2022

24

202224

JACET KANSAI JOURNAL

THE JOURNAL OF THE KANSAI CHAPTER OF
THE JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE ENGLISH TEACHERS

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE 2022
CHAIRPERSONSATOI, Hisaki (Ryukoku University)
MEMBERS
KOGA, Tsutomu (Ryukoku University)
NAKATA, Yoshiyuki (Doshisha University)
TAMAI, Fumie (Doshisha University)
EDITORIAL OFFICESAITO, Tomoko (Kwansei Gakuin University)
TAKEDA, Rika (Ritsumeikan University)
REVIEWERSHIRATSUKA, Takaaki (Ryukoku Univ.)
ISHIKAWA, Keiichi (Kwansei Gakuin Univ.)
IZUMI, Emiko (Kwansei Gakuin Univ.)
KAWANISHI, Kei (Mukogawa Women’s Univ.)
KONNO, Katsuyuki (Ryukoku Univ.)
MAKINO, Masaki (Kindai Univ.)
MIKAMI, Akihiro (Kwansei Gakuin Univ.)
NABEI, Toshiyo (Kansai Univ.)
SASAO, Yosuke (Kyoto Univ.)
SATO, Rintaro (Nara Univ. of Education)
TAKEUCHI, Osamu (Kansai Univ.)
YASHIMA, Tomoko (Kansai Univ.)
YAMAOKA, Kanako (Ryukoku Univ.)
YOSHIDA, Tatsuhiro (Hyogo Univ. of Teacher Education)
YOSHIMURA, Masahiro (Setsunan Univ.)
Copying All content in this journal is protected by the Japanese copyright law. All rights reserved.
The material therein may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it isreproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context after permission has been granted fromthe Kansai Chapter of JACET. If any of the items with copyright in this journal are republished or
copied, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.
Instructions for Contributors can be found via http://www.jacet-kansai.org/submission.html
or in the Appendices.
The articles published herein do not reflect the opinions of JACET Kansai Chapter or the JACET
Kansai Journal Editorial Committee.
© Kansai Chapter, The Japan Association of College English Teachers, 2022

JACET Kansai Journal

No. 24 March 2022
Editorial Note
里井久輝

Invited Papers
OTOSHI, Junko

1

An Online Practice for L2 Source-Based Writing

TSUTADA, Kazumi
Writing as a Social Citizen: With Consideration on Assessment and Feedback

15

野田 三貴
ESD クラスでのチャットを活用した協働的プレライティング活動

33

山下 美朋
オンライン下でのプロジェクト発信型英語プログラムの挑戦―ライティング指導に焦点をあてて―

46

KAMIJO, Takeshi

57

Evidence-Based Argumentative Essay Writing: A Review of Previous Studies and Directions
for Future Research

NAGAO, Akiko
Recent Contributions of the Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Second Language Writing Research

72

Research Paper
OBERMEIER, Andrew
The Eﬀects of Learning Multiword Expressions Deliberately: Implications Regarding Implicit
Knowledge Development

NISHIDA, Rieko
Motivating University Students in CLIL in the Japanese Context: Longitudinal Perspectives

96

116

Practitioner Reports
ラムスデン 多夏子
オンラインファイル共有ツールを活用した自律性を促す授業外学習 MTD（日英等価表現集）

132

Appendices『JACET 関西支部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）刊行規定

139『JACET 関西支部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）投稿要領

141

Kansai Chapter
The Japan Association of College English Teachers

JACET Kansai Journal 編集委員会より
ここに『JACET 関西支部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）第 24 号をお届けいたします。
まだまだコロナ禍が続く状況ではございますが、そのようななか 2021 年度の本号に御投稿・御寄稿くださった皆様、厳正な査読をしてくださいました査読者の皆様、本号発刊に御尽力くださった皆様、賛助会員の皆様に、編集委員会一同衷心より御礼申し上げます。
本号は、招待論文 6 編、研究論文 2 編、実践報告 1 編から構成されております。招待論
文ではライティングをテーマに、2021 年度第 2 回支部講演会で御登壇いただきました大年
順子先生、蔦田和美先生、野田三貴先生、山下美朋先生、および 2020 年度第 3 回支部講演会で御登壇いただきました上條武先生、長尾明子先生に御寄稿いただきました。
次年度の JACET 関西支部紀要は第 25 号かつ関西支部創立 50 年記念号という節目の発刊を 迎 え ま す 。 折 し も 新 型 コ ロ ナ ウ ィ ル ス に よ る 教 育 環 境 の 激 変 か ら 英 語 教 育 の あ り 方を
redesign すべき時期でもあるかと存じますが、近年の教育実践論文の増加動向も踏まえまして、本支部紀要の投稿種別は 次号第 25 号より 、現行の 4 種類（研究論文・実践論文・

研究ノート・実践報告）から、5 種類（研究論文・実践研究論文・研究ノート・実践ノ
ート・SIG 活動報告）に見直すこととなりました。
会員の皆様の日頃の真摯な研究・論考を、また教育実践のさまざまな知見を第 25 号にもふるって御投稿いただけましたら幸いでございます。
紀要編集委員会委員長

里井久輝

令和 4 年（2022 年）3 月

ii

JACET Kansai Journal, 24, 1-14. (2022) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

An Online Practice for L2 Source-Based Writing
OTOSHI Junko
Okayama University

Undergraduate students in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context have difficulty
integrating informational sources into their texts because of their basic English writing skills
and lack of academic knowledge in each discipline. Therefore, EFL writing teachers need toprovide step-by-step support to help students find, connect, and integrate informational source
texts into the students’ writing (Zhang, 2013). This paper will report on an online practice for
Second Language (L2) source-based writing activities that aim to develop rhetorical,
linguistic, and critical thinking skills. Specifically, three activities; verbal reasoning quizzes,
paraphrasing and response paragraph writing, and a data commentary exercise will be
introduced as approaches to write a discussion essay. This report also discusses somepedagogical implications for L2 source-based writing instruction, followed by student
reflections on their online activities.

Keywords: critical thinking, L2 source-based writing, Moodle
1. Introduction
Since Covid-19 vastly changed the format of general English classes in 2020, university
teachers have been implementing various approaches to keep their general English educationaccountable to respond to this critical condition. Among the four-skills instructions, writing
seems to be the most adjustable to online teaching because of the solo nature of this methodof learning English. Teachers, at the same time, can still actively incorporate group work into
online teaching; for instance, they can utilize some functions such as Forum and Chat in a
Learning Management System (LMS) to promote collaborative activities online.
The sudden shift to online teaching, even if it is an emergency measure at the beginning,has become an opportunity to reconsider teaching approaches for university teachers. The
author of this paper tried some activities for practicing L2 source-based writing online. While
she acknowledged the importance of citation practices in her second-year academic writing
courses, most writing assignments were opinion essays, which usually did not require outside
sources. Taking advantage of the online learning environment, where students can study attheir own pace, the author incorporated reading practices more by connecting writing
activities more than the face-to-face format of the classrooms.
Integrating outside sources into their texts is challenging for L2 writers at theundergraduate level. At the graduate level, however, writing from sources can help thelearners acknowledge the unique discourses in their disciplines. In other words, incorporating
relevant texts into their writing shows how much writers understand the uniqueness of the text11

2

Otoshi, Junko

OTOSHI, Junko

in a targeted academic community (Hirvela & Du, 2013).
Citation practices at the undergraduate level often focus on text appropriation, such asparaphrasing or summarizing, to avoid plagiarism. Writers should carefully differentiate theirown words from the voice of the authors of outside sources to avoid plagiarism. On thepositive side, writers can improve their writing abilities to build complicated writing
structures through paraphrasing and summarizing. However, these practices tend to focus on
sentence building and might be boring to the students. Integrating outside sources into texts
can not only help the writers acquire sophisticated writing skills, but also develop further
thoughts based on the information of the source texts. Undergraduate students should also
realize such important functions of citing sources into their texts.
Accordingly, how can EFL teachers instruct L2 source-based writing skills in a general
English writing program? Many of the students have not obtained discipline knowledge yet.
Some English writing textbooks for advanced learners, such as Cambridge University Press’s
Academic Writing Skills 3 (Chen et al., 2013), include citation rules: citing sources in theirtexts and including references in their work. The explanations of those rules are concernedwith writing policies that avoid plagiarism. The model texts introduce sentence structuresusing conjunctive adverbs and reporting verbs for paraphrases and summaries.
In reality, however, the models in these textbooks are too sophisticated for first or
second-year university students. Unless our students have content knowledge in certain target
areas, they cannot be expected to produce the pieces of writing we see in these textbooks(Yoshimura, 2013). Furthermore, L2 writers’ knowledge of the background and culture of the
English texts is limited (Doolan, 2021). Therefore, more friendly materials for EFL
undergraduate students are necessary for them to acquire L2 source-based writing skills.
As mentioned earlier, one critical aspect of source-based writing is not only fortechnical reasons; namely to avoid plagiarism. As pointed out by Kwon, Staples, andPartridge (2018), source-based writing helps writers foster critical thinking by paying
attention to rhetorical features unique to individual academic communities and disciplines.
Although first and second-year students have not advanced to their academic disciplines yet,they need critical awareness to distinguish their voices from the authors of outside sources.
Therefore, EFL writing teachers should develop the activities and materials to bridge general
English academic writing and genre-specific writing programs.

2. Practice

2.1 Background of the Practice
The target class of this practice was a second-year required English class, English(Reading & Writing) at a national university in western Japan. The practice was conducted in
2021. Twenty-eight students from science fields such as engineering, science, and agriculture,
participated in the class. The class was designed to last 100 minutes combining two periods,
totaling 14 sessions. Since the class was conducted online, the author uploaded the materials
such as quizzes and worksheets on the Moodle page for each session to meet the amount oflearning as originally designed for the face-to-face course. Also, the author frequently
gathered the students to participate in video conferencing lessons using Microsoft○R Teams
2

An Online Practice for L2 Source-Based Writing

Title in English 3

for collaborative activities.
The motivation for this practice came from the author’s reflection on the previous
classes that were conducted face-to-face. In contrast to a first-year English writing course, thetarget course was designed to improve students’ academic reading and writing skills. As acommon activity over the classes, a research paper or discussion report including references
was assigned to all students. However, the number of references and words of the paper wereleft to individual teachers, depending on their students’ English proficiency.
When the same course was conducted face-to-face, the author assigned a research paperof about 800 words including five references as a final project. The students’ English
proficiency was B1 level in the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). There
were several students who failed to integrate any of the references into their texts. It seems
that some of them were inattentive in class; however, it was speculated that they did not fully
understand how to borrow an author’s voice in the texts well. The author used Academic
Writing Skills 3 (Chen et al., 2013) and explained to the students about summarizing andparaphrasing in order to avoid plagiarism by referring to the target unit. It turned out, however,
the author’s instructions on L2 source-based writing were not explicit enough to the students
for skillfully integrating outside sources into their texts. Therefore, the author aimed toincorporate more explicit and step-by-step approaches for improving students’L2
source-based writing skills, all the while fostering their critical reading skills online.
The English proficiency of the target class was considered as A2 level, which is thesecond lowest level in the CEFR. Therefore, the author instructed the students to write a
530–550 discussion essay including three references. The textbook used in the class was Q
Skills for Success: Reading and Writing 1 (Lynn, 2020). The author conducted the sessions
following each unit of the textbook online. Even though the final assignment was set for a
discussion essay, instructional inventions for L2 source-based writing were designed not to
disrupt the course design.
Researchers of L2 academic writing (e.g., Du, 2019; Yoshimura, 2018; Zhang, 2013)
maintain that teachers should break the tasks down into smaller steps and carefully guidestudents through the process for L2 source-based writing. Keeping the final paper as the goalof the course in mind, the author proceeded with the sessions by implementing specificactivities over three stages. Figure 1 below depicts the class schedule used to guide thestudents to complete a discussion essay.

3

4

Otoshi, Junko

OTOSHI, Junko

Figure 1
Course Schedule of Writing a Discussion Essay

Ruiz-Funes (2001) argues that students interpret their tasks according to their needs.
This idea, task representation, is worth noting when considering appropriate activities andassignments in the classroom. For instance, students in a general English program will have amuch different experience than graduate students when incorporating sources into their texts.
As Hirvela and Du (2013) mentioned, graduate students incorporate relevant sources into
their texts to demonstrate that their argument is valuable in the academic community. On theother hand, students in a general English program include sources into their texts because they
are told to do so. As such, task representation is varied depending on the status of the students.
The author implemented activities to complete discussion essays considering theundergraduate students’ task representation.
2.2 Stage 1. Verbal Reasoning Exercises
Even though L2 source-based writing task is vital for undergraduate students, most ofthem cannot realize its meaning unless they critically read the texts they are assigned. Because
citing sources requires a high level of cognitive skills, namely locating, connecting, andintegrating information into their writing (Zhang, 2013), the tasks tend to focus on rhetorical
practices as the author had done in face-to-face classes. Teachers should implement activities
that students find meaningful and stimulating. Therefore, the author introduced a verbal
reasoning question activity at the initial stage.
Verbal reasoning is a type of a set of questions in the Graduate Record Examination○(GRE R ). The short paragraph-type questions assess the test takers’ critical thinking ability toanalyze and evaluate the information presented in the texts given to them. The rationale of4An Online Practice for L2 Source-Based Writing

Title in English 5

using verbal reasoning questions for L2 source-based writing is developing students’ criticalthinking. As Du (2019) claims, teachers should help students develop academic literacy,
which requires rhetorical, linguistic, and critical thinking skills. In practice, however, they
have difficulties in explaining the texts in their own words due to a lack of content knowledge
and limited vocabulary. Therefore, undergraduate students tend to borrow the texts without
paraphrasing in their own words (Yoshimura, 2018). Because of these issues, the author hopedthat students would benefit from verbal reasoning exercises in order to foster their criticalthinking in a meaningful way at the initial stage of composing a discussion essay.
While the short paragraph verbal reasoning questions have five choices to answer, theauthor reduced the number to four to alleviate the students’ decision-making process as wellas to make the questions simpler and more approachable to the students. The author made six
questions by herself after examining the GRE○R test (e.g., The Official Guide to the GRE○R
General Test, ETS○R ). The following question was set up as a quiz on the Moodle page of thetarget class:Figure 2
Sample Question of Verbal Reasoning Made by the Author

The students worked on the questions individually at first, and then participated inbreakout rooms online. Each room consisted of three or four members. After a 5-minute group
discussion, representatives from each group shared their choices in the main room. As
mentioned earlier, this activity requires critical thinking skills in carefully examining the text
to find flaws and inconsistencies. The author allowed the students to discuss with themembers in their respective groups in Japanese and to use a dictionary. By doing so, theauthor hoped that the students’ anxiety would be reduced, thus developing critical thinking.
2.3 Stage 2. Paraphrasing and a Response Paragraph
Stage 2 included introducing paraphrasing and writing a response paragraph. The author
uploaded slides to the Moodle page, emphasizing the main points of paraphrasing such as
5

6

Otoshi, Junko

OTOSHI, Junkousing synonyms, changing the sentence structures, and avoiding using more than three words
in a row of someone else’s work, as indicated in the writing textbook, Academic Writing Skills
3 (Chen et al., 2013). Additionally, reporting verbs and rhetorical signals such as according towere also put in the slides. However, these activities sometimes limit the L2-source based
writing to sentence level exercises. Students might not be able to understand content of thetext, failing to examine the text critically. Therefore, the author made the question forparaphrasing, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3
Sample Question of Paraphrasing Made by the Author

The students were instructed to choose the best paraphrase among the four choices. Since thetext was also used in the previous verbal reasoning practice, they could understand the content
already. The students worked on it at home individually, and the author explained the reasonof the correct answer and the weaknesses of the other choices in the subsequent session.
Subsequently, students were instructed to write a response paragraph using the same
paraphrasing text above. Around the same time, the students were instructed to write an
outline of their discussion essay and add what sources are necessary to support their
discussion to it. A multi-perspective analytical approach by Lee et al. (2018) was introduced
in a synchronous mode of online lesson. Table 1 summarizes the citation approaches aspresented online in the lesson.

6An Online Practice for L2 Source-Based Writing

Title in English 7

Table 1A multi-perspective analytical approach by Lee, Hitchcock, and Casal (2018)

The author explained the purposes of citing sources into the texts referring to rhetoricalfunctions of citations and writer stance as shown in Table 1. Although she explained eachform and the function of citations to the students, the author encouraged the students toengage in “Integral,” “Summary,” and “Attribution” for the response paragraph activity.
Although other rhetorical functions are acknowledged to be important for advancing students’arguments and claims, those three citation approaches were considered the most feasible interms of the students’ English proficiency and time limitations. Additionally, this response
paragraph activity was aimed at developing their paraphrasing skills with the inclusion of
their opinions in the paragraph. Therefore, the author decided to focus on “Integral,”“Summary,” and “Attribution” in order for the students to improve their linguistic andrhetorical writing skills as well as their critical thinking.
Regarding reporting phrases of citations, a preposition phrase, according to, has beenfrequently introduced in writing textbooks. Many textbooks use according to as a typicalin-text citation phrase by putting it at a beginning of paragraphs in model texts. Wang andZhang (2021) point out that L2 writers tend to overuse according to by putting it at the very
beginning of paragraph-initial sentences, which was found to be different from L1 writers.
The author, however, had noticed that quite a few students in her previous classes
were using according to without examining the content of cited texts carefully. This tendency,
as well as a possible influence of writing textbooks, seems to attribute to L2 student writer’s
stance in citations: Acknowledgement. Namely, L2 student writers seemed to haveacknowledged the sources but failed to connect them with their argument. This respect should
be examined in an empirical classroom study; however, the author had found it problematic.
As L2 source-based writing can develop students’ critical thinking through integrating sources
into their texts in their own words, only acknowledging the sources without connecting their
discussion does not fulfill the purposes of L2 source-based writing.
Thus, writing a response paragraph was aimed to foster students’ critical thinking
through the usage of according to. The students were instructed to identify a fact and aproblem in the paraphrasing exercise text and think about a possible solution. The author gave
the first sentence to help the students avoid putting according to at the beginning of theparagraph.
7

8

Otoshi, Junko

OTOSHI, Junko

The students wrote a response paragraph in the online text on the Moodle page and theauthor awarded a score to each student (The full mark was 3 points). Then, the author
uploaded a model response paragraph by herself, as shown in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4
Sample of Response Paragraph Written by the Author

Furthermore, the author assigned the students the data commentary exercise that was
one of the critical thinking strategy exercises presented in the textbook. As shown in Figure 5
below, she uploaded a slide on Moodle as a model paragraph and had the students write acomment on the data line graph, which shows the percentage of the population engaged in
sports and exercise by age. While the author’s model paragraph referred to the youngest age
group, the students were instructed to interpret the data for people 55 years of age and above.
This activity was also implemented for the students to evaluate the data sources connectingwith their opinion.
Figure 5
A Model Paragraph for Data Commentary Exercise Written by the Author

8

An Online Practice for L2 Source-Based Writing

Title in English 9

2.4 Stage 3. A Discussion Essay
Students wrote a discussion paper of between 530–550 words after these activities,
adding three sources into their final assignments. The topic, Sports and Youth, was chosen
based on a unit in the textbook. The Tokyo 2020 Olympics was held in the term when thispractice was conducted. Therefore, the topic was considered timely and familiar to thestudents.
First, the students submitted their first draft to the folder on Moodle for a peer check
activity before submitting the final draft of their discussion essays. When the peer check
activity was conducted, the author uploaded a file (See Appendix) and put some acceptablestyles and examples of both in-text citation and references following the Publication Manualof the American Psychological Association, Seventh Edition (APA 7th Edition). The students
were instructed to provide feedback comment with two essays each on Moodle. Peer
comments were guided to include the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Does the introduction contain data and examples that attract readers?
Is the thesis statement clearly stated?
Are the three references cited correctly and do they follow the rules?
Provide any feedback to improve the final draft.

All 28 final essays except one cited the three sources into their texts as instructed. The
preposition according to was used in 21 essays. One essay started the essay with according tociting a newspaper article, and one article put according to at the beginning of a paragraph byciting an online article. The rest of the 19 essays put a topic sentence before according tosentences as instructed. Overall, most of the discussion papers cited the resources
appropriately connecting with their argument and claims on their own words.
2.5 Students’ Responses to the PracticeThe survey was conducted on Moodle. Two questions were given to obtain the students'
reflections on the practice of this report. Twenty-five students out of 28 responded to thesurvey. Figure 6 below indicates the results of the following question:
Which of the following activities did you find helpful in writing your discussion essay?
(Multiple answers allowed)
Ten students chose verbal reasoning, and paraphrasing practice and response paragraphwriting as helpful activities in completing a discussion essay respectively. Through these
activities in Stage 1 and Stage 2, 40% of the students seem to have read the outside texts more
carefully and critically to transfer the information into their writing. Regarding the data
commentary exercise that was one of the writing activities in the textbook, six students
considered the exercise helpful for writing a discussion paper.
However, explanation of citing references collected the most significant response as a9

10

Otoshi, Junko

OTOSHI, Junko

helpful exercise from the students. As mentioned in the previous section, the author made theguidance file of citation-rules. They were uploaded to Moodle when the students turned intheir first draft of the discussion essay. It is speculated that the students also checked if theircitation styles were accurate or not by checking the file when submitting their final draft of
discussion essays to the Moodle folder. Although the author did not make any quizzes using
the file, it seemed to be very helpful for the students for writing a discussion essay.
Figure 6
Students’ Responses to the Activities (N=25)

The second question was as follows:
Which stage did you find the most difficult in composing your argumentative essay?
Figure 7 shows the results of the question. Contrary to the author’s prediction, about half ofthe students chose Finding the appropriate references for my essay to be the most challenging
stage in writing a discussion essay. The author introduced verbal reasoning quizzes, hopingthat the students would develop a sense of critical and logical thinking through the practice.
She thought that the students would have difficulty locating, connecting, and integrating thereferences into their texts, as Zhang (2013) mentioned.
Although the author introduced a couple of academic resources for the discussion essay,
the students had to find the appropriate ones on their own to connect with their discussion
essays. The act of finding appropriate sources itself seems to have become the greatest
obstacle before paraphrasing and summarizing the point of each text.

10

An Online Practice for L2 Source-Based Writing

Title in English 11

Figure 7
Students’ Responses to the Difficulty of the Tasks (N=25)

3. Conclusion and Implications

This paper reported on online activities for L2 source-based writing in the process ofcompleting discussion essays, and responding to some issues that the author faced in her past
face-to-face classes. As presented in empirical studies by Du (2019) and by Zhang (2013), a
step-by-step guidance by teachers is necessary for such a cognitively demanding activity.
Although a majority of the final discussion essays integrated the sources into their texts while
paraphrasing them in their words appropriately, most of them used resources as a means of
acknowledging the topic. In other words, an activity of linking multiple sources together tofoster a deeper discussion of each topic could not be implemented in the study even thoughsuch an activity is found to be effective to improve students’ critical thinking (Du, 2019). It is
certainly attributed to students’ task representation, in which Du’s practice was conducted in
an English Academic Purpose (EAP) context. However, this current practice should have been
set with more careful planning to make systematic and thought-provoking activities. While
the students found verbal reasoning and subsequent paraphrasing activities helpful in writing
discussion essays, they had to find the sources separately to discuss the topic. The reflection
report showed that they had difficulties finding related resources to connect them with their
discussion essays. Finding the appropriate sources on their own is an important academic skill
that university students should acquire. Collaborating with university librarians might be an
idea for EFL writing teachers to help the students search for the required materials effectively.
Additionally, allowing the students to choose the topic from the unit titles in textbooks
is another idea to facilitate their practice. The author assumed that the topic was familiar

11

12

Otoshi, Junko

OTOSHI, Junko

enough to the students and that they could find the outside sources without problems. For
future instruction, several topics from the textbook should be given to the students in order tohave them decide which topic they want to discuss further. Also, based on the topics,
materials on verbal reasoning activities should be developed by making use of the textbooks’
reading passages, leading to more systematic and thought-provoking activities.
The topic in the practice, Sports and Youth, was taken from the unit of Sports Science.
There were various topic chapters, such as Business, Sociology, or Communication, withcomprehensible reading passages for L2 learners. The author should have taken advantage ofthese reading passages more and made quizzes and exercises using them to foster students’critical thinking. A majority of the questions for the reading passages in the textbook are forcomprehension to have the students identify and clarify the main ideas of the writer. Unlike
the questions in the verbal reasoning of the GRE○R test, those are not designed to evaluate thelogic of the writers’ ideas. In the future, however, students are going to need to develop theircritical thinking skills so that they can pursue their academic careers. L2 source-based writing
practice in undergraduate EFL writing courses are a very good opportunity for students todevelop their critical thinking as well as their linguistic and rhetorical knowledge.
The current classroom report introduced a preliminary practice based on the author’s
previous experiences in instructing L2 source-based writing. On the whole, explicit L2
source-based activities could result in an increase of appropriate in-text citation of students’essays. Additionally, a majority of students could use according to by connecting it with their
discussions.
In conclusion, this practice left further issues that will lead to more empirical classroom
research. First, it is necessary to investigate whether undergraduate EFL students can write acritical summary linking multiple sources to deepen their arguments and claims. Since thecurrent practice was limited to a response paragraph in which the students used one source toinclude their opinions, future activities should have students engage in multiple sources tofoster their critical thinking. Teachers can make use of reading passages from the target
textbook to suit students’ reading level for such an activity. Additionally, future studies should
examine the quality of the discussion papers to measure the effect of intervention of
step-by-step activities. Analyzing the students’ texts considering rhetorical functions will
furnish pedagogical implications to teachers about the activities which are useful to L2
source-based writing. L2 source-based writing is certainly challenging for undergraduate
students. Monitoring our students’ learning process carefully, writing teachers should provide
and develop materials and activities which are meaningful to them.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 19K00880.

