study were 26 students who enrolled in the course of“English Teaching Methods II” taught by the author. Two students who withdrew fromthe course in the middle of the semester and three who took the course online were
excluded. The purpose of the study was explained to the participants in the classroom andall provided their informed consent to participate. To preserve privacy, the participants
have not been named.
4.3 Data and Data Analysis
The data for the study consisted of the self-evaluation scores of the 21 selected selfassessment descriptors from the J-POSTL and a reflection paper on their overall reflection
during the course. The self-evaluation data were based on the participants’ scores on a
five-point scale of 21 J-POSTL self-assessment descriptors at four points after the peer
teaching sessions and microteaching (see Table 4). In addition, qualitative data from “areflection paper” was used for this study. The student teachers were asked to reflect on－ 30 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

their learning from the course and their microteaching practices, taking into account theirself-assessment scores and changes using J-POSTL. Eighteen students were included in
the study, excluding five students who were unable to participate due to illness or otherreasons in all four practices, which were the subject of the study.
To provide an overview of the overall growth of the students’ self-assessment
descriptors, the mean scores and standard deviations of each self-assessment descriptor
from the first to fourth sessions were calculated, and their characteristics were analyzed.
Next, to analyze whether the students were able to describe their own behavior in termsof the growth of their teaching skills and challenges through the use of the J-POSTL selfassessment descriptors when reflecting on their microteaching practices, I read thereflective papers in detail, fragmented the text into segments, and the 21 self-assessment
descriptors were used as codes for text analysis. The fragments were categorizedaccording to the corresponding self-assessment descriptors. Some time had passed since
the initial classification of the self-assessment statements, and the self-assessment
statements were reviewed again as data and codes to confirm the appropriateness of theclassification (RQ1). In addition, to determine whether student teachers were able to“reflect deeply” on a reflection paper, each student teacher’s paper was examined indetail; the texts were dissected into fragments, and the five phases of the ALACT modelin Table 3 were used as codes for text analysis. After some time elapsed since the initialclassification process, the appropriateness of the text fragmentation and classification into
phases was reviewed to confirm the appropriateness of the classification (RQ2).
Table 3
Text Analysis Code: 5 Phases of the ALACT Model
Phases

Codes

Phase 1 (Action)

The teacher students conducted peer teaching or microteaching.

Phase 2In response to the situation that occurred in microteaching practices, the teacher(Looking back on the action)

students reflected on their own microteaching, such as what they were thinking at
the time, how they felt, and how their actions affected the students.

Phase

3

(Awarenessof

There is an awareness of the real issues and of a new perspective by challenging theessential aspects)

existing values triggered by microteaching.

Stage 4 (Creating alternative

The teacher students reflected on the microteaching and suggested other new ideas.

methods of action)
Phase 5 (Action)

The teacher students implemented the proposal considered in Phase 4.

5. Results and Discussions
5.1 How does utilizing J-POSTL affect student teachers’ reflection on microteaching(RQ1)?

－ 31 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

5.1.1 Changes in the average scores of self-assessment and standard deviation for
four practices. Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations for participants’ selfevaluation scores of each self-assessment descriptor of J-POSTL for (1) oral introductionof a new grammar item, (2) drill activity, (3) oral introduction of new materials, and (4)microteaching.
The overall mean for (1) was 3.40. The highest score was 3.86 for V-D-2, “I canmanage and use resources (flashcards, charts, pictures, audio-visual aids, etc.) effectively,”and none exceeded 4.0. Meanwhile, the lowest self-assessment scores were IV-B-4, “I
can accurately estimate the time needed for specific topics and activities and plan work
accordingly,” with a mean of 2.93, and V-A-3, “I can time and change classroom activities
to reflect individual learners’ attention spans,” and V-A-3, which were statements abouttime allocation. Looking at the standard deviations, one-third of the descriptors showedremarkable variation in the respondents’ self-assessments. The mean of the total selfevaluation score decreased once in the self-evaluation of (3); however, the mean of theself-evaluation score after microteaching (4) was 3.98, the highest among the four selfevaluation scores. The highest score was 4.36 for IV-C-2, “I can plan for learnerpresentations and learner interaction,” and 11 of the 21 self-assessment descriptors had
scores above 4. The lowest score was 3.37 for II-G-1, “1. I can evaluate and select avariety of activities that awaken learners’ interest and help them develop their knowledge
and understanding of their own and the target language culture.” The standard deviationof the self-assessment descriptors was 3.37 and showed that, although there was somevariation in the descriptors related to grammar instruction, the overall variation in the
self-assessments was less than that of the other descriptors.
The results of the survey showed that the average self-assessment scores for each of
the descriptors for (3) were lower than the average self-assessment scores for (1) and (2).
However, by the fourth survey, the average self-assessment scores for all descriptors had
increased the most.
Table 4Self-Assessment Descriptors and the Average and Standard Deviations After 3 Peerteaching Sessions and One Microteaching (N=18)
Self-Assessment Descriptors

Mean
(1)

(2)

SD

(3)

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

II Methodology

E 2. I can recognize that grammar affects learners’ oral

3.57

3.81

3.44

3.93

0.76

0.66

0.86

1.03

3.00

3.00

3.56

3.37

0.78

0.52

1.12

0.90

and written performance and help them to learn it
through meaningful contexts by providing a variety oflanguage activities.

G 1. I can evaluate and select a variety of activities thatawaken learners’ interest in and help them to develop－ 32 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

their knowledge and understanding of their own andthe target language culture.
IV Lesson Planning

A 1. I can set learning objectives that take into account

3.50

3.44

3.38

4.07

0.94

0.89

0.99

1.03

3.21

3.63

2.94

3.86

0.58

0.50

0.83

0.91

3.14

3.63

3.19

3.84

0.77

0.62

0.81

0.86

3.57

4.00

3.62

4.16

0.85

0.82

0.78

1.10

2.93

3.44

4.00

3.80

1.14

1.26

1.00

0.90

3.64

4.13

4.00

4.07

0.74

0.72

0.87

0.73

3.71

3.75

3.56

4.16

0.91

0.77

0.70

0.66

3.36

3.88

3.56

4.00

1.01

1.02

1.06

0.85

3.50

3.88

3.88

4.36

1.09

0.96

0.86

0.81

3.50

3.75

3.69

4.02

1.01

0.93

1.04

0.85

learners’ needs and interests in line with the Course of
Study.
3. I can set objectives that challenge learners to reach
their full potential.
4. I can set objectives that take into account thediffering levels of ability and special educational needsof the learners.

B 3. I can plan activities that link grammar andvocabulary with communication.
4. I can accurately estimate the time needed forspecific topics and activities and plan work
accordingly.
5. I can design activities to make the learners aware ofand build on their existing knowledge.
6. I can vary and balance activities to enhance andsustain the learners’ motivation and interest.

C 1. I can select from and plan a variety of organizational

formats (teacher-centered, individual, pair, and groupwork) as appropriate.
2. I can plan for learner presentations and learnerinteraction.
3. I can plan when and how to use the target language,
including the metalanguage I may need in theclassroom.
V Conducting a Lesson

A 1. I can start a lesson in an engaging way.
2. I can be flexible when working from a lesson plan

3.64

3.19

3.31

3.86

1.15

1.11

0.98

0.64

3.21

3.25

3.44

3.93

0.97

1.00

0.79

0.96

2.93

3.44

3.69

3.79

0.99

0.89

0.85

1.01

3.21

3.25

3.31

3.71

1.05

1.06

0.98

0.80

3.43

3.44

3.56

3.93

0.85

0.89

0.93

0.80

and respond to learner interests as the lesson
progresses.
3. I can time and change classroom activities to reflect
individual learners’ attention spans.
5. I can adjust my time schedule when unforeseen
situations occur.

B 1. I can relate what I teach to learners’ knowledge,
current events in the local context, and the culture of－ 33 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

those who speak it.

D 1. I can create opportunities for and manage individual,


3.07

3.50

3.44

4.21

0.91

1.21

0.93

0.77

3.86

4.13

4.19

4.21

0.94

0.81

0.95

0.86

3.71

3.88

3.69

4.07

1.13

1.09

1.10

1.03

3.79

4.00

3.62

4.21

0.97

0.63

0.86

0.86

partner, group, and whole class work.
2. I can manage and use resources (flashcards, charts,
pictures, audio-visual aids, etc.) effectively.

E 1. I can conduct a lesson in the target language, and if
necessary, use Japanese effectively.
2. I can analyze learners’ errors and provide
constructive feedback to them.

5.1.2 Self-assessment descriptors mentioned in reflection papers. The total number oftimes these 18 students mentioned self-assessment descriptors was 51; 14 of the 21
descriptors were mentioned in their reflection papers. Table 5 lists the eight selfassessment descriptors that received four or more mentions in the reflection papers.
Table 5
Self-Assessment Descriptors and their Number of Occurrences in the Reflection Paper (4or more)CategoryII

Self-Assessment Descriptors

Subcategory

G. Culture

1. I can evaluate and select a variety of activities that awaken learners’ interestTime4

in and help them to develop their knowledge and understanding of their own andMethodology

the target language culture.

IV

B. Lesson Content

6. I can vary and balance activities to enhance and sustain the learners’

5

motivation and interest.

Lesson5

C. Lesson

1. I can select from and plan a variety of organizational formats (teacher-

Organization

centered, individual, pair, and group work) as appropriate.

V

A. Using Lesson

1. I can start a lesson in an engaging way.

7

Conducting a

Plans

5. I can adjust my time schedule when unforeseen situations occur.

5

LessonD. Classroom

1. I can create opportunities for and manage individual, partner, group and whole

5Managementclass work.

Planning

2. I can manage and use resources (flashcards, charts, pictures, audio-visual aids,5etc.) effectively.

E. Classroom

1. I can conduct a lesson in the target language, and if necessary, use

Language

Japanese effectively.

7

The most frequently mentioned descriptor was V. Conducting Lessons. A-1, “I canstart a lesson in an engaging way,” and E-1, “I can conduct a lesson in the target language,and if necessary, use Japanese effectively,” were each selected 7 times. Looking at themean and standard deviation (Table 4) of these two self-assessment descriptors, the mean

－ 34 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

of A-1 dropped at (2), the evaluation score rose at once at (4), and the standard deviation
showed less variation. In the reflection papers, it was also clear that the teacher students
reflected on their past practices and experienced growth. In contrast, the mean of E-1 did
not change significantly, but the standard deviation remained large, indicating that the
self-assessment varied until the end. In Student D’s reflection paper, which is discussed
later, it was evident that students were thinking about how to interpret the abstract terms,
such as “as needed” and “effective” and reflecting on their own repeated trial-and-error
efforts.
5.1.3 Growth in Self-Assessment Scores for Self-Assessment Statements Mentioned
in the Reflection Paper. The average growth in self-assessment scores per descriptor
between the first and fourth time for the 21 self-assessment descriptors selected was +0.57.
Table 6 shows the growth range between the first and fourth numerical values of the selfassessment scores for each descriptor. The table includes the eight self-assessment
descriptors mentioned more than four times in the reflection paper.
Table 6

Score Growth for Self-Assessment Descriptors with Four or More Mentioned in the
Reflection Paper
CategoryII

Self-Assessment Descriptors

Growth

1. I can evaluate and select a variety of activities that awaken learners’ interest+0.37

Subcategory

G. Culture

in and help them to develop their knowledge and understanding of their own

Methodology

and the target language culture.

IV

B. Lesson Content

6. I can vary and balance activities to enhance and sustain the learners’+0.44

motivation and interest.

LessonC. Lesson

1. I can select from and plan a variety of organizational formats (teacher-

Organization

centered, individual, pair, group work) as appropriate.

V

A. Using Lesson

1. I can start a lesson in an engaging way.

+0.22

Conducting a

Plans

5. I can adjust my time schedule when unforeseen situations occur.

+0.50

LessonD. Classroom

1. I can create opportunities for and manage individual, partner, group and whole+1.14Managementclass work.

Planning

2. I can manage and use resources (flashcards, charts, pictures, audio-visual

+0.64

+0.36

aids, etc.) effectively.

E. Classroom

1. I can conduct a lesson in the target language, and if necessary, use Japanese

Languageeffectively.

+0.35

In Table 6, the shaded descriptors IV C-1 (+0.6) and V D-1 (+1.14) are the selfassessment descriptors that student teachers identified as areas of improvement in theirreflection papers; their values were relatively high compared with the average growth rate.
The other five self-assessment descriptors were those that student teachers identified as－ 35 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

challenges to be improved, and their average growth rate was +0.44, which was relatively
low compared with the average growth rate. In other words, the student teachers were
aware of their own improvements and challenges in completing their self-assessments.
This suggests that J-POSTL gives student teachers the opportunity to visualize their own
growth and challenges, as pointed out in Yoshizumi’s (2018) discussion.
5.2 Are student teachers aware of the essential aspects and of a new perspective by
challenging the existing values triggered by microteaching? (RQ2)
I asked questions about the extent to which the students were able to reflect deeplyon their practices. I also wondered if all students were able to reflect on their experiencesin the same way. Next, the results of classifying students’ depth of reflection into the fivephases of the ALACT model were examined in this study.
Four of the 18 participants indicated that they were aware of the essential aspects(Table 7). For example, Student D was concerned about how to make her peer teacher
students understand her instructions in English because she had received a lot of feedbackin past peer teaching sessions that her speaking speed was too fast or that it might bedifficult for junior high school students to understand (Phase 2). Accordingly, she felt thatteachers needed to adjust their English skills according to their proficiency levels (Phase3). However, because she did not know the actual level of English proficiency andcomprehension of junior high school students, she decided to participate in a schoolinternship program the following spring semester and apply this experience to her futureteaching. Next, Student E wondered why he did not receive the response he wanted fromthe peer teachers during the drill activity (Phase 2). Student E then realized, “I assumed
that my students would behave according to my expectations (Phase 3).” For the next two
students, descriptions related to student teachers’ beliefs (teacher brief) and past learning
experiences were found, and student teachers’ own behaviors and thoughts about thesituation, as well as their feelings and needs, were noted. Student J used too much
Japanese and gave too many hints to the students after asking questions in microteaching(Phase 2). When this was pointed out by the peer student teachers, Student J reflected, “I
wanted everyone to understand the lesson because I could not understand English at allwhen I was a student at school.” However, he realized that by doing so, he reduced
opportunities for students to actively participate in the lesson (Phase 3). Student K tried
to create a good atmosphere in class by speaking pleasantly, but had problems with it. He
also hesitated toward the teaching method of deepening students’ understanding throughquestioning and consulted one of the Student Assistants (SA) in the class. Such momentsof confusion in practice are referred to as "puzzles of practice" (Tamai et al., 2019, p. 73).
However, as he observed the microteaching of peer student teachers, he realized that oneway teacher talk did not always seem to work. Finally, he was able to experience the joy
and effectiveness of creating lessons for students through microteaching. It was a momentof understanding, as continuous reflection occurred, that maybe this was what it was all－ 36 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

about. Thus, in a community of peers, the student was able to continue shaking theteacher's brief, which is the criterion by which one judges oneself (Tamai et al., 2019, p.
73). This student was able to achieve Korthagen’s fourth stage of “creating alternative
methods of action” and the fifth stage of “trial.”
Table 7
Example of Deep Reflection from Phase 2 to Phase 3

Student D

Phase 2Phase 3

Looking back on the action

Awareness of essential aspects

I gave the instructions in English and then translated

Through this microteaching, I realized that it is importantthem into Japanese to ensure the peer student teachers

to use English according to the students’ levels of

understood during the microteaching. However, I

understanding, rather than giving instructions according

wondered how to use Japanese effectively in an

to what I consider to be the students’ English level. I have

English classroom. I should know the English level offound that teachers need to adjust their English according

the eighth graders.

to students’ proficiency levels. To solve this issue, I havedecided to participate in an internship at the school next
semester.

Student E

Student J

I was wondering why I did not get the response I

I assumed that my students would behave according towanted from the peer teacher students during the drill

my expectations. Therefore, my microteaching did not

activity during my microteaching.

work.

Through microteaching, I used too much Japanese andI wanted everyone to understand the lesson because I

gave too many hints to the peer teacher students when

could not understand English at all when I was a student

I asked them to answer questions.

at school. But I realized that by doing so, I was reducing
the opportunities for students to actively participate in
the lesson.

Student K

I created a good atmosphere in the class by speaking

As I observed the microteaching of the peer student

pleasantly, but I had problems with it. Meanwhile, Iteachers, I realized that the one-way teacher talk did nothesitated toward the teaching method of deepening

always seem to work. I was able to experience the joy

students’ understanding through questioning.

and effectiveness of creating lessons with students.

The reason why these four students were able to recognize the essential aspects ofthe third phase is that Student D was always aware of V-E-1 of J-POSTL, “I can conduct
a lesson in the target language, and if necessary, use Japanese effectively.” It is believedthat the students’ reflections deepened through repeated trial and error and dialogue withthemselves during the four practice sessions. In the case of Students E and J, peer
feedback allowed them to reflect on their actions, and they were able to deepen theirreflections by asking themselves about the points raised. For Student K, repeatedparticipation in and observation of other students’ practices may have broadened his
perspective and awareness through repeated opportunities to reflect on his own practice－ 37 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

compared to that of other students, leading to changes in his behavior. Kiyota (2017) notesthat reflection is a “dialogue with oneself,” and we believe that these four students wereable to gain a new perspective by noticing “gaps” in their awareness and values anddiscussing them with themselves.
However, only four of the 18 students seemed to have reached the third phase ofreflection, the most important reflection phase, from the second phase of the reflection
model. The other students either remained in the second phase (8 students) or moved
directly from the second phase to the fourth phase, “creating alternative methods of action”(6 students). Specific examples are listed in (Table 8).
Table 8
Example of Transition from Phase 2 to Phase 4

Student A

Student Q

Phase 2Phase 4

Looking back on the action

Creating alternative methods of action

I felt that there was too much teacher-taking time andI believe that the lesson should include collaborative activities

too little opportunity for students to think and speak

such as pair and group work to avoid teacher-centered

for themselves.

teaching.

I did not enjoy microteaching. Looking back on my

I need to practice repeatedly before the microteaching. For

classes as a student, I realized that it is not an

example, I would videotape my lesson and watch it toexaggeration to say that the atmosphere of a class is

improve, or ask a friend to play the role of a student so that I

determined by the teacher. Due to my lack of

can practice with quality and build confidence.

preparation for the class, I could not conduct theclass in a confident and dignified manner, and as aresult, the class was not lively.
During my microteaching, one of the peer teacher

I need to do more research on teaching materials so that I canstudents asked me to explain the use of the new

be flexible in the classroom according to the students’grammatical item, but I was so surprised to be asked

comprehension

such a question that I could not answer very well.

Student A reflected on the lack of student speaking time during the oral introductionof the new grammatical item and stated in her reflection paper that she felt she shouldhave included collaborative activities such as pair and group work to avoid teachercentered teaching as a solution to this problem. However, she did not explain her thoughtprocess as to why she came up with such a solution. This case shows that the reason forStudent A’s discomfort may be that she did not ask herself “why she felt that way, ” orthat her supervisor did not ask her questions to deepen her reflections. For example, if
Student A had been asked powerful questions (see 2.4), such as ‘What was the purpose of
the activity?’, “How did you want to do it?”, and “Why did you feel that way?” It is
possible that she confronted herself.

－ 38 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Student Q reflected that the ideal class would be one in which the teacher also feltthat the class was "fun.” Thus, she was shocked by the peer student teacher’s feedback:“The student demonstrator did not seem to enjoy the class’.” She seemed to confront her
own feelings, but because she was unaware of essential aspects, such as where her
feelings came from, she uncritically accepted other peer teacher students’ comments, andher self-evaluation of microteaching on the reflection paper was low. One way to deepen
students’ reflections would be to give Student Q positive feedback and praise,emphasizing her strengths and focusing on what she was able to do. Her supervisor could
have carefully asked her questions, such as why she did not seem to enjoy herself. These
interventions encourage reflection. In addition, she reflected that one of the peer student
teachers asked her to explain the use of the new grammatical item, but she was surprised
when asked a question that she could not answer very well. As a solution to this problem,
she mentioned that she should carefully analyze the material according to the students’proficiency levels, but she did not seem to have thought about fundamental questions suchas “Why did the student ask such a question?” Therefore, it is necessary to practice deepreflection through dialogue with supervisors and peer teacher students so that they canlearn to focus on one uncomfortable situation at a time and delve into it carefully.
5.3 What are some of the ways in which reflection tools can be used to raiseawareness of essential aspects and encourage deep reflection? (RQ3)
How can we then approach student teachers looking for immediate solutions or
looking back on the action to become aware of the essential aspects and reflect deeply on
their experiences? In this section, we will discuss the use of reflection tools to move fromthe “shallow reflection process” (left side of Figure 2 below), in which the third phase isskipped, to the ideal reflection process (ALACT Model) shown in Figure 2 on the right.
Figure 2
Shallow Reflection Process (left) to ALACT Model (deep reflection process)⇒ 
Shallow Reflection Process      ALACT Model (Deep Reflection Process)First, we explored clues for reflection methods by discussing factors that may haveprompted reflection. The common thread in the reflections of the four students who were

－ 39 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

able to reflect deeply was that they narrowed their focus to points in their practice thatmade them feel uncomfortable, and repeatedly asked questions with constant awareness.
They also use self-assessment descriptors in J-POSTL to deepen their reflections. In
addition, they reflected on their own practices and engaged in dialogue with themselves
based on feedback from peer students and observations of their practices. In other words,
the key to deep reflection is to encourage teacher students to engage in dialogue about theunknown “gaps” they notice in learning and to provide new perspectives. However, facing
one’s actions, thoughts, needs, and feelings alone is difficult, regardless of career stage(Tamai et al., 2019). Therefore, ideas to promote reflection include making student
teachers aware of the meaning and importance of reflection, having supervisors support
reflection as facilitators, and collaborating with peers who can share problems.
Specifically, the following can be done to help teacher students focus on their sense of
discomfort and create opportunities for dialogue. The following four steps were suggested
using reflection tools:
Supervisors
1. help student teachers realize the importance of reflection acknowledged by student
teachers (ALACT model).
2. present a perspective of reflection (J-POSTL),
3. encourage student teachers to be aware of “gaps” in their learning and guide them tofocus on the essential aspects that need to make improvement in their teachingcompetence (J-POSTL and ALACT models), and
4. use advising strategies and tools to deepen student reflections.
In the first step, after explaining that reflection is important for developing into anautonomous teacher, we begin by helping students understand the meaning of each phaseof the ALACT model. Next, when presenting the reflection perspective in the second step,
the items of the J-POSTL self-evaluation descriptors will be useful for ongoing reflection
as before, and as a tool to focus on the real issues in the third step, the “8 questions” inTable 2 suggested by Korthagen can be used. During the critique period, the “eightquestions” could be preceded by the question “What was the context like?” to focus on
the “gaps” in awareness they notice in microteaching. In addition, the repeated use of JPOSTL will make them aware of their own growth and challenges and give them aperspective on where to focus and reflect. Teaching students then ask themselves
questions 1-8 and verbalize them to provide an opportunity to reflect deeply andconcretely on their practice. In addition, the peer student teachers answer questions 5-8
as a collaborative reflection, and it may be possible to avoid being directive andjudgmental by giving feedback on what they did, thought, and felt objectively rather thansubjectively. Finally, supervisors could help student teachers become aware of essential
aspects by making them aware of any discrepancies between the practitioners’ responses－ 40 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

to questions 1–4 and the responses of peer teachers to questions 5–8 in Table 2.
Regarding the fourth step, “using advising strategies and tools to deepen student
reflections,” supervisors need to be aware of and understand the advising strategies. As
noted by Tamai et al. (2019), to avoid inhibiting student teachers’ dialogue withthemselves, supervisors should avoid giving direct or definitive feedback, and they should
always be aware of their role as facilitators to deepen and support reflections, as indicatedin the section 2.4. These advising strategies include 14 strategies other than those shownin 2.4, and they share much in common with the advising methods proposed by Korthagen(2010) for mentor support in each phase of the ALACT model and the skills required of
mentors proposed in Tamai et al.’s reflective practice. Table 9 classifies (1) supports ineach phase of the ALACT model, (2) advising strategies, and (3) mentoring techniques
into phases of the ALACT model. Mentors should be aware of these issues and be able touse them appropriately for each phase of reflection, which will also encourage further
introspection by teacher students. Thus, the effectiveness of J-POSTL can be maximized
using J-POSTL and other reflection tools.
Table 9Advising Skills Required of Supervisors(1) Supports in each phase(2) Advising strategies(3) Mentoring techniques

These four strategies are important for1.

communicating

maintainingof the ALACT model【Phase 2】

understanding

andempathy to a learner.

Techniquesforestablishingrelaxedandandtrusting

relationships

A. Repeating, B. Mirroring
C. Restating, D. Summarizing【Phase 2】

These strategies focus on the affective

Listening Skills: Empathize, but withhold・ Acceptance, Empathy, Sincerity,

domain.

criticism

and ConcretenessE. Giving positive feedback,feedback so that the practitioner can【All Phases】

F. Empathy, G. Complimenting

describe what happened from multiple

andopinions,

andprovideperspectives.

・Emphasize and utilize strengths【Phase 3】

This strategy is used when a learner is

3. Feedback techniques: non-directive,

・Generalizing

encouraged to take a step back and see

non-judgmental

the bigger picture.

【Description Phase】

H. Metaview/linking

Help the practitioner elaborate on his/her
description and confirm understanding by
exploring what the key points are.

【Phase 3】

These strategies can be effective at

3. Feedback techniques: non-directive,・use the here-and-now process

triggering major leaps in awarenessnon-judgmental

・become more self-aware.

and/or action.

【Analysis Phase】－ 41 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

J. Using powerful questions,

Facts

and

meanings

K. Intuiting

examinedthroughquestioning.