References

Chin, P., Reid., S., Wray, S., &Yamazaki, Y. (2013). Academic writing skills 3. Cambridge
University Press.
Doolan, M.S. (2021). An exploratory analysis of source integration in post-secondary L1 and
12

An Online Practice for L2 Source-Based Writing

Title in English 13

L2 source-based writing. English for Specific Purposes, 62, 128–141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.01.003
Du, Y. (2019). Effect of an EAP unit on EFL student effective and appropriate source-use
skills. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 40, 53–73.
Educational Testing Service. (2017). The official guide to the GRE○R general test (3rd ed.).
McGrawHill.
Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2013). “Why am I paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL writers’
engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005
Kwon, M. H., Staples, S., & Partridge, R.S. (2018). Source work in the first-year L2 writingclassroom: Undergraduate L2 writers' use of reporting verbs. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 34, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.04.001
Lee, J.J., Hitchcock, C., & Casal, J.E. (2018). Citation practices of L2 university students infirst-year writing: Form, function, and stance. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 33, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.01.001
Lynn, S. (2020). Q skills for success reading and writing 1: Reading and writing. Oxford
University Press.
Ruiz-Funes, M. (2001). Task representation in foreign language reading-to-write. Foreign
Language Annals, 34(3), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02404.x
Yoshimura, F. (2013). Citation rules in English writing. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Yoshimura, F. (2018). Another possible reason for plagiarism: task representations ofsummary writing. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language,22(3),1–17.
Wang, M., & Zhang, Y. (2021). ‘According to…’: The impact of language background andwriting expertise on textual priming patterns of multi-word sequences in academic
writing. English for Specific Purposes, 61, 47–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.08.005
Zhang, C. (2013). Effect of instruction on ESL student’s synthesis writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 22(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.12.001

13

14

Otoshi, Junko

OTOSHI, Junko

Appendix

14

JACET Kansai Journal, 24, 15-32. (2022) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Writing as a Social Citizen:
With Consideration on Assessment and Feedback 1
TSUTADA Kazumi
Kansai Gaidai College
Abstract
With the advent of the so-called age of unpredictability, it is significant to haveadequate social awareness as a social citizen. In this sense, an ability to thinkand express one’s ideas and opinions has come to the fore in English pedagogy.
Accordingly, when focusing on writing, it is necessary to pay more attention to
guiding students to write to argue their opinions. This study first introduces theongoing classroom activities for enhancing students’ argumentative writing
skills and then considers the influence of assessment and feedback methods bycomparing the assessment scores of two groups of students: one provided withboth grammar-based and content-based assessments and feedback, and the otherwith only content-based assessment and feedback. In this study, content refers
to the ideas and opinions expressed in writing. The results with 56 students
targeted for this study indicated that the latter group outperformed the former inboth grammar and content assessments. While English writing instructions inJapan remain focused on grammatical assessment and feedback, it is hoped
content assessment and feedback will be an opportunity for teachers toemphasize content to help students equipped with adequate ability tocommunicate their content in writing.
Keywords： social citizen, assessment, feedback, grammar, content
1. Introduction
In the pedagogy field, including English education, increasing attention
has been provided to enhance thinking and argumentative skills. It is partly
because the present age is said to be complicated and unpredictable, making it
crucial for students to have their voices, arguments, and express themdistinctively. Based on this gradual actualizing pedagogical shift, English
education also shed light on skills to think and argue on opinions and produce
them appropriately. It might be considered as a transfer from traditional
education that has been focusing on English knowledge acquisition.
This study first introduces three classroom activities that aim to improveargumentative writing skills to express one’s ideas and opinions. Further, itconsiders assessment and feedback methods’ influence on argumentative writing
through an experiment with two groups of students. One group is instructed that
1
15

TSUTADA, Kazumi

their essays will be in both grammar-based and content-based assessments andfeedback, and the other is told that they will receive only content-based
assessment and feedback. Although it is a snapshot of the recent classroom
activities, it was interesting to investigate how students’ argumentative essays
differ according to those assessments and feedback methods. In this study, ideas
and opinions shown in argumentative essays are termed and evaluated as“content.”
2. Theoretical Background
2.1 Significance of Representing Oneself
The present society is represented by the term VUCA, an acronym forvolatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. It signifies that society isunpredictable, being overwhelmed by various complex factors that areinterconnected and interwound. In addition, the environment surrounding theyoung has seen many changes in Japan, such as lowering of voting age andadulthood, which require them to enhance their social consciousness. In otherwords, to survive this age of unpredictability as social citizens, it seems crucial
to represent themselves with clear and distinctive voices. In Japan in 2018, theCentral Council for Education of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science, and Technology (MEXT) issued a Grand Design for Higher Education
targeted at 2040, 2 which stipulates the need to develop the ability to thinklogically and express one’s views to survive in the age of unpredictability.
Focusing on writing, which has expanded its scope due to accelerated
global electronic communication, Spack (1988) contends that individual writers’representation of themselves or their ideas and opinions should be involved inwriting. Sperling (1996) also argues that writing should be a meaningful andpurposeful activity to shape individuals socially and culturally. From theperspective of the notion of voice, Ivanič and Camps (2001) emphasize thesignificance of having one’s voice as self-representation and a crucial factor not
only for writing but also for all human activities. Furthermore, Matsuda (2001)
contends that voice in writing “has served as a useful metaphor for capturing
among other things, a distinct quality in written discourse that can be discernedby readers” (p. 37). Based on these arguments, this study places its significanceon enhancing students’ ability to represent their voice or argument in writing,which has drawn more attention than before in the field of English writing in
general.
2.2 Transformative Pedagogy
Along with the increased necessity of representing one’s opinions, there
has been a tendency in English pedagogy toward focusing on “what to express
2
16

Writing as a Social Citizen: With Consideration on Assessment and Feedback

with English” from “what to know about English.” It seems relevant to refer tomimetic pedagogy and transformative pedagogy concepts, claimed by Jackson(1986). He argues that while mimetic pedagogy emphasizes one’s ability toacquire knowledge and skills, transformative pedagogy focuses on what one cando with the acquired knowledge and skills and one’s ability to express oneself.
In this regard, the significance of transformative pedagogy now comes to thefore and is highly illuminated in the 21 st Century Skills as the essential
expertise in the 21 s t century, stipulated by Assessment and Teaching of 21 s t
Century Skills. 3
In addition, in Japan, the Course of Study for senior high schools, 4 issued
by MEXT, emphasizes the ability to express oneself using knowledge learned.
Likely, English education is now more directed toward acquiring the ability touse English to express oneself than focusing on linguistic knowledge of English.
However, it is of much concern whether English education, specifically English
writing education in Japan, has been successfully targeted toward that end.
2.3 Assessment
Assessment is always a crucial part of education as it is usually a highstake directly affecting students’ grades and career opportunities. In Japan, it
seems a common understanding that English writing assessment has beentargeted on the cognitive aspect of writing. Incidentally, results of thequestionnaire surveys revealed that 83 percent of the respondents said that themost commonly used index for English writing was based on grammar (Tsutada,2021). It appears that this reflects the conventional English classroom activities,
which generally prioritize grammar teaching. It is significant to emphasize
grammar for Japanese English learners either as classroom activities orassessments when considering the furthest language distance between English
and Japanese. However, according to the survey results of English skills of
third-year high school students in 2017 5 issued by MEXT, only 0.4 percent of
third-year high school students have ranked CEFR B1 and above, which showsthat the writing skills of Japanese English learners remain low. Here thequestion arises about the appropriateness of grammar-based assessment. From aview against grammar-based assessment, Silva (1993) contends that written
texts may become contentless when writers pay too much attention to grammar.
Moreover, Weigle (2002) claims that writers might be disrupted from conveying
their intention, especially when their linguistic knowledge is limited.
Other than grammar-based assessments, there are diverse types of writing
assessments. Among them is focused access to content that illustrates writers’
ideas, opinions, or thoughts. Accordingly, this study found it relevant tocompare students’ essays from two groups: one with grammatical assessment
317TSUTADA, Kazumi

and the other without it.
2.4 Feedback
Feedback plays another critical role in English writing instructions
although its effect largely varies according to how it is given (Hattie andTimperley, 2007). Feedback can be largely categorized into grammaticalfeedback and commentary content feedback. Concerning grammatical feedback,there have been opposing views between Truscott (1996), who claims thatgrammar correction is harmful, and Ferris (1999), who demonstrates thesignificance of grammar correction, which has been a long-drawn controversy inthe history of feedback as the “Truscott-Ferris debate.” Looking at feedback in
English writing in Japan, the results of the survey conducted by the present
author show that it has been prioritized by grammatical feedback. It also
reflects the traditional grammar-focused English learning and teaching in Japan,
where grammar correction is likely to be considered the most important learning
strategy. This study does not intend to deny the effect of grammatical feedback
for Japanese students for their essays; however, when considering the limited
development of their writing skills (as described in the previous section), it
might be necessary to reexamine the influence of this dominantly prevailingpractice.
The other type of feedback is content feedback, whose efficacy wasdemonstrated in many previous studies (Kepner, 1991; Santos, 1988; Sheppard,
1992). Truscott (1996), who strongly opposed grammatical feedback, claimed
that content-based feedback is not misguided. From the negative viewpoint,
Ferris contends that content-based feedback can adversely affect students’
writing by demotivating and confusing them due to difficulties in understanding
teachers’ comments and how to revise their writing. This argument seems
persuasive when considering that content feedback needs to be done at the
deeper level of texts rather than superficially. Nonetheless, considering thepresent pedagogical direction toward developing the ability to represent andexpress one’s opinions, it is significant to emphasize content feedback to guidestudents to be more attentive to content rather than excessively focusing on
grammar while writing.
Based on all these arguments, it seemed relevant and vital to examine theinfluence of assessment and feedback by comparing two groups of students whowrite under different conditions of assessments and feedback.
3. Class Activities
This section describes class activities that have been conducted for several
years at a university in Japan, which is the first objective of this paper. In
418

Writing as a Social Citizen: With Consideration on Assessment and Feedback

addition, in 3.1, argumentative writing procedures to examine the influence ofassessment and feedback for writing are explained.
3.1 Syntactical Training
Having syntactical knowledge is important for EFL (English as Foreign
Language) writers, such as Japanese, as a critical tool for writing. Accordingly,
to establish the syntactical foundation, syntactical training has been conducted
weekly. As materials for this activity, real-time news has been used to connect
language and society from socio-cultural perspectives. Newspaper in Education(NIE) has been widely advocated, and the possibility of using it for English
education has been expanded due to the prevalence of the Internet. Hino (2008),
with his unique and prominent English teaching method named IPTEIL(Integrated Practice in Teaching English as an International Language),emphasizes the significance of introducing authentic real-time materials andencouraging media literacy education. He claims that authentic real-timematerials, distinctive from general educational materials for learners, can behighly effective to build pragmatic English skills. Furthermore, he relates media
literacy to critical thinking through which learners can be equipped with theability to interpret and analyze social issues on their own. With reference toHino’s IPTEIL, real-time news articles have been used as teaching materials forsyntax in this study. It seems to help students enhance social awareness andthink about society surrounding them.
Specifically, the latest news within one week is excerpted from thewebsite (NHK WORLD) 4 and edited as syntactical gap-fill multiple questions(See Appendix 1 for examples). Ten questions were made from three or four
articles and given to the students weekly. As it aimed to strengthen students’
syntactical knowledge, they referred to syntactical factors, such as subject-verb
structure, conjunctions, and post-modification like relative clauses, infinitives,and participles. Under the influence of the current pandemic, questions were
presented via the learning management system (LMS) with a time limit of 10
minutes, and scores were considered as school grades. Answers were discussed
online among students and between students and the teacher when an explicit
explanation for the selected answers was required. Along with the syntactical
discussion, discussion time on the news articles’ content was also provided.
3.2 Presentation and Opinion Essay
The students were assigned a presentation once in a single semester (to besubmitted online during the pandemic). The presentation has been recorded inPowerPoint (PPT) slides, shared among students in a class via LMS.
Presentation topics are free and open to choice according to a presenter ’s
519TSUTADA, Kazumi

interest and concerns but are required to be argued from social-cultural
perspectives. Although there might be concerns about presenting PPT slides
instead of making a real-time presentation, advantages involve students making
more efforts in producing the best possible PPT by repeating their recordings toenhance their presentation quality. In addition to making one presentation in asingle semester, students evaluated all of the presentations based on five scales
according to four indices: timeliness, topic familiarity, command of English,
and visual aid, and wrote an opinion essay on each of all the presentations with
150–200 words.
These opinion essays were evaluated based on three scales and provided
with a short comment on the content by the teacher. What is noted here is thatno grammatical assessment or feedback was made.
3.3 Argumentative Writing
This assignment is given to students at the end of the term (also at the
beginning of the term for some semesters), requiring them to write anargumentative essay on a given theme, which is socially controversial at therespective time of writing. First, students are given two titles to select from andwrite. As an essay organization, students are instructed to collect two different
opinions (written either from the same or opposite point of view) on theselected theme via a website, based on which they write their argument. As fortime allotment, the first 30 minutes are reserved for collecting data, planning,and organizing the entire essay, followed by the next 30 minutes for actual
writing. This process is thought practical and appropriate as per Weigle andJensen’s (1997) claim that the knowledge building process about a writing topic
and showing their positions using the information collected is significant andexpected of university students. They argue that this kind of writing ismeaningful because it requires students to synthesize knowledge andinformation from various sources and effectively use them to support their ideas
and opinions.
For 56 students targeted for this study analysis, four titles were provided:“Tokyo Olympics 2020” and “Immigration Policy of Japan” for two classes, and“Tokyo Olympics 2020 during the pandemic” and “Thought on Elderly Drivers”
for the other two classes, all of which were socially controversial issues at thetime of writing. Students selected one of the two topics and wrote on it.
Concerning assessment and feedback, students were divided into thefollowing groups: Group A and Group B. Group A was instructed that theywould be given assessment and feedback based on both grammar and content.
Group B was explained that they were to receive only content-based assessmentand feedback (although Group B’s essays were evaluated also on grammar in a
620

Writing as a Social Citizen: With Consideration on Assessment and Feedback

blinded manner). After writing, Group A was provided with grammar assessmentand feedback with content assessment and feedback, while Group B, withassessment and feedback on content only (Table 1).
Grammatical assessment was made by the present author according to 6scale based on EFT/T: the error-free T-unit ratio); 6 (above .70), 5 (.60– .70), 4(.50– .59), 3 (.40– .49), 2 (.30– .39), and 1 (lower than .30). In addition to thisindex, the essays were evaluated according to their levels of complexity, theratio of complex clauses in a T-unit as a means of examining the extent ofgrammatical sophistication of an essay, and fluency, the total word count of an
essay. Fluency is considered a difficult index in writing evaluation, and its
usability as a writing assessment indicator has been questioned as it holds anambiguous position in theory and practice (Bruton and Kirby, 1987). Moreover,this index cannot detect avoidable redundancy, which is observable in L2
writing (Bonzo, 2008). Despite these concerns, an index of fluency was used to
examine the smoothness with which writers wrote on the given subjects basedon the total word count in the essay. Meanwhile, the content assessment wasdone by two native English speakers who are professional English teachers atuniversities in Japan, based on a 6-scale rubric arranged by the present author(Appendix 2). Regarding feedback, it was provided by the author on grammar
and content to Group A and only content to Group B.
Table 1
Assessment and Feedback (Informed and Conducted)
Group A
Assessment index
Grammar(informed prior to writing)Content
Type of feedback
Grammar(informed prior to writing)Content
Assessment
Grammar(conducted after writing)Content
Feedback
Grammar(conducted after writing)Content

Group B
Content
Content
Content
Grammar (blind)Content

3.4 Questionnaire
Following the argumentative writing, a questionnaire survey was conducted
to understand students’ views on assessment and feedback provided in this study.
These questions were originally in Japanese (Appendix 3) and later translated
into English by the author.
1. Which was the most frequent assessment index for your previous writing at
721

TSUTADA, Kazumi

school?
2. Which do you feel is more suitable and significant? Evaluation of (1)grammar, (2) content, or (3) both grammar and content.
3. What do you focus on most while writing? (1) grammar, (2) content, or (3)both grammar and content.
4. Additional comments on class activities and assessment and feedback
methods.
4. Results and Discussion
This section describes the results of those class activities with 56 students
mentioned previously. They are discussed respectively in connection with thequestionnaire as the responses in the questionnaire seem meaningful in
discussing the results of these class activities.
4.1 Syntactical Training
The weekly syntactical training was conducted throughout a single
semester by twelve times except for the days for course introduction and term
tests. Table 2 shows the transition of scores of syntactical exercises (with fullten marks) during a semester. They started from low scores and maintained thelevel for the first few weeks without any distinct rise in scores. According tofree comments in the questionnaire, it was difficult for many students to utilize
the relevant syntactical knowledge to solve those questions. Furthermore, someof them seemed unfamiliar with some of the syntactical items and had to startfrom scratch. In addition, it was likely that many students found it difficult tolearn syntax through news articles because they were not familiar with reading
news articles itself regardless of language. However, the slope rose rather
noticeably, particularly after the fourth week. It seemed to reflect what students
told in the questionnaire about their gradual enhanced understanding of syntax
while increasing their interest in reading and analyzing English sentences innews articles. In summary, the results showed that regardless of some differencein their development paths, the scores of syntactical exercises showed a generalincrease, including a couple of minor drops during the period. It is a relativel ycommon tendency for syntactical training conducted by the author over theyears in the same manner.

822

Writing as a Social Citizen: With Consideration on Assessment and Feedback

Table 2
Weekly Scores of Syntactical Gap-fills (N = 56)
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Mean 5.07 5.91 5.70 6.73 7.20 7.46 7.88 8.54 8.48 8.09 8.85 8.80
SD
0.99 0.58 1.16 0.80 0.40 0.50 0.90 0.95 0.81 0.39 0.77 0.58
4.2 Presentation and Opinion Essay
The titles students select for their presentations, which are free and open
for choice, are always stimulating. Selecting the title itself contributes to a risein students’ interest in social issues. As for peer evaluation in this study, mostof the 56 students evaluated the presentations by the other students as 4 or 5 forall evaluation indices (timeliness, topic familiarity, command of English, andvisual aids), with very few cases rated 3 for some items. Titles selectedtranscended various fields, as always are, including domestic politics,
diplomacy, culture, entertainment, sports, and others. After watching eachpresentation, students thought on the given topic, organized their ideas andopinions, and wrote their opinion essays within a limited period. One of thenoticeable features of these essays was an increase in fluency, the total word
count for this study. Specifically, the mean fluency was 163.11 words for the
first week, which rose to 184.82 words for the last week. It might indicate
increased willingness to show their opinions and ability to organize theiropinions rather instantly, along with their gradual improvement of grammaticalability through the weekly syntactical training.
4.3 Evaluating Argumentative Writing
This section describes the results of the grammar and content assessmentof Group A and Group B (see Table 1 for the description of Group A and GroupB) targeted for 56 participants.
First, the results of the grammar assessment are demonstrated in Table 3,
which shows that the grammar assessment of Group B (4.24) is nearly equal toor a little higher than that of Group A (4.22). It was an interesting finding thatGroup B students wrote with a certain level of accuracy even though theiressays would not receive grammatical assessment and feedback. Although it isdifficult to explain the reason for the result, it may suggest that when writersconcentrate on content, they tend to produce correct English. Or does writers’
willingness to communicate the content help them write correctly? Meanwhile,
paying attention to additional criteria of grammatical assessment (complexityand fluency), Group B outperformed Group A in both of them (Table 5 forcomplexity and Table 6 for fluency) with mean complexity of 0.32 and fluency
923

TSUTADA, Kazumi

of 344.21 for Group B, and the mean complexity of 0.28 and fluency of 319.67
for Group A. In other words, they wrote longer essays with more complex
sentences than Group A. Understandably, in Group A, students might have used
limited complex sentences to avoid syntactical errors and written less toconfirm grammatical accuracy throughout the writing process. Meanwhile,
Group B, which bore no grammatical burden concerning assessment andfeedback, wrote longer using more complex sentences without being afraid ofmaking errors to express their opinions.
Summarizing all these results, it is apparent that Group B’s grammaticalevaluation was superior to Group A’s in all grammatical evaluation criteria,
notwithstanding definite differences according to the indices. It was unexpected
because Group A students seemed to obtain higher grammatical scores as they
maintained consciousness toward grammar, while Group B students were notrequired, regarding assessment, to be attentive to grammar.
In connection with these results, it seems relevant to refer to the results of
the questionnaire, which revealed that 97% of Group A focused on grammar(93% on both grammar and content; 4% on grammar), while only 39% of GroupB paid attention to grammar. As Group A were to be given content assessment as
well, this phenomenon might be explained by Group A’s diverse concentration
on grammar and content. In other words, they likely had to divide their attention
between grammar and content, which might cause their grammatical accuracy todecrease. About Group B, 61% of the students focused on only content but got alittle higher grammatical evaluation than Group A. Again, this needs further
investigation to find the cause of this phenomenon. It might also be relevant torefer to the responses to questionnaires 1 and 2. As Figure 1 illustrates, most of
the students (88% of Group A and 85% of Group B) reported that their writing
had been evaluated based on school grammar, and as Figure 2 indicates, most ofthem considered the grammatical evaluation most important. What can be saidfrom these responses might be that students subconsciously pay attention togrammar and believe that grammatical assessments are most meaningful andnecessary for them. It may be well-said that this reflects a traditional English
pedagogy in Japan that has centered around grammar teaching and learning.
Next, Table 4, which shows the results of the content assessment, indicatesthat the content assessment is much higher with Group B (4.36) than that ofGroup A (3.89). The result was just as anticipated that essays by Group B scoredmuch higher. Understandably, they concentrated more on content as compared toGroup A as they were free from grammatical constraints. These results seem to
be in line with arguments in previous studies (Kepner, 1991; Santos, 1988;
Sheppard, 1992; Truscott, 1996), which contended the efficacy of content
feedback. It was proved that writers conveyed their ideas and opinions more
1024

Writing as a Social Citizen: With Consideration on Assessment and Feedback

effectively when relieved from grammatical assessment and feedback
constraints. It can be said that all these results cast a question about traditional
strategies focusing on grammatical assessment and feedback, providing
opportunities to consider possible transfer to those based on content.
Table 3Results of Grammar-based Assessment
N
Mean
SD
Group A 27
4.22
0.51
Group B 29
4.24
0.44

Max.
5
5

Min.
3
4

Skewness Kurtosis
0.36
-0.27
1.15
-0.71

Table 4
Results of Content-based Assessment
N
Mean
SD
Group A
27
3.89
0.38
Group B
29
4.36
0.48

Max.
5
5.5

Min.
3
4

Skewness Kurtosis
0.36
1.56
1.01
-0.21

SD
0.08
0.07

Max.
0.52
0.45

Min.
0.11
0.18

Skewness Kurtosis
0.77
1.02
0.11
-0.33

SD
35.34
42.06

Max.
401
431

Min.
280
289

Skewness Kurtosis
1.06
-0.36
0.56
-0.79

Table 5Results of Complexity
N
Mean
Group A27
0.28
Group B29
0.32
Table 6
Results of Fluency
NGroup A
27
Group B29

Mean
319.67344.2111
25

TSUTADA, Kazumi

Figure 1

Figure 2

Response to Question 1
Response to Question 2

Response to Question 2

Figure 3

Response to Question 3

5. Conclusion
Amid the present age of unpredictability, university students must have theability to voice and argue their opinions as social citizens. Focusing on writing,which has become a robustly prevailing means of communication, writing forargument seems one of the necessary skills to be taught at school. To equip
students with such skills, this study introduced class activities designed andimplemented over the years by the author, consisting of three principal
activities: syntactical training using real-time news articles, presentation on thecurrent social issues (with peer evaluation and short opinion essays), andargumentative writing. First, the syntactical training using real-time news
articles is aimed at acquiring syntactical knowledge by providing students with
opportunities to get in touch with what is going on in society. Second, thepresentation encourages students to search for various aspects of the current
society to find the topic for their presentation and orally demonstrate theiropinions. In addition, in short opinion essays, they need to think and organize
their opinions on their peers’ presentations, enhancing their ability to think
12
26

Writing as a Social Citizen: With Consideration on Assessment and Feedback

logically and express their thoughts on various social issues. Third,
argumentative writing is situated as the one to demonstrate the results or effectsof the syntactical training and presentation activities.
With introduction of these three class activities, this study focused on theinfluence of assessment and feedback methods on students’ writing, either
grammar-based or content-based, with a principal concern about the influence oftraditionally focused grammar-based assessment and feedback on their writingin Japan. Although the most appropriate assessment and feedback remained
controversial and inconclusive, this study examined the influence of grammarbased and content-based assessments and feedback by dividing students into thefollowing groups: one with both grammar- and content-based assessment andfeedback (Group A), and the other with only content assessment and feedback(Group B). The results showed that content assessment, which is most relevantin this study, was much higher with the students who wrote under a single
criterion of content for assessment with content-based feedback. Furthermore,Group B students obtained higher scores in grammar assessment including
complexity and flexibility than Group A. The principal reason for thisphenomenon might be Group B’s focused attention to content and Group A’s
divided attention to grammar and content. These results demonstrate a certain
efficacy of providing a single criterion of content for assessment with content
feedback, which is meaningful when considering the increased importance ofthe content of a written text or how writers express their opinions presently.
It is usually arduous and a burden for teachers to steer their ways in adifferent direction and change their long-lasting strategies in writing instruction.
However, teachers’ attempts to do so, or by placing more emphasis on content,
there might be a chance of enhancing students’ writing skills to show what theywant to argue.
Further attempts with more participants will be necessary to get morereliable and practical results to figure out why writers who wrote under a single
criterion of content instead of double criteria of grammar and content
demonstrated better performance both in grammar and content assessment.
Additionally, it is significant to collect more students’ opinions about theassessment and feedback methods focused on content rather than grammar. It isvital because the success of English learning generally relies on mutual
understanding between students and a teacher, not on teachers’ one-sided beliefin specific teaching methods. Furthermore, although not referred to in this paper,
it seems increasingly important to consider the accelerating revolution ofmachine translation. It is because, as machine translation will significantly
enhance its reliability in language production, the focus of English writing islikely to move further onto the content or story a writer produces in an essay. In
1327

TSUTADA, Kazumi

this sense, it will be essential for teachers to appropriately guide students to be
more attentive to content. Accordingly, it may be significant to examine how thecontent assessment of students’ argumentative essays changes when they use
machine translation as a tool for expressing their opinions.
In conclusion, this study introduced three class activities to enhanceargumentative writing skills conducted over the years, considering the influenceof assessment and feedback on students’ writing. A few snapshots of classroom
activities and the results indicating content assessment and feedback efficacy
might provide an opportunity for teachers to renew their writing instruction
strategies based on the assumption that this method might help students withadequate writing skills for argument. It is hoped that university students will becompetent and reliable English writers who can demonstrate their opinions
globally with pride and confidence.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by JPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP19K13282.
Notes
1 This study was based on the oral presentation at The JACET Kansai Second
Lecture Meeting on October 16, 2021.
2 Grand Design for Higher Education toward 2040. Central Council for
Education. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology.
https://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/shingi/toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfil
e/2018/12/17/1411360_7_2.pdf.
3 https://resources.ats2020.eu/resource-details/LITR/ATC21s
4 Course of study for senior high schools. Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science, and Technology.
https://www.mext.go.jp/content/1407073_09_1_2.pdf .
5 Survey results of English skills of third-year high school students in 2017.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology.
https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/__icsFiles/afieldfiler/2018/04/06/1403470_03_1.pdf.
6 https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/
References
Bonzo, J. D. (2008). To assign a topic or not: Observing fluency and complexity
in intermediate foreign language writing. Foreign Language Annuals, 41(4),722–735. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03327

14
28

Writing as a Social Citizen: With Consideration on Assessment and Feedback

Bruton, D., & Kirby, D. R. (1987). Research in the classroom: Written fluency:
Didn’t we do that last year? The English Journal, 76(7), 89–92.
https://doi.org/10.2307/818661
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A
response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1 – 11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of
Educational Research, 77(1), 81 – 112.
https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hino, N. (2008). Sekai no nyusu wo hikakusuru: Netto no katsuyoho[Comparing news around the world on the Internet]. In H. Narita (Ed.),

Eigo rifuresshu koza [A course for refreshing your English] (pp. 216–
227). Osaka University Press .

Ivanič, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representationin L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(12), 3 – 33.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00034-0
Jackson, P. W. (1986). The practice of teaching. Teachers College Press.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written
feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern
Language Journal, 75, 305 – 313. http://doi.org/10.2307/328724
Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications forsecond language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 35 – 53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00036-9
Santos, T. A. (1988). Professors’ reactions to the academic writing of nonnativespeaking students. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 69 – 90. doi.org/10.2307/3587062
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC
Journal, 23, 103 – 110. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300107
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing:
The ESL research and its implications. TESOL quarterly, 27, 657–677.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587400
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse
community: How far should we go? TESOL Quarterly, 22, 29 – 51.
http://doi.org/10.2307/3587060
Sperling, M. (1996). Revisiting the writing-speaking connection: Challenges forresearch on writing and writing instruction. Review of Educational
Research, 66(1), 53 – 86. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066001053
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.
Language Learning, 46, 327 – 369.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–1770.1996.tb01238.x

1529

TSUTADA, Kazumi

Tsutada, K (2021). How local accuracy influences global accuracy in thecontext of argumentative writings produced by Japanese university
students.
Journalof
Inquiry
andResearch,
113,
81 – 98.
https://doi.org/10.18956/00007954
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.
Weigle, S. C., & Jensen, L. (1997). Assessment issues for content-based
instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), The content-basedclassroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 201–212). Longman.
Appendix 1: Examples of Syntactical Exercises
JAL aims for net-zero CO 2 emissions by 2050….. JAL aims to make such fuels ___ 10 percent of the airline's energy use by2030. It will replace jet fuel with such alternative energy sources for all
domestic flights from 2040.
(A) accounting for (B) accounted for (C) account for (D) accounts for
WHO: India suffers amid global spread of variants….. In its weekly report, the WHO said that as of Tuesday, the variant first detected in
the UK ___ to 142 countries and territories, three more than the previous week.
(A) will spread (B) had spread (C) to spread (D) spreading

EU aims to ease travel restrictions….. The Commission recommended that the threshold number of cases fromwhich all travel is allowed ___ from current 25 infections per 100,000 people to100.
(A) to raise (B) to be raised (C) be raised (D) are raised
Japan sends oxygen concentrators to India….. The shipment is part of an aid package announced by the Japanese
government ___ an emergency grant of up to 50 million dollars, in addition to
300 ventilators and 300 oxygen concentrators.
(A) includes (B) that includes (C) included (D) which include
Osaka receives Laureus sports award….. Osaka commented that she hopes to help or impact as many people as shecan, and ___.
(A) a better person (B) is a better person
1630

Writing as a Social Citizen: With Consideration on Assessment and Feedback(C) be a better person(D) being a better person

Pelosi urges diplomatic boycott of Beijing Games….. Speaking at a congressional hearing on Tuesday, Pelosi criticized Beijing's
human rights record in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and elsewhere.
She said, "We cannot proceed as if nothing is wrong about the Olympics ___China."(A) goes to (B) will go to (C) going to (D) go to
Suga: Tokyo Games can be held safely….. He added that by having athletes and people involved in the Games ___ fullanti-virus measures, they will be able to take part in the events with peace ofmind.
(A) to take (B) who take (C) take (D) takes….. He said officials will consider strict measures, such as making sure locals___ with Games participants.
(A) who do not meet (B) not to meet (C) not meet (D) don’t meet
Appendix 2: Rubric for Content Assessment
Scale
Description
6
Major viewpoints are addressed clearly and effectively.
Appropriate details are used to support an essay or illustrate ideas.
The writing is well-organized and well-developed.
Conclusions are demonstrated clearly and strongly based on the key
concepts.
5
Major viewpoints are appropriately addressed.
Appropriate details are used to support an essay or illustrate ideas.
The writing is generally well-organized and developed.
Conclusions are demonstrated based on the key concepts.
4
Major viewpoints are generally addressed.
Some details are used to support an essay or illustrate ideas.
The writing is adequately organized and developed.
Conclusions are reasonably demonstrated.
3
Major viewpoints are superficially identified.
Inappropriate or insufficient details are used to support or illustrate
generalizations.
The writing is inadequately organized or developed.
Conclusions are acceptable.
2
Major viewpoints are not identified clearly enough.
Little or no detail or irrelevant specifics are used.
The writing is disorganized or underdeveloped.
Conclusions stray from the key concepts.

1731TSUTADA, Kazumi

1Major viewpoints are not identified at all.
No details or specifics are used.
The writing is undeveloped.
No conclusions are demonstrated.
Appendix 3: QuestionnaireQ1. これまで学校のライティング評価で最も頻度の高かった指標は何ですか？
（１．文法、２．内容、３、両方）
Q2. いづれのライティング評価指標が最も重要かつ有意義であると感じますか？
（１．文法、２．内容、３、両方）
Q3. 今回のライティングにおいて、最も注意を向けたのはいづれの項目でしたか？
（１．文法、２．内容、３、両方）Q4. 授業 内 活 動お よ び 評価 、 フィ ー ドバ ッ ク の方 法 に関 し て自 由 に 意見 を 述べ て くだ さ
い。

18
32

JACET Kansai Journal, 24, 33-45. (2022) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

ESD クラスでのチャットを活用した協働的プレライティング活動
Collaborative Prewriting Activities Using an LMS Chat Function
for an ESD Course
野田三貴
大阪市立大学

Abstract
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, various types of learning activities were developed online
in 2020. One of the ESD (Education for Sustainable Development) courses, which are provided as
literacy subjects at Osaka City University, utilized a chat function in an LMS. This facilitatedstudents’ collaboration on prewriting activities in preparation for giving a problem-solution
presentation. After understanding the structure of a problem-solution presentation, students
collaboratively created an outline through their chat discussions to make sure their presentation
was organized, focused and their ideas adequately supported. In this paper, the author explains how
students’ prewriting activities worked with reference to their chat logs, teacher feedback and a classreflection sheet.
キーワード：ESD，チャット，協働学習，プレライティング
1. はじめに「持続可能な開発のための教育」と訳される ESD (Education for Sustainable Development)には，20 年に及ぶ歴史がある。2002 年のヨハネスブルグサミットにおいて，「国連持続可能な開発のための教育の 10 年（以下，国連 DESD）」（2005 年～2014 年）を日本が NGO と共に提唱したことに端を発し，同年の国連総会での決議後，国内では特にユネスコスクー
ルを中心に，国際理解教育と持続発展教育を融合する多くの取り組みが実践されてきた（市瀬, 2013; 田中・杉村, 2014）。国連 DESD 後，ESD は「持続可能な開発のための教育に関す
るグローバル・アクション・プログラム（GAP）」（2015～2019 年）で強化・再構築され，2015 年の国連サミットで採択された「持続可能な開発のための 2030 アジェンダ」では，
17 のゴールと 169 のターゲットからなる Sustainable Development Goals（以下，SDGs）の中のゴール 4.7 に包含され，SDGs すべてを達成する推進力として捉えられるようになった（United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], n.d.）。
ESD は，現代社会が抱える「様々な地球規模の課題を自らの問題として捉え，一人ひとりが自分にできることを考え」，身近なものから取り組むことで（think globally, act locally），「課題解決につながる価値観や行動を生み出し，持続可能な社会を創造していくことを目指す学習や活動」だと定義されている（文部科学省）。グローバル化する世界で人々が情報に基づいた意思決定をするためには，ESD により知識・スキル・態度および価値観を醸成することが肝要であり，その推進が持続可能な社会に向けての大きな目標となっている。
2020 年の幕開けから世界を襲った COVID-19 は，持続可能な社会に対する人々の意識を
1
33

野田

三貴

高めた。春からの学校閉鎖で，英語教育の各現場でも急遽オンライン授業への対応を迫られたことは記憶に新しい。その後デジタルテクノロジーを活用した教育革新に一気に関心が高まる中，教員は授業内容と学生の学習環境に合わせて，どのテクノロジーをどの場面でどの程度組み込むのが妥当かを検討し，柔軟に授業を組み立てる難しさに幾度となく直面することとなった。他方でこれは，オンライン授業における新たなアプローチを追求するきっかけにもなり，学会のみならず，様々なメディアを通じて多様なオンライン上の授業内活動が紹介され続けている。そこで本稿では，その一例として, ESD クラスでのチャットを活用した協働的プレライティング活動を取り上げる 1 。まず ESD 科目の概要と目標について述べた後，授業実践として授業展開，チャットの内容，教師の介入を紹介し，協働的プレライティング活動におけるチャット導入の利点と課題について考察する。併せて，授業の振り返りシート（Learning Portfolio）の結果から，チャットを介したオンライン協働
学習の可能性についても示唆することとしたい。
2．ESD 科目の概要と目標
ESD 科目は，2019 年度に大阪市立大学で CEFR（Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages ） の 理 念 を 踏 ま え た カ リ キ ュ ラ ム 改 定 が 行 わ れ た 際 , 選 択 科 目 Advanced
English （AE）の中のリテラシー強化科目の 1 つとして新設された。カリキュラムの中では，単なるツールとしての語学を超えた高度なリテラシーの習得につながる科目として位置づけられている。科目内では ESD a，b，c の 3 クラスを展開しており，ESD a と b は外国人教員が，ESD c は日本人教員が担当している。各クラスともに，SDGs の 17 のゴールのうち，3 ないし 4 つのゴールをトピックに定め，持続可能な社会の構築に貢献できるグ
ローバルシティズンに必要な知識・スキル・価値観・態度の養成を目指している。筆者が担当した c クラスでは，SDGs のうち 1（貧困をなくそう），4（質の高い教育をみんなに），
16（平和と公正を全ての人に）の 3 つのゴールをトピックに定め，CEFR が新たに重視する mediation （仲介能力）やグローバルシティズンシップ教育を意識した目標設定を行った。
（1） 現代社会が抱える貧困，教育，平和に関わる問題を批判的に分析した映像，英文
記事及び統計データを通して，問題の背後にある利害や価値観を理解し，日本語
でわかりやすく紹介できるようになる。
（2） 新たに得た知識や情報から，自身の考えや価値観を再考し，他者への共感や理解をもとにした共創的解決策を英語でグループ発表できるようになる。
言語文化的に多様な社会の持続可能性を考える CEFR（宮崎, 2016，p. 241）には，2018
年に出された CEFR Companion Volume において mediation に関するフレームワークが加筆された。これは，今日のグローバル化した世界では、mediation はしばしば言語横断的なものとなり，かつ知識基盤社会では，複数の言語で情報を選別し処理する能力や，関連情報
を 識 別 し て 伝 達 す る 能 力 の 重 要 性 が 高 ま っ て い る と い う 認 識 に 基 づ い て い る （ North &Piccardo, 2016, p. 45）。また，mediation に関する Can-do descriptor は，特に教室での小グループの協働作業を念頭に置き，学習者がさまざまな情報を共有し，自分の情報を説明し，
2
34

ESD クラスでのチャットを活用した協働的プレライティング活動

目標を達成するために協力しなければならないようなタスクを想定していることから（Council of Europe, 2020, p. 36），授業の振り返りシート（Learning Portfolio）の項目に導入することで，そうしたスキルの習得に対する学生の意識的な取り組みを促すことを考えた。
さらに，グローバルシティズンシップ教育の観点からは，異文化間能力の指標となる
Framework for Intercultural Citizenship (Byram, 2008, pp. 238–239)や FREPA（Framework ofReference for Pluralistic Approaches to languages and cultures （European Centre for Modern
Languages, 2007））との融合も図った。
3．授業実践
3.1 概要
授業は，2 で述べた SDGs 1，4，16 を 4 週ずつで扱った。授業目標の（1）に対する活動
としては，トピックに関わる新聞や雑誌の記事を読んだり，国際機関やシンクタンクが公表した統計データを扱うことで，それらすべて英語で書かれた内容の理解を深め，疑問点
や予想外だった点などについて日本語で意見交換をする他，トピックに関わる短い報道や映像を日本語の字幕付きで視聴し，英語で内容を要約したり感想を述べ合ったりする活動を行っている。目標の（2）では，（1）での活動を踏まえ，学生は 2～3 名のグループで，トピックに関わる課題を見つけ，それを解決するための方策を探る課題解決型プレゼンテーションを LMS 上のチャットを活用して作成し，学期中に 3 回 Zoom で発表（各発表の時間は最短 6 分，最長 8 分）を行った。なお，本稿で示す本授業実践における学生のチャットの内容や振り返りシートのコメント等の実践データの使用については，所属大学の倫理規準に従い，学生からの口頭での許諾を得た上で，個人情報に関わる部分は記号化や改変を施し掲載している。
3.2 授業展開
例として，SDG 1 の貧困を扱った授業の第 1 回から第 4 回の内容を記す。第 1 回と第 2
回がチャット，第 3 回と第 4 回は Zoom で授業を行っている。
第1回

・英文記事を扱い，知識と理解を深める

第2回

・映像資料と統計データを扱い，ノートテイキングやデータ提示を学ぶと同時に知識と理解を深める
・課題解決型プレゼンテーションの構成について確認→プレゼンテーション用のアウトライン作成 （H.W.）

第3回

・アウトラインとエビデンスをもとにしたジグソー活動とグループ・ディス
カッション
・次週プレゼンテーションのための話し合い

第4回

・課題解決型グループプレゼンテーション→Peer evaluation，Self-evaluation の提出

第 1 回は児童労働と Fairtrade 関する NY Times の記事を読み，内容理解と関連知識のイ
ンプットを実施した。第 2 回は Fairtrade の内容とリンクするドキュメンタリー映画『The
3
35

野田

三貴

True Cost』 の 一 部 を 視 聴 し ， ノ ー ト テ イ キ ン グ の 練 習 を し た 後 ， UNICEF が 発 行 す る
Innocenti Report Cards から OECD 加盟国の子どもの貧困に関するデータを読み解き，意見交換後，知り得た情報をヒントにグループプレゼンテーションのテーマを考えてもらった。
第 3 回までの宿題がグループでアウトラインを作成するとした関係上，第 2 回は第 1 回に宿題として課していた課題解決型グループプレゼンテーションのサンプル原稿を用いて，各構成要素と展開パターンをクイズ形式で確認するアクティビティを導入した。その後，
2～3 名のグループに分かれてもらい，グループ専用のチャットルームへ入り，グループプ
レゼンテーションで何を取り上げ，どのような解決策を提示するか話し合ってもらった。
第 3 回の授業の 2 日前までにアウトラインの提出を受け，授業の前日には教員がチェッ
ク済みのアウトラインを返却した。そうすることで第 3 回の Zoom の授業時には，口頭で質問を受けたり添削部分の説明を補ったりすることができた。修正が終了後は，学生が収集したエビデンスをもとにしたジグソー活動を実施し，その後学生同士のディスカッショ
ンで理解を深めてもらった。第 4 回の授業は，Zoom でグループプレゼンテーションを行い，質疑応答を経て，配布済みの Peer evaluation sheet と Self-evaluation sheet に評価を入力後提出してもらった。教員による評価も含めてフィードバックは翌週に行っている。
3.3 チャットを用いた協働的プレライティング活動
本活動は，宿題で配布済みの少子化を扱った課題解決型プレゼンテーションのサンプル原稿（図 1 左）を用いて，その構成を学習することからスタートさせた。基本構成は，パラグラフ 1 と 2 で問題と主たる原因を紹介し，パラグラフ 3 で自分たちがベストだと思う
解決策を提示し，その有効性を 3 観点から，質的あるいは量的データをエビデンスとして用いながらパラグラフ 4 ～6 で説明するというものだが，学生には足場掛けとして，図 1
右に示すようにパラグラフの展開パターンを先に示し，サンプル原稿のどの部分がどの要素として機能しているのかの確認を行ってもらっている。
図1

課題解決型プレゼンテーションのサンプル原稿（左）とパラグラフの展開パターン（右）436ESD クラスでのチャットを活用した協働的プレライティング活動

実際のチャット画面で，学生がサンプル原稿から該当箇所をコピーアンドペーストし，
展開パターンに当てはめたものが図 2 の最初の枠である。学生 A から出された解答は全員で検討した。他の学生の答えやチャットの反応から，全員がパラグラフ 2 の少子化の要因
説明のパートに結果の文も含めていることがわかり，“As a result”といった discourse marker
への意識付けが必要であることを確認できた。
図2

課題解決型プレゼンテーションの構成確認

5
37

野田

三貴

プレゼンテーションで取り上げる課題については，授業内でのチャットでも意見交換をするが，そこでは時間的な制限があるため，授業後に学生には時間を決めてチャットルー
ムに集合し，続きの意見交換や情報交換を進めてもらっている。図 3 は， SDG 7 の教育をターゲットにしたプレゼンテーションのプレライティング活動だが，アウトライン作りに至るまでの一連の流れの中でつまずきが生じた例となっている。
図3

プレゼンテーション課題のブレインストーミングからアウトライン作りへ

6
38

ESD クラスでのチャットを活用した協働的プレライティング活動

プレゼンテーションの課題を「教育格差」にすることで全員の意見が一致し（①），解決
策も経済支援といったん決まったものの（②），3 観点の提示に苦慮している。そうなった
原因は明らかで，教育格差という問題の主要な要因を「貧困と考えるなら」（③）と曖昧なまま解決策の提示をしようとしており，論理の流れに逆行するという問題が生じている。
結局課題を「コロナ禍の教育格差」（④）に限定して，構成要素を学生 B がテンプレートとして画面に貼付し，アウトライン作りを始めたものの，主要な要因の検討が不十分だったことに起因して，コロナ禍の教育格差の要因がもともとある経済格差ではなく，コロナにより子どもの様々な機会が奪われたこととなり，矛盾が生じている。これに対しては学生
C が修正を図るコメント（⑤）を加えたにもかかわらず，自ら取り消してしまったため，
図 4 に示すように教員からのフィードバックを行うことで，論理的流れの修正へと導くことになった。

7
39

野田

三貴

図4

教員からのフィードバック

ライティングの最初の提出課題は，アウトラインと 3 観点で使用するデータを貼り付けたファイルとしたが，基本的にここまでは質問がない限り教師は介入しなかった。提出されたファイルには，主に論理的な流れの問題点を指摘し，文法的な誤りや不適切な英語表
現に関しては，コメントを添えて再考を促すにとどめた（図 4）。次の提出課題は，プレゼンテーション原稿として仕上げたファイルと Power Point のスライドとしている。ただし，それらを仕上げる前に，学生には教師からのフィードバックを受けて協働で改善したアウ
トラインをもとに，有用なデータを選んで，それを Zoom の授業内で英語で説明するジグ
ソー法に準じる活動にも取り組んでもらっている。説明は教師も含め別グループのクラス
メートも聞くことになり，説明後の質疑応答では自らの理解力が問われるため，最終の提出原稿では，わかりやすい表現の検討とデータの取捨選択が促進されていることが伺えた。
4．協働的プレライティング活動へのチャット導入の利点と課題チャットによる協働的プレライティング活動の利点を考えると，以下の 5 点が挙げられる。
（1） チャットを見ることで思考の流れが可視化され残るため，学習者は論理的な矛盾に気づきやすい。また，教員もそれをもとにフィードバックがしやすくなる。
（2） LMS のチャットはファイルのアップロードができるため，ファイルの更新や交換が可能。
（3） データに関しては，Webpage や YouTube の URL を画面で共有し，参照後に意見交換が可能。
（4） 内容面や文法面などで，お互いの原稿をよくしようとする互恵的な関係が構築されることで，学習意欲が高まる。（Johnson et al., 1990）
8
40

ESD クラスでのチャットを活用した協働的プレライティング活動（5） 協働することにより協調の技能（Jacobs et al., 2002）を身につけ，対人関係スキルの向上につながる。
これらの中で最大の利点といえるのは（1）であろう。Zoom のブレイクアウトルームを利用した協働活動では，教員が個別にそこに参加しない限り，何が話し合われているのか分からないが，チャットの場合は，言語関連エピソード（LREs: Language-Related Episodes）に等しいテキストができあがり，後で見返すことも可能なことから，論理的な思考の流れのどこに問題があるのかを気づきやすくなる。
（4），（5）については，たとえば「内容・文法的にちょっと不安になりながらですが，完成しました！」とアウトラインを貼付してきた学生 C に，「C さんの原稿ですが，すごく良いと思います

Providing～to students を forstudents，cram school を cram schools にするともっと良くなると思います」と学生 E が助言し，「E くん，ご指摘いただきありがとうございます🙇🙇🙇🙇」と学生 C が返すといったやり
取りとりにも見られるように，丁寧に間違いを指摘する，褒める，提案する，感謝するといった協調のための社会的スキルを向上させる場が形成されている。
一方で，課題として残るのは，このグループチャットによるプレライティング活動そのものが授業内だけでなく授業外のものも含むため，学生は時間調整が必要であり，教員も添削前のこまめなモニタリングが必要となる点であろう。
5．振り返りシート（Learning Portfolio）からの示唆
改めてチャットを導入したオンラインでの協働学習の可能性を考えたとき，学びの省察ツールとして導入した授業の振り返りシート（図 6）からは前向きな示唆を得られていることがわかった。振り返りシートの項目は ESD で培う対象となる知識・スキル・価値観・態 度 の 4 要 素 か ら 構 成 し ， ス キ ル に つ い て は す べ て CEFR Companion Volume 2018 のmediation の指標を，価値観・態度については Framework for Intercultural Citizenship や FREPA
からの指標を一部利用し編集している。教室での対面型ではない協働学習で，どこまで対話を前提とした協働学習が進められるのか不安はあったが，振り返りシートを通じて「話し た り 書 い た り し て ， 特 定 の 情 報 を 伝 え る （ Relaying specific information in speech / inwriting）」，「話したり書いたりして，グラフや図表などのデータを説明する（Explaining data
(e.g. in graphs, charts etc.) in speech / in writing）」，「グループで協働したり，グループワークを先導する（Collaborating in a group and leading group work）」といったスキルの向上と，「他者の観点に関心を持ち，他者の考え方を受け入れる（Having interest in other perspectives andaccepting the opinions of others）」といった態度の涵養に意識的に取り組む指導を心がけた
結果，14 回分の振り返りシートにある 5 件法の自己評価では，表 1 に示すとおり ESD の協働学習として肯定的な結果を得られた。

9
41

野田

三貴

図6

授業の振り返りシート

表1

振り返りシートの抜粋項目における自己評価の変化
1-7

8-14

回目平均

回目平均

話したり書いたりして特定の情報を伝える

4.1

4.2

話したり書いたりして，グラフや図表などのデータを説明

3.8

4.2

3.7

4.0

4.4

4.7

抜粋項目

する
グループで協働したり，グループワークを先導する
他者（他文化）の観点に関心を持ち，他者（他文化）の考え方を受け入れる

加えて自由記述の Final Review では，スキルに関する記述（波線部）と価値観・態度に関する記述（下線部）とがほぼ均等に見られた。英語で原稿や資料を作り，わかりやすく伝えることは mediation のスキルだが，その難しさに戸惑いを感じながらも新たな気づきを得たり，そのスキルの伸びに手応えを感じる様子が伺える他，理解を深めるための積極的な態度の変容も垣間見ることができた。（波線および下線は筆者による。）

1042

ESD クラスでのチャットを活用した協働的プレライティング活動

Through this class, I learned to cooperate with others online and search some solutions together.
Making PPT in English was very difficult, but so fun. Also, answering questions was helpful
for me to train to think flexibly. Thank you for teaching so much. I really enjoy this class. ［学生 A］
ESD のクラスでたくさんのトピックに触れて，学ぶことがとても多かったです。特に英語の資料から情報を読み取り，分析や簡潔に訳すなどはあまりしたことがなかったので，とてもやりがいがありました。短期間でチームを組み，問題の原因と解決策を見つける作業は初めてでしたので，話し合いを重ねながらチームでプレゼンを作り上げることはすごく勉強になりました。また今までは，聞き取れていなかったこともな
んとなく流して，答えていたのですが，プレゼン後の質疑応答を重ねるうちに，理解できなければ恥ずかしがらず何度でも聞き返して，理解してから答えるという力がついたと思います。理解できないことが恥ずかしいと思っていたのですが，その気持ちは少し薄れました。［学生 B］
初回のプレゼンテーションでは英語で何か伝えることが楽しいと感じたけど，回を重ねるごとにそれだけではなく，自分の課題を発見することができた。瞬間的に出てくる語彙の少なさや情報収集の至らなさ，わかりやすい表現や内容・構成など，学ぶことが多かった。この授業で気づけた自分の課題点，そして世界の問題の現実を忘れず，今後の学習や生活に活かしていきたい。［学生 C］
今までデータを使ってプレゼンをするということを経験してこなかったので，最初はどんなデータを扱えばいいのかわからず戸惑いましたが，次第に慣れていき，最終的には色んなデータを用いてプレゼンをすることができたのではないかなと思いました。
しかし，最後に先生がおっしゃっていたように，自分好みのデータばかり使っていたような気もします。プレゼンを作っている中で，自分の話すことを裏付けるためにこんな証拠がほしいなと考えてからデータを探していることがほとんどなので，これからは自分が求めているデータだけでなく，同じテーマだけど結果は違うデータを探す
こともしようと思いました。［学生 D］
この半年間で問題が複雑で解決が難しいことを実感したが，まずはその問題について知って何か小さなことからでも行動を起こすことが問題の解決には大事なことだと感じた。［学生 E］

6．まとめ
COVID-19 の感染拡大を受けて，デジタルテクノロジーを駆使した多種多様なオンライン授業が実践されるようになった今，授業に LMS のチャットを用いるというのは特段目
新しいことではないかもしれない。しかしながら，課題解決型グループプレゼンテーショ
11
43