This

are

repeatedly

confirmation
process

andgenerates

understandings that have never occurred tothe practitioner before.
【Phase 3】Thisstrategy

is

used

to

allow

・Confronting

inconsistencies to be discussed and it
does not need to be confrontational in thetrue sense of the word.
M. Confronting【All Phases】

Using silence as a strategy will help the・Silence

learner get into a deep reflective process
and possibly come up with new ideas.
P. Silence

6. Conclusion
This study investigated how deeply student teachers reflected on microteaching
using J-POSTL by analyzing their reflection papers. To determine the depth of reflection,
this study analyzed whether students were able to reflect on the third stage of the ALACT
model (awareness of essential aspects). The results showed that only approximately 22%of the students were aware of real issues in their practice. Another characteristic of theirreflections is that they are always aware of the context in which they feel a "gap" in theirpractice, and they repeatedly engage in dialogue with themselves about it. Based on thisfinding, the study suggests utilizing J-POSTL and other reflection tools to encourage
student teachers’ reflection.
In addition to the proposed reflection tools, I plan to implement their efficient andeffective use of LMS (Learning Management System) to share the reflections of peer
teachers and promote collaborative reflection. This study provides an opportunity toreflect on the author’s own advising methods, including how to provide feedback to her
student teachers and the teaching content. I hope to apply the knowledge gained from thisstudy in my future teaching.
Notes
This manuscript was originally published in Japanese in Language Teacher Education,
Vol.10, No.1.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grantin-Aid for Scientific Research (Grant Number 23K00686). I am grateful to the－ 42 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

anonymous reviewers for their comments on the earlier version of this manuscript.
References
Dewy, D. (1933). How we think. D.C. Heath & Co Publishers.
Hori, S. (2016). Review of the theoretical background of reflection as a philosophicalconcept: toward developing a more meaningful paradigm in Japanese foreign
language education. Language Teacher Education, 3(2), 47-52.
Hoshi, Y. (2021). ALACT model ni motozuku jyugyou kamoku wo toushita kyouikujissyuu go gakusei e no eikyo [The effect on pre-service students after teachingpracticum through the teaching course based on the ALACT Model]. Japan Bulletinof Educators for Human Development, 24(1), 11-20.
JACET SIG on English Language Education. (2014). Japanese portfolio for student
teachers of languages for pre-service English teacher education.
http://www.waseda.jp/associ-jacetenedu/PreServiceVersionJPOSTL.pdf.
Kamijo, H. (2012). Kyoshi kyouiku ni okeru reflection yousei no gutaiteki gihou no
kaihatu kenkyuu ―F. Korthagen no “Reflection Model” wo chuushin ni [Researchon the development of specific techniques to promote reflection in teacher
education－Focusing on F. Korthagen’s “Reflection Model]. Journal of Tohoku
Fukushi University, 36, 179-192.
Kato, S., & Minard, J. (2022). Reflective dialogue: advising in language learning,
Routledge.
Kiyota, Y. (2015). The integrative usage of J-POSTL for pre-service English teachers inorder to enhance reflection. Language Teacher Education, 2(2), 81-101.
Kiyota, Y. (2017). The theory and practice of English learning portfolio: aiming to be an
independent learner. Kuroshio Publishing Co.
Kiyota, Y., Asaoka, C., & Takagi, A. (2020). Usage of the “Japanese portfolio for student
teachers of language for pre-service English teacher education (J-POSTL)” in
English teacher education. JACET SIG on English Language Education.
Korthagen, F. (1985). Reflective teaching and preservice teacher education in the
Netherlands. Journal of Teacher Education, 9 (3), 317-326.
Korthagen, F. (2015). Keynote speech in Germany on core reflection. Video of Fred
Korthagen giving a keynote speech at the University of Cologne, Germany, 2015
https://korthagen.nl/en/focus-areas/core-reflection-multi-level-learning/
Korthagen, F. (2017). Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: towards professional
development 3.0. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23(4), 387-405.
Korthagen, F., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Linking
practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. (N. Takeda, Y. Imaizumi, Y. Suzuki, & E. Yamabe, Trans.).
(Original work published in 2001)－ 43 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels of reflection: core reflection as a means toenhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1),47-71.
MEXT. (2017). The core curriculum for English language education.
Nakayama, N., Yamaguchi, T., & Takagi, A. (2013). J-POSTL dai-ni keinen cyousa, Eigo
kyoushi no seicyo ni kakawaru wakugumi no sougouteki kennkyu [J-POSTL 2nd
longitudinal study, A comprehensive study of the framework for English teachers’
development], Report of the 2012 Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)(Representative: Jimbo, N., Waseda University), pp. 73-93, JACET SIG on English
Language Education.
Newby, D., Allan, R., Fenner, A., Jones, B., Komorowska, H., & Soghikyan, K. (2007).
European portfolio for student teachers of languages (EPOSTL). ECML/Councilof Europe.
Sakata, T., Nakata, M., Murai, N., Yano, H., & Yamabe, E. (2019). Reflection nyu-mon[Introduction to reflection]. Gakubunsha.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic
Books.
Sekihara, K., & Okazaki, H. (2021). Korthagen “8 tu no toi” wo katuyou shita jyugyou
kaizen ―chuugakkou eigo kyoushi no jyugyou jissenn wo tooshite [Improving
teaching by using Korthagen’s “Eight Questions” ― Junior high school English
teachers’ classroom practices ―], Bulletin of the Faculty of Human Development,
University of Toyama, 15(2), 143-157.
Takagi, A. (2015). Reflection in pre-service teacher education: using the Japanese
portfolio for student teachers of languages (J-POSTL). Language Teacher
Education, 2(2), 59-80.
Takagi, A., & Nakayama, N. (2012). J-POSTL dai ichi keinen cyousa, Eigo kyoushi no
seicyou ni kakawaru wakugumi no sougouteki kenkyu [J-POSTL the 1stlongitudinal study, A comprehensive study of the framework for English teachers’
development], 2011 Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (Representative:
Jimbo, N., Waseda University) Research Report (pp. 8-46), JACET SIG on English
Language Education.
Takeda, N. (2015). Implementing the realistic approach to Japanese teacher education,
Journal of Musashi University Comprehensive Research Organization, 24, 19-42.
Tamai, K., Watanabe, A., & Asaoka, C. (2019). Rifurekutibu purakutisu nyumon[Introduction to reflective practice], Hitsuji Shobo.
Yoshizumi, K. (2018). Investigating student teachers’ reflection on microteaching using
Japanese Portfolio for Student Teachers of Language, Language Teacher Education,
5(1), 1-21.

－ 44 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

【Research Note】

Considerations on Rubric Assessments within High School Cross-Cultural
Understanding Classes Using J-POSTL
Yoshio Hoso

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to investigate best-use practices for rubric
assessments for presentation tasks within high school cross-cultural
understanding classes. Hoso and Kurihara (2022) used the Japanese Portfolio forStudent Teachers of Languages and developed a rubric that included intercultural
skills among its assessment perspectives. However, this rubric was problematic,
as the assessment standard descriptors contained ambiguous language, anddifficulties occurred when using it to assess student performance. Thus, for thepresent study, a literature survey was performed concerning rubric assessment
standards that include intercultural skills. Then, based on the survey’s results, atentative model for rubric assessment was proposed. Thereafter, a comparison
was made between the tentative model and the rubric used by Hoso and Kurihara(2022), and related considerations are presented herein.
Keywords
J-POSTL, cross-cultural understanding, rubric assessment
1. Introduction
1.1 “Cross-cultural Understanding” in the Curriculum Guidelines (Course of
Study)
The following is stated about the academic subject “cross-cultural understanding”
in the Course of Study for Upper Secondary School, issued by the Japanese Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT, 2009): “This is a subject
that, in the main, is to be established and presented as a specialized subject (Chapter 3).”
The goal of this subject is stated as follows: “Via the English language, students are to
deepen their understanding of circumstances in foreign countries and regarding other(different) cultures, together with cultivation of an attitude and fundamental skills forproactive communication with people who have a different culture.” The section“Handling of Contents” says this: “As necessary, the circumstances and culture, etc., ofJapan shall be taken up, and the students should be made to consider similarities anddifferences between these and circumstances and culture, etc., in foreign countries.
Students shall deepen their understanding of their own country via cross-cultural
understanding” (MEXT, 2009, p. 54). The MEXT thus encourages students to compare－ 45 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

the similarities and differences between Japanese and foreign cultures. Further, the new
Course of Study (Foreign Languages) issued in 2018 includes among its goals thefollowing contents regarding culture:
Students shall deepen their understanding of the cultures underpinning foreign
languages, and an attitude shall be cultivated such that students strive tocommunicate by proactively and autonomously using foreign languages, while also
considering listeners, readers, speakers, and writers. (MEXT, 2018a, p. 163)
The above is one of the three stated goals. The aim is for students to achieve an
understanding of cultures and to foster an attitude whereby they strive for communication
via the proactive and autonomous (self-directed) use of foreign languages, all while“considering listeners, readers, speakers, and writers” (MEXT, 2018b, p. 17). That is,although the Course of Study (2018) touches on the importance of culture, it only goes as
far as to state one means of doing so, namely, the cultivation of an attitude where students
strive solely for communication. Further, neither the Course of Study (2009) nor the new
Course of Study (Foreign Languages) (2018) contain any specific explanations or
recommended teaching methods concerning the goals and contents of the “cross-cultural
understanding” academic subject, nor do they offer any language usage examples and/or
assessment methods.
1.2 J-POSTLThe Japanese Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (J-POSTL) (JACET SIG
on English Language Education, 2014) can be used as a tool for “cross-cultural” teaching
and assessment methods, precisely those items not presented within the Course of Study.
J-POSTL is a tool that enables teachers to reflect on their own teaching practices for crosscultural understanding. It is based on the European Portfolio for Student Teachers ofForeign Languages (EPOSTL) (Newby et al., 2007). EPOSTL is based on the foreignlanguage educational views presented in the Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001). It is a tool for growth and reflection
developed for the foreign languages curricula in Europe. Both EPOSTL and J-POSTL
clearly show what perspectives should be used when arranging activities that foster theintercultural skills of learners. Both are made up of eight self-assessment descriptors(SADs) (see Table 1) for culture that comprise a domain among teaching methods, similar
to those for the four skills and grammar. The CEFR clearly states the following goals for“intercultural skills”: “the ability to bring the culture of origin and the foreign culture into
relation with each other” (p. 104); “the capacity to fulfill the role of cultural intermediary
between one’s own culture and the foreign culture” (p. 105); and “the capacity to deal
effectively with intercultural misunderstanding and conflict situations” (p. 105). Thus,
the use of the J-POSTL SADs can be expected to guide teachers in setting their own－ 46 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

teaching goals for cross-cultural understanding, and to be an aid in their introspection. In
other words, by presenting clear and well-defined teaching methods, SAD usage can help
to unify and harmonize teaching and assessment.
Table 1J-POSTL SADs on Culture in Methodology section
J-POSTL SADs
1

I can structure activities that, via English learning, arouse in students an interest in
and appreciation of their own culture, and the cultures of others.

2

I can structure activities (roleplaying, activities involving preset scenes, etc.) that
help to enhance the social and cultural skills of learners.

3

I can structure activities that will promote and deepen an awareness of othercultures in learners.

4

I can select texts and activities that will cause learners to become aware of therelationships between culture and language.

5

I can provide learners with opportunities to use, outside of class, the Internet,
email, etc., to investigate regions, populations, cultures, etc., in which English is
used.

6

I can select various types of texts, educational materials, and/or activities that will
foster an awareness in learners of the similarities and differences in social andcultural “behavioral norms.”

7

I can select and arrange various types of texts, educational materials, and/or
activities that will help learners to think about the concept of “otherness”, and thatwill assist in fostering an understanding of differences in values.