野田

三貴

ンの作成といった高い論理性が求められるタスクにおいては，プレライティング活動にチ
ャットを導入する意義は小さくないと考えられる。可視化されるテキストをもとに，学生
は思考の流れを見直し，論理性への気づきを高めることができるだけでなく，教員は学生の思考を理解した上でより質の高いフィードバックを実現できるからだ。またチャットを介したオンラインの協働活動が協調のスキルを高められることを考慮すると，ESD のようなグローバルシティズンシップ教育において更なる活用も検討できるのではないかと考えている。
注
1 遠隔授業におけるライティング指導の取り組みとして速報的にまとめた短報は，野田（2021）を参照。
引用文献
市瀬智紀（2013）.「国際理解教育と持続発展教育（ESD）」『ユネスコスクールによる ESDの実践―教育の新たな可能性を探る―』 アルテ.
野田三貴（2021）.「課題解決型グループプレゼンテーションの原稿作成―LMS のチャットを活用して―」『JACET 関西支部ライティング指導研究会紀要』14，5–6.
宮崎里司（2016）.「ヨーロッパ市民のための言語文化リテラシーとヨーロッパ言語共通参
照枠 (CEFR) : 英国の EU 離脱とサスティナビリティの観点から」Transcommunication,
3 (2)，233–244．
https://waseda.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=2568
5&item_no=1&attribute_id=162&file_no=1
文部科学省「持続可能な開発のための教育（ESD：Education for Sustainable Development）」.
https://www.mext.go.jp/unesco/004/1339970.htm
Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship:
Essays and reflection. Multilingual Matters.
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,teaching, assessment – Companion volume.
https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learningteaching/16809ea0d4
European Centre for Modern Languages. (2007). Framework of reference for pluralistic approaches
to languages and cultures.
http://carap.ecml.at/Portals/11/documents/C4pub2007E_20080302_FINAL.pdf#search='CA
RAP++descriptor++link++mediation'
Hood, M. (2007). Dynamic presentations. Pearson Kirihara.
Jacobs, G. M., Power, M. A., & Inn, L. W. (2002). Teacher’s sourcebook for cooperative learning:
Practical techniques, basic principles, and frequently asked questions. Skyhorse Publishing.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1990). Circles of learning: Cooperation in theclassroom (3rd ed.). Interaction Book.
North, B., & Piccardo, E. (2016). Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for
1244

ESD クラスでのチャットを活用した協働的プレライティング活動

the CEFR. Education Policy Division. Council of Europe.
https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learningteaching/168073ff31
田中治彦・杉村美紀（2014）.『多文化共生社会における ESD・市民教育』上智大学出版.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (n.d.). What is Education for
Sustainable Development?
https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-sustainable-development/what-is-esd
付記
本稿は 2021 年 10 月 16 日に開催された JACET 関西支部 2021 年度第 2 回支部講演会
におけるライティング指導研究会の「遠隔授業でのライティング指導」をテーマとした 4
つの発表の内，筆者が行った「ESD クラスでのチャットを活用した協働的プレライティン
グ活動」と題する報告の内容に加筆を施したものである。

1345

JACET Kansai Journal, 24, 46-56. (2022) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

オンライン下でのプロジェクト発信型英語プログラムの挑戦―ライティング指導に焦点をあてて―Challenges of Project-based English Program (PEP) during the pandemic―focusing on writing instruction―
山下美朋
立命館大学

Abstract
Since 2018, the Life Science Department and Pharmaceutical Department in Ritsumeikan
University have introduced a “project-based English program (PEP).” In PEP, students are engaged
in the research of science projects and the results of their projects are demonstrated both in oralpresentation and papers in English. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the university
experienced a huge shift from face-to-face classes to online classes. Under these circumstances, the
PEP attempted to provide the best English education possible with the use of ICT. This paper reports
how we (the teachers in PEP) conducted classes online in 2020 by creating a website “PEP Navi”
where all the teaching materials and movies are gathered and shared among both teachers andstudents. This paper also describes the details of support provided by the writing center, SAPP
(Support for Academic Projects and Papers). The questionnaire conducted to tutees found tutor’s
meticulous instruction especially helped students of the first grade. This author believes the use of
ICT will make education more efficient even in the Post-COVID 19 era.
キーワード：プロジェクト発信型英語プログラム（Project-based English Program: PEP）,
Support for Academic Projects and Papers: SAPP，オンライン授業, ライティング支援, ICT
1. はじめに2020 年度は、感染症対策による未曾有の事態での大学教育を余儀なくされた。立命館大
学においても外国語教育は全てオンラインで行われ、教員はその対応に追われた。生命科
学 部 ・ 薬 学 部 を 中 心 に 2008 年 度 か ら 展 開 し て い る プ ロ ジ ェ ク ト 発 信 型 英 語 プ ロ グ ラ ム（Project-based English Program, 以降 PEP）では、学生に個人の関心事に根ざしたプロジェ
クトを遂行させ、その成果を様々なメディアを通じて英語で発信している。2020 年度、本プログラムでは、対面授業と変わらないオンライン授業の質を担保するために、ICT の利
点を最大限に活かした授業運営を試みた。具体的には、ネット上に集めた教材を教員間で共有したり、教員のみならず学生が作成に協力した様々な動画教材を利用した。また、正課外のライティング支援センターSAPP（Support for Academic Projects and Papers）とも連携し、特に初年次学生へのサポートを充実させた。本稿では、ライティング指導に焦点を当て、コロナ禍で展開したプログラム発信型英語プログラムの詳細を報告する。

146

オンライン下でのプロジェクト発信型英語プログラムの挑戦―ライティング指導に焦点をあてて―

2. プロジェクト発信型英語プログラムとライティング指導2.1 プロジェクト発信型英語プログラム（Project-based English Program: PEP） 1
現在、ライフサイエンスを始めとしたあらゆる学問分野がグローバル化し、共同研究や学会の発表も英語で行うことが当たり前となってきている。立命館大学生命科学部でも、学部生の 55%が大学院に進学し（2020 年度）、院生や学部 4 回生が国内外の学会で、英語で研究成果を発表することが期待されている。このような状況下で、英語の運用力および発信力を高めるために、2008 年度に PEP が生命科学部・薬学部に導入された。PEP では、
英語の基礎能力を磨く Skill Workshop と、学生が各々の関心時に基づいてリサーチを行い、成果を英語で発信する Projects で構成され、前者の授業で得た英語のスキルを、後者の授業で運用する仕組みである。本稿で言及する Projects の授業では、学生は各々のプロジェ
クトを通してリサーチスキルや研究への姿勢を養うことをも期待されている。1 回生（春学期 P1, 秋学期 P2）から 2 回生（春学期 P3, 秋学期 P4）はリサーチや議論の方法を学び,
個人またはグループで遂行したプロジェクトを主にスライドで発表する。3 回生（春学期
JP1）になるとより専門的な内容を扱い、グループでポスターを作成し、成果発表を行う。
ICT を積極的に活用し、学生は授業にパソコンを持ち込み、様々なツールを使いこなすことも推奨されている。現在、本プログラムは生命科学部、薬学部、スポーツ健康科学部、総合心理学部の 4 学部で展開している。
2.2 PEP のライティング指導
PEP では、学生はリサーチの成果を、口頭発表とプロジェクトペーパーというミニ論文の 形 で ま と め る 。 P1 で は 、 プ ロ ジ ェ ク ト の ア イ デ ア を １ パ ラ グ ラ フ 程 度 か ら 書 き 始 め
fluency を上げることに注力するが、P2 ではアンケートとインタビューのデータ収集方法
や資料の引用方法を学び、800 ワード程度の論文に仕上げる。特に、学生がアカデミック・
ライティングをしっかり学ぶのは 2 回生秋学期の P4 である。P4 の授業では、学生は個人のプロジェクトを遂行させながら論文にまとめていくために、リサーチの方法と科学論文の書き方の両方を学習する。リサーチの方法では、テーマ設定のための考え方、アイデアマッピングなどによるテーマの絞り方や、図書館司書を招いて先行文献の検索方法などを学ぶ講義が提供される。一方で、論文の書き方においては、ジャンル（Swales, 1990 他）の考 え 方 を 理 論 的 根 拠 と し て 、 科 学 論 文 の 修 辞 的 特 徴 （Rhetorical features） と 言 語 的 特 徴（Language features）を学習し、授業ではプロセス・ライティングを踏襲して、最終稿を仕上げるまでに feedback と書き直しを繰り返す。PEP のプロジェクトペーパーは、リサーチの種類により、4 つの型、つまり Analytical projects（論文や書物などから得た情報を比較し、自分の考えをまとめる）、Survey projects（アンケートやインタビューなどから得た情報をまとめる）、Experimental projects（実験を行い、結果を考察する）、Challenge projects（目標を設定してチャレンジし、結果をまとめる。例えば、ある技能を短期間に習得するなど）、
またはこれらの混合型に分けられる。学生は、各々の選んだテーマに沿った「論文の型」
を選んで、セクション毎に書きすすめ、学期が終わるまでに 1500–2000 ワードの論文を書
き上げなければならない。教員は、その過程でアカデミック・ペーパーの基礎知識として必要な、剽窃を避けるための文献引用の仕方や、パラフレージングの方法、また APA スタ
イルに沿った参考文献の書き方や図表の用い方なども適宜演習形式で解説する。
2
47

山下

美朋

PEP で特に重要視しているのが、学生同士で書いたものをチェックしあうピア・フィー
ドバックである。ピア・フィードバックは、他の学生が書いたものを見て批判的な分析力を養い、自分のテキストを客観視できる利点（Biber, Nekrasova & Horn, 2011）と、他の学生から受けるコメントがスキャフォールディング（Wood, Burner & Ross, 1976）となり、一人では解決できなかった作業（論の流れや語彙の修正など）を可能にする効果があるとされている。また、教員のフィードバックが権威的であるのに対し、友達には気軽に間違いを指摘しやすい（Hyland, 2019）とも言われているため授業に取り入れやすい。P4 では、数回に渡り、プリントアウトしたお互いのテキストを交換して赤で添削を入れるなどの作業を行い、学生は教員からのコメントと合わせ吟味して、修正や加筆を施して最終稿にするのである。また、以前から P4 の最終稿を論文集にまとめる計画があったため、2016 年
度からは、これらのプロジェクト・ペーパーの発信の場としての論文集 PEP Journal を編纂し、公開している（https://journal.pep-rg.jp/）。本 Journal には、各クラスの教員によって選ばれた学生の優秀ペーパーと発表動画が含まれており、推薦された学生は非常に名誉なことと感じているようである。2018 年度までは P2 のペーパーのみであったが、2019 年度からは P4 も加えられ、充実した内容となっている。
3. コロナ禍での PEP の授業
3.1 立命館大学の対応
ここからは 2020 年度の授業について詳述する。2020 年度の立命館大学は一ヶ月の休講期間を経て、5 月に授業を再開し、全学部でオンライン授業が始まった。秋学期には、実験科目を中心に一部で対面授業が再開されたが、外国語科目においては変わらず、年間を通 じ て Zoom な ど の Web 会 議 ツ ー ル を 利 用 し た ラ イ ブ 授 業 ま た は ビ デ オ オ ン デ マ ン ド（VOD）のオンライン授業が続けられた。全授業を対象としたオンライン授業の満足度を学生に聞いたアンケート調査（沖, 2021）によると、2020 年度の総合満足度は 70%を超え、リアルタイム・VOD 授業ともに対面時と変わらない満足度であったと回答を得た。その理由として、コロナ感染症への危惧はもちろん、学生のオンライン授業への親和性や、繰り返し視聴できる VOD の利便性が挙げられていた。また、次年度にオンラインか対面授業のどちらを選択するかに対する回答には、多くの学生がオンラインを選んでおり、大学全体としては、おおよそ対面時と変わらない授業を提供できていたことが分かる。着目すべ
きは、オンライン授業は対面時よりも負担を感じたと答えた学生も、教員のフィードバッ
クが得られた授業であれば満足度が高かった点である。つまり、学生は、対面時には授業
内外で気軽に教員に質問ができたが、オンライン上では難しいと感じており、対面時よりも丁寧な対応が教員に求められたということであろう。
3.2 ICT を利用した PEP の授業
さて、PEP のコロナ禍の授業がどのように行われたかについてであるが、大きな混乱もなく、初回から Zoom を利用したリアルタイム授業を開始することができていたと思われる。我々教員が授業をスムーズに運営できた大きな理由としては、まず ICT ツールを最大限に活用したことが挙げられよう。PEP では 2019 年度から Google Workspace for Education（G-suite）を導入しており、紙の教科書 2 に変わる授業情報サイト PEP Navi（https://navi.pep3
48

オンライン下でのプロジェクト発信型英語プログラムの挑戦―ライティング指導に焦点をあてて―

rg.jp/）や、教員間で教材や様々な授業関連の書類を共有できる教職員サイトを立ち上げている。PEP Navi には、授業に関するあらゆる情報が記載され、授業に必要なワークシート
等の資料もダウンロードできるようにしたため、学生は PEP Navi を見れば授業の詳細が分かるようになっている。Google ドライブ上にこれらのサイトを置く利点は、情報の入れ替えが適宜行える柔軟性の高さにあり、2020 年度は、オンライン授業への移行に応じて PEPNavi の内容を更に充実させることで、より良い授業を提供できたと言っても過言ではない。
具体例として、「使おう ICT」と第したページ (https://navi.pep-rg.jp/ict-tips) に、Zoom アプ
リの設定から使い方、Microsoft OneDrive などの大学の ICT リソースの使い方などのメデ
ィア情報を追加した。特筆すべきは、これらの多くを 1 分程度の動画で作成したことである（図 1 参照）。近年、口頭や文章だけでは伝わりにくい内容を視覚的に伝えるチュートリ
アル動画の作成が盛んだが、学生に Zoom の操作方法などの動画を PEP Navi で見るように指示しておけば、授業内でこれらの説明に時間を取られることもない。このように、学生は授業に関するあらゆる情報を PEP Navi から得ることができ、我々が本来目指している自律的な学習を支援できたのではないかと思う。
図1
PEP で作成した動画（左：教員が作成した「 Microsoft OneDrive の使い方」、右：学生が作成した「プロジェクトをスムーズに進めるための OUTLINE の書き方」いずれも 2020 年度に作成されたもの）

3.3 教材共有・情報共有による教員の負担軽減への工夫
また、2020 年度はオンライン授業のための教材作成に追われ、教員の負担が増大したと言われている（国立情報学研究所, 2020 他）が、PEP では教員間で教材を共有したり、グ
ループウエアのチャットツール Slack や週例会議を通して授業に関する情報交換を行うことで負担の軽減に努めるようにした。まず、教材の共有化に関しては、先述のとおり紙の教科書の使用を既に止めていたため、それまでに各教員が作成していた授業スライドを「共通スライド」として統合して、皆が使えるように整理した。これは、教員の授業準備の労力を軽減させただけでなく、教える内容を再確認したり、他の教員のスライドから新しい
授業アイデアを学ぶきっかけになったと教員間で好評であった。また、スライドと関連教
材を一緒に Google ドライブに格納することで、各教員が授業に必要な教材を、適宜選別し、使用できるように工夫した。例えば、P4 の授業教材に、PEP Journal に載った優秀ペー
パーに少し修正を加えたものをサンプルにして、それをもとにしたワークシートを作成し
4
49

山下

美朋

て Google ドライブに格納した。そうしておけば、授業では、それを画面共有しながら学生に論文の内容・構造や語彙を分析させることができるし、学生もダウンロードできるため教員が紙で配布する必要はない。もし授業で使用しない場合も、学生は自習用教材として利用できる。事実、先輩が書いたプロジェクト・ペーパーを用いてワークシートや学習教
材にすることは、学生の意欲を高める効果もあったようである。
また、ビジネス・チャット・ツールである Slack を導入したことで、仕事の効率化が進
み、教員間の情報共有の公平性や透明化が促進された。オンライン授業のトラブルが生じた際も、Slack 上で瞬時に他の教員と連絡を取れたため、迅速に解決できたことも多かった。Slack はワークステーションの中にタスク毎にチャンネルを設定できるので、授業運営上の情報管理、タスク管理にも役立つ。更には、毎週金曜日に Zoom 会議を開催し、各クラスの状況や授業運営上の困難点やアイデアを教員間で共有し、次週の授業への改善に務めることができた。この週例会議は、慣れないオンライン授業運営の教員の不安感を払拭するためにも役立っていたと思われる。
3.4 動画教材と Zoom による最終発表
特に、オンライン授業で活躍したのは、教員や学生が作成した教材動画であった。チュートリアル動画だけでなく、授業に役立つ様々な動画を教員主導で作成し、PEP YouTube
Channel（https://www.youtube.com/user/ProjectBasedEnglish/videos）で公開した。例えば、P3ではディベートを行うが、オンライン授業時には、教室でモデルを示すといったことはできない。実際にディベートのモデルを示し、重要なポイントを解説した動画を活用することで、オンライン授業では、学生と動画を見ながらディベートの流れを確認したり、必要な英語表現を学ばせることが可能であった。その他にも、Educational Supporters と呼ばれる学生たちが率先して、学生が自主的に学習を進められるような動画を作成してくれたことは学部生の助けになったに違いない。作成された動画には、「プレゼンテーションスライドの作成方法」「ポスターの作り方」「プロジェクトの進め方」などがある。それらを YouTube で公開することにより、学生は好きな時間に繰り返し視聴できたため、非常に有用であった。
このように PEP では、ICT ツールを生かした授業設計を推進させたため、対面時とほぼ変わらない質の授業が遂行できたと思われた。その一例として、3 回生配当の JP1 のポス
ター最終発表（Grand Final）は、さながらオンラインカンファレンスのようであった。Grand
Final は各クラスから選ばれたチームのみ発表の機会が与えられる。これまでは、大学の大ホールを使い前日から会場設営をして、当日は大学内外の学生、教員を呼んで開催していた。しかし、2020 年度は、Zoom のブレイクアウトルーム機能を使ってルーム毎に数組の発表グルーブを配し、200 名以上の 3 回生が自由に聞きたいグループの発表を見て回った。
当日は大きなトラブルもなく、このような一大イベントが開催できたのは、日々の ICT ツールを使った授業運営のノウハウ共有によるものであったと言えよう。
3.5 コロナ禍でのライティング指導
次に、2020 年度の P4 のオンライン授業の一部を紹介する。P4 ではアカデミック・ラ
イティングの基礎を学び、各自 1500–2000 ワードのプロジェクトペーパーにまとめることは先述した。表 1 は、2020 年度の授業の詳細である。
550

オンライン下でのプロジェクト発信型英語プログラムの挑戦―ライティング指導に焦点をあてて―

表1
P4 の授業内容
Week

授業内容

Week 1

オリエンテーション（成績評価の説明など）P4 で行う Advanced project とアカデミック・ライティングについて知る

Week 2

様々なライティングスタイルを比較して、アカデミック・ライティングの理解を深める（ジャンルの理解）

Week 3

プロジェクトのテーマを決め、アイデアを練り論点を整理する

Week 4

テーマに関する情報を集める、図書館ガイダンス：先行文献を探す

Week 5

Project paper の構成を学びアウトラインを書く、Introduction（導入部）の書き方を学ぶ（宿題で Introduction を書く）

Week 6Introduction のフィードバックをもらい修正する、Body（本論部）の書き方を学ぶ（宿題で Body の最初のパラグラフを書く）情報をパラフレーズ、サマリする方法を学ぶ

Week 7

Body へのフィードバックをもらい修正する、Body を書くための必要な表現を学ぶ（宿題で Body のパラグラフを書く）

Week 8

Body の残りのパラグラフを書き、本論のドラフトを完成させる、中間発表（プロジェクトの進捗状況を発表する）

Week 9Body へのフィードバックをもらい修正する、Conclusion（結論部）の書き方を学ぶ（宿題で Conclusion を書く）

Week 10

Project paper を校正する、参考文献の書き方を学び作成する

Week 11

Project paper の全体を見直す、Abstract（要旨）の書き方を学び、書く

Week 12

最終発表（Presentation）の準備、P4 で行ったプロジェクトを発表する

Week 13

最終発表

Week 14

最終発表、最終稿の見直しをする

Week 15

まとめ、最終稿を提出する筆者が行った Week 5 の授業を例に紹介する。Week 5 は、論文の導入部（Introduction）の構成・内容や、導入部に頻出する特徴的な表現を知る授業回である。授業では、まず Zoomのメインルームで、共通スライドを学生と画面共有して、導入部の解説を行った。論文の導入部の基本的な内容は、図 2 のスライドにあるように、「テーマの背景情報や先行研究の紹介」、「問題点や解決すべき課題」、そして「研究の目的」で構成されている。それらを学
生自身に気づかせるために、先述した PEP Journal をもとに作成したワークシート（図 3）を用いて、サンプルペーパーの導入部をまず各自で読ませた。その後、サンプルペーパーの研究内容と、導入部に必要な情報や特徴的な表現を、各自で考えさせる、またはグルー
プで話し合わせた。授業における協同作業やグループディスカッションは、Zoom のブレ
イクアウトルーム機能が非常に便利で、教員はルームを回りながら学生の話し合いの状況

6
51

山下

美朋

を度々確認できる。そしてメインルームに戻った後、グループで行った導入部の分析結果を聞き、スライドで回答、そして再度導入部の内容や頻出表現を確認する流れであった。
図 4 は、回答の際に用いたスライドであるが、導入部を内容毎に色分けしながら解説できるように作成してある。このようにして、Zoom で他の教員とともに作成した共通スライ
ドや、ワークシートを使い、適宜グループワークを差し込みながら授業を行ったのである。
この後、翌週までに学生は授業での学びをもとに各々のプロジェクトペーパーの導入部を宿題として書いてくるというものであった。
図2

図3

Week 5 授業スライド

導入部分析のためのワークシート

図4
Week 5 導入部の分析スライド

P4 後半の授業では、セクション毎に書きすすめ、隔週でピア・フィードバックを行った。そのため、翌週の Week 6 では、学生が書いてきた導入部の分析をすることが主な活動であった。ピア・フィードバックは教員により様々な工夫をしていたようだが、筆者もあらゆる方法を試みた。一つは、ブレイクアウトルームを用いたグループディスカッションの効果を狙い、修正が明らかな学生の課題を名前は出さずに数名分選んでおき、それぞれの課題にグループでコメントを入れさせる方法である。ピア・フィードバックを効果的にするためには、何に対してコメントをするかを前もって指示しておく必要があるが、Week
5 の課題に対して、「導入部に必要な 3 つの内容が書かれているか」「それぞれの内容に論752

オンライン下でのプロジェクト発信型英語プログラムの挑戦―ライティング指導に焦点をあてて―

理的なつながりがあるか」「理解を妨げるような日本語訳の表現や、文法・語彙の間違いがないか」などをあらかじめ提示しておき、学生に確認させるようにした。その際に、コメントは修正が必要な部分だけでなく、良い点も言及できるようにと伝えておくと、コメントを受けた学生も悪い気はしないようであった。この活動を速やかに行うためには、Google
ドライブに課題を提出させておくとコメント機能で書き込みもしやすい。
もう一つは、自動採点ツールなどを活用する方法である。立命館大学では一部に Turnitinを導入しており、筆者も Turnitin のフィードバック機能を利用していた。3 この機能を使うと、教員が任意に設定した評価項目に基づき、学生は設定された時間内に数名の課題を評価したり、コメントを加えることができる。いずれの場合も大切なのは、ピア・フィード
バックをさせただけでは終わらず、学生が書き込んだコメントをクラスで共有し、教員が全体へのフィードバックを行うことである。Hyland（2019）は、praise（褒める）、criticism（批判）、suggestion（提案）のコメントを与える学生によって使い分け、学生に学びを促すようなコメントや、修正すべき箇所を批判するだけではなく、修正のための提案も同時に与えるべきであると述べている。筆者も、メインルームに戻ってきてからの全体フィードバックでは、なるべく良く書けている学生の課題を紹介して褒め、学生の意欲を高める
ようなコメントに留意した。また、学生の課題に頻出した間違いなどはクラス全体で共有するように努めた。このように、P4 ではプロセス・ライティングの方法に基づき、書いて、コメントを得て修正するというプロセスを繰り返しながら、学生はセクション毎に書き進める。Week 5 から Week 11 まではほぼ同様の流れで授業は進められた。
筆者の概観では、オンライン授業においては、学生の課題を画面で共有し直接指導ができたため、フィードバック活動は非常に容易であったと思われた。2020 年の 7 月に JACET関西支部のライティング指導研究会が主催した「遠隔授業におけるライティング指導」についての意見交換会においても、参加者から同様の意見が出ており、対面時に教員が一人ひとりに課題のフィードバックを行っていたのと比較して作業効率の点からも、総じてラ
イティングはオンライン授業との親和性が高いと言えよう。
4. ライティング支援センターSAPP とコロナ禍での支援 4次に、プロジェクト発信型英語プログラムの正課授業外での支援について言及する。オンライン授業下では、授業外の学習サポートセンターの役割が増大した（飯野, 2020）と報
告されており、本プログラムにおいても授業と連動したライティング支援センターの活躍があった。
本プログラムのライティング支援センターは SAPP（Support for Academic Projects andPapers）と呼ばれ、2017 年度に設立された。当時から PEP は科学の専門英語に特化した授業ではなかったが、2 回生のプロジェクトペーパーや 3 回生のポスターには化学の知識などを要する専門的な内容が入ることが多く、英語教員でさえも英語の正確性の判断に迷うことがあった。そのような専門性に対応させるため、研究の経験や科学論文の知識のある大学院生をチューターとして採用し、学部生の PEP のプロジェクトの相談に対応することにした。現在は、プロジェクトの課題だけでなく、英語全般の学習相談、更には学部から大学院につながるリサーチの相談に至るまでを対応している。SAPP の支援の中心は、対面型の個別相談である。チューターの指導は、多くのライティングセンターが行っている
8
53