8

I can select various types of texts, educational materials, and/or activities that will
foster an awareness in learners of their own stereotypical ways of thinking, andthat will enable them to change and revise said ways of thinking.
(Translated by the author)

1.2.1 Cross-cultural understanding using the culture-related SADs of J-POSTL:
Practice cases. I searched but found almost no examples of practice cases of the use of
the culture-related SADs of J-POSTL. However, Hoso and Kurihara (2022) did use JPOSTL culture-related SADS within cross-cultural understanding classes, including forpresentation tasks performed at two high schools. The author was the person who led theclasses (hereafter “the practitioner”) performed self-reflection, and reported on the results.
First, the practitioner used said SADs to reflect on his cross-cultural classes held at their－ 47 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

previous school. It became clear that the practitioner was not aware of the following four
SADs when planning their classes: (1) enhancing the social and cultural skills of learners(SAD 2), (2) similarities and differences in social and cultural “behavioral norms” (SAD
6), (3) fostering an understanding of “Otherness” (SAD 7), and (4) fostering an awarenessin learners of their stereotypical ways of thinking (SAD 8). What was especially striking
was the practitioner’s lack of awareness of the point stressed by MEXT (2009, p. 54) that
“Students shall deepen their understanding of their own country via cross-cultural
understanding” (SAD 6). At his current school, the practitioner, being aware of his neglectof SAD 6, incorporated the SAD’s perspective in rubric assessment for presentations, anddeveloped a rubric assessment table (see Appendix 1). Due to the revision of the rubric
assessment table, the practitioner increased the opportunities for their students to link
their own culture with other cultures, and to add depth to their considerations (Hoso &Kurihara, 2022). This means that the practitioner’s use of the J-POSTL SADs on culture
was linked with their own introspection on their cross-cultural understanding classes. As
a result of their self-reflections, they were able to discover tasks and to successfully
consider assessment methods not spelled out in the official Course of Study.
1.2.2 Performance evaluation of “cross-cultural understanding” using the J-POSTL
SAD on “culture.” The rubric evaluation table presented by Hoso and Kurihara (2022)
includes the following four assessment criteria:(1) Attention: Was the presenter able to draw in and engage listeners in theirpresentation?
(2) Delivery: How was the presenter’s posture and delivery, including eye contact withlisteners?
(3) Knowledge: Were all present able to acquire new knowledge about another culture
or cultures? (SAD 1)(4) Intercultural skills: Did the presentation enable all to make comparisons ofsimilarities and differences in “behavioral norms”? (SAD 6)
Among the above four evaluation criteria, (3) corresponds to SAD 1 (“arouse in
students an interest in and appreciation of culture”), and (4) corresponds to SAD 6 (“anawareness in learners of similarities and differences in social and cultural ‘behavioral
norms.’”). In cross-cultural situations, teachers are encouraged to evaluate learners’
performance via direct observation (Deardorff, 2011). Thus, for Hoso and Kurihara(2022), who dealt with cross-cultural understanding classes, it was worthwhile to evaluate
students’ cultural abilities via presentation observation. One can thus use rubric
assessments with clearly stated assessment criteria for evaluations of performance tasks,
like presentations, which require an integration of multiple knowledge and skill types(Nishioka, 2016; Brookhart, 2013). Student performance skills cannot be rated using a－ 48 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

numerical scale; rather, rubric assessments with stated criteria (like SADs 1 and 6) aresuitable for these kinds of evaluation. Nevertheless, one finds vague statements here andthere throughout the rubric assessment table displayed herein. For example, in terms ofitem [2] Delivery, Eye contact, for the evaluations that distinguish between “Good” and“Satisfactory,” one finds the use of undefined adjectives and adverbs, such as “numerous”
and “occasional.” When multiple people perform assessments, such abstract (undefined)
terms can be interpreted differently by different assessors. In this way, an essential task
is to investigate the kind of language that should be used to describe and enumerate thefour evaluation criteria. For this reason, the purpose of the present study was to develop
an assessment model based on the four assessment criteria used by Hoso and Kurihara(2022) that can be used when performing presentation tasks in cross-cultural
understanding classes.
2. Purpose of the Present Study
The purpose of the present study was to perform a literature survey in order toimprove the four assessment criteria that include intercultural skills, and, on the basis of
the survey results, to propose an assessment method model and provide related
considerations.
3. Survey Method
The following four items are the survey procedures for the present research:(1) Perform a literature survey regarding rubric assessments and their problem points.
(2) To investigate rubric usage examples (cases) and their respective assessment criteria.
(3) Based on the survey results of 1. and 2. above, to create a new rubric assessment
criteria model.
(4) To compare the model created in 3. above with the rubric evaluation criteria of Hosoand Kurihara (2022), make further investigations, present considerations of therevised characteristics, etc., and link all of this with further model revision.
4. Survey Results
4.1 What Are “Rubric Assessments”?
A rubric is used to break down a specific task into its component elements andprovide detailed explanations of the specific level required to fulfill the assessment
criteria for each of the component elements. A rubric can be used to evaluate a variety oftasks, including presentations. Basically, rubrics are composed of four basic parts (seeTable 2).

－ 49 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Table 2
Basic rubric grid format (Stevens & Levi, 2013, p. 6)
Title
Task Description
Scale level 1

Scale level 2

Scale level 3

Dimension 1
Dimension 2
Dimension 3
Dimension 4
In its simplest form, the rubric includes a task description (the assignment), a scaleof some sort (levels of achievement, possibly in the form of grades), the dimensions of
the assignment (a breakdown of the skills/knowledge involved in the assignment), anddescriptions of what constitutes each level of performance (specific feedback) all set out
on a grid (Stevens & Levi, 2013, pp. 5-6). The word or words (text) that specify (name)each evaluation criterion are called “descriptors” (Nishioka, 2003). A rubric is used toassess performance tasks that cannot be assessed using a numeric scale, and its strength
is that it enables effective time usage when giving feedback, etc., to learners (Rucker &Thomson, 2003).
4.2 Problem Points in the Rubric Assessment Table, and Two Response Methods
One issue with rubrics is the so-called “boundary problem.” In a number grade, thiswould involve determining the differences between a “4” and a “3”; an even more serious
issue is determining the differences between a “1” and a “0” (Tamiya, 2014, p. 131).
Piccardo, E., & North, B. (2019, p. 183) stated that rubrics are modulated on the basis of
merely semantic distinctions made by alternating adverbials like ‘consistently’, ‘usually’,‘sometimes’, ‘occasionally’. Thus, when using simple adjectives and/or adverbs as
descriptors for assessment criteria, said criteria become vague, and an appropriate
assessment cannot be made. Therefore, to resolve a “boundary problem,” ambiguous andvague language should be avoided in assessment criteria descriptors, and “observationalterms” that clearly state (“embody for observation”) what is assessed must be used.
Fukuzawa (2005) explained that “observational terms” express things that can make adirect appeal to human senses, while “theoretical terms” are those that can be used only
when the usage conditions are limited or restricted. These two types of term are explained
below:
Observational term: A term whose contents appeals to the senses, about which a－ 50 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Theoretical term:

direct determination can be made regarding its existence. The
description (descriptor) is enough when it evokes only its
related sensations. An observational term can be used when
there is no need to go so far as to clearly state its conditions for
actualization.
A term for which its usage scope and conditions must be clearlystated. A term whose background is a theoretical constraint. A
theoretical term cannot be used unless its conditions for
actualization have been clearly stated. (Fukuzawa, 2005, p. 50)

As an example, let us consider a rubric with an assessment criterion as follows: “I
was able to be aware of the similarities and differences in ‘behavioral norms.’” Here,
there are four theoretical terms, namely, “behavioral norms,” “similarities,” “differences,”and “was aware of.” Here, unless there is a clear statement of the usage scope, conditions,etc., of these terms, different users of the rubric can have different interpretations. The
term “to be aware of” (be conscious of, take notice of, etc.) can be defined differently bydifferent people. Thus, so long as the details of this “to be aware of” are not clearly
defined, rubric users will not perform evaluations using the same definition. Here, then,to make the rubric assessment criterion crystal clear, it will be necessary to substitute an“observational term” for the logical term “to be aware of.” For example, for the evaluation
item “was aware of the problem points,” one can substitute the observational term “wasable to state one problem point.” This clarification of the assessment criterion is clear
because there is a clearly stated definition of the theoretical term. Such a substitution withan “observational term” thus means that the criterion can be used without defining the“theoretical term” (“to be aware of”), and the assessment criterion is no longer vague orambiguous.
Another method of resolving a “boundary problem” is by using a “metarubric.” Themetarubric can be used when assessing the quality of a currently used rubric (Arter &McTighe, 2001, p. 45). Arter and McTighe showed how a metarubric can be used to state
the characteristics of terms used in evaluation criteria when these terms are vague, or
when they are not appropriate (Table 3).

－ 51 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Table 3
Metarubric: A Portion of Arter and McTighe (2001, p. 49)• Terms are vague and can be interpreted in different ways.
• Terms used in a rubric are undefined.
• No example cases are shown for rubric criteria.
• Since there is no unity of interpretation of the assessment criteria, teachers cannot
come to an agreement about the assessment scale.
• The assessment scale differs only in using terms like “extremely,” “very,” “some,”“little,” “none,” or “completely.”(Translated by the author)
4.3 Example Rubric Usage and an Investigation into the Assessment Criteria for
Said Rubrics
Saeki (2021) performed a survey study of university students (n=7) who studied
abroad in an English-speaking country for approximately six months. Students wereasked to perform self-assessments regarding changes in their intercultural understanding
and adaptability before, during, and after their study abroad period. Then, a comparative
verification was made of the assessment values. For the assessment method, reference
was made of the Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education rubric(Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009), and of the contents ofcomponent elements made from the intercultural communication model proposed by
Byram (1997). Saeki (2021) then created a new rubric accordingly (Table 4). There were
six items stated as evaluation perspectives: (1) one’s own culture (i.e., the culture of one’s
own country), (2) other cultures, (3) empathy, (4) communication abilities, (5) curiosity,and (6) tolerance.
The result of the comparative verification suggested that total self-assessment
points increased from before the study abroad period to after it. One potential problem
with the survey is the fact that there were practically no changes before and after the study
abroad period in the evaluation perspective “curiosity.” Saeki (2021) interpreted thereason for this issue as follows: “This is surely an expression of the difficulties students
had of finding answers to questions and doubts that arose during their experiences.”
However, using the metarubric from Table 3 (Arter & McTighe, 2001), the present author
found a new reason for this when considering the rubric of Table 4. For the assessment
criterion “curiosity,” one sees ambiguous expressions, including “clearly,” “simple,” and“vague.” Thus, it may be that the students were unable to clearly interpret said assessment
criterion, and were not able to interpret the “boundary line” between the assessment pointclassifications.

－ 52 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Table 4
Rubric Concerning Intercultural Understanding and Adaptability (Saeki, 2021)

5. Creation of a Rubric Assessment Model
From the survey outlined above, the following two results were obtained:(1) Metarubrics were used to assess the quality of the used rubrics.
(2) After the assessment of (1), when undefined terms or vague theoretical terms wereused, said vagueness (ambiguity) could be resolved via the use of observational terms.
On the basis of the above-described metarubric perspective and the theory of thetwo descriptor types, “theoretical terms” and “observational terms,” a provisional rubric
assessment model was made (Table 5). This assessment table model is a provisionalmodel, and its purpose is to state clearly (“make visible”) the four assessment criteria.

－ 53 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Table 5
The Developed Rubric Assessment Model
TOPIC: How do people recover from *natural disasters?

*Natural disaster means “a sudden and terrible event in nature (such as a hurricane, tornado, or flood) that usually results in serious damage and many deaths.”(Source: Merriam-Webster online dictionary)RatingCriterion

Excellent

1. Attention

2. Delivery

Looked down at your notes ormemo for a maximum of 10%of the presentation time. Madeeye contact.
During the presentation,
followed the FIVE points
below:［1］Do stand straight.
［2］Do not lean against a   desk or table.
［3］Do not cross your arms.
［4］Do not touch your face orhair or put your hands inyour pockets.
［5］Keep your hands by yourside or at waist level.

Good

Satisfactory

Needs work

Grabbed the audience’s
attention at the start of apresentation, and theaudience responded to you.
Looked down at your notes
and made eye contact for atleast 30% of thepresentation time.

Grabbed the audience’s
attention at the start of apresentation, but the audience
did not respond to you.

Did not grab the audience’s
attention at the start of apresentation.

Looked down at your notes andmade eye contact for at least
50% of the presentation time.

Looked down at your notes
and made eye contact onceor twice OR made no eye
contact with the audience.

During the presentation,
followed FOUR of the
FIVE main points.



3. Reliabilityof data

4.
Intercultural
Skills

Provided piece offact/evidence (takenfrom news,
newspapers, books,
research papers, andso on).
Cited references thatyou used during thepresentation. (e.g.,“According to…”)
Analyzed thesimilarities AND
differences between
your own and othercultures in yourprovided data.
Identified andinterpreted theinformation which
was not discoveredfrom the analysis of
the similarities AND
differences.

5. Reasoning
based on fact

6. Visual aid

TimeWithin allotted time
4m00s 〜

During the presentation,
followed THREE of the FIVE
main points.









Provided piece offact/evidence (taken fromnews, newspapers, books,
research papers, and soon).
Did not cite referencesthat you used during thepresentation.

Analyzed the similarities
OR differences between
your own and othercultures in your provided
data.
Identified and interpreted
the information which
was not discovered fromthe analysis of thesimilarities OR
differences.

During the presentation,
followed fewer than
THREE of the FIVE main
points.



Did not provide any
fact/evidence (takenfrom news,
newspapers, books,
research papers, andso on).



Did NOT analyze thesimilarities AND
differences between
your own and othercultures in yourprovided data.
Did NOT identify andinterpret the
information which
was not discoveredfrom the analysis of
the similarities AND
differences.



The data supported theconclusion.

The data did not support theconclusion.

Included the following
THREE points:[1] Highlighted keywords.
[2] Included thesimilarities,
differences, andcitations.
[3] Used readable fonts.

Included TWO of the THREE
main points

Included ONE or NONE of
the THREE main points

3m30s 〜 3m59s

3m00s 〜 3m29s

Shorter than 3m00s



6. Considerations: Comparisons with the Assessment Model Created by Hoso andKurihara (2022)
Table 6 shows the problem points based on the metarubric of Chapter 5, in the rubric－ 54 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

assessment table of Hoso and Kurihara (2022). The table also shows improvements madeto these problem points within the provisional model. Below, considerations are presented
based on the four improved assessment criteria.
Table 6
Points to be improved with the Rubric Assessment Form by Hoso and Kurihara (2022),
and Improved Points
Assessment
perspectives

Points to be improved

Points improved in theprovisional model

Attention① There was usage of adjectives ① The use of adjectives andand adverbs such as
adverbs was avoided, and“clearly,” “easily,”observational terms were“comprehensible,” etc.
used instead.
② There was no definition of② To show the “cue cards”
the “cue cards” assessment
assessment criterion, sample
criterion.
cue cards were added.

Delivery① There was usage of adjectives① The use of adjectives andand adverbs such as
adverbs was avoided, and“naturally,” “numerous,”
observational terms were“occasional,” “almost,”
used instead.
“some,” “little,” etc.
② To show the “cue cards”② There was no definition of“eye contact” and theassessment criterion, sample“posture/attitude” assessmentcue cards were added.
criteria.

Knowledge① The use of adjectives andadverbs was avoided, and① There was usage of adjectives
observational terms wereand adverbs such as “easy,”
used instead.
“relatively,” “briefly,” etc.
② To show the “facts”② There was no definition ofassessment criterion,
the “facts” assessment
examples were added. Also, acriterion.
“Reasoning based on facts”
assessment perspective wasadded.

Intercultural
Skills① There was usage of theadverb “clearly.”② There was no definition of
the “hidden meaning”
assessment criterion.

－ 55 －① The use of adverbs was
avoided, and observationalterms were used instead.
② A clear definition waspresented for the “hidden
meaning” assessment
criterion.

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

6.1 Attention
Two points became clear as the result of a consideration using the metarubric of
the “Attention” assessment criterion of Hoso and Kurihara (2022).
(1) For discriminations within the assessment scale, only adjectives and adverbs suchas “clearly,” “easily,” and “comprehensible” were used.
(2) There were no examples shown for the “cue cards” assessment criterion.
The provisional model avoided the use of vague (ambiguous) adjectives andadverbs, and clearly stated assessment criterion items, such as “Were questions asked ofthe listeners at the beginning of the presentation” and “Did the listeners respond to andanswer said questions.” Next, sample cue cards were added for the “cue cards” assessment
criterion, and a new assessment perspective, “6. Visual aids,” was added. Three concrete
examples were incorporated to show the assessment criteria for the “Visual aids”
assessment perspective.
6.2 Delivery
Two points became clear as a result of a consideration using the metarubric of the“Delivery” assessment criterion of Hoso and Kurihara (2022).
(1) For discriminations within the assessment scale, only adjectives and adverbs suchas “naturally,” “numerous,” “occasional,” “almost,” “some,” and “little” were used.
(2) There were no examples shown for the “eye contact” and “posture/attitude” assessment
criteria.
In the descriptors for the assessment criterion of “eye contact” within theprovisional model, there was no use of vague (ambiguous) adjectives and adverbs. Instead,objective verification was enabled via the statement of a percentage for how often thepresenter looked down at their notes. Further, vague adjectives and adverbs were deleted
from the descriptors. Also, five items were added to the assessment perspectives thatshowed concrete examples for appropriate “posture/attitude,” thus making this a concreteassessment criterion.
6.3 Knowledge
Two points became clear as a result of a consideration using the metarubric of the“Knowledge” assessment criterion of Hoso and Kurihara (2022).
(1) For discriminations within the assessment scale, only adjectives and adverbs suchas “easy,” “relatively,” and “briefly” were used.
(2) The contents were vague as to the term “facts” used within the descriptor, meaning－ 56 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

that multiple interpretations were possible.
First, adjectives and adverbs were deleted from the assessment criterion “facts”
within the provisional model. Examples were presented to clarify the term “facts.” As an
example, “facts” were defined as information obtained from television news, newspapers,
reference documents, research papers, etc. Further, to enhance the reliability of
information deemed “facts,” the method of citing “facts” was added to the assessment
criterion. Also, an assessment perspective of “Reasoning based on facts” was added. The
purpose of this was to evaluate whether the contents of the facts were related to theconclusions presented by the speaker (presenter).
6.4 Intercultural Skills
Two points became clear as a result of a consideration using the metarubric of the“Intercultural Skills” assessment criterion of Hoso and Kurihara (2022).
(1) For discriminations within the assessment scale, only the adverb “clearly” was used.
(2) The contents were vague regarding the term “hidden meaning,” making multiple
interpretations possible.
First, adverbs were deleted from the assessment criterion “Intercultural Skills”
within the provisional model. Further, to clarify the contents of “hidden meaning,” thisterm was defined as “information which was not discovered.”
7. Future Prospects
In the present study, with a focus on rubric criteria within a rubric assessment tableused in cross-cultural understanding classes, a provisional model was created. The
following three points are presented as conclusions; these are based on prior survey results
and model-related considerations. The first point is that we successfully created anassessment model that clearly states (“makes visible”) the desired results for student
presentation tasks within a cross-cultural understanding class. The second point is that,inasmuch as the rubric proposed within the present study is a provisional model, it can beused for actual presentation tasks that occur within cross-cultural understanding classes,
and then, based on the results, revised versions of this model can be created. The third
point is that this provisional model is based on the assessment axis of “observed
phenomena that can actually be seen and assessed.” In the future, it will be necessary tocontinue to quantitatively and qualitatively verify the extent to which presentation
contents, considerations, proposals, etc., can be evaluated and assessed.

－ 57 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Notes
This manuscript was originally published in Japanese in Language Teacher Education,
Vol.10, No.1.
References
Arter, J., & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance
criteria for assessing and improving student performance. Corwin Press.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2009). Intercultural knowledge andcompetence VALUE rubric.
Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment andGrading. ASCD.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence.
Multilingual Matters.
Council of Europe. (2001). The common European framework of reference for
languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Deardorff, D. K. (2011). Assessing intercultural competence. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 149, 65‒79.
Fukuzawa, K. (2005). Lessons in logical expression. NHK Publishing.
Hoso, Y. (2020). Reflections on cross-cultural understanding classes (high school). In H.
Jimbo (Supervising Ed.), K. Hisamura, A. Takagi, C. Asaoka, F. Kurihara, Y.
Kiyota, & M. Daigo (Eds.), Transforming English language classes using teacher
self-assessment (pp. 152‒160). Taishukan Publishing.
Hoso, Y., & Kurihara, F. (2022). Improvement of English classes using J-POSTL:
Reflections on two years of cross-cultural understanding classes. Language
Teacher Education, 9(1), 84‒98.
JACET SIG on English Language Education (2014). Japanese portfolio for student
teachers of languages (J-POSTL).
http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/FullVersionJPOSTL.pdf
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2009). Courseof Study for Upper Secondary School, Commentary, Foreign Languages andEnglish versions. KAIRYUDO Publishing.
Ministry of Education Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2018a).
Course of Study for Upper Secondary School).
https://www.mext.go.jp/content/1407073_09_1_2.pdf
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2018b).
Course of Study for Upper Secondary School, Commentary, Foreign Languages
and English versions. KAIRYUDO Publishing.
Newby, D., Allan, R., Fenner, A-B., Jones, B., Komorowska, H., & Soghikyan, K. (2007).
European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL). Council ofEurope Publishing.

－ 58 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Nishioka, K. (2003). Portfolio assessment method for use in school subjects andintegrated study: Towards the creation of a new assessment standard.
Toshobunka.
Nishioka, K. (2016). Curriculum development for school subjects and integrated study:
Methods of using portfolio assessment. Toshobunka.
Piccardo, E., & North, B. (2019). The action-oriented approach: A dynamic vision of
language education (Vol. 72). Multilingual Matters.
Rucker, M. L., & Thomson, S. (2003). Assessing student learning outcomes: An
investigation of the relationship among feedback measures. College Student
Journal, 37(3), 400‒405.
Saeki, R. (2021). The potential of using rubrics for improving cross-cultural
understanding and adjustment skills. Kobe Kaisei Review, 59, 23‒32.
Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2013). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save
grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning. Stylus
Publishing, LLC.
Tamiya, K. (2014). The significance of rubrics, and their introduction and use. Forum of
the Center for Teaching and Learning, Teikyo University, 1, 125‒135.

－ 59 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Appendix
Appendix 1
Rubric assessment table (Hoso & Kurihara, 2022)－ 60 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

【Editing Record】

Compiling an English Draft of
Self-assessment Descriptors of J-POSTL Elementary
Ken Hisamura

Abstract
This article describes the editing methods employed in producing the English
translation of 167 Japanese descriptors in J-POSTL Elementary, a portfolio
designed for primary school English instructors. The English translations weregenerated using the dialogue feature of ChatGPT, a conversational AI, based on
the preliminary version (PV) of J-POSTL Elementary. The translations were
determined through interactions with the author. The resulting English
descriptors were classified into three categories based on the extent ofmodifications, additions, and rewrites using the EPOSTL, the original version of
J-POSTL Elementary, and the PV as references. The editing methods for eachcategory are explained using three to four examples. The objective is to provide
supporting evidence that this English draft is appropriate and reliable.
Keywords
J-POSTL Elementary, SAD, EPOSTL, preliminary version, ChatGPT
1. Introduction
This article reports on the editing methods employed in creating an English draftof the self-assessment descriptors (SADs) in J-POSTL for Elementary-school Teacher
Education (2021) (referred to as J-POSTL Elementary or J-POSTL (E)), developed by the
JACET SIG on English Language Education (SIG on ELE). The aim of this report is toprovide supporting evidence that this draft serves as a valid and reliable English
translation of the SADs in J-POSTL (E).
In the editing process of this study, three source documents were utilized, namely,
the SAD section of J-POSTL (E), the English original version of EPOSTL (European
Portfolio for Student teachers of Languages) (Newby et al., 2007), and the English
translation of the 167 SADs of the preliminary version (PV) developed during thedevelopmental stage of J-POSTL (E) (Yamaguchi, Osada, Hisamura, & Benthien, 2019;
pp. 54-61). These three sources formed the basis for the editing process, which was
facilitated through the use of the conversational AI, ChatGPT. The utilization of thesesources and a device can be summarized as follows:－ 61 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

SAD section of J-POSTL (E): Consisting of 7 headings (I–VII), 31 sub-headings (A–G),
and 167 Japanese self-assessment descriptors (SADs) (1–11), the entire section wasconsidered for translation.
EPOSTL: Positioned as English language models, they served as references forincorporating a wide range of aspects, including sentence structures, expressions,and specialized terminology.
PV: Based on the English translation of the 167 SADs in this version, which wereassumed to have been translated with reference to EPOSTL, a careful examination
was conducted to ensure that each SAD appropriately conveyed the intended
meaning in Japanese one.
ChatGPT: Used both as a translation tool and a consultant. The author exchanged ideas
with ChatGPT about the appropriateness of the translation of the PV, the consistency
with the Japanese sentence structure and wording, and the selection of appropriate
words and phrases, etc. However, the final judgment was made by the author.
The motivation behind creating this English draft stems from hearing the demand
for an English version of SADs since the initial release of J-POSTL (E). It was observedthat this demand may have been driven by the presence of assistant language teachers(ALT) who are less familiar with the Japanese language in primary schools. Consequently,
it was deemed necessary to expedite the editing process of the English version and makeit available for public access on the website.
2. Method
2.1 Procedure
As a general rule, while referring to EPOSTL, ChatGPT was consulted to determine
the appropriateness of the translation of the PV as the English version of the Japanese
SADs in J-POSTL (E). In sequential order of the SAD numbers in the PV (1-167), theauthor engaged in discussions with ChatGPT to finalize the English draft of the SADs.
As the deliberations progressed, it became evident that the determined SADs could be
categorized into the following three categories:
EPOSTL-based: The translation of PV was largely based on the SADs in EPOSTL, andthere were instances where the translated SADs were either the same as or clearly
similar to those in EPOSTL. Accordingly, a sub-category was set for these SADs,
categorized as ‘Quoted from EPOSTL’ and ‘Adapted from EPOSTL.’
PV-based: This category encompassed groups of SADs that were either the same as orclearly similar to the SADs in the PV. Similarly, sub-categories were designated as‘Quoted from PV’ and ‘Adapted from PV.’
Rewrites: Within this category, two sub-categories were established. One sub-category－ 62 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

included SADs that adhered to EPOSTL in the PV but underwent significant
rewriting, with half or more of the words in the PV's SAD being rewritten. The subcategories were named ‘Rewritten SADs of EPOSTL’ and ‘Rewritten SADs of PV’
respectively.
The classification of the SADs in the draft aims to facilitate the explanation of thecompiling methods, which is the main theme of this article. It would be impractical toindividually address each of the 167 SADs and explain the decision-making process foreach SAD. By categorizing them and providing explanations using typical examples fromeach category, it is expected that the decision-making process for the remaining SADs
can be inferred.
2.2 Utilization of ChatGPT and Determination of English SADs
2.2.1 EPOSTL-based. The SADs in J-POSTL (E) classified under this category are
considered to be originally Japanese translations of those in EPOSTL. When translatingthem into Japanese, two variations can be observed: translations closely following thewording of the SADs in EPOSTL and translations that have been contextualized andrevised with additional wording. Based on these variations, the SADs in this category
were further divided into the two sub-categories.
(1) Quoted from EPOSTL. This sub-category includes SADs in the PV that are either
identical or differ only in replacing ‘learner(s)’ with ‘child(ren)’ compared to the wording
in EPOSTL. As the content is self-evident, no examples are provided for this category.
(2) Adapted from EPOSTL. This sub-category comprises SADs that clearly borrowfrom EPOSTL but undergo modifications such as changing certain terms, expressions, orwording, as well as the addition or deletion of necessary words or phrases to align with
the Japanese language (Table 1).
Table 1
Examples of SADs Adapted from EPOSTL
SAD#
SADs from EPOSTL
I-A-1
I can understand therequirements set in national andlocal curricula.
II-G-2
I can evaluate and selectactivities which enhance thechildren’s cultural awareness.
VII-B-5 I can present my assessment of a

Adapted SADs
I can understand the requirements set in
the Course of Study.
I can evaluate and select activities
which encourage and deepen children's
awareness and understanding of culture.
I can present my assessment of a child’s－ 63 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

learner’s performance andprogress in the form of a
descriptive evaluation, which istransparent and comprehensible
to the learner, parents and others.

performance and progress in the formof a descriptive evaluation, which iseasy to understand for the child, parents
and others.