山下

美朋

基本を踏襲し、「書き手を育てる」指導（Ryan & Zimmerilli, 2010; 佐渡島・太田, 2013）であり、書いたものを修正または添削するのが目的ではなく、相談者がアドバイスを受けて自分で書いたものを良いものにしていく過程を支援する。相談の必要な学生は、PEP Naviにある専用のホームページ（https://sapp.pep-rg.jp/）に予約を入れ、1 回のセッションは通常 45 分である。SNS などを使った様々な宣伝効果もあり、徐々にセンターの知名度が上がり、2019 年度は年間通して 160 名の利用者があった。
2020 年度の SAPP は、院生 7 名、学部生 2 名のチューターが「コロナ禍で諦めない支援」を目指し、Zoom によるオンライン個人相談を 6 月から始めた。まず利用状況としては、年間で 91 名と対面時よりは少なかったが、利用者の 1/3 が 1 回生であったことは注目に値する。アンケート結果から、1 回生の利用者は、「入学してすぐにオンライン授業が始
まり、気軽に相談できる友人や先輩がいなかった」「友達でなく、専門的なアドバイスをもらえる第三者がほしかった」と回答しており、コロナ禍での SAPP のような学習支援の必要性が伺えたことは、他大学のライティングセンターを調査した飯野（2020）とも呼応する。
「相談内容」に関しては、「プロジェクトの内容および方向性」「プロジェクト・ペーパ
ーの内容・構成」「スライドやポスターの内容やプレゼンテーションの構成」が多く、前年度同様に、英語に関する相談よりもプロジェクトやリサーチに関する相談が多かったようである。また、SAPP の利用に関して、対面かオンラインのどちらが良いかについては、利用者の 80%が「オンラインが良い」または「対面だと恥ずかしいが、オンラインではそうでもない」と回答し、オンラインが支持されたことが分かった。その理由として、センターに直接足を運ぶ必要がないなどの物理的な理由や、Zoom の利便性、また顔を出さずに済むのでリラックスして相談できるなどが挙げられていた。
一方、院生チューター側も、対面時と変わらない質のセッションとするべく、様々な工夫をしていたようである。彼らへのアンケートから分かったことは、ゆっくりしゃべるな
どの丁寧な対応や、何気ない会話から始めるなど相談者を安心させる雰囲気作りを心がけた様子が伺えた。また、Zoom の画面共有機能を使い、相談者の課題を映して直接書き込みをしながら説明したり、口頭で説明した内容を忘れないように「メモを取る」などの指示をして時間を与えるなど、相手の理解を促す対応にも心配りが見られていた。
また、チューターが独自企画として、Zoom 上で特別講座を数回開催したことも報告しておきたい。特に、3 回生向けのポスター作成講座では、前年度までに Grand Final に選ばれたポスターを例に、研究や学会発表を経験している院生の視点で作成ポイントを丁寧に解説し、50 名以上もの参加者から好評を得た。オンライン授業を機に、先輩学生たちが後輩の学生のために授業に役立つ支援に乗り出したのは、注目に値するであろう。
5. まとめ
本稿では、立命館大学生命科学部・薬学部で展開しているプロジェクト発信型英語プログラムの 2020 年度のオンライン授業について、主にライティング指導に焦点を置いて報告した。本プログラムでは、ICT を活用し、授業に必要なリソースを授業サイトや教員間で共有して、対面授業と変わらない英語授業の運営を試みた。また、ライティング指導においては、Zoom のブレイクアウト機能を用いることでフィードバック活動が容易である
ことを確認した。授業と連動した正課外でのライティング支援センターSAPP においても、
954オンライン下でのプロジェクト発信型英語プログラムの挑戦―ライティング指導に焦点をあてて―研究の経験豊富な院生チューターが初年次学生を中心に丁寧な指導を心がけたことで今後の支援に対する示唆が得られた。この度は、本プロジェクトの一部のみ詳述したに過ぎず、
オンライン指導による指導効果の検証も今後必要であろう。しかし、Post コロナと呼ばれる 2021 年度以降もまだオンライン指導は残る可能性があり、ICT を活用した授業は今後も注目を浴びることは間違いない。本プロジェクトの取り組みが、少しでもその一役となれば幸いである。
謝辞
立命館大学生命科学部・薬学部を始めとするプロジェクト発信型英語プログラムの教員の皆様には日々の授業において、また本稿の執筆のために多くの情報をご提供頂きました。
心から感謝申し上げます。
注1

プロジェクト発信型英語プログラムについては、『 プロジェクト発信型英語プログラム：

2

2018 年度までは、『プロジェクト発信型英語 1, 2』（鈴木佑治著, 南雲堂）を使用してい自分軸を鍛える「教えない」教育』（北大路書房）に詳しい。
た。
3

Turnitin を使用したのは 2021 年度である。2021 年度、本プロジェクトはオンライン授
業 7 回、対面授業 8 回であり、Turnitin は一部の授業で実験的に導入された。

42020 年度の SAPP の支援については、JACET 関西支部ライティング指導研究会紀要第14 号に詳しい。本稿の 4 は、紀要の内容をまとめたものである。
引用文献

飯野朋美（2020 年 10 月 10 日）. 「大学ライティングセンターのニュー・ノーマルー個別相談によるライティング支援に焦点をおいてー」2020 年度 ICU グローバル言語教育
研究センター主催講演会.
沖裕貴（2021）.「われわれは Web 授業をどのように捉えていたか」ILT News No. 50.立命館大大学教育・学修支援センター.
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/itl/assets/file/publication/nl/vol50.pdf
国立情報学研究所（2020）. 「遠隔授業に関するアンケート調査の概要」
https://www.nii.ac.jp/event/upload/20200914_Report.pdf
佐渡島沙織・太田裕子（2013）. 『文章チュータリングの理念と実践―早稲田大学ライティ
ング・センターでの取り組み』ひつじ書房.
山中司・木村修平・山下美朋・近藤雪絵（2021）. 『プロジェクト発信型英語プログラム：
自分軸を鍛える「教えない」教育』北大路書房.
Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effective of feedback for L1-English and L2writing

development:A

meta-analysis.

TOEFLiBT

Research

Report.

https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-11-05.pdf.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
Ryan, L., & Zimmerelli, L.(2010). Bedford guide for writing tutors. Bedford/St. Martin’s.
10
55

ETS.

山下

美朋

Swales, J. (2004). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge
University Press.
Wood, D., Burner, J, S., & Ross, G. (1979). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal ofChild Psychiatry and Psychology, 17, 89 – 100.

11
56

JACET Kansai Journal, 24, 57-71. (2022) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Evidence-Based Argumentative Essay Writing: A Review ofPrevious Studies and Directions for Future Research
KAMIJO Takeshi
Ritsumeikan University

Abstract
This paper critically reviews previous studies on university students’ academic
writing in English for academic purposes (EAP) and suggests further research onargumentative essay writing in higher education. Academic writing in universities
involves the practice of knowledge-transforming, which is the presentation ofnovel ideas and viewpoints in a body of knowledge. Both the researchers andpractitioners in EAP emphasise the importance of research into students’evidence-based argumentative essay writing and its application. In argumentative
essay writing, the two major strands of research are: (1) the genre-based approachand (2) academic literacies. Studies concerning these strands, however, have notsufficiently investigated the process of students’ critical reading of selected
academic literature and participation in academic debates in their essays. The
author proposes that studies regarding students’ argumentative essays in higher
education examine the aspects of students’ critical reading, construction of anargument, and its presentation in writing. The findings from the studies using acomprehensive framework and their pedagogical implications could be used by
EAP practitioners and course tutors to effectively facilitate students’ academic
argumentation.
Keywords：argumentative essays, academic writing, genre, academic literacies
1. Introduction: Argumentative Essays in Academic Writing
In academic writing through higher education, students need todemonstrate their learning outcomes, in terms of knowledge-telling andknowledge-transforming in their respective academic fields (Bereiter &Scardamalia, 1987; Flower, 1987; Raković, Marzouk, Chang & Winne, 2019;
Shanmugaraj, Wolfe & Wodzak, 2020; Shi, Ishmaeil & Kowkabi, 2018). Academic
writing assignments require students to read carefully and critically selected
academic literature and write essays based on them. Academic assignments canbe divided into summaries, discussions, and argumentative essays (Wallace &Wray, 2011; Bayne & Fearn, 2005). Argumentative essays focus on students’
academic work through reading-to-write practice from academic sources forknowledge-transforming (Wallace & Wray, 2011; Wingate, 2006, 2012).
1
57

KAMIJO, Takeshi

Academic writing from sources in higher education is an essential literacy skill;
therefore, argumentative essays have been widely used for students’ academic
assignments in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes at universities(Bayne & Fearn, 2005; Swales & Christine, 1994; Wingate, 2012). Research onargumentative essay writing in higher education has adopted a genre-based
approach in which researchers examine students’ written essays in terms of text
type, rhetorical structure, language use, style, and format (Badger & White, 2000;
Bhatia, 1993; Dudley-Evans & St, John, 1998; Hyland, 1994; Martin, 1992;
Swales, 1990). The researchers of the academic literacies strand argue that there
is also a need to consider the element of identity construction among individual
students and the differences of required text genres between institutions (Lea &Street, 1998, 2006). In recent years, it has been advocated that the genre-based
approach and academic literacies can both be applied to teaching appropriate
genres to university students (Wingate & Tribble, 2012). However, researchconcerning these strands have not sufficiently examined the process of students’critical review of literature and the construction of academic arguments, which
are essential for effectively writing evidence-based argumentative essays inuniversities (Bayne & Fearn, 2005; Maguire, Everitt-Reynolds, & Delahunt,2020; Wingate & Harper, 2021; Wingate, 2006, 2012).
Based on a review of previous studies on academic writing in higher
education, particularly in argumentative essays, the author proposes acomprehensive investigation of argumentative essay writing that combines
students’ critical reading of literature, argument construction for debate in a fieldof academic discipline, and the presentation of arguments through writing.
2. Framework of Academic Writing and Argumentative Essays
2.1 Academic Writing in Universities
Academic writing is a situated, discursive literacy practice in university
curricula, and the framework for communities of practice helps clarify its key
characteristics. A community comprises of three elements: domain, community,and practice (Wenger, 1998). Members of the community of a university practiceengage in shared activities and contributions in their academic domains. The
participants of the university academic community include students, faculty
members, and researchers; the purpose of the community is not limited to student
learning and communication of the knowledge (knowledge-telling) conveyed byfaculty members and communicating this knowledge. In addition to understanding
and presenting pre-existing knowledge, students must analyse and criticallyevaluate the information to present new views (knowledge-transforming)(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Flower 1987, Raković, Marzouk, Chang & Winne,
2019; Shi, Ishmaeil & Kowkabi, 2018). To achieve the purpose of the academic
258Evidence-Based Argumentative Essay Writing: A Review of Previous Studies and Directions for Future Researchcommunity, it is extremely important for students to present new views on
knowledge through academic writing, thus learning by engaging in knowledgetransformation (Connor & Kramer, 1995; Flower, 1987; Wallace & Wray, 2011;
Wingate, 2006, 2012). Shanmugaraj, Wolfe, and Wodzak (2020) definedknowledge-transforming through academic writing as students’ reconstruction ofacademic content and the presentation of the new information in their own
arguments. Among academic assignments, argumentative essays are the mostimportant academic practices related to knowledge transformation at universities.
Argumentative essay writing in higher education is fundamentallydifferent from the practice of writing in English as a foreign language (EFL)/English as a second language (ESL). Writing practice in EFL/ESL contexts
focuses on text types and logical development, paragraph structures, sentences,and language use, instead of evaluating academic sources and constructing
arguments. The key elements of discourse communities, purposes, andparticipants in academic writing in higher education and EFL/ESL contexts(Figure 1) are described below.
Figure 1
Key elements: Academic writing and writing in EFL/ESL classrooms
Key elements

Academic writing in universities

Writing in EFL/ESL classroo ms(a) Co mmunity Courses (academic fields)

Writing classes in language courses(b) Purpose

Kno wledge-transfor mation

Learning writing skills(c) Members

Teachers, students, researchers

Teachers and students(d) PracticeEvidence-based academic writing

Writing practice(i.e., summar y and discussion,(opinio n essays, descriptive

argumentative essays)

essay, narratives, and so on)

These differences in the practise of writing between the two contexts
should be explicitly recognised by teachers and researchers, especially those who
engage in the field of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in higher education.
When students learn writing to prepare for either studying abroad throughuniversity exchange programmes or English Medium Instruction (EMI) courses
in higher education, they need to acquire not only generic English writing skills,
but also the academic literacy abilities required in university courses.
2.2 Main Types of Academic Writing
Academic writing in higher education is divided into four categories:
descriptive, analytical, persuasive, and critical writing (Swales & Christine,
359

KAMIJO, Takeshi

1994). Descriptive writing summarises academic literature and presents reportsof research experiments and investigations; analytical writing compares andevaluates information in academic literature; persuasive writing analyses theviews of researchers to present claims and supporting points; critical writing
critically evaluates the research results and analyses researchers’ abilities topresent new viewpoints in academic debate. These types can broadly be divided
into two academic assignments: summary and discussion, and argumentative
essays (Flower, 1987). Summary and discussion require knowledge-telling andknowledge-transforming. Thus, students need to analytically read assigned text(s)and present their summary and evaluation. For argumentative essays, students
need to apply the knowledge-transforming strategy extensively: they plan theiressays and select relevant academic literature, evaluate it critically, and develop
their arguments in an academic debate.
The knowledge-transforming framework is defined by Bereiter andScardamalia (1987). This cognitive model is based on the interaction between acontent and rhetorical knowledge space through students’ metacognitive
processing. Students attempt to plan, monitor, and edit their essay content,
structure, and language based on the needs of their target audience. In an
academic setting, students who apply the knowledge-telling model base theirwriting on their short-term memory and experience rather than a criticalevaluation of source texts. However, students who use the knowledgetransforming strategy attempt to contribute to new viewpoints in knowledge. They
critically review the literature, recognise researchers’ academic debate, and build
an argument. The two academic assignments, in terms of knowledge of learning,are summarised as follows. The paper subsequently discusses the characteristics
of an academic assignment: argumentative essays.
Figure 2
Types of academic assignments at universities
Knowledge-telling and knowledge-transforming
Summary and Discussion

Argumentative essays

Descriptive and analytically

Descriptive, analytical, persuasive,

evaluativeand critical

2.3 Argumentative Essays
The writing of evidence-based argumentative essays attempts to transformknowledge by reading and evaluating multiple source texts and critically460

Evidence-Based Argumentative Essay Writing: A Review of Previous Studies and Directions for Future Researchpresenting students’ academic arguments. This is extremely important inuniversity essay assignments. To systematically select relevant academic sources
and critically evaluate them for developing an argument, higher metacognitiveawareness is needed. Academic arguments are constructed to present new viewsin the knowledge body of academic debate, consisting of previous literature.
Ryshina-Pankova (2014) explains this process as follows.
[…] What makes academic argumentation special is that it requires one toargue for one’s position by explicitly engaging with other perspectives on
the issue voiced in the past […] as evidence or counter-evidence for one’s
own line of thinking (2014, p. 283).
Wingate (2006, 2012) has presented a model of essay assignments basedon academic argumentation. This model comprises (1) literature selection andinformation evaluation related to the task, (2) argument construction in academic
debate, and (3) presentation of an argument using writing techniques. In the firststage of this model, relevant academic sources related to the topic of the essay
assignments are selected, analysed, and critically evaluated. Next, through further
evaluation of the selected literature, an argument is considered and established inacademic debate. At this juncture, previous studies are used as evidence tostrengthen the argument. Finally, to present the argument in writing, structuresand expressions suited to the academic format are used. Wingate’s (2012)
argumentative essay model is as follows.
Figure 3
Essay writing framework (Wingate, 2012)
Main aim: developing an argument
Selecting and using

Establishing yourPresenting yo ur position

relevant infor mation

own position

in a coherent manner-Identifying which-Co mparing/contr asting

For mal schemata

sources are relevant

evidence/ideas from

-Str ucture-Evaluating which/ho w

sources-Signposting

fro m so urces

evidence/ideas can be- Finding support for-Style, register

used (being critical)

your position-Referencing

561

KAMIJO, Takeshi

In Wingate’s (2012) argumentative essay model, the process of selecting
academic literature, evaluating relevant information, and establishing anargument is very important. As students conduct a critical review of selected
academic literature and construct an argument in scholarly debate, they cancontribute to the transformation of knowledge in their argumentative essays. In
another paper, Wingate (2006) pointed out that it is necessary for students tounderstand why, when, and whose relevant academic literature to cite in theiressays when establishing an argument. Students must recognise that the use ofcitations can (a) present evidence, (b) indicate awareness of previous research byother scholars in the field, (c) give valid academic authority to the author’s ideas,and (d) lead to knowledge construction. Wingate (2006) states the following about
understanding the citation of scholarly literature and the structure of essay
arguments: ‘…they (students) are expected to question existing knowledge andcontribute to its development, using evidence from previous contributors (p.463).’
Academic writing at universities requires cognitive processes that combine
analytical and critical reading and writing, as described above. Summaries anddiscussions can be prepared by analysing a text, evaluating the text critically, anddescribing its salient points. Evidence-based argumentative essays in theframework of academic argumentation, however, require students’ metacognitiveawareness of the critical review of literature, argument construction, and writing
techniques for presenting the argument. Through the process of a critical
literature review and argument construction, it is essential for students to use
citations as evidence to support their arguments as academic writers.
Evidence-based argumentative essay writing through a review of academic
literature for the construction and presentation of academic arguments is definedas ‘writing from sources’ (Cumming, Lai, & Cho, 2016). In academic writing
research, there are two main strands: the genre-based approach and academic
literacies. In the following sections, based on a review of the previous studies inthese areas, the directions for future investigations into argumentative essays inhigher education are proposed.
3 Research on Argumentative Essay Writing: Theoretical Frameworks
3.1 The Genre-based Approach
Since the late 1980s, researchers in the United States have actively
investigated L1 (English as their first language) university students’ academic
literacy. They analysed the underlying cognitive processes that facilitate students’reading and writing (Carey et al., 1989; Carey & Flower, 1989; Flower, 1987).
Similar studies of academic literacies targeting L2 students (English as theirsecond language) followed EAP research. Since the 1990s, L2 academic literacy
researchers have applied a genre-based approach to examine L2 students’ texts of6
62

Evidence-Based Argumentative Essay Writing: A Review of Previous Studies and Directions for Future Research

academic writing in English (Bhatia, 1993; Hyland, 1994; Martin, 1992; Swales,
1990; Dudly-Evans, 1994; Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998). Genre analysis isbased on the idea that the values and purposes of a discourse community
determine the type and structure of text to be written, cohesive devices, and theuse of language. Researchers claim that the knowledge about the genres within
the academic community of practice is an essential feature for students’successful performance in argumentative essay writing.
Among the research areas of the genre-based approach, some studies haveprovided the text-based genre analysis of students’ argumentative essays: theanalyses of academic research articles (e.g. the CARAS model, ESP approach) by
Swales (1990), the Systematic Functional Linguistics presented by Martin (1992),
and research that investigates metadiscourse and academic language use inwriting practices such as hedges, boosters, self-mention, and paraphrasing foreffective presentation of academic argumentation (Hyland, 1994, Petric &Harwood, 2013). The genre model suggested by Martin (1992) focuses on theanalysis of a genre in terms of purpose and interlocutor relationships, such as
filed (content), tenor (audience), and channel (mode), to construct a text inacademic writing (Figure 4).
Figure 4
Martin ’ s model of genre (Martin, 1992)
Purpose [Genre]
ChannelSubject

Interlocutor Relationship[Mode]

matter[Field][Tenor]Text

Researchers have also analysed students’ citing strategies, their purposes,
and audience awareness. Petric (2012) examined postgraduate students’ use of
direct quotations in their dissertations, through such criteria as purposes, external
factors (i.e., lack of time), beliefs, and fear of plagiarism. Harwood and Petric(2012) conducted a study on master’s students’ representations and citing
strategies to fulfil their instructors’ expectations of the application of criticalthinking. Moreover, Petric and Harwood (2013) conducted in-depth investigation
on one successful L2 postgraduate student’s citation strategies. They found that
7
63

KAMIJO, Takeshi

the student’s citations facilitated functions such as positioning, defining,supporting, and applying her argument; indicating the relevance of her topic; andserving to agree/disagree with and acknowledge other scholars’ research studies.
The student’s citation practice was also motivated by the need to meet her
instructor’s expectations.
Conversely, other studies explored the student writing process and arrived
at two major frameworks, namely the process genre approach proposed by Badger
and White (2000) and Rose and Martin’s (2012) Teaching & Learning Cycles(TLC), which emphasise student learning cycles using input from teacher
instructions, collaboration, feedback, and individual practice. In the process
genre approach, students plan, draft, and edit a text based on their awareness ofthe genre. While performing tasks, students can return to the additional input of
the situation, purpose, mode, field, and tenor, when necessary. In this process,students receive teacher support, advice from classmates, and the genres ofsample texts. Badger and White’s (2000) model of the process genre approach ispresented below:
Figure 5
Process genre approach of writing (Badger and White, 2000)
A process genre model

Possible input

Situation
PurposeTeacher

Consideration of mode, field, tenor

Learners

Planning, Drafting,Texts (Sample texts)

Publishing
Text

With this framework, researchers have conducted studies on students’
writing process to evaluate their metacognition, purposes, audience awarenessand genres. Negretti (2017) investigated postgraduate students’ academic genre
in terms of metacognitive judgements, awareness of their purposes and audience,and use of writing strategies. Successful learners were more aware of required
academic text genres for audience at university level and made use of
864

Evidence-Based Argumentative Essay Writing: A Review of Previous Studies and Directions for Future Researchmetacognitive strategies for writing argumentative essays. Ma (2018) conductedsemi-structured interviews with Chinese postgraduate students at a university in
Hong Kong and found that they regarded the purposes of research-based
argumentative writing as the mastery of advanced academic vocabulary and L2
grammar. The students were not fully aware of their academic audience or the
purposes while writing argumentative essays during the courses. These twostudies demonstrate the differences between successful and less successful
outcomes of students’ argumentative essay writing, in terms of their awarenessabout audience, the purposes of academic writing, metacognitive judgements andstrategies, and the use of academic genres in the process of student writing.
3.2 Academic Literacies
The framework of the genre-based approach has been extended byresearchers of L1 student academic literacy, such as Lea and Street (1998, 2006).
They claim that academic literacies and the teaching of genres should be
integrated with students’ academic writing in higher education. The academic
literacies approach is based on the idea that individual students’ academic
literacies vary. Students construct their identities within an academic community
through a process of learning, reflection, and meaning making in relation to thegenres required by the academic community. Researchers argue that it is essential
to facilitate awareness based on each student’s background, rather than a negative(often referred to as deficit) view of students’ understanding of the literacy
required at university. The theory of academic literacies also suggests the needto recognise the power relations of the required genres and student academic
writing at university level. Because of these differences in the genres of academic
writing among individual students and between institutions, the theory is named‘academic literacies’.
The framework of academic literacies, therefore, combines the twodifferent elements of academic socialisation, as the genre-based approach, andacademic literacies. The researchers recommend the collaborative curricula, inwhich EAP academic staff and course tutors related to specific disciplines bothfacilitate students’ argumentative essay writing, in terms of awareness raising ofgenres, identity construction, and disciplinary knowledge transformation. The
key features embedded in the approach are presented as follows (Lea & Street,
1998, 2006; Wingate & Tribble, 2012).
Academic Socialisation(a) Acculturation of students into academic discourse
Inducting students into new culture; focus on orientation to learning andinterpretation of learning tasks (for example, deep, surface, strategic learning;
965

KAMIJO, Takeshi

homogeneous culture, lack of focus on institutional practices, change, and power)(b) Sources: social psychology; anthropology; constructivism
Student writing as transparent medium of representation
Academic Literacies(a) Student’s negotiation of conflicting literacy practices
Literacies as social practices; at level of epistemology and identities; institutions
as sites of/constituted in discourses and power; variety of communicative
repertoires (for example, genres, fields, disciplines; switching with regard to
linguistic practices, social meanings and identities)(b) Sources: new literacy studies; critical discourse analysis; systemic functional
linguistics; cultural anthropology.
Student writing as meaning-making and contested.
3.3 Criticisms of the Genre-based Approach and Academic Literacies
The genre-based approach is called ‘academic socialisation’ because
students learn genre systems of writing based on the values of the academic
community. The approach may potentially facilitate students’ awareness of theaudience, purposes, and the use of the required genre in higher education. It
appears to be adaptable to the teaching and learning of evidence-based academic
writing, such as argumentative essays in higher education. With the theory ofacademic literacies, researchers of the genre-based approach can also consider
the diversity among students in academic writing and student identity
construction. Thus, both the genre-based approach and academic literacies toacademic writing in higher education have proposed various helpful models.
Despite its effectiveness, however, the genre-based approach focuses on theanalysis of the students’ written texts and the underlying metacognitive processes
that facilitate their writing. It has been pointed out that the process of conducting
a critical review of academic literature and building arguments in essays, whichis essential for the writing of argumentative essays, remains unexamined (Bayne& Fearn, 2005; Scott & Lillis, 2007; Wallace & Wray, 2011; Wingate & Harper,
2021; Wingate & Tribble, 2012).
In this respect, Wingate and Harper (2021) examined students’argumentative essay writing process which consists of (a) planning, selecting,and analysing sources, (b) constructing arguments based on the evaluation ofsources, and (c) revising and editing their essays. They found, ‘It has become
clear that writers of evidence-based academic texts allocate their time differently
from those who write short pieces without sources (p. 3).’ Based on the results,
Wingate and Harper (2021) argue that it is essential for students to selectinformation from academic literature and integrate it for essay argument
1066

Evidence-Based Argumentative Essay Writing: A Review of Previous Studies and Directions for Future Research

construction in addition to learning the required genres.
[…] a process component should be added to the dominant genre-based
approaches […] The teaching of writing should go beyond the textual andrhetorical features of the target genre to include reading-to-write activities
that help develop students’ ability to identify and integrate informationfrom sources (p. 10).
Additionally, regarding the academic literacies model, Maguire, EverittReynolds, and Delahunt (2020) stated: ‘The academic literacies model has
included a strong focus on practice rather than text; however, work under thisumbrella has been primarily concerned with writing rather than reading… (p.3).’
They argued that reading relevant academic literature critically for argument
construction was effective as a mediator for participation in the academic
discourse community and identity formation;
It seems that for our students their identity and ‘voice’ are mediated bywhat they read and internalise in disciplinary and professional discourse
and, in turn, what they craft and produce is mediated by this identity (p.9).
In summary, it is suggested that future research studies should examine theprocess of students’ reading-to-write activities for argument construction andpresentation in evidence-based argumentative essay writing, given the limitationsof the genre-based approach and academic literacies.
4 Conclusions
In this paper, the author emphasised the importance of evidence-based
academic writing as the main learning objective in university curricula. This isbecause academic writing enables students to demonstrate the transmission andtransformation of knowledge in their field of study. In particular, evidence-based
argumentative essays attempt to transform knowledge by critically reading
academic literature, building arguments, and adapting the arguments to therequired writing genres and format. To date, much of the research has investigatedthis type of academic writing, and the two main strands include: (1) the genrebased approach emphasising the analyses of students’ written texts required in a
discourse community, and (2) academic literacies model, which considers student
identity in academic writing when learning the academic genres. However, thesestudies have not sufficiently investigated the process by which students readacademic literature critically and construct arguments in argumentative essays.
In researching students’ argumentative essays, I would argue that it is desirable
11
67