I-A-1 represents a typical case where the EPOSTL SAD is contextualized to Japanese
education. II-G-2 underwent modifications through interaction with ChatGPT, changing‘enhance’ to align with Japanese wording as ‘encourage and deepen,’ and further
expressing a deep understanding by adding the term ‘understanding.’ VII-B-5 wasadapted using clear and concise Japanese wording.
2.2.2 PV-based. The SADs in this category were extensively checked by ChatGPT for
their accuracy as translation texts and naturalness in English. Additionally, if any
additions, modifications, or deletions were deemed necessary, discussions took place
between ChatGPT and the author. During this process, the two categories were
established.
(1) Quoted from PV. These SADs were directly quoted without any changes, as both
ChatGPT and the author agreed that the Japanese content and wording were accuratelytranslated.
(2) Adapted from PV. Similar to the case of EPOSTL-based, this category includes
SADs that clearly originated from PV (Table 3).
Table 2
Examples of SADs Adapted from PV
SAD#
SADs from PV
I-C-5
I can observe my peers and offer
them constructive feedback.
II-A-2-4

VI-E-2

I can evaluate and select various
activities to raise childawareness of stress, rhythm andintonation.
I can collect learning resourceson the Internet for children andshare them with other teachers.

Adapted SADs
I can observe my peer's lesson andprovide constructive feedback on
improvement areas.
I can evaluate and select various
speaking activities to help children
become aware of differences in stress,
rhythm, and intonation.
I can gather learning resources
accessible to children and share themwith other educators.

－ 64 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

I-C-5: During the interaction with ChatGPT, it was agreed that the phrase ‘peers’
would be changed to ‘peer's lesson’ to create a more specific descriptor. Furthermore, theaddition of ‘on improvement areas’ (alternatively ‘on areas for improvement,’ ‘in areas
for improvement,’ or ‘for improvement’), which was also present in the Japanese wording,became a more concrete descriptor.
II-A-2-4: In this case, ChatGPT suggested that the expression ‘raise child awareness’sounded slightly unnatural and proposed changing it to ‘help children become aware’ fora more natural English expression. Additionally, the author's opinion to include‘differences in stress, rhythm, and intonation,’ which was also present in the Japanese
SAD, was accepted.
VI-E-2: The proposed modification by ChatGPT for this SAD was largely accepted.
‘Gather’ was considered more general and encompassing than ‘collect’ in terms ofresource gathering. By removing ‘on the Internet’ in line with Japanese wording andmodifying ‘for children’ to ‘accessible to children,’ the Japanese SAD was expressedmore clearly.
2.1.3 Rewrites. Within the translations from the PV, there are some SADs that have been
carefully devised to capture the gist of the Japanese SAD in a concise manner. ChatGPT
generally determines these SADs to be ‘natural and appropriate’ in terms of English
expression. However, to reflect the author's intention of incorporating the overall meaning
and wording of the Japanese SAD as much as possible, significant rewriting wasnecessary for these PV translations. These rewritten SADs are also categorized into two.
(1) Rewritten SADs of EPOSTL. Among the PV SADs that directly quote the
EPOSTL ones, there were quite a few instances where the original PV translations did notreflect the specific details expressed in the Japanese SAD, thus requiring extensive orcomplete rewriting (Table 4).
Table 4
Examples of rewritten SADs of EPOSTL
SAD#
SADs from EPOSTL
I-C-9
I can appreciate and make use of
the value added to the classroom
environment by learners withdiverse cultural backgrounds.

V-C-5

I can encourage learner’s
participation whenever possible.

Rewritten SADs
I can appreciate and make use of thevalue of diversity in a class composedof children with various cultural
backgrounds and learning experiences,such as foreign exchange children,
children of foreign nationals, andchildren returning from abroad.
I can encourage children’s
participation in planning, preparing,－ 65 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

VI-D-1

I can plan and structure portfolio
work.

and proceeding a lesson wheneverpossible.
I can design teaching plans for children
to engage in portfolio work.

In Table 4, three examples are provided where initially, ChatGPT responded that the
English translations of the EPOSTL SADs generally conveyed the meaning of theJapanese SAD. However, it was noted that the Japanese SAD contained specific details.
For instance, in the case of I-C-9, the Japanese SAD mentioned specific examples of‘learners with diverse cultural backgrounds.’ When the author proposed adding this detailto the translation, ChatGPT responded with, “The proposed translation is appropriate andaccurately conveys the (Japanese) context.” A similar situation occurred with V-C-5,
where the author added specific scenes of ‘children’s participation’ based on the Japanese
SAD.
In the case of VI-D-1, the author adopted a rephrased English version that alignedwith the specific wording in the Japanese SAD, such as ‘plan and structure.’ Towards theend of the interaction with ChatGPT, four alternative suggestions were provided,
indicating that the choice could vary depending on the context. Such cases were quite
common.
(2) Rewritten SADs of PV. Many of the descriptors in this category, belonging to thePV, did not sufficiently reflect the Japanese expressions of J-POSTL (E). Some required
addition and revisions in the modification relations of words/phrases/clauses and in
vocabulary selection. As a result, they underwent significant or complete rewriting (Table
5).
Table 5
Examples of rewritten SADs of PV
SAD#
SAD from PV
II-A-1-5 I can evaluate and selectmeaningful activities to help
children develop interactive
competences to initiate or
respond to simple utterances.
II-B-4

Rewritten SADs
I can evaluate and select meaningfulinteractional activities to help children
to develop the ability to engage in brief
exchanges, such as answering
questions about themselves or asking
about others.
I can evaluate and select familiar I can evaluate and select activities
sentences for copying to help
which enable children to copy familiarchildren become aware of word
expressions while paying attention toorder.
word order so that they can develop
their writing skills.

－ 66 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

II-D-1

VI-F-4

I can use picture book
storytelling strategies such as
voice and actions to get childreninterested in the content andtext.
I can set aims and objectives for
extra-curricular activities toenhance and support language
learning (exchanges andinternational cooperation
programs, etc.).

I can set up read-along or story-telling
activities using picture books to getchildren interested in English alphabets
and their content.
I can properly set aims and objectives
for fieldwork, exchanges, andinternational cooperation programs,
which encompass language learning
experiences.

II-A-1-5 is an example where the wording was rewritten based on ChatGPT's advice.
ChatGPT suggested using a more general expression instead of ‘interactive competences,’
which refers to a specialized term indicating a wide range of communication abilities that
include short exchanges. Additionally, it was advised to use a more specific expression inline with the Japanese wording for ‘initiate or respond to simple utterances.’
II-B-4 is an example where ChatGPT overlooked Japanese modifiers and wordingthat should be added. Initially, ChatGPT provided the revision: “I can design activities
that help children improve their writing ability by copying familiar expressions while
paying attention to word order.” However, in Japanese, ‘activity’ is modified by ‘to beable to copy familiar expressions while paying attention to word order.’ Furthermore, thereason was not reflected in the translation. When the author proposed a revised version,
ChatGPT praised it as a more accurate and natural translation that reflects the Japanese
SAD.
II-D-1 involved a discussion about vocabulary selection. ChatGPT's judgment was
uncertain, and it took a considerable amount of time to finalize the vocabulary andwording. For the PV descriptor ‘picture book storytelling strategies as voice and actions,’
when the author proposed ‘read and listen activities using picture books,’ ChatGPT
acknowledged it as appropriate. However, when asked about the implication of ‘read andlisten,’ the suggestion changed to ‘read-along or listening activities using picture books.’
Since there was resistance to ‘listening activities,’ the author proposed ‘read-along orstory-telling activities using picture books,’ which was deemed suitable for accurately
conveying the meaning.
VI-F-4 is an example where ChatGPT's responses changed multiple times. The
initial proposed revision was: “I can accurately set aims and objectives for language
learning opportunities, including extracurricular activities, exchanges, and international
cooperation programs.” The author questioned the suitability of ‘extracurricular activities’and suggested using ‘learning activities outside of the classroom’ or ‘fieldwork’.
ChatGPT acknowledged the concern and proposed: “I can properly set aims and－ 67 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

objectives for language learning opportunities, including fieldwork, exchanges, andinternational cooperation programs, among others.” However, the author insisted that thesuggested sentence following ‘objective for...’ is inconsistent with the Japanese wording
and should be changed to ‘...fieldwork, exchanges, and international cooperation
programs which include language learning opportunities.’ In response, ChatGPT provided
a third revision, admitting the previous misunderstanding: “I can properly set aims andobjectives for language learning opportunities, including fieldwork, exchanges, andinternational cooperation programs, which encompass language learning experiences.”
Yet, this sentence was deemed redundant and not concise. The author proposed: “I canproperly set aims and objectives for fieldwork, exchanges, and international cooperation
programs, which encompass language learning experiences.” ChatGPT apologized,
acknowledging that the suggested revision was clearer.
3. Result
The results of the interactions with ChatGPT to determine the English translation of
all 167 SADs are presented in Table 6. The finalized drafts have been included in the
appendix for reference. Please consult the appendix for the completed versions.
Table 6
Categorization of English draft of SADs of J-POSTL (E)
Category
SAD #I-C-2; II-G-4; III-6,10; IV-A-3,4,6, B-1,3,7,9,10,11;
Quoted from EPOSTL V-A-3,6, C-1,3,4, D-3,4,5; VI-A-1,3,4, C-3,4,5,6, D-4,5, E3, F-1; VII-A-2, B-3,7, C-1,2 (37)I-A-1, C-3; II-G-1,5,7,8; III-2; IV-A-1-1, B-2,5,6,8,
Adapted from EPOSTL C-1; V-A-4, C-6, D-1; VI-A-2, F-2,3; VII-A-1,3,
B-1,2,4,5, D-2,3,4,5, E-3 (30)
I-B-1,3, C-6; II-D-6,8,9, E-2, F-2, G-3,6; III-4,7; IV-B-4; VQuoted from PV
A-5, D-2, E-1,2; VI-B-1; VII-D-1, F-1,2 (21)I-A-2, B-2,4,5, C-1,4,5,7,8; II-A-1-1,2,3,6, A-2-1,2,4,5, B1,2,3, C-1, D-2,3,4,10, F-1,4,5, G-1; III-3,9; IV-C-4,5; V-BAdapted from PV
1, E-3,4; VI-E-1,2; VII-B-6, E-1,2 (41)
Rewritten EPOSTL
Rewritten PV

I-C-9; II-A-2-6, D-7; III-8,11; V-A-2 ,B-2, C-5; VI-C-1,2, D1,2,3 (14)I-A-3, D-1; II-A-1-4,5, A-2-3, B-4,5,6, C-2,3,4, D-1, E-1, F3; III-1,5; IV-A-2,5, C-2,3; V-A-1, C-2, E-5; VI-F-4 (24)(Subtotal)－ 68 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

4. Conclusion
This article was written as a reference material to support the validity and reliabilityof the English version of SADs in J-POSTL (E), which are included in the appendix.
Given the large number of descriptors, the process of determining the wording of SADs
using ChatGPT was demonstrated through examples. One of the fundamental principles
of editing was to create an English version that closely aligned with the Japanese sentence
structures and the wording found in J-POSTL (E). The advice and suggestions provided
by ChatGPT were very helpful, but there were instances where the AI misinterpreted themodification relationships between clauses and phrases in Japanese or made incorrect
choices of educational terminology, leading to inaccuracies or omissions in the translation.
This highlights the difficulty of precisely translating Japanese into English, even for AI
systems. However, overall, thanks to ChatGPT, an English list of the SADs has beensatisfactorily refined in the author’s opinion.
Finally, the author intends to publish a Japanese-English version of this draft. He
intends to publish this draft on the SIG’s website and hopes that it will be widely utilized
by teacher educators, practicing teachers, assistant language teachers (ALTs), andstudents in teacher training programs, ultimately becoming established in educationalsettings.

References
JACET SIG on English Language Education. (2014). Japanese Portfolio for Student
Teachers of Languages (J-POSTL).
http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/FullVersionJPOSTL.pdf
JACET SIG on English Language Education. (2021). J-POSTL for Elementary-school
Teacher Education (J-POSTL Elementary).
http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/CompleteJPOSTLElementary.pdf
Newby, D., Allan, R., Fenner, A-B., Jones, B., Komorowska, H., & Soghikyan, K. (2007).
European portfolio for student teachers of languages (EPOSTL). Council of Europe
Publishing.
Yamaguchi,T., Osada, E., Hisamura, K., & Benthien, G. (2019). Japanese Portfolio for
Elementary English Educators: Specifying Self-assessment Descriptors for Student
Teachers. Language Teacher Education 6(2). 54-61. JACET SIG. on English
Language Education.