KAMIJO, Takeshi

for researchers to take a comprehensive perspective in the following manner: first,
researchers should explore students’ critical evaluation of academic literature,
the construction of their academic arguments, and presentation of those arguments
through genre-based writing, which would lead to knowledge-transforming intheir essays. Next, researchers should recognise this balance and examine
students’ emergent academic identity formation when critically reading academic
sources and developing arguments in their essays. Based on the pedagogicalimplications from such investigations, practitioners in EAP and course tutors inacademic disciplines can facilitate students’ reading-to-write process forargumentative essay writing.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20K02981.
Note
1 Part of the paper was orally presented at the CEAPA/BALEAP Conference held
online in May 2021. The conference was organised by researchers from CEAPA(China EAP Association) and BALEAP (British Association for Lectures ofEnglish for Academic Purposes).
References
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A Process Genre Approach to Teaching Writing.
ELT Journal, 54,153–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.2.153
Bayne, K., & Fearn, J. (2005). Front-loading academic writing in an EAP
programme. TESOL–SPAIN Newsletter, 29, 7–10.
https://koreatesol.org/content/kotesol-proceedings-2005
Bereiter, M., & Scardamalia, C. (1987). The psychology of written communication.
Elbaum Associates.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings.
Longman.
Carey, L., & Flower, L. (1989). Foundations for creativity in the writing process:
Rhetorical representations of ill-defined problems. In J. A. Glover, R. R.
Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 282–302).
Plenum Publishing Corporation.
Carey, L., Flower, L., Hayes, J. R., Shriver, K. A., & Hass, C. (1989). Differencesin writers’ initial task representations. A joint technical report from thecentre for the study of writing (OERI) and the Carnegie Mellon Planning
Project (ONR). Carnegie Mellon University.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235121964_Differences_in_Writers'_Initial_Task_Representations
12
68

Evidence-Based Argumentative Essay Writing: A Review of Previous Studies and Directions for Future Research

Connor, U., & Kramer, M. G. (1995). Writing from sources: Case studies ofGraduate students in business management. In D. Belcher & G. Braine.
(Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research andpedagogy (pp.155–182). Ablex.
Cumming, A., Lai, C., & Cho, H. (2016). Students’ writing from sources foracademic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 23, 47–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.002
Dudley-Evans, A., & M.J. St. John (1998). Developments in English for specificpurposes. Cambridge University Press.
Flower, L. (1987). The role of task representation in reading-to-write. Readingto-write: Exploring cognitive and social process series, report 2.
University of California. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed285206
Harwood, N., & Petric, B. (2012). Performance in the citing behaviour of two
student writers. Written Communication, 29, 55–103.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088311424133
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English forSpecific Purposes, 13, 239–256.
Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic
literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 157–172.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364
Lea, M., & Street, B. (2006). The ‘Academic Literacies’ Model: Theory andApplications. Theory into Practice, 45, 366–377.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4504_11
Lillis, T.M. & Scott, M. (2007). Defining Academic Literacies Research: Issuesof Epistemology, Ideology and Strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4,
5–32. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v4i1.5
Maguire, M., Reynolds, A., & Delahunt, B. (2020). Reading to Be: The
role of academic reading in emergent academic and professional student
identities. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 17(2), 1–
12. https://doi.org/10.14453/jutlp.v17i2.5
Ma, X. (2018). L2 postgraduate students’ conceptions of English academic
writing: Perspectives of mainland Chinese students. Asian Journal ofApplied Linguistics, 5, 81–92. Retrieved from https://caes.hku.hk
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. John Benjamins.
Negretti, R. (2017). Calibrating genre: Metacognitive judgments and rhetoricaleffectiveness in academic writing by L2 graduate students. Applied
Linguistics,38, 512–539. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv051
13
69

KAMIJO, Takeshi

Petric, B. (2012). Legitimate textual borrowing: Direct quotation in student
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 102–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.005
Petric, B., & Harwood, N. (2013). Task requirements, task representation andself-reported citation functions: An exploratory study of a successful L2
student’s writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.01.002
Raković, M., Marzouk, Z., Chang, D., & Winne, P. H. (2019). Towards
knowledge-transforming in writing argumentative essays from multiple
sources: a methodological approach. In C. Brooks, R. Ferguson, & U.
Hoppe (Eds.), Companion Proceeding of the 9th International Conference
on Learning Analytics & Knowledge LAK’19. (pp. 267–272).
https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/towards-knowledgetransforming-in-writing-argumentative-essays-fr
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre,
knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox.
Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2014). Exploring academic argumentation through courserelated blogs through ENGAGEMENT. In G. Thompson & L. Alba-Juez(Eds.), Evaluation in context (pp.28–302). John Benjamins.
Shanmugaraj, N.,Wolfe, J., & Sophie Wodzak, S. (2020). Rhetorically-grounded
Paraphrasing Instruction: Knowledge
Composition Forum, 43, Spring.

Telling

versusTransforming.

http://compositionforum.com/issue/43/paraphrasing.php
Shi, L., Ishmaeil, F., & Nasrin, K. (2018). Paraphrasing to Transform Knowledge
in Advanced Graduate Student Writing. English for Specific Purposes, 51,
31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.03.001
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Christine, B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students.
University of Michigan Press.
Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2011). Critical reading and writing for postgraduates.
SAGE Publications.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge University Press.
Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with study skills. Teaching in Higher Education,
11, 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600874268
1470

Evidence-Based Argumentative Essay Writing: A Review of Previous Studies and Directions for Future Research

Wingate, U. (2012). Argument!: Helping students understand what essay writing
is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 145–154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001
Wingate, U. & Harper, R. (2021). Completing the first assignment: A case studyof the writing processes of a successful and an unsuccessful student.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100948
Wingate, U., & Tribble, C. (2012). The best of both worlds? Towards an English
for Academic Purposes/Academic Literacies writing pedagogy. Studies inHigher Education, 37, 481–495.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.525630

1571

JACET Kansai Journal, 24, 72-95. (2022) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

72

Recent Contributions of the Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Second Language Writing Research

73NAGAO, Akiko

74

Recent Contributions of the Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Second Language Writing Research

75

NAGAO, Akiko

76

Recent Contributions of the Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Second Language Writing Research

77

NAGAO, Akiko

78

Recent Contributions of the Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Second Language Writing Research

79

NAGAO, Akiko

80

Recent Contributions of the Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Second Language Writing Research81

NAGAO, Akiko

82

Recent Contributions of the Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Second Language Writing Research83

NAGAO, Akiko

84

Recent Contributions of the Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Second Language Writing Research

85

NAGAO, Akiko

86

Recent Contributions of the Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Second Language Writing Research

87

NAGAO, Akiko

88

Recent Contributions of the Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Second Language Writing Research

89

NAGAO, Akiko

90

Recent Contributions of the Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Second Language Writing Research

91

NAGAO, Akiko

92

Recent Contributions of the Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Second Language Writing Research

93NAGAO, Akiko

94

Recent Contributions of the Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Second Language Writing Research

95

JACET Kansai Journal, 24, 96-115. (2022) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

The Effects of Learning Multiword Expressions Deliberately:
Implications Regarding Implicit Knowledge Development
OBERMEIER Andrew
Kyoto University of Education
Abstract
This research investigated whether multiword expressions (MWEs) are
acquired in implicit knowledge when learned deliberately in paired-association
flashcard learning. In SLA research, it is widely believed that there is little
crossover from such deliberate learning to implicit knowledge, but the current
study investigated whether this holds for MWE acquisition. A self-paced readingtask measured both formulaic sequencing and semantic association gains. In selfpaced reading, when an MWE has formulaic sequencing gains, its constituent
words are read faster than when they are met as individual words. Semantic
association gains were measured in an innovative priming paradigm, attempting
to show that the meanings of the MWEs facilitated the processing of related words
that followed within the same sentence. Results were analyzed in a repeatedmeasures linear mixed-effects model with participants and items as crossed
random effects. The primary independent variable was learning condition:
participants studied half of the critical MWEs but did not see the other half until
the testing phase. The secondary independent variable was MWE composition(either literal or figurative according to their transparency). Results of theexperiment confirmed difficulties that learners have acquiring figurative
expressions.
Keywords： deliberate learning, multiword expressions, implicit knowledge,
self-paced reading
1. Introduction
Multiword expressions (MWEs) is a term used to broadly cover what SLA
researchers refer to as collocations, conventional expressions, chunks, idioms,
formulaic sequences, or other such terms. Many researchers have explored how
MWEs are acquired and processed. A particular concern has been whether they
are retrieved from memory as whole singular units like individual words arebecause this would mean they are not analyzed grammatically (e.g., Schmitt,2004; Wray, 2002). In a recent review, Siyanova-Chanturia and Martinez (2015)
argued that although MWEs are processed faster than novel language and seem tobe represented in the mental lexicon, it cannot be assumed that MWEs are
retrieved as wholes. They referred to real-time language processing investigations
1
96

The Eﬀects of Learning Multiword Expressions Deliberately: Implications Regarding Implicit Knowledge Developmentusing methodologies such as eye-tracking, rejecting the notion of holistic
processing and explaining that the formulaicity of MWEs is driven by complex
factors such as frequency and compositionality. The experiment reported in thiscurrent article focused on this issue of compositionality, or the degree to which
the meaning of each word that comprises an MWE is related to its whole meaning.
A large portion of English MWEs are figurative, so the meanings of the individual
words differ from the meanings of expressions as wholes. Compositionality is a
crucial issue for second language learners because even when learners know themeaning of a figurative expression, they strongly favor processing the individual
words literally (Cieślicka, 2012). The experiment this article explains compares
the effects of learning figurative expressions with literal expressions, which havetransparent meanings. In a self-paced reading task, the investigation focused on
implicit knowledge development, which was operationalized by analyzing reading
times on critical words.
1.1 Multiword Expressions and Compositionality
Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) were the first to show that MWEs are
ubiquitous in language use, and subsequent research has confirmed this. Erman
and Warren (2000) calculated that MWEs of various types made up 58.6% of the
spoken English discourse they analyzed and 52.3% of the written texts. Foster(2001) found that MWEs comprised 32.3% of the unplanned native speech she
analyzed. Biber, Conrad, and Cortes (2004) found that around 30% of the words
in their spoken corpus consisted of collocations and about 21% of their written
academic corpus. Howarth (1998) looked at frequent verbs in an academic corpus
and found that they occurred in collocations over 30% of the time. These studies
clarify that MWEs are an integral part of language use that L2 learners should
learn.
Collocation dictionaries (e.g., Kjellmer, 1994; Sinclair, 1995) containthousands of entries and serve as valuable references for looking them up andseeing examples of their use. However, these guides lack crucial information forsecond language learners regarding MWE frequency and transparency. To address
this gap, vocabulary acquisition researchers have compiled lists concerned withL2 learners' needs. Corpus analyses aimed at making useful lists for learners
require careful hands-on attention, human inspection, and strict criteria thatdefine the purpose of including each entry. Two notable lists designed to help
learners get a grasp on MWEs are a list for elementary learners by Shin and Nation(2008) and a list for advanced learners that encompasses more academic phrases
and those used in written text by Martinez and Schmitt (2012).
Shin and Nation (2008) investigated the British National Corpus (BNC)
Spoken Section using the 1,000 most frequent spoken word types as pivot words.
2
97

OBERMEIER, Andrew

They applied six criteria to arrive at a list of the most useful spoken MWEs forelementary learners of English. Their criteria reflect the focus on beginninglearners of English. For example, each pivot word was a word type. That is, thedifferent word forms, book and books were treated as different pivot words andinvestigated separately rather than treating book and books as one word family.
They justified focusing on word types rather than lemmas or word families
because learners should use high-frequency collocations both productively andreceptively. Different types of the same word family often have different
collocates. Shin and Nation (2008) found 308 collocations that occurred morethan 320 times in the 10 million word BNC, the same frequency at which thelowest frequency of the most frequent 2000 words of English occur. They stressedthat these frequent MWEs, such as you know, I think, thank you, and in fact,
deserve high priority in teaching and learning because of their usefulness.
Similarly, Martinez and Schmitt (2012) made the PHRASE List for upperlevel learners. They focused their analysis on the crucial issue of learnability, andtheir central criterion was compositionality. If a phrase is compositional, learners
can decode it with literal reading and less difficulty. On the other hand, if an
expression is not compositional, individual words do not match the MWE's
meaning, leaving learners perplexed. They exemplify this by showing how thedifferent phrases at all times, at all costs, and at all vary widely in theircompositionality. The least compositional expression, at all (as in, Did you study
at all?) is the most difficult of the three for learners to interpret correctly.
However, its constituent words, at and all, are among the most accessible andmost frequent words in the English language.
In other research categorizing MWEs by their compositionality, Grant andBauer (2004) considered how the individual constituent words related to themeaning of each whole MWE. Their two primary compositional categories wereliteral expressions and figurative expressions, which differ greatly in the ways
they generate meaning. While the meanings of literal expressions are derived
directly from the words they comprise, the meanings of figurative expressions
come from a metaphor or image created by the phrase as a whole. For example,
the words know and better are closely connected to the overall meaning of the
MWE know better. Thus, it is classified as a literal expression because themeanings of the constituent words make up the whole. When a person says
somebody should know better, it means their knowledge of proper behavior should
be better than some action in question.
For figurative expressions, the constituent words combine to make a new
symbolic meaning. For example, the meaning of the phrase can of worms has nodirect connection with can or worms. When someone says they have opened up acan of worms, it means they have created a tangled, messy, and complicated398

The Eﬀects of Learning Multiword Expressions Deliberately: Implications Regarding Implicit Knowledge Development

situation, not that they have opened up an actual can with worms in it. In this way,
meaning is generated differently for figurative MWEs than for literal MWEs.
This current research focused on investigating differences in the acquisitionof literal and figurative MWEs. While understanding literal MWEs involves
thinking logically about the words themselves, the meaning must be derived fromthe metaphors of figurative MWEs. Deriving metaphorical meanings is
problematic for L2 learners (Boers et al., 2006; 2007). As their meanings arederived so differently, their acquisition and retrieval are likely to involve
different processes. The experiment explained below clarified how these two
MWE types are learned and processed in reading.
1.2 Deliberate Learning with Multiword Expression Flashcards
Deliberate paired-associate vocabulary learning involving the repeatedretrieval of words and their meanings using single-word flashcards is a wellestablished type of explicit learning. Such paired-associate learning has long beena favorite method for language learners to connect L1 meanings with new L2
vocabulary. Learners can remember vast numbers of paired associates in a shortamount of time. Early educational psychology research on flashcard learning was
conducted in an ambitious experiment by Thorndike (1908), in which 22 adultparticipants learned the English meanings of 1,200 words in 30 hours of study
plus 8 hours of testing. Participants retained 1,030 pairs for three days and 620
pairs for 42 days. Considering how quickly the connections were formed, heconcluded that their persistence in memory was remarkable. From two to five
repetitions of study of the 1,200 words, 20 of the 22 participants learned 90% ormore of the entire set.
Learning from single-word flashcards is a valuable and efficient process fordeliberately focusing on target words and then committing them to memory
through systematically repeated retrieval (Nation, 2001, pp. 296-316). Deliberate
vocabulary learning is beneficial both at the initial stages of word learning andfor consolidating previously met vocabulary (Hunt & Beglar, 2005). Learners put
the L2 target word form on one side of the card and the L1 meaning on the other.
When practicing, they look at the L1 meanings and retrieve the L2 target. Unlike
simple repetition or recognition, as is done with word lists, retrieval makes wordcard learning a more efficient and focused way to practice. Retrieval supports thedevelopment of more robust and durable associations. Another reason single-word
flashcards are more efficient than lists is that learners do not need to waste theirtime practicing paired associates that they know; they can remove the cards theyknow and focus on the ones that need practice. Table 1 shows the aspects of word
knowledge benefitted by practicing with single-word flashcards and compares
them with the kind of learning this study investigates, MWE flashcard learning.
4
99

OBERMEIER, Andrew

Table 1Comparison of Aspects of Word Knowledge Dealt with by Learning with
Single-word Flashcards Versus Learning with Multiword Expression
Cards
Single-word
MWE
R
Spoken
P
R
○○
○○
Form
Written
P○○○○
R
Word parts
P
R
○○
○○
Form and meaning
P
○○
○○
R
○
○○
Concept and referents
Meaning
P○○○
R○
Associations
P
○
R
○
○
Grammatical functions
P
○
○
R
○○
Use
Collocations
P○○
R○
Constraints on use
P○Note. Adapted from Learning Vocabulary in Another Language, by P. Nation,
2001, p. 300. Copyright 2001 by Cambridge University Press. a In column 3, R =receptive knowledge; P = productive knowledge. b In column 4, ○○ = dealt with;○ = partially dealt with.

Single-word flashcard learning helps with three of Nation's nine aspects involved
in knowing a word: learning the written form of the word, learning the concept of theword, and making the connection between form and meaning (Nation, 2001, p. 301). A
learner can also derive its part of speech from the first language translation, so Table 1
indicates that this knowledge is partially dealt with when practicing with single-word
flashcards. The evidence mentioned earlier that MWEs are represented in the mental
lexicon and are processed formulaically leads to the conclusion that deliberately
learning phrases and sentences is likely helpful. Whereas memorizing word-to-meaning
pairs connects the target word to its meaning, MWE-to-meaning pairs enhance theexercise by dealing with other aspects such as subtleties of word meanings, examples
of use, clarification of concept and referents, and collocations. Applying this learning
strategy to MWEs is a promising way to promote L2 acquisition further.

As stated above, flashcard learning is highly effective. However, one major
criticism in SLA research is that this type of learning is decontextualized,
deliberate, and does not develop implicit knowledge or communicative language
5100The Eﬀects of Learning Multiword Expressions Deliberately: Implications Regarding Implicit Knowledge Development

ability. This assertion is related to the non-interface hypothesis made most
famously by Krashen (1985), asserting that explicit learning develops explicit
knowledge only and does not interface with implicit knowledge development.
However, in a breakthrough experiment, Elgort (2011) showed that for deliberatedecontextualized learning of individual words, features of the knowledge
developed could be characterized as implicit. In her experiments, implicit word
knowledge was immediately developed through deliberate, repeated retrieval
practice using flashcards. Her experiment involved learning pseudowords, whichrobustly primed formal and semantic associations. This priming was evidence of
the acquisition of implicit knowledge. That is, the pseudowords her participantslearned became subconsciously, automatically, and fluently accessible.
Priming experiments such as the ones used in Elgort (2011) demonstrate theexistence of a relevant set of neural processing subsystems and distinguish theirfunctions in language knowledge and acquisition. Priming is relevant to second
language learning because subconscious processes support all kinds of naturaluse, such as form processing, grammatical sequencing, meaning interpretation,and lexical associations. When a word, MWE, or construction is learned so wellthat it primes, this means that the language learner has strong, well-integrated
knowledge that can be accessed automatically. This automaticity signifies thequality of the knowledge, and the priming shows the development of connections
to implicit knowledge needed in subsequent processing.
The basis of this current study is the hypothesis that deliberately learning
MWEs can contribute to implicit knowledge development similar to the way
individual word learning does. In the experiment explained below, the processingof MWEs learned using flashcards is compared with that of control MWEs thatwere not studied. Learning with flashcards was selected as the experimental
treatment for this research because it is a beneficial learning strategy for L2
learners and teachers. They can systematically organize their studies and movetoward lexical learning goals. Furthermore, the extensive repetition and retrievalthat it affords learners were hypothesized to enhance implicit knowledge
development.
The dichotomy between explicit learning and implicit knowledge
development has been investigated extensively concerning grammar acquisition,
but aside from Elgort (2011), investigations of implicit lexical acquisition are
rare. Sonbul and Schmitt (2013) aimed to address this gap by investigating theimplicit knowledge development of MWEs. They conducted a priming experimentin which they set the first words of MWEs as primes and the final words as targets.
Their lexical decision experiment did not reveal significant implicit knowledge
gains, despite evidence of explicit knowledge gains that their other measures
showed. In the current research, a self-paced reading task was chosen instead of
6101

OBERMEIER, Andrew

a lexical decision task format because self-paced reading is more similar tonatural language use. The investigation explained below regarding formulaic
sequence gains echoed Sonbul and Shmitt's (2013) experiment because fasterreading times for final MWE words would show that they were primed by theconstituent words that preceded them, demonstrating this implicit formulaicity.
The experiment is explained in greater detail in the following sections. Regarding
the investigation of the semantic association gains, this paradigm was firstvalidated by Obermeier and Elgort (2021) and is explained in detail below.
2. Methodology
The experiment was designed to investigate two research questions tounderstand whether deliberate flashcard learning affects the implicit knowledge
development of MWEs. Two aspects of implicit MWE knowledge wereoperationalized in the self-paced reading task: formulaic sequencing and semantic
processing. Although lexical decision tasks are the most common priming
experiments, they are very decontextualized. Therefore, performing anotherdecontextualized task at the testing phase seemed inappropriate because theexperimental treatment, flashcard learning, was also decontextualized. That is,self-paced reading was deemed the best way to investigate implicit processing
during actual language use. If MWEs are processed formulaically, constituent
words are recognized and read faster than if read word by word. Research
Question 1 addressed this issue: When MWEs are learned with flashcards andthen read in a self-paced reading task, do compositionality or learning conditions
affect the reading times on their final words? If flashcard learning facilitates
formulaic sequencing, then reading the first words of a learned MWE would resultin faster reading times for their final words. These faster reading times of the
final words would serve as evidence that implicit knowledge of the MWEs hasdeveloped because it would mean that the beginning words of the MWEs primed
their final words.
The second research question focused on semantic processing. If flashcard
learning resulted in the acquisition of semantic representations, then the learned
MWEs would prime semantic associates that appeared later in sentences. This
innovative methodology was recently validated in a similar self-paced reading
experiment with 60 native speakers by Obermeier and Elgort (2021), in which thesemantic associates of figurative MWEs resulted in robust semantic priming anda small but reliable effect (t = 3.55, p < .001, d = .086). Specifically, Research
Question 2 was stated as follows: When MWEs are learned with flashcards andthen read in a self-paced reading task, do their compositionality or learning
conditions affect reading times on semantic associate words read later insentences?
7102

The Eﬀects of Learning Multiword Expressions Deliberately: Implications Regarding Implicit Knowledge Development

To address these two questions, participants learned MWEs deliberatel yusing flashcards, and their reading times (RTs) for the above critical words werecompared with MWEs that were not learned. Furthermore, the effects of learningon literal and figurative expressions were also compared.
2.1 Participants and Materials
The participants (N = 43) were 21 male and 22 female students at a small national
teacher training university in Japan. Their ages ranged from 19 to 22. They wereenrolled in either their first or second year of studies in the English Education
Department, training to become elementary, junior high, or high school English teachers.
Participants were in two intact classes, 26 in one class, 28 in the other (a conveniencesample of 54). Being a teacher training university, students often needed to be absent
from class for practicum training in a public school. For this reason, 11 students had tomiss one or more classes during the experiment and were excluded from the data
analysis. Their average total score on the

Global Test of English Communication(GTEC) was 623 (SD = 71.89), which, according to the GTEC instructional materials,
classified them as Advanced Learners, the second-highest category of the test. Mean
reading scores were 241 (SD = 29.32), earning them a level of assessment at which"reading a newspaper article with the occasional support of a dictionary is possible."
The GTEC's accompanying materials also state that the approximate TOEIC equivalentis 600, the approximate paper-based TOEFL equivalent is 480, and the approximate iBT
is 60. Thirteen of the participants had studied English abroad for four weeks or more.
In general, the participants' motivation to learn English was high because most will use
English in their careers as teachers.
Before the experiment, the researcher explained the following three points
verbally in English, and then in writing in Japanese: (a) their participation in the study
was optional; (b) their participation or lack of participation would have no effect on
their grade; (c) no personal information will ever be shared. They participated willingly
in all of the experimental tasks. After they finished the experiment, they were debriefed
on the purposes of the investigation and preliminary findings. Participants were also
given a small gift as a token of appreciation and acknowledgment of their efforts.

2.2 Procedures
The experiment was conducted once weekly over six sessions. The primaryexperimental condition, deliberate learning, was counterbalanced across the two groupsof participants. All experimental contrasts were made on the items within participants.
For the primary experimental condition, deliberate learning, if participants in one grouplearned an MWE, the other group did not. In this way, participants were tested on
identical items under reversed learning conditions. The two levels of MWE composition(figurative or literal) were counterbalanced within the learned or not-learned conditions
8103

OBERMEIER, Andrew

in the self-paced reading task. Weeks 1 and 2 were preparatory, introducing theexperiment and three association strengthening exercises. The experiment began in
Week 3 with the pretest. The deliberate learning treatment followed in Week 4, and theposttest was administered in Week 5. After the experiment was finished, participants
were debriefed and thanked in Week 6. The overall schedule of the experiment isoutlined in Table 2.
Table 2Overall Schedule of the Experiment
SessionDuration(minutes)
20

Semantic Associatio n Str engthening E xercise 1 (Productive)
Semantic Associatio n Str engthening E xercise 2 (Receptive)

Week 2

10

Semantic Associatio n Str engthening E xercise 3 (Recognitio n)
Introduction to the experiment
Verbal request for consent

Week 330

Self-paced Reading Pretest

Week 440

Experimental Treatment: English MWE/Japanese Flashcards
Assigned Individual Word Card Practice

Week 530

Self-paced Reading Posttest

Week 615

Debriefing

Week 1

Activity

2.2.1 Learning Materials
All experimental materials and instruments were derived from a list of 48
MWEs, 24 figurative and 24 literal (please see the Appendix). The MWEs wereselected by validating the literal/figurative construct with native speakers andrevising the list used in the pilot studies. Next, the MWEs were matched with theJapanese word participants most frequently associated them to. After that, each
Japanese meaning was piloted with English learners of a similar level but notparticipants in the experiment to find another English word they most commonly
associated with it. In this way, English target words were selected and are referred
to in this paper as semantic associates. Each MWE was grouped with a Japanesemeaning and a semantic associate to form a three-part set, for example:
next door(MWE)neighbor(semantic associate)

隣のParticipants learned the MWE/Japanese paired-associates in theexperimental treatment (i.e., next door ←→ 隣の). The semantic associates were
never explicitly taught but were processed three times in the weeks before the9104The Eﬀects of Learning Multiword Expressions Deliberately: Implications Regarding Implicit Knowledge Development

experiment in the semantic association strengthening exercises mentioned inTable 2. In these exercises, productive association involved seeing the Japanesetranslation and producing the semantic associate (the first letter was given as ahint to urge them to produce the target word); receptive association involved
seeing the English semantic associate and writing the Japanese translation;
recognition involved seeing the Japanese and selecting the semantic associatefrom a list. In this way, the semantic associates were processed three times, three
weeks before the experimental posttest. They were never actually taught, but theaim was for participants to process them before the experiment began. They werethen placed as targets within the sentences of the self-paced reading task. A partial
list of MWEs, Japanese meanings, and semantic associates is shown in the
Appendix.
2.2.2 Testing Instrumentation
The experiment was conducted in a computer lab containing 48 Hewlett
Packard Compaq ® dc7700 desktop computers, with 2.13 GHz Intel Core Duo ®
processors, displayed on 21.5-inch Iodata ® liquid crystal display monitors. On
the self-paced reading task, RTs were measured on two key target words toinvestigate (1) formulaic sequencing effects; and (2) semantic association
priming effects. Counterbalanced experimental conditions on items werecompared. The SPR was created using E-prime ® , software for developing
psychological experiments (Schneider, Eschman, & Zuccolotto, 2002).
Figure 1 shows the format of the self-paced reading task. First, participants
saw a completely blank screen, except for small underlines to represent theletters of each word in the sentences. The blank underlines provided a focal point
for participants who otherwise would have had a completely blank screen. In
this example, the final word of the MWE (door) and the semantic associate(neighbor) were the focus of the analysis of RTs.