－ 69 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Appendix

An English Draft of Self-assessment Descriptors of J-POSTL Elementary
Ⅰ CONTEXT
A. Curriculum
1. I can understand the requirements set in the Course of Study.
2. I can design English language courses and year-round teaching programs for elementary
school around the requirements of the Course of Study. (N)
3. I can understand the principles formulated in official guidelines for elementary school
foreign language education other than the Course of Study (e.g. Core Curriculum,
Curriculum Management). (P)B. Aims and Needs
1. I can take into account the children’s motivation to learn English.
2. I can take into account children's intellectual interests.
3. I can take into account children’s sense of achievement.
4. I can understand the significance of learning English.
5. I can take into account the learning objectives based on both the Course of Study andchildren’s needs.
C. The Role of the Language Teacher
1. I can identify specific pedagogical issues related to my children and teaching byplanning, practicing, and reflecting on my classes.
2. I can critically assess my teaching on the basis of experience, child feedback andlearning outcomes, and adapt it accordingly.
3. I can accept feedback from my peers and observers and apply it to my own teaching.
4. I can gather information related to classes and learning.
5. I can observe my peer's lesson and provide constructive feedback on improvement
areas.
6. I can take into account children’s knowledge of Japanese, and make use of it whenteaching English.
7. I can explain the significance and benefits of learning English to children and theirparents. (N)
8. I can critically assess my own teaching by understanding the cognitive, emotional, andsocial development of children. (N)
9. I can appreciate and make use of the value of diversity in a class composed of children
with various cultural backgrounds and learning experiences, such as foreign exchange
children, children of foreign nationals, and children returning from abroad. (N)
D. Institutional Resources and Constraints
1. I can use the facilities and educational equipment at my school as needed during classes
and other activities.

－ 70 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Ⅱ METHODOLOGY
A. Speaking
A-1 Spoken Interaction
1. I can create a supportive atmosphere and set up opportunities for practical English
usage that invite children to actively take part in interactional activities.
2. I can evaluate and select meaningful interactional activities to encourage children to
greet familiar and unfamiliar individuals, as well as respond to or decline instructions
and requests from them.
3. I can evaluate and select meaningful interactional activities to encourage children to
express their thoughts and feelings about familiar topics.
4. I can evaluate and select meaningful interactional activities to help children to develop
the ability to engage in brief exchanges, such as answering questions about themselves
or asking about others.
5. I can evaluate and select various interactional activities to help children to develop theability to communicate effectively with others using nonverbal communication such as
facial expressions, gestures, etc.
6. I can evaluate and select meaningful interactional activities to help children to develop
the ability to confirm and clarify what others say.
A-2 Spoken Production
1. I can evaluate and select various speaking activities to help children to develop theability to express their preferences, interests, and strengths using basic vocabulary andexpressions.
2. I can evaluate and select various speaking activities to help children to develop theability to describe their everyday life or events by using simple phrases and expressions.
3. I can evaluate and select various speaking activities to help children to develop theability to express their thoughts and emotions about their living environment, school
experience, friendships, and acquaintances using basic vocabulary and expressions.
4. I can evaluate and select various speaking activities to help children to become awareof differences in stress, rhythm, and intonation.
5. I can evaluate and select a range of speaking activities to encourage children tocommunicate confidently using a limited vocabulary and nonverbal cues.
6. I can evaluate and select authentic and diverse materials including visual aids andprinted materials to encourage speaking activities. (N)B. Writing / Written Interaction
1. I can evaluate and select meaningful activities to encourage children to copy or write
letters, words, phrases, and expressions, increasing their motivation to engage in suchtasks.
2. I can evaluate and select various activities to enable children to copy or write familiar
phrases and expressions.
3. I can evaluate and select writing activities which help children to practice writing－ 71 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

familiar words, phrases, and expressions, paying attention to lower and upper caseletters, word units, basic symbols, etc. (N)
4. I can evaluate and select activities which enable children to copy familiar expressions
while paying attention to word order so that they can develop their writing skills. (N)
5. I can create a range of settings and scenarios in which children can practice writing
activities. (N)
6. I can facilitate activities which support children in exchanging notes or letters aboutfamiliar topics using acquired vocabulary and sentence structures. (A)C. Listening
1. I can select listening materials appropriate to children's interests.
2. I can encourage children to use their prior knowledge and related experiences to predictthe content of a text before listening to it in English.
3. I can design listening activities which enable children to identify the key points of thematerial.（N）4. I can support children in identifying the pronounced letters and in coping with new ordifficult vocabulary during listening activities. (N)
D. Reading
1. I can set up read-along or story-telling activities using picture books to get childreninterested in English alphabets and their content.
2. I can set activities to help children to identify the letters of the alphabet and develop
the ability to properly pronounce them.
3. I can select reading materials appropriate to the needs, interests, and language level ofchildren.
4. I can encourage children to use their own experiences and relevant knowledge whenreading phrases or sentences. (N)
5. I can recommend books and materials that are suitable for the children's interests andreading levels. (A)
6. I can set developmental activities based on the contents and expressions I havetaught. (A)
7. I can apply appropriate ways of reading a text in class such as reading aloud, silently
or in groups (e.g. choral reading, reading the text sentence by sentence, and fingerpoint reading). (P)
8. I can encourage children to read familiar English phrases and sentences on their own.
(P)
9. I can help children to develop different strategies to cope with difficult or unknown
vocabulary in a text. (E)
10. I can help children to learn reading strategies (e.g. skimming, scanning etc.) to gather
necessary information from a text. (E)E. Grammar
1. I can recognize that grammar underpins communication, and help children to become－ 72 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

aware of the role of grammar through a variety of language activities in whichmeaningful living contexts are introduced.
2. I can provide various activities which help children to become aware of Englishspecific rules such as word order and inflections. (P)F. Vocabulary
1. I can evaluate and select a variety of activities which help children to use the familiar
vocabulary in a meaningful context.
2. I can introduce vocabulary which will enable the children to be able to express
themselves appropriately.
3. I can design activities that help children to recognize the differences in vocabulary andexpressions used in different situations, for different purposes, and with different
people. (P)
4. I can help children to learn vocabulary by taking into account high/low frequency
words and receptive/productive vocabulary. (E)
5. I can select and recommend appropriate dictionaries (e.g. English pictorial dictionaries,
Japanese-English dictionaries), provide specific examples and explanations byreferencing them, and help children learn to use them. (E)G. Culture
1. I can evaluate and select a variety of activities which awaken children's interest in andhelp them to develop their knowledge and understanding of their own and the otherlanguage cultures through learning English language.
2. I can evaluate and select activities which encourage and deepen children's awarenessand understanding of culture.
3. I can create opportunities for children to explore various regions, people and culturesby using the ICT. (N)
4. I can evaluate and select activities (role plays, simulated situations etc.) which help
children to develop their socio-cultural competence. (A)
5. I can evaluate and select a variety of source materials and activities which makechildren aware of similarities and differences in sociocultural ‘norms of behavior’.
(A)
6. I can evaluate and select a variety of source materials and activities which
encourage children to reflect on the relationship with others and get aware of orunderstand different value systems. (A)
7. I can evaluate and select a variety of source materials and activities to make children
aware of the interrelationship between culture and language. (P)
8. I can evaluate and select a variety of source materials and activities to make children
aware of stereotyped views and challenge these. (E)
Ⅲ RESOURCES
1. I can make use of ideas, lesson plans and materials found in the teacher's guide and－ 73 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

supplemental materials accompanying textbooks.
2. I can identify and evaluate a range of materials appropriate for the age, interests andthe language level of my children.
3. I can select expressions and language activities from textbooks and source materials
that are appropriate for children's English proficiency.
4. I can locate and select materials appropriate for the needs of my children from a variety
of sources, such as pictorial books, encyclopedia, illustrated books, literature, mass
media and the Internet.
5. I can design appropriate learning materials and activities, taking into account the needsof each individual child.
6. I can design ICT materials and activities appropriate for my children. (N)
7. I can select and use appropriate ICT materials and activities in the classroom which arein line with the children’s interests and abilities. (N)
8. I can select and use appropriate ICT teaching materials with children, and criticallyevaluate their effectiveness. (N)
9. I can guide children to use the library and the Internet for information retrieval. (A)
10. I can recommend dictionaries and other reference books useful for my children. (E)
11. I can guide children to produce materials for themselves and for other children, andmake an effective use of them in class. (E)
Ⅳ LESSON PLANNING
A. Identification of Learning Objectives
1. I can identify the Course of Study requirements and set learning aims and objectives
suited to my children’s needs and interests.
2. I can set learning objectives for each lesson and/or unit in accordance with the annual
teaching plan.
3. I can set objectives which challenge children to reach their full potential.
4. I can set objectives which encourage children to reflect on their learning.
5. I can set domain-specific and perspective-based evaluation objectives for the four
macro skills of listening, speaking (interaction and presentation), reading, and writingin accordance with the annual teaching plan. (N)
6. I can set objectives which take into account the differing levels of ability and special
educational needs of the children. (N)B. Lesson Content
1. I can vary and balance activities to enhance and sustain the children’s motivation andinterest.
2. I can design activities to make the children aware of and build on their existingknowledge.
3. I can take on board children’s feedback and comments and incorporate this into futurelessons.

－ 74 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

4. I can structure lesson plans flexibly based on the year-round teaching plans. (N)
5. I can plan activities to ensure the interdependence of listening, spoken interaction andpresentation, reading, and writing. (N)
6. I can accurately estimate the time needed for specific topics and activities and plan
accordingly. (N)
7. I can vary and balance activities in order to respond to individual children’s learning
styles. (N)
8. I can plan to teach elements of other subjects using English (cross-curricular teaching,
CLIL, etc.). (A)
9. I can plan activities to emphasize the interdependence of language and culture. (P)
10. I can plan activities which link grammar and vocabulary with communication. (P)
11. I can involve children in lesson planning. (P)C. Lesson Organization
1. I can select from and plan a variety of organizational form (whole-class, individual,
pair, group, etc.) that align with learning objectives.
2. I can plan activities to encourage interaction between children.
3. I can plan activities to encourage children to make a presentation.
4. I can design lessons that take into account when, where, and how to use English.
5. I can plan team-teaching lessons and periods of team-teaching with other teachers
and/or assistant language teachers. (N)Ⅴ CONDUCTING A LESSON
A. Using Lesson Plans
1. I can start a lesson drawing children's interest and curiosity.
2. I can flexibly adjust organizational forms such as individuals, pairs, groups and thewhole class according to the situations.
3. I can be flexible when working from a lesson plan and respond to children’s interests
as the lesson progresses.
4. I can time and change classroom activities to reflect individual children’s attention
spans.
5. I can wrap up a lesson effectively and efficiently.
6. I can adjust my time schedule when unforeseen situations occur. (N)B. Content
1. I can relate what I teach to children’s experiences and knowledge, everyday events, anddiverse cultural backgrounds.
2. I can present language content and topics, regardless of prior familiarity or experience,in accordance with proficiency levels of English and needs of children. (P)C. Interaction with Learners
1. I can be responsive and react supportively to children’s initiative and interaction.
2. I can encourage children to pay attention to the lesson from the start.

－ 75 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

3. I can keep and maximize the attention of children during a lesson. (N)
4. I can cater for a range of learning styles. (A)
5. I can encourage children's participation in planning, preparing, and proceeding a lesson
whenever possible. (P)6. I can help children to develop appropriate learning strategies. (P)D. Classroom Management
1. I can provide opportunities for and manage individual, partner, group and whole classwork.
2. I can manage and use resources effectively (flashcards, charts, pictures, audio-visual
aids, etc.)
3. I can manage and use instructional media efficiently (OHP, ICT, video etc.).
4. I can take on different roles according to the needs of the children and requirements of
the activity (resource person, mediator, supervisor etc.). (A)
5. I can supervise and assist children’s use of different forms of ICT both in and outside
the classroom. (A)E. Classroom Language
1. I can explain learning content and methods in English using visual aids, gestures,
demonstrations, etc.
2. I can conduct a lesson in English, but can make effective use of Japanese if necessary.
3. I can design and facilitate activities that motivate children to actively use English in
the classroom.
4. I can use appropriate strategies when children have trouble understanding classroom
English. (N)
5. I can encourage children to relate their knowledge of Japanese language to the English
learning contents when and where it is necessary, in order to facilitate theirunderstanding of the lessons. (N)Ⅵ INDEPENDENT LEARNING
A. Learner Autonomy
1. I can evaluate and select a variety of activities which help children to reflect on their
existing knowledge and competences.
2. I can help children to reflect on their own learning processes and outcomes. (N)
3. I can assist children in choosing tasks and activities according to their individual needs
and interests. (P)
4. I can guide and assist children in setting their own aims and objectives and in planningtheir own learning. (P)B. Homework
1. I can set tasks outside of allocated classes to motivate learners to work independently.
(P)－ 76 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