10
105

OBERMEIER, Andrew

Figure 1
The Self-paced reading task.
Blanks before the task:-------- ----- ---- ---- -- ----- --- --- ---- - ---- -------- --------- -----.

Appearance while doing the task:-------- ----- ---- ---- -- ----- --- --- ---- - ---- neighbor -------- -----.

Complete Sentence (never actually appears):Samantha lives next door to Sally and has been a good neighbor fortwenty years.
Follow-up Question (shown after participants finish each sentence):
Does Samantha live near Sally?
After each button push, the next word in the sentence appeared. After
finishing each sentence, participants answered a simple YES/NO question about
it. These follow-up questions were added to the design to motivate readers to readthe sentences attentively and also to give the experimenter a confirmation ofwhether participants were actually reading and not merely pressing the buttons.
The questions were straightforward and were answered correctly 99% of the time.
Other examples of SPR sentences and follow-up questions are shown in the
Appendix.
3. Results
3.1 Analysis of Formulaic sequencing Gains.
The statistical analyses were conducted using the lmer function in the lme4
package in R (Bates, 2012). In a linear mixed-effects model, RTs of words withdifferent learning and compositionality conditions were compared. The learning
condition contrasted MWEs that were learned with those that were not learned.
The first analysis investigated whether this learning affected the formulaic
sequencing of the literal and figurative MWEs differently. These comparisonsfocused on contrasts of the RTs of the final words of the MWEs. The fixed effects
were specified to investigate the interaction between pretest and posttest Learning
Condition and MWE Composition. The model included random intercepts forparticipants and items and random slopes for participants by trial order. The
model was built step by step, beginning with the basic fixed and random effects
structures, adding one random slope at a time to confirm model improvement, andfinally testing the interaction of interest as shown in the equation below.
11106

The Eﬀects of Learning Multiword Expressions Deliberately: Implications Regarding Implicit Knowledge Development

Fixed Effects: RT ~ LearningCondition*MWE Composition
Random Effects: (1 + Order + LearningCondition | Participant) + (1|Word)
The hypothesis tested by this model was that the two posttest learning
conditions (learned or not-learned) would have different effects on literal or
figurative MWEs. The results for the model are shown in Table 3, including
random intercepts for participants and items, as well as random slopes forparticipants by trial order. The variances and standard deviations for the random
effects structure are shown at the top of the table. Below the random effects, thefixed effects of learning condition and MWE composition are listed with their 𝛽𝛽
estimates, standard deviations, degrees of freedom, t values, and p values. Effectsizes were calculated using the formula for Cohen's d explained in Brysbaert andStevens (2018). Table 3 shows that the main effects of learning conditions and
MWE composition are significant. Most importantly, the interaction between the
not-learned condition and MWE composition is significant as well ( 𝛽𝛽 � .10; t =2.85; d = .10).
Table 3
Linear Mixed-Effects Model for the RTs of Final MWE Words
Random Effects
Word (Intercept)
Participant (Intercept)
Trial order (Slope)
Learned (Slope)
Not-learned (Slope)
Residual

Variance
0.07
0.36
0.08
0.25
0.25
0.45

Fixed Effects
Intercept (Pretest)
LearnedNot-learned
MWE Composition (Literal)
Learned x MWE Composition
Not-learned x MWE Composition

Correlation of Random Effects

SD
0.27
0.59
0.29
0.50
0.50
0.67

𝛽𝛽

-2.05
-0.37
-0.36
-0.19
-0.00
0.15

-0.01
-0.13
-0.27

d
.52
.39
.21
.02
.10

0.49
0.50

SE
0.11
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.05

0.96

t value-19.11***-4.75***-4.67**-3.14**
0.08
2.85**

Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
Figure 2 is a visual representation of the model that illustrates thesignificant interaction between learning conditions and MWE composition. Thelines connecting the dots are provided to assist in interpreting the interaction
between the variables at pretest and posttest. The large difference between thePretest and Not-learned (Posttest) RTs was caused by testing effects from doing
12107

OBERMEIER, Andrew

the self-paced reading task on the pretest. For literal MWEs, processing gains are
made sequentially, as expected. On the other hand, processing gains are not assystematic for the figurative MWEs. For the figurative MWEs, both the learned
and not-learned conditions have almost equal RTs, showing that learning did not
help to facilitate processing them.
Figure 2
The effects of deliberate learning and MWE composition on theRTs of the final MWE words in the self-paced reading task.

To summarize the analysis of formulaic sequencing gains, testing effects
from the pretest had the most substantial overall effect, as both the not-learned
and learned trials had reductions in RTs. The literal MWEs were read faster than
the figurative MWEs in every condition. The interaction between learning
conditions and MWE composition was significant as deliberate learning resulted
in faster processing for literal MWEs but no change for figurative MWEs.
3.2 Analysis of Semantic Association Gains
Next, the hypothesis that deliberate learning has different effects on semantic
associates following the literal and figurative MWEs in sentences was tested. For thisanalysis, the levels of learning condition were contrasted on the RTs of the semantic
associates to investigate the interaction between learning condition and MWE
composition. The random slope specified for Learning Condition improved the model,
and the following model was set to test the interaction:

Fixed Effects: RT ~ Learning Condition x MWE Composition
Random Effects: (1 + Order + LearningCondion | Participant) + (1|Word)

13
108

The Eﬀects of Learning Multiword Expressions Deliberately: Implications Regarding Implicit Knowledge Development

The interaction of interest between LearningCondition and MWE Composition
was not significant, so the final model, including only significant main effects,
was specified.
Fixed Effects: RT ~ LearningCondition + MWE Composition
Random Effects: (1+ Order + LearningCondition | Participant) + (1|Word)
In this model, all the main effects are significant, making it the most accurate
representation of the trends in the data. The variances and standard deviations forthe random effects of items, participants, and the random slopes for the
LearningCondigion factor and trial order are shown in Table 4, as are theestimates for the fixed effects.
Table 4Mixed Effects Model for RTs of Semantic Associates in the Self-Paced Reading
Task
Rando m E ffects
Word (Intercept)
Participant (Intercept)
Learned (Slope)
Not-learned (Slope)
Trial Order (Slope)
Residual

Variance
0.11
0.36
0.27
0.32
0.29
0.51

SD
0.33
0.60
0.52
0.57
0.54
0.72

Correlation of Rando m E ffects
-0.24
-0.27
-0.24

0.97
0.33

0.39

Fixed Effects
Intercept (Pretest)
LearnedNot-learned
MWE Co mposition (Literal)

d

𝛽𝛽
-2.05
-0.37
-0.36
-0.19

.50
.39
.10

SE
0.11
0.08
0.08
0.06

t value-15.49 ***-6.15***-4.86**-2.02*

Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
Figure 3 shows the effects of deliberate learning on the semantic
associates following literal and figurative MWEs. On the pretest, RTs forsemantic associates following literal MWEs are significantly faster than RTs for
those following figurative MWEs, and this difference remains constant at
posttest. In other words, the effects of the deliberate learning treatment were
not different for literal or figurative MWEs.

14
109

OBERMEIER, Andrew

Figure 3

The effects of deliberate learning on semantic associates ofliteral and figurative MWEs.

Although the crucial interaction between learning conditions and MWE
composition was not significant, the analysis of the semantic associates reveals
an important finding. The semantic associates that followed literal MWEs weresignificantly faster than those that followed figurative MWEs at pretest andposttest. In other words, the literal MWEs primed relevant semantic
representations and thus facilitated the processing of the semantic associates that
followed them later in sentences. Literal MWEs are more thoroughly integrated
into the mental lexicon than figurative MWEs initially, and deliberate flashcard
learning did not seem to have a strong effect to help with the acquisition of
figurative expressions.
4. Discussion
This study investigated the effects of deliberate MWE paired-associatelearning on their acquisition of implicit knowledge. Results showed thatparticipants did a lot of unintended incidental learning on the pretest, as effects
from this exposure to the MWEs overshadowed the impact of deliberate learning.
However, the experiment provides important insights. For figurative MWEs, theform to meaning connection must be learned deliberately, so incidental learning
alone does not suffice. Although implicit knowledge of literal MWEs can beincrementally acquired through incidental learning during natural processing,deliberate learning also seems to foster automaticity. Learning MWEs using
15
110

The Eﬀects of Learning Multiword Expressions Deliberately: Implications Regarding Implicit Knowledge Development

learner-focused lists such as those compiled by Shin and Nation (2005) andMartinez and Schmitt (2011) should be part of a balanced approach to learning
English. This section discusses the research questions, and interpretations of thefindings are discussed in detail.
Regarding Research Question 1, formulaic sequencing gains were
investigated by comparing RTs on the final MWE words. For this investigation,
the focus of interest was the interaction between learning conditions and test time,
investigating whether the effects for the learned and not-learned conditions
differed at pretest and posttest. As was shown above in Table 3, the interaction
between MWE competition and learning was significant with a small effect size(t value = 2.85, p < .01, d = .10). However, the strongest effect on the RTs of the
final MWE words was practice effects from seeing the MWEs on the pretest.
The presentation format is a crucial issue in self-paced reading tasks. In
this study, as the MWEs were presented one word at a time, the instrument may
not have adequately measured the gains made in processing the MWEs
formulaically. Recent research by Tremblay et al. (2011) compared RTs of criticalwords from frequent MWEs (e.g., middle in in the middle of the) with different
yet plausible words in the same formulaic context (e.g., front in in the front ofthe), and found that the words in the frequent MWEs were processed 13 ms fasterthan those in the nonlexical bundles, and this effect was significant (t value =2.8; p < .01). Their experimental design compared the RTs of words in formulaiccontexts with the RTs of words outside of formulaic contexts. However, theyvaried the presentation format in their self-paced reading task with word by word,
chunk by chunk, and complete sentence presentation formats. All three formats
showed significantly faster processing in formulaic contexts. In future studies,presenting the MWEs all at once rather than word by word may be a more effective
way to measure formulaic sequencing gains.
Regarding Research Question 2, learning gains were investigating the RTsof semantic associates that were read a few words after in the sentences. As shownin Figure 3, the lines representing pretest, not-learned, and learned are parallel
for the literal and figurative conditions. Table 4 shows that deliberate learning
significantly facilitated processing for the learned MWEs (t value = -6.15; p< .001, d = .50), slightly more than the not-learned MWEs (t value = -4.83; p< .01, d = .39), as compared to the intersect pretest. The significant t value forthe not learned trials shows that testing effects were problematic. The significant
difference estimate and small effect for MWE composition (t value = -2.02; p< .05; d = .10) shows that semantic associates that followed literal MWEs were
processed slightly faster than those that followed figurative MWEs. The nonsignificant interaction between learning conditions and MWE composition means

16
111

OBERMEIER, Andrew

that the experimental treatment did not differently affect literal and figurative
MWEs.
For the investigation on the semantic associations, the fact that deliberatelearning did not have significantly different effects on figurative MWEs might bedue to the nature of figurative learning itself. Littlemore et al. (2011) discussed
second language learners' difficulties understanding figurative language. It isdifficult for them to understand the metaphorical meanings; they often do noteven know they are misinterpreting them. Boers and Lindstromberg (2012) review
an extensive array of studies conducted from three different learning perspectives
associated with learning MWEs: consciousness-raising, stimulating dictionary
and corpus use, and deliberate memorizing. They point out that proficiency with
MWEs has two main aspects: width and depth. Width refers to the sheer numberof MWEs known, and depth refers to how strong the knowledge of each MWE is.
They stress that teaching the etymological origins of figurative MWEs helps
learners deepen understanding and retain them better. Such deep learning is notpromoted by using flashcards, which develop integrated, automatic processing.
Facilitating faster retrieval for L2 learners is probably tricky for figurative
expressions if the meanings are not well understood.
5. Conclusion
This research investigated the effects of deliberate MWE learning using
flashcards by measuring and contrasting RTs on different learning andcompositionality conditions. The reviewed literature discussed a range of
research on MWEs. In particular, compositionality was addressed regarding how
literal and figurative MWEs are processed and learned. The literature review also
discussed previous studies on paired-associate learning. The experiment aimed toclarify the processes involved in deliberately learning literal and figurative
MWEs. In the self-paced reading task, the interaction between learning and MWE
compositionality showed that deliberate learning led to progressive formulaic
sequencing gains for literal expressions but not figurative expressions. The nonsignificant interaction for the semantic associates showed that deliberate learning
did not affect the processing differently for figurative meanings. In all, theresearch revealed the difficulties that L2 learners have with processing figurative
MWEs.

17
112

The Eﬀects of Learning Multiword Expressions Deliberately: Implications Regarding Implicit Knowledge Development

References
Bates, D. M. (2012). Linear mixed model implementation in lme4. https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/lme4/vignettes/lmer.pdf
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). 'If you look at.': Lexical bundles inuniversity teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405.
doi:10.1093/applin/25.3.371
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., & Stengers, H. (2007). Presenting figurative idioms witha touch of etymology: More than mere mnemonics? Language Teaching
Research, 11(1), 43–62 . doi:10.1177/1362168806072460
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2012). Experimental and Intervention Studies on
Formulaic Sequences in a Second Language. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 32, 83–110. doi:10.1017/S0267190512000050
Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power Analysis and Effect Size in Mixed Effects
Models: A Tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1, 9. doi.org/10.5334/joc.10
Cieślicka, A. (2012). Do non-native language speakers chew the fat and spill the beans
with different brain hemispheres? Investigating idiom decomposability with thedividedvisualfield

paradigm.

Journalof

Psycholinguistic

Research.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9232-4

Elgort, I. (2011). Deliberate learning and vocabulary acquisition in a second
language. Language Learning, 61(2), 367-413. doi:10.1111/lang.2011.61.issue-2
Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit
language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(02), 305–
352.
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choiceprinciple. Text, 20(1), 29–62.
Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the taskbased language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate,
P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second
language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 75–94). Longman.
Grant, L., & Bauer, L. (2004). Criteria for re-defining idioms: Are we barking up
the wrong tree? Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 38–61.
Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learners' academic writing. In A. Cowie(Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and application (pp. 161–186).
Oxford University Press.
Hulstijn, J. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit andexplicit second-language learning: Introduction. Studies in second language
acquisition, 27(02), 129–140. Retrieved fromhttp://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0272263105050084
Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (2005). A framework for developing EFL reading
vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(1), 23–59.
18
113

OBERMEIER, Andrew

Kjellmer, G. (1994). A dictionary of English collocations: Based on the Brown
Corpus. Clarendon Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London:
Longman.
Littlemore, J., Chen, P. T., Koester, A., & Barnden, J. (2011). Difficulties in
metaphor comprehension faced by international students whose first
language is not English. Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 408–429.
doi:10.1093/applin/amr009
Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied
Linguistics, 33(3), 299-320. doi:10.1093/applin/ams010
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge
University Press.
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language
teaching. Oxford University Press.
Obermeier, A., & Elgort, I. (2021). Deliberate and contextual learning of L2
idioms: The effect of learning conditions on online processing. System, 97,102428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102428
Schmitt, N. (2004). Formulaic sequences. Benjamins.
Schmitt, N., & Underwood, G. (2004). Exploring the processing of formulaic
sequences through a self-paced reading task. In N. Schmidt (Ed.),
Formulaic sequences (pp. 173–189). Benjamins.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime reference guide.
Psychology Software Tools.
Shin, D., & Nation, P. (2008). Beyond single words: The most frequent
collocations
inspokenEnglish.
ELT
Journal,62(4),
339.
doi:10.1093/elt/ccm091
Sinclair, J. M. (1995). COBUILD English Collocations. London: Harper Collins.
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Martinez, R. (2015). The idiom principle revisited.
Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt054
Sonbul, S., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Explicit and implicit lexical knowledge:
Acquisition of collocations under different input conditions. Language
Learning, 63(1), 121–159 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00730.x
Thorndike, E. L. (1908). Memory for paired associates. Psychological Review,
15(2), 122.
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C. (2011). Processing
advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading andsentence
recalltasks.
Language
Learning,
61(2),
569–613.
doi:10.1111/lang.2011.61.issue-2
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University
Press.
19
114

The Eﬀects of Learning Multiword Expressions Deliberately: Implications Regarding Implicit Knowledge Development

Appendix
Figurative MWEs Used in the Experiment
set out; black sheep; blow smoke; right away; walk on air; sinking ship; dog eat
dog; drag feet; fat cat; when pigs fly; green light; play hardball; high handed;
cold feet; piece of cake; home and dry; nest egg; can of worms; pull strings; hats
off to; carry on; turn down; riding high; make waves
Literal MWEs Used in the Experiment
above all; next door; each and every; fall back on; fifty fifty; stay away; get theidea; full account; happy medium; know best; on the road; take place; deal with;look after; get through; well known; all the time; feel like; get together; hardtime; break up; hold back; make sure; take it easy
Examples from the Counterbalanced List of Multiword Expressions, Japanese
Meanings, and Semantic Associates used in the experiment
Co mpositio n
Learn edbyGroup A
Learn edbyGroup B
LearnedbyGroup A
LearnedbyGroup B

MWE

Japanese

Semantic associate

Literalabo ve all

最も

mo st

Literalsta y a wa y

避ける

avoid

Literal
Literal
Literal
LiteralFigurative
Figurative
Figurative

take placedeal withfe el liketake it eas yset ou t
sinking ship
pla y h ard b all

起こる
扱う
欲しい
のんびりする始まる絶望
真剣h ap p en
treat
wan t
relax
start
hop elessseriou s

Figurative
Figurative

high handed
can of wor ms
make waves

攻撃的
複雑
迷惑

aggressive
complextroubleFigurative

Examples of Items for the Self-paced Reading Task
Figurative MWEs
The hikers set out at daybreak and STARTED climbing before breakfast.
Follow-up question: Did the hikers begin in the afternoon?
Literal MWEs
The soccer player was above all thankful and MOSTLY to his parents and coach.
Follow-up question: Was the soccer player thankful?
(Note: For clarity, here MWEs are underlined, and semantic associates are ALL
CAPITAL. They were not emphasized in the actual experiment.)

20
115

JACET Kansai Journal, 24, 116-131. (2022) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Motivating University Students in CLIL in the Japanese Context:
Longitudinal Perspectives
NISHIDA Rieko
Osaka University

Abstract
The current study focuses on how students’ intrinsic motivation, future possible
self, and intensity in learning English may be affected over time through theimplementation of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning). 278
students aged between 19 and 21 years old, including 168 students in Spring
2019, and 110 in Fall 2019, participated in the current study. Findings suggested
that students showed increasing tendencies in intrinsic motivation (knowledge,
accomplishment, stimulation) in CLIL, effort, ought-to L2 self, and English
learning motivation in CLIL. This result supports the previous empiricalresearch that was conducted in the European context (Lasagabaster, 2011;
Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2009; Thompson & Sylvén, 2019). The implementationof CLIL, therefore, seemed to enhance students’ motivation in language andcontent learning, as well as motivational intensity in the Japanese context.
Keywords： motivation, CLIL, university students, longitudinal study
1. Introduction
1.1 English Education in JapanAs the effects of globalization become ever more prevalent, and greaternumbers of people move around the world, English is becoming even more
widely used as a common language. In these circumstances, with calls from the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2008)
for improvements in students’ English capabilities corresponding to “TheEnglish Education Reform Plan Responding to Rapid Globalization”, students
from elementary schools to university level are expected to be motivated tolearn English and to acquire a high proficiency in the language (MEXT, 2008).
Taking these circumstances, Japanese universities have shown a considerable
interest in CLIL (e.g, Irie, 2019; Watanabe, Ikeda, & Izumi, 2011). The current
study, therefore, focuses on how students’ intrinsic motivation, future possible
self, and intensity in learning English may be affected over time through theimplementation of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning).

1116Motivating University Students in CLIL in the Japanese Context: Longitudinal Perspectives

1.2 Previous Studies
1.2.1 Development of CLIL in Japan
Content and Language Integrated Learning, known as CLIL, is “a dualfocused educational approach in which an additional language is used for thelearning and teaching of both content and language” (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh,
2010, p.1). CLIL is widely spread in Europe, and in 2005 the European Council
recommended that CLIL should be adopted across the entire European continent(Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, p.8). According to Colye, Hood and Marsh(2010), CLIL contains the principles of the “4Cs” ― Content, Communication,
Cognition, Community/Culture ― and these are organically integrated in CLIL
practice. Japan shows a considerable interest in CLIL. This is partly due to the
new reformation plan by MEXT (2014) called “The English Education Reform
Plan Responding to Rapid Globalization” which was launched in 2020. MEXT’s
intention is that Japanese people should reach the highest level of English
proficiency in the Asian context. At the tertiary level, to correspond to thereformation plan, universities’ programs and courses are promoting English as ameans of instruction. Additionally, Global 30 (G30) was implemented in 13
universities in Japan by MEXT (2008) in order to increase to 30,000 the numberof international students in Japan and also establish a university network forinternationalization. Accordingly, as international students are able to complete
their degrees in English in Japan, universities are focusing on strategicinternational cooperation, meaning recruiting international faculty andexpanding international students’ programs through inter-university exchange
agreements (MEXT, 2008). Due to the rapid expansion of internationalization at
the universities, the integration of content and language has been encouraged by
MEXT (2014), and many Japanese institutions have begun to implement CLIL
and now offer CLIL courses (Sugita McEown et al, 2017). In response to theG30 programs, as the number of international students has increased, there has
been growing interest in content-related classes in Japan. Osaka University has,for example, started to offer several degree and credit courses in English forundergraduate programs such as the “Chemistry-Biology Combined Major
Program”, the “Human Sciences International Undergraduate Degree Program”,
and graduate courses such as “Special Integrated Science Courses” and“International Physics Courses”. The proliferation of such programs and courses
in universities around Japan corresponds to the rapid increase ofinternationalization on campus.
As indicated above, Japan has shown a considerable interest in CLIL, and
CLIL has been implemented at the university level (e.g, Irie, 2019; Watanabe,
Ikeda, & Izumi, 2011), as well as in high schools, junior high schools, andelementary schools according to Japan CLIL Pedagogy Association. As
2
117

NISHIDA, Rieko

empirical studies in CLIL and motivation are still limited in number in Japan,
further investigations need to be carried out as CLIL has a potential positiveeffect and is receiving increasing attention in the Japanese context, therefore,
the impact of CLIL in the Japanese context needs to be investigated further.
1.2.2 Intrinsic Motivation and Noels’ Language Learning Orientation Scale
In the present study, intrinsic motivation in CLIL was measured to see
how students’ intrinsic motivation would change over time through theintervention of CLIL. Self-Determination Theory, proposed by Deci and Ryan
(1985, 2002), which focuses on intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, is
known to be an influential theory in motivational psychology. Intrinsic
motivation refers to the feelings of pleasure that are believed to derive from thesense that one has freely chosen to be involved in and perform a task or an
activity in which one can develop a sense of competence. In addition, thatengagement in a task or activity can be supported by classmates, teachers and/or
significant others. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, focuses on
individual behavior that relates to external forces or reward, and also avoids
punishment (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2002). It can be said that intrisic motivation
therefore is a strong form of motivation. In previous studies, empirical researchsupports these claims as intrinsically motivated and highly self-determined
students tend to become more persistent in learning, and tend to exhibit greater
motivational intensity in language learning (e.g., Noels, 2001; Noels, Clément
and Pelletier, 1999; Ramage, 1990). Based upon SDT, Noels et al. (1999, 2000)
developed the Language Learning Orientation Scale (LLOS), a Japanese versionof which was later was developed by Yashima et al. (2009). The LLOS
conceptualized the three subscales of intrinsic motivation: 1) intrinsic
motivation-knowledge (IMK), 2) intrinsic motivation-accomplishment (IMA), 3)
intrinsic motivation-stimulation (IMS). Using the LLOS, Noels et al. (1999,
2000) revealed that students’ intrinsic motivation was highly related to language
learning outcomes and that these students showed greater motivational intensity
and higher perceived competence in language learning.
As the present study is part of a larger study which has been in progresssince 2012, IMK, IMA, and IMS of CLIL will be investigated to see how thesefactors can be influenced by CLIL in a Japanese context. In the present study,
also English learning motivation, the intensity to learn English, and L2
Motivation Self System were measured to see how it would be influenced by
CLIL interventions.
1.2.3 L2 Motivation Self System (L2MSS)
In the field of motivation, the concept of future possible selves has been
3118