C. Projects
1. I can encourage children to engage in reflection using tools such as diaries and learning
logs. (A)
2. I can help children to make a presentation in English by using relevant tools. (P)3. I can plan and manage project work according to relevant aims and objectives. (E)
4. I can assist the children in their choices during the various stages of project work. (E)
5. I can plan and organize cross-curricular project work myself or in cooperation withother teachers. (E)
6. I can assess the process and outcome of project work in cooperation with children.
(E)
D. Portfolios
1. I can design teaching plans for children to engage in portfolio work. (E)
2. I can set specific aims and objectives for children to engage in portfolio work. (E)3. I can help children to use a portfolio appropriately and give constructive feedback tothem. (E)
4. I can assess portfolios in relation to valid and transparent criteria. (E)
5. I can encourage self-and peer assessment of portfolio work. (E)E. Virtual Learning Environments
1. I can help children to use various ICT resources appropriately (email, websites,
computer programs, etc.). (A)
2. I can gather learning resources accessible to children and share them with othereducators. (P)3. I can initiate and facilitate various learning environments (learning platforms, web
pages, discussion forums, etc.). (E)F. Extra-curricular Activities
1. I can help to organize exchanges in cooperation with relevant resource persons andinstitutions. (A)
2. I can recognize when and where the need for extra-curricular activities to enhancelearning arises. (A)
3. I can evaluate the learning outcomes of fieldwork, exchanges and international
cooperation programs. (P)
4. I can properly set aims and objectives for fieldwork, exchanges, and international
cooperation programs, which encompass language learning experiences. (E)
Ⅶ ASSESSMENT
A. Designing Assessment Tools
1. I can evaluate and select valid assessment procedures (portfolios, self-/ peer-assessment,etc.) appropriate to lesson aims and objectives. (N)
2. I can design and use in-class activities to monitor and assess children’s participationand performance. (N)－ 77 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

3. I can negotiate with children how their learning and improvement should best be
assessed. (P)B. Evaluation
1. I can assign grades using procedures which are reliable and transparent. (N)
2. I can identify strengths and areas for improvement in a child’s English performance.
(N)
3. I can assess a child’s ability to work independently and collaboratively. (N)
4. I can use a valid grading system in my assessment of a child's performance. (N)
5. I can present my assessment of a child’s performance and progress in the form of a
descriptive evaluation, which is easy to understand for the child, parents and others.
(N)
6. I can use reliable assessment procedures to chart and monitor a child’s progress andexplain the result in an easy-to-understand manner. (A)
7. I can use the process and results of assessment to inform my teaching and plan learningfor individuals and groups (i.e. formative assessment). (P)C. Self- and Peer Assessment
1. I can help children to set personal targets and assess their own performance. (A)
2. I can help children to engage in peer assessment. (A)D. Language Performance
1. I can assess a child’s ability to speak and write. (N)
2. I can assess a child’s ability to engage in spoken interaction according to criteria suchas content, appropriate language usage and conversational strategies. (A)
3. I can assess a child’s ability to engage in written interaction according to criteria suchas content and appropriate language usage. (P)
4. I can assess a child’s ability to understand and interpret a spoken text such as listening
for gist, specific information, implication, etc. (P)
5. I can assess a child's ability to understand and interpret a written text, such as readingfor gist, specific information, etc. (E)E. Culture
1. I can assess children's awareness of the differences between Japanese and other cultures.
2. I can assess the children's motivation, interests and attitudes towards different cultures.
3. I can assess the child’s ability to respond and act appropriately in encounters withdifferent cultures. (P)F. Error analysis
1. I can analyze children’s errors and provide constructive feedback to them.
2. I can deal with errors that occur in class in a way which does not disrupt the flow of
the lesson or communicative activities. (N)－ 78 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

【Chronicle】

April 2022― March 2023
Presentations by the SIG members:
Date

Title and Presenter(s)

Event

Venue
June 19“Developing portfolio on intercultural

JASTEC 42nd

competence for English learners at

Annual Convention

elementary schools: Creating self-assessment
descriptors for self-reflection” Fumiko
Kurihara, Yoichi Kiyota, Natsue Nakayama& Chika Kuroki
Web conference with Zoom
June 19“Cultural learning in elementary school

JASTEC 42nd

English learning ― Using ‘Minpakku’ by

Annual Convention

the National Museum of Ethnology”
Yoichi Kiyota & Yuki Kitano
Web conference with Zoom
July 8-10“Research on intercultural competence

JALT PanSIG 2022

components in the new elementary
textbooks” Fumiko Kurihara, Yoichi Kiyota &Natsue Nakayama
The University of Nagano
July 9“The potential of effective use of multiple

15th Annualreflective tools based on the analysis ofConvention of

student teachers’ reflection on micro-

JACET KANTO

teaching” Satsuki Osaki

CHAPTERWeb conference with Zoom
July 30“Practical report”"Passport to Middle

Kagari Tsuchiya

School Students"

Web conference with Zoom

Practical Report
Meeting

August 22“Developing autonomous learners:

The 25th Annual

Perspectives and devices for teaching

Convention ofpractices to promote motivation and deeper

Saitama Private

thinking” Kaori Yoshizumi

School Education－ 79 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Hotel Brillante Musashino(English language
teaching subcommittee)

September 15“Pre-service language teacher education

Second Language

using a portfolio”

Teacher Education:

Eri Osada

Challenges and New
Horizon (SLTED)

University of Wien
October 23“Two projects for fostering imagination,

Tokyo JALT

communication skills, and intercultural

Teaching Younger

awareness” Yoichi Kiyota

Learners SIG Event

Web conference with Zoom
November 11-“Extensive reading project with Oxford

Fukuoka

14

Reading Club in our English program”

International

Yoichi Kiyota

Convention Hall

Web conference with Zoom
December 3“Developing an ‘Elementary school English

The 5th JAAL inlearning biography’ to nurture autonomous

JACET (Japanlearners”

Association for

NatsueNakayama&

KagariApplied Linguistics)

Tsuchiya
Ritsumeikan University(2022)(Osaka Ibaraki Campus)
December 3

March 6

“Developing and using passport for junior

The 5th JAAL inhigh school” Fumiko Kurihara & Hiromi

JACET (Japan

Imamura

Association for

1.

Ritsumeikan University

Applied Linguistics)(Osaka Ibaraki Campus)(2022)

Symposium: “The possibility of English

Language

language learning portfolio for

Education

elementary school students: Classroom

EXPO2023

practice using ‘Passport for junior highschool’ and development of ‘Biography’
Fumiko Kurihara, Yoichi Kiyota, Sakiko
Yoneda, Natsue Nakayama, Kagari
Tsuchiya, Mayuko Oshida & Chika
Kuroki2.

Symposium “Digital textbooks for－ 80 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

elementary English education in Japan”


Jyunya Narita, Satoru Shimodaira,
Seiko Akai & Kagari Tsuchiya

3.

Symposium: “A study of teaching withmachine translation at universities”
Shien Sakai, Mikie Nishiyama, Eisaku
Takahashi & Naoki Sugimori (Chair)

4.

Presentation: “Analysis of Japanese
university students’ use of mediation
skills during an online internship with
Vietnamese students”
Fumiko Kurihara

5.

Presentation: “Perception of self-image
as a future English user among juniorand senior high school students: Insightsfrom a six-year longitudinal study”
Akiko Takagi, Takayuki Tsukui, YumikoKato, Miyuki Morishita & Yumiko
Fukumoto

6.

Presentation: “Developing and practicing
a methodology to promote deep reflection
in an educational practice seminar:
Students’ evaluation on the method”
Sakiko Yoneda & Shun Morimoto

7.

Presentation: “Students’ evaluation on
the use of reflection tools in a pre-service
teacher education course” Satsuki Osaki
Waseda University/
Web conference with Zoom

Abbreviations
JACET: The Japan Association of College English Teachers
JAAL: The Japan Association of Applied Linguistics
JALT：The Japan Association for Language Teaching

JASTEC: The Japan Association for the Study of Teaching English to Children－ 81 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Language Teacher Education
Submission Guidelines
1. Requirements
Contributors and co-authors should be SIG or JACET members. However,contributions from the users of J-POSTL or researchers/practitioners of language teacher
education as well as primary/secondary foreign language education are welcome.
2. Editorial Policy
Language Teacher Education, a refereed journal, encourages submission of thefollowing:
Genre
Contents
Number of words
Full-length academic articles on the
Research Paper transportability or the use of J-POSTL or on
Within 8,000
language teacher education and related fields.
Discussion notes on J-POSTL or on language
Research Note
Within 6,000
teacher education and related fields.
Reports on classroom application of J-POSTL
Practical Report or on language teacher education and related
Within 6,000
fields.
Reports of conferences, PD activities,
materials, research programs, etc. related to JOther
Within 4,000
POSTL or language teacher education andrelated fields.
Book Review Book reviews on language education
Within 2,000
3. Submission Procedure
・ Language Teacher Education invites submissions for both Japanese and English
editions.
・ Data Entry: The data with the name(s), affiliation(s), title(s), e-mail address(es), andabstract should be sent to the e-mail address below no later than November 30 for
Japanese edition and April 30 for English edition.
・ The complete manuscript for publication in March issue (Japanese edition) should besent to the email address below no later than January 10, and that for publication in
July issue (English edition) no later than June 15.
Email to: Hiromi Imamura <imamura[at]isc.chubu.ac.jp>
Change the “at” in the address to an @ mark.
4. Formatting guidelines for submissions in English
Full-length manuscripts in MS W, conforming to APA 7th edition style, should notexceed 8,000 words on A4 paper (Leave margins of 30mm on all sides of every page /Use 12-point Times New Roman, 80 letters×40 lines), including title (14-point Times
New Roman), headings (12-point Times New Roman in bold type), abstract (200-300
words), key words (no more than 5 words), references, figures, tables, and appendix. (See,template on the SIG website)－ 82 －

Language Teacher Education Vol. 10 No. 2, August 24, 2023

Language Teacher Education
言語教師教育 2023
Vol.10 No.2

Online edition: ISSN 2188-8264

Print edition: ISSN 2188-8256

令和 5 年（2023 年）8 月 24 日
発行者  JACET 教育問題研究会
JACET SIG on English Language Education
http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/
代表 栗原 文子
〒192-0393 東京都八王子市東中野 742−1
中央大学商学部 栗原文子 気付
印刷所 有限会社 桐文社〒142-0053 東京都品川区中延 6－2－22 エボンビル 1 階
電話 03－3781－4010
本書の印刷費には科学研究費補助金（基盤(C)）研究課題番号：23K00726
代表 山口高領（秀明大学）が使われています。

－ 83 －

JACETSIG-ELE
Language Teacher EducationJournaland Related Fields

ᡂ㛗ࡢࡓࡵࡢ┬ᐹࢶ࣮ࣝゝㄒᩍᖌࡢ࣏࣮ࢺࣇ࢛ࣜ࢜
-$&(7ᩍ⫱ၥ㢟◊✲఍ <http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/>┘ಟ㸸⚄ಖᑦṊ㸭⦅㞟㸸ஂᮧ ◊㸪㓇஭ᚿᘏࠊ㧘ᮌளᕼᏊࠊΎ⏣ὒ୍ࠕゝㄒᩍᖌࡢ࣏࣮ࢺࣇ࢛ࣜ࢜ࠖ࡟ࡣ㸪࠙ⱥㄒᩍᖌᩍ⫱඲⦅ࠚ࠙ⱥㄒᩍ⫋ㄢ⛬⦅ࠚ࠙⌧⫋ⱥㄒᩍᖌ⦅ࠚࡢ㸱⦅ࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⏝㏵࡟ࡼࡗ࡚౑࠸ศ
ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡍࠋᮏ࣏࣮ࢺࣇ࢛ࣜ࢜ࡢ୺࡞≉ᚩࡣḟࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛ࡍࠋ
࣭ⱥㄒᩍᖌ࡟ồࡵࡽࢀࡿᤵᴗຊࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࠋ࣭ᤵᴗຊ࡜ࡑࢀࢆᨭ࠼ࡿᇶ♏▱㆑࣭ᢏ⾡ࡢ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡾࢆಁࡍࠋ
࣭ྠ൉ࡸᣦᑟ⪅࡜ࡢヰࡋྜ࠸࡜༠ാࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿࠋ࣭⮬ࡽࡢᤵᴗࡢ⮬ᕫホ౯ຊࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࠋ࣭ᡂ㛗ࢆグ㘓ࡍࡿᡭẁࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࠋ

ᮏ࣏࣮ࢺࣇ࢛ࣜ࢜ࡢ୰᰾࡟ࡣ㸪Can-Doᙧᘧࡢ180ࡢ⮬ᕫホ౯グ㏙ᩥࡀ࠶ࡾࡲ
ࡍࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢグ㏙ᩥࡣ㸪ᤵᴗຊ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⣔⤫ⓗ࡞⪃࠼᪉ࢆᥦ౪ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪༢࡞ࡿࢳ࢙ࢵࢡ࣭ࣜࢫࢺ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋᩍ⫋ㄢ⛬ࡢᒚಟ⏕㸪⌧⫋ᩍᖌ㸪ᐇ⩦ࡸᩍဨ◊ಟࡢᣦᑟ⪅࣭࣓ࣥࢱ࣮࡞࡝ࡀ฼⏝ࡋࡓࡾ㸪࠾஫࠸࡟ពぢࢆ஺᥮ࡋࡓ
ࡾࡍࡿ㝿࡟㸪┬ᐹࢆ῝ࡵࡿࢶ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜㸪ᩍ⫋ࡢᑓ㛛ព㆑ࢆ㧗ࡵࡿᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡇ࡜ࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࡲࡍࠋ

JACETSIGonEnglishLanguageEducation
JACET
SIG on English Language Educa�on
http://www.waseda.jp/assocͲjacetenedu/h�p://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/