Motivating University Students in CLIL in the Japanese Context: Longitudinal Perspectives

proposed by Dörnyei (2005), and this psychology of possible selves canrepresent “individuals’ ideal of what they might become, what they would liketo become and what they are afraid of becoming” (Ushioda & Dörneyi, 2009,p.3). Possible selves then were conceptualized in a new motivational theory,“the L2 motivational Self system (L2MSS)” based on Higgins’s SelfDiscrepancy Theory (1987). The central feature of L2MSS is based on “ideal L2self”, “ought-to L2 self”, and “L2 learning experience”. Ideal L2 self refers towhat someone hopes and wishes to become and “ought to L2 self” refers to whatsomeone feels obligated to become in the future. In addition to ideal L2 self andought-to L2 self, L2 learning experience represents L2MSS. According to thetheory, when someone has a clear vision of the future, the more vivid andelaborative the views of possible selves that an individual has, the more theseviews are in turn expected to influence his or her motivation. Based upon thetheory, a series of studies have been conducted in and outside Japan to find therelationship between ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self with other psychologicalfactors and/or L2 learning experience in language learning (e.g., Nishida, 2013;
Noels, 2009; Ryan, 2009; Yashima, 2009). Although CLIL is known to be a
powerful motivator in language learning (Thompson & Sylvén, 2019), it also
places emphasis on global education and encouraging active participation in theworld as a global citizen, and to motivating students to participate in the
globalizing world in English. It would be fruitful to investigate how theintervention of CLIL in the Japanese context can influence L2MSS in students’language learning. In the Japanese context, a series of studies have been
conducted using the framework of the L2MSS; so far, a positive relationshipbetween students’ ideal L2 selves and language learning motivation in English
has been observed (Maekawa & Yashima, 2012; Nishida, 2013: Ryan, 2009).
2.Research Questions
The present study therefore focused on the LLOS, the L2MMS, andEnglish learning motivation to see the effects of the intervention of CLIL, as
the study of these constructs in CLIL in the Japanese context is still thin. The
current study hence includes the following research questions:
1) To explore how Japanese university students’ intrinsic motivation (IMK, IMS,
IMA), future possible self, and English learning motivation would change
during one semester of implementation of CLIL,
2) To investigate the predictable factors that can influence English learning
motivation and ideal L2 self among Japanese university students after the
implementation of CLIL,
3) To find the relationships between intrinsic motivation (IMK, IMS, IMA),
4119

NISHIDA, Rieko

future possible self, and English learning motivation among Japanese
university students after the implementation of CLIL.
3. Methodology
3.1 Procedures
The present study forms part of a larger part of a longitudinal study 1
which started in 2012. The implementation of CLIL and/or content-related
methods were applied since 2012, and since then a series of studies have been
conducted (e.g., Nishida, 2019; Nishida, 2021; Nishida, in press). The current
study was carried out during the school year of 2019－2020, extending over a
year including Spring 2019 and Fall 2019. In the present study, a questionnaire
was administered to the students which included the Language Learning
Orientation Scale (LLOS) (Noels et al., 1999, 2000: Yashima et al., 2009), theL2 Motivation Self System (Dörnyei, 2005; 2009) including ideal L2 self andeffort (Ryan, 2009), and ought-to L2 self (Taguchi, Magid & Papi, 2009), andEnglish learning motivation (Kojima & Yashima, 2017). Students were asked tofill out the questionnaires on Week 1, Week 8 and Week 15 during the semester,and of these, Week 1 indicates the baseline, and Week 8 and Week 15 indicate
the CLIL project interventions.
3.2 Participants
278 students aged between 19 and 21 years old, including 168 students inthe spring semester and 110 in the fall semester, participated in the current
study. Five classes were chosen to participate in Spring 2019, and four classes
were chosen in Fall 2019 2 . In regards to the Schools, in Spring 2019, one class
was from the School of Medicine, one class was from the School of Engineering,two classes were from the School of Engineering Science, and one class wasfrom a combined group of Literature, Law and Economics students. In Fall 2019,
one class was from the School of Engineering, two classes were from the Schoolof Engineering Science and one class was from the combined group of
Literature, Law and Economics students. Different syllabi were based upon
students’ specialties, though all were designed in a similar manner, and thecontent-related objectives were differentiated among Schools. The syllabi for
Schools represented subject-specific and content-related characteristics based
upon students’ expertise and knowledge.
3.3 CLIL for Undergraduate Courses
To fulfill the undergraduate requirement for English courses, credit
courses are offered to students. Of these English courses, CLIL has been offered
for the first and the second year undergraduate students in order for them to
5120Motivating University Students in CLIL in the Japanese Context: Longitudinal Perspectives

fulfill their undergraduate requirement. In order to implement CLIL, four main
objectives based upon CLIL’s 4Cs frame were focused on students. Firstly, tolearn content- and subject-related topics, students were expected to learn andunderstand the content and also were expected to acquire English at the sametime. Secondly, in order to develop students’ cognition, they were expected todevelop their critical thinking and learning skills, as well as the ability to think
clearly and rationally about the content-related topics and the ability to engage
in independent thinking. Thirdly, to develop students’ communication abilities,
they were expected to develop their communicative competences, and improvetheir English skills. Lastly, they were expected to expand their perspectives toinclude the globalizing world and see themselves as global citizens, while also
cultivating their communication ability to work collaboratively with otherstudents and/or people around them. They were expected to take a global
perspective and visualize their future self and future career in their field inroles such as teachers, nurses, doctors, dentists, pharmacists, engineers, lawyers,
or scientists. For example, for medical students, the content-related topics
included cancer patients and treatment, HIV patients and treatment, DNA testing,epidemiology including determinants of health and disease situations in certain
populations, and also team medicine to think about collaborative work between
specialists. The topics for the School of Engineering included the use of AI in
the automobile industry and/or other industries, AI and our future society,ethical considerations in AI, and possible Smartphone applications in the future.
All these materials were taken from the textbooks as well as authentic materials
including Internet resources. In order to deepen students’ understanding of
subject knowledge, content materials were integrated into standard classroom
lessons as indicated and students were also required to conduct two research
projects in their subject. In addition to the content matter for standard
classroom lessons, the two CLIL research projects were assessed for the midterm and the final term assessment. They aimed at enhancing the students’knowledge and understanding of their subject area, and were based on students’knowledge of their subject and their degree programs. These projects werecollaborative, requiring students to work in groups and give a grouppresentation on their research.
As shown in Table 1, in a set of fifteen weeks in one semester, two CLIL
research projects were also included. The projects were intentionally designed
in order to allow students to enhance their collaborative working skills withother students, to focus on the development of critical perspectives, and also to
motivate students’ learning in the language class. They were expected to work
collaboratively, make group research presentations, and also discuss their own
ideas with other students in order to develop critical perspectives.
6
121

NISHIDA, Rieko

Table 1
Syllabus and Research Schedule
Week 1
Week 2–6
Week 7–8
Week 9–13
Week 14–15

Orientation
Standard CLIL Class
CLIL Research Project/ Presentation
Standard CLIL Class
CLIL Research Project/ Presentation

Time 1: Questionnaire
Time 2: Questionnaire
Time 3: Questoinnaire

3.4 Ethical Considerations
The author was responsible for the supervision of ethical considerations of
the current study. Students were asked to participate in the study voluntarily,
and could withdraw from the study anytime, and a concent agreement was madebetween students and the author. Students were promised that the participationof the questionnaire will not be part of their assessment and will not affect their
final grades. Students’ confidentiality was preserved.
3.5 Materials
A questionnaire was administered to students. A six-point Likert Scale wasused for the questionnaire ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly
agree). For the statistical analysis, SPSS ver.24 was used to conductmultivariate analysis. Cronbach’s Alphas were highly maintained. The LLOS
(Yashima et al., 2009; Noels et al., 1999; 2000) included IMK (3 items: α. 80 –α.83: e.g., “For the satisfied feeling I get in finding out new things”), IMA (3items: α. 84 – α.90: e.g., “For the pleasure I experience when surpassing myself
in my second language studies”), IMS (3 items: α. 88 – α.91: e.g., “For the ‘high’feeling that I experience while speaking in the second language”). Cronbach’s
Alphas were high in ideal L2 self from Ryan (2009) (6 items: α. 87 – α.89: e.g.,“I often imagine myself as someone who is able to speak English”), effort from
Ryan (2009) (5 items: α. 81 – α.82: e.g., “I’m working hard at ‘learning’
English”), and ought-to L2 self from Taguchi, Magid and Papi, (2009) (6 items:
α. 80 – α.86: e.g., “Hardly anybody really cares whether I learn English or not.”),and English learning motivation from Kojima and Yashima (2017) (5 items: α.
79 – α.87: e.g., “If English were not taught in school, I would try to go to English
classes somewhere else”). Of note, in Week 1, as a baseline, students wereasked about English class in general, and in Week 8 and Week 15, students wereasked to focus on their CLIL class.
4. Results
In order to explore how Japanese university students’ intrinsic motivation(IMK, IMA, IMS), future possible self, and English learning motivation wouldchange during one semester of implementation of CLIL, descriptive statistics
7
122Motivating University Students in CLIL in the Japanese Context: Longitudinal Perspectives

and repeated measurement of analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used forstatistical analysis. As shown in Table 2, except for ideal L2 self, intrinsic
motivation (IMK, IMA, IMS), effort, ought-to L2 self, and English learning
motivation, showed increasing tendencies over time.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Motivational Factors in CLIL over time

Time1

N
278

M
3.55

sd
0.95

IMA

278

3.43

1.10

-0.18

-0.17

IMS
Ideal L2 Self

278
278

3.42
3.82

1.15
0.98

-0.04
0.04

-0.34
-0.49

EffortOught-to L2 Self

278

3.45

0.86

-0.02

0.03

278
278

2.92
3.15

0.89
0.77

0.08
-0.15

-0.27
0.63

English Motivation

278

3.77

0.96

-0.31

0.37

IMS

278
278

3.59
3.77

1.05
1.12

-0.33
-0.20

-0.01
-0.17

Ideal L2 Self
Effort

278
278

3.87
3.57

1.01
0.83

-0.13
-0.08

-0.08
0.12

IMK
IMA
Time 2

Skewness Kutosis
-0.06
0.21

IMK

Ought-to L2 Self

278

3.11

0.93

0.12

-0.11

English Motivation
IMK

278
278

3.29
3.79

0.84
0.93

-0.14
-0.22

0.27
0.26

IMA

278

3.66

1.05

-0.37

0.08

IMS
Ideal L2 Self

278
278

3.83
3.90

1.06
0.97

-0.24
-0.05

0.01
-0.10

Effort

278

3.60

0.81

-0.26

0.46

Ought-to L2 Self
English Motivation

278
278

3.24
3.37

0.89
0.84

-0.12
-0.33

-0.11
0.17

Time 3

Table 3
Repeated Measurement of ANOVA in Motivational Factors in CLIL
IMK
IMA

Type III
Square10.0227.556

df
1.957, 542.116
2, 554

Mean
Square
5.121
3.778

F
11.898
7.347

p
0.000
0.001

η2
0.041
0.026

IMS

27.2691.863, 516.091

14.63630.956

0.000

0.101

Ideal L2 self

0.894

1.904, 527.452

0.470

1.760

0.175

0.006

EffortOught-to L2 self
English Motivation

3.422
14.4707.194

1.895, 524.828
1.896, 525.186
1.800, 498.712

1.806
7.632
3.996

6.355
19.72212.443

0.002
0.000
0.000

0.022
0.066
0.043

In order to conduct the repeated measurement of analysis of variance(ANOVA), Maunchly’s test was confirmed to see sphericity. Statisticalsignificance was assumed when sphericity was p>.01, and it was not an issue for
8
123

NISHIDA, Rieko

IMA. The Greenhouse-Geisser was used for IMK, IMS, ideal L2 self, effort andought-to L2 self. As shown in Tables 2 － 3, the results showed increasing
tendencies and statistical significance in IMK: F(1.957, 542.116)=11.898, p<.01,η 2 =.041, IMA: F(2,554)=7.347, p<.01, η 2 =.026, IMS: F(1.863, 516.091)=30.956,
p<.01, η 2 =.101, effort: F(1.895, 524.828)=6.355, p<.01, η 2 =.022, ought-to L2
self: F(1.869, 525.186)=19.722, p<.01, η 2 =.066, English learning motivation:
F(1.800, 498.712)=12.443, p<.01, η 2 =.043 (Table 3).
To investigate what the predictable factors can be for English learning
motivation and ideal L2 self after the implemtnation of CLIL, multiple
regression analysis was conducted in a stepwise fashion. Dependent variables
were IMK, IMA and IMS, ideal L2 self, effort, and ought-to L2 self. The
strongest predictor variable for English learning motivation after the
implementation of CLIL was effort: β=.774 for Time 3 (Table 4). In addition,
the strongest predictor variables for ideal L2 self were effort: β=.563 (p<.01),
and IMS: β=.239 (p<.01) after the implementation of CLIL (Table 5).
Table 4
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting English Learning Motivation
after the Implementation of CLIL
UnstandardizedStandardizedStandard
B
Error
β
Model
Time 3
Effort
0.807
0.040
0.774
2
0.6
R
Dependent Variable: English Learning Motivationt
20.281P
0.000

Table 5Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Ideal L2 Self after the
Implementation of CLIL
UnstandardizedStandard
B
Error
Model
Time 3
Effort
0.675
0.058
IMS
0.217
0.044
2
0.5
R
Dependent Variable: Ideal L2 Self

Standardized
β
0.563
0.239

t
11.718
4.978

P
0.000

To explore the third research question and to find out the relationshipbetween intrinsic motivation (IMK, IMA, IMS) in CLIL, future possible self,and English learning motivation after the implementation of CLIL, correlation
analysis was estimated to investigate the relationship between these variables inTime 3 (Table 6). In Time 3, strong correlations were observed. In particular,
9124Motivating University Students in CLIL in the Japanese Context: Longitudinal Perspectives

IMK was strongly correlated with IMA (r=.686, p<.01) and effort (r=.620,
p<.01). A strong correlation was also observed between ideal L2 self and effort(r=.673, p<.01), and between ideal L2 self and English learning motivation(r=.614, p<.01). English learning motivation and effort showed a strong
correlation (r=.774, p<.01). In Time 3, after the implementation of CLIL
courses, strong correlations were observed.
Table 6Time 3: Correlations between Motivational Factors in CLIL
IMK

IMA

.686

IMS

.538

Ideal

.454

Effort

.620

Ought

.405

EM

IMA

IMS

Ideal

Effort

Ought

**
**

.431

**

**

.322

**

.497

**

**

.595

**

.457

**

.673

**

**

.503

**

.323

**

.348

**

.504

.571

**

.483

**

.614

**

.774

**

.579

**
**

.529

**

**. P <.01*. P <.05

4. Discussion
In the present study, a number of findings concerning intrinsic motivation(IMK, IMA, IMS) in CLIL, future possible self, and intensity to learn English in
CLIL were found. Findings suggested that students showed increasing
tendencies in intrinsic motivation (IMK, IMA, IMS) in CLIL, effort, ought-to
L2 self, and English learning motivation in CLIL. This result supports theprevious empirical research that was conducted in the European context(Lasagabaster, 2011; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2009; Thompson & Sylvén, 2019) ,and also with Nishida (2021), similar results for intrinsic motivation in CLIL
were obtained over time. In particular, in the present study, IMS in CLIL
showed increasing tendencies after intervening CLIL, and this means thatstudents were stimulated by content in English courses. One possible reason forthis improvement could be the numerous opportunities given to students in
CLIL to learn content which focuses on students’ expertise, thinking criticallyand expressing themselves in the standard CLIL class as well as CLIL research
projects. Also, in CLIL, authentic materials from Internet resources andtextbooks were often used in order to stimulate and induce students’ curiosity intheir field of study. The further study needs to clarify this point, but as content
materials in CLIL were related to students’ specialties, students’ motivation tolearn knowledge in language learning might have been enhanced. In the present
study, CLIL was subject-specific and content-related characteristic, while theother Non-CLIL or EFL courses is not specified in subject-specific and content10
125

NISHIDA, Rieko

related. In CLIL, content is focused on students’ interest so that content-relatedcharacteristic might have enhanced students’ IMK in the present study. In
addition, students’ sense of accomplishment seemed to have enhanced. By
conducting the CLIL research projects, as students are required to work in agroup and do the presentation in front of the class, students might havedeveloped a sense of accomplishment. Making a goal, working with otherstudents in the class, and working on the CLIL research project with otherstudents perhaps made students feel closer and motivated in the class.
Accomplishment and perceived relatedness are subscales of intrinsic motivation
as indicated in Noels et. al.(2000), and Vallerand (1997) for accomplishment,
and Deci and Ryan (1985) for perceived relatedness. Also, other motivational
factors including effort, and ought-to self seemed to have increased toward theend of the semester. In the CLIL class, students were given topics related totheir expertise and expected to visualize their future jobs. They were also were
given topics which encouraged them to think widely and promoted a more open
attitude towards the world.
Secondly, the study investigated the prediction of English learning
motivation and ideal L2 self after the implemetation of CLIL. In this study, thepredicting factor for English learning motivation was effort in learning English
after the implementation of CLIL. Similarly, past studies indicated effort canbecome a key player in motivating Japanese university students. In Kojima andYashima (2017), English learning motivation and attitude toward learning
English showed a high correlation (r=.72, p<.01). Also, Ryan (2008) indicatedthat intended learning effort was highly correlated with ideal L2 self (r=.77,
p<.01), and effort can be a major factor to realize ideal L2 self. With theseresults, effort was a key factor, although further investigation is needed to see
how long students studied outside the class, and how much effort they madeduring the semester. Moreover, regression analysis indicated that the predictor
variable for ideal L2 self in CLIL was effort and intrinsic motivation (IMS).
Making an effort in learning English, and receiving stimulating content in CLIL
may lead to visualization of the ideal L2 self in the future, and thus CLIL may
be one of the vital factors for Japanese university students’ motivation inlanguage learning.
In addition, the relationship between intrinsic motivation (IMK, IMA,
IMS) of CLIL, future possible self, and English learning motivation in CLIL
was analyzed, and correlation analysis was estimated to investigate therelationship between these variables (See Table 6). In Time 3, after theintervention of CLIL, most of the factors revealed strong correlations.
Specifically, having a stronger intrinsic motivation in knowledge was strongly
correlated with intrinsic motivation in accomplishment and effort to learn in
11126

Motivating University Students in CLIL in the Japanese Context: Longitudinal Perspectives

CLIL. Having a stronger ideal L2 self was also related to effort to learn andEnglish learning motivation in CLIL, while having a stronger English learning
motivation was strongly linked to effort in CLIL. With these results, a causal
relationship cannot be claimed, and as there is no control group so that it isdifficult to assess the reasons for these results from the CLIL implementations.
The implications, however, are important as strong correlations were observedin Time 3 after the implementation of CLIL. The present study adds to similar
results in previous research (Maekawa & Yashima, 2013; Nishida, 2013; Ryan,
2009) that includes the positive relationship between students’ ideal selves andlanguage learning motivation in English.
Before concluding the present study, the importance of the pedagogicalimplications of CLIL in the Japanese context and also limitations of the present
study will be discussed. The implementation of CLIL seemed to enhance
students’ motivation in language and content learning, as well as motivational
intensity. In particular, CLIL methodology enhances the 4Cs, integrating content,
communication, cognition and culture/ collaboration, and the integral
connection of the 4Cs seems to sustain and enhance students’ motivation inlanguage learning. CLIL, however, needs elaborative teaching plans, and theelaborative work played a crucial role in the success of CLIL for Japanesetertiary students. Before conducting CLIL, teaching materials were carefully
assessed and elaborative teaching plans were organized. The preparation for
CLIL class however, can place a burden on practitioners. Appropriate
educational resources including teaching materials, authentic materials, andtextbooks, therefore, need to be created and developed. This means that CLIL
teachers’ workload for preparing one lesson is heavier than other English
lessons. Therefore, CLIL textbooks appropriate to students’ linguistic
proficiency for university students, primary schools, secondary schools and highschools are in need in the Japanese context. Although elaborative teachingplans need to be organized, in CLIL, students seem to develop their motivation,
as well as their global and critical perspectives, thus further broadening theirperspectives in language learning.
The limitation of the present study needs to be discussed. In this present
study, as the study was not an experimental design, there was no control group.
It is therefore difficult to confirm that students’ motivation seemed to haveincreased solely based on CLIL implementations. In order to avoid this problem,the further study is needed in comparing with CLIL and Non-CLIL in theJapanese EFL context. In addition, the future possible study will be to explore
how Japanese university students’ motivation can be changed in a semester
course, specifically, to see their change on Week 1, Week 8 and Week 15. The
further study needs to clarify why students’ motivation has increased between
12
127

NISHIDA, Rieko

Week 1 and Week 8, and between Week 8 and Week 15. Moreover, if possible,
the study needs to to identify what is happening to them every single week. In
order to clarify this point, qualitative study will be needed for further study toidentify students’ motivational changes every week throughout the semester.
5. Conclusion
To conclude this study, as indicated earlier, due to the impact of rapid
globalization and internationalization in and outside Japan, English is
unavoidable in the present era. English therefore has been prioritized in
educational settings. CLIL is one way to open up the doors to the world, as it
focuses on subject knowledge in English which may connect to future career
paths. Students are expected to develop their critical thinking skills and theability to engage in independent thinking, to develop the ability to communicate
in English, develop their communication competences and improve their English
skills. They are also expected to open their minds to the globalizing world andadopt the perspective of global citizens, as well as cultivating theircommunication ability to work collaboratively with people around them. As
indicated earlier, CLIL is flexible and embodies variety. CLIL is adoptable andcan be implemented flexibly in a variety of specific educational contexts fromelementary school to university level. Overall, I believe that CLIL is one way toempower and open up students’ minds, equipping them with both the language
skills and subjective knowledge necessary for future careers in a globalized
world.

1

2

Notes
The study has been in progress since 2012, and it is a long-lasting study.
Over 1000 students participated in the study in different semesters since2012. For some years, variables in the quesionniares were replicated, whileother years not. It is therefore difficult to combine everything into one
piece of paper. In the individual papers, I use the different dataset,different research designs, and also conduct different analyses in order tocapture a whole picture of CLIL in the Japanese context.
Students’ proficiency level is approximately 510 in TOEFL-ITP.
Acknowledgement

This work was supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B),
KAKENHI Grant Number 17H02359. I appreciated the support given by the
JSPS grant. I also would like to show my appreciation to anonymous reviewers
for their valuable comments.
13
128Motivating University Students in CLIL in the Japanese Context: Longitudinal Perspectives

References
Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course CLIL Module. Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language
Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination inhuman behavior. Plenum.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. The
University of Rochester Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: individual
differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System. In Z.Dörnyei & E.
Ushioda, E. (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 Self (pp.9–
42). Multilingual Matters.
Higgins, E.T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect.
Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.
Ikeda, M. (2017). CLIL principles, material and techniques in diverse contexts.
Symposium for CLIL in a plurilingual community of practice. Center for
Language Education and Research. Tokyo, Japan.
Irie, K. (2019) Transition or integration? EAP, CLIL, and EMI. [Paper
Presentation]. KAKENHI Symposium, Osaka University, Japan.
Kojima, N., & Yashima, T. (2017). Motivation in English Medium Instruction
classrooms from the perspective of self-determination theory and the ideal
self. JACET Journal 61, 23–39.
Lasagabaster, D. (2011) English achievement and student motivation in CLIL
and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 5, 3–18.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2009). Language attitude in CLIL andtraditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal 1 (2), 4–17.
Maekawa, Y., & Yashima, T. (2012). Examining the motivational effect ofpresentation-based instruction on Japanese engineering students: From theviewpoints of the ideal self and self-determination theory. Language,
Education, & Technology, 49, 65–92.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2008). What is
Global 30? [Global 30 towa]
https://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afi
eldfile/2017/03/30/1383779_01.pdf
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2014). The
English Education Reform Plan Responding Rapid Reformation Plan.

14
129

NISHIDA, Rieko[Globalkani taioushita Eigokyouiku Kaikakujisshi Keikaku].
https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/20
14/01/31/1343704_01.pdf
Nishida, R. (2013). The L2 ideal self, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation,international posture, willingness to communicate and Can-Do among
Japanese University learners of English. Language Education andTechnology, 50, 47–63.
Nishida, R. (2019). Enhancement of students’ self-efficacy in content andlanguage learning in the Japanese EFL Context [Paper Presentation].
Language in Focus, Dubrovnik, Croatia
Nishida, R. (2021). A longitudinal study of Japanese tertiary students’motivation, perceived competency and classroom dynamics in Soft-CLIL.
In K. Talbot, M. Gruber, & R. Nishida. (Eds.), The psychologicalexperience of integrating language and content. Multilingual Matters.
Nishida, R. (in press). Enhancement of Japanese university students’ motivation,competency and language proficienty in CLIL in a longitudinal study.
Noels, K.A. (2001). Learning Spanish as a second language: Learners’orientations and perceptions of their teachers’ communicative style.
Language Learning, 51, 107–144.
Noels, K.A. (2009). The internalization of language learning into the self andsocial identity. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language
identity and the L2 self (pp.43–65). Multilingual Matters.
Noels, K.A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L.G. (1999). Perceptions of teacher
communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Modern Language Journal, 83, 23–34.
Noels, K.A., Pelletier, L.G., & Vallerand, R.J. (2000). Why are you learning asecond language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory.
Language Learning, 50, 57–85.
Ramage, K. (1990). Motivational factors and persistence in foreign language
study. Language Learning, 40, 189–219.
Ryan, S. (2008).The ideal L2 selves of Japanese learners of English.
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Nottingham.
Ryan, S. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 selfand Japanese learners of English. In Z.Dörnyei, & E.Ushioda. Motivation,
language identity and the L2 self. Multilingual Matters.
Sugita McEwon, Sawaki, S., & Harada, T. (2017). Foreign language learning
motivation in the Japanese context: social and political influences on self.
Modern Language Journal, 101, 533–547.
Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self systemamong Japanese, Chinese and Iranian leaners of English: A comparative
15
130Motivating University Students in CLIL in the Japanese Context: Longitudinal Perspectives

study. In Z.Dörnyei, & E.Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity
and the L2 self. Multilingual Matters.
Thompson, S.A., & Sylvén, L.K. (2019) CLIL and motivation revisited: Alongitudinal perspective. In L.K. Sylvén (Ed.), Investigating Content andLanguage Integrated Learning: Insights from Swedish High Schools(pp.76–97). Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Motivation, language identities and the L2
self: A theoretical overview. In Z.Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Multilingual Matters.
Vallerand, R.J. (1997). Towards a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. In Zanna, M.P. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 29, 215－360.
Watanabe, Y., Ikeda, M., & Izumi, S. (2011). CLIL (Content and Language
Integrated Learning). Volume 1. Principles and Methodologies. Sophia
University Press.
Yashima, T. (2009). International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese
EFL context. In Z.Dörnyei, & E.Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language
identity and the L2 self. Multilingual Matters.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The
Japanese EFL context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 55–66.
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of
attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language
communication. Language Learning, 54, 119–152.

16
131

JACET Kansai Journal, 24, 132-137. (2022) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

オンラインファイル共有ツールを活用した
自律性を促す授業外学習 MTD（日英等価表現集）
Creation of an MTD (My Translation Database)as an Autonomous Out-of-Class Activity Utilizing an Online File-Sharing Tool
ラムスデン多夏子
京都外国語大学

Abstract
The author has been assigning an out-of-class activity, called “MTD (My Translation Database)”,to her EFL classes to promote greater autonomy in her students. With this activity, they collect
Japanese-English equivalent expressions of their own choosing from movies, dramas, songs, etc.
that they watch or listen to outside of class and enter them on their own spreadsheet. In the previous
years, the learners recorded their work individually in an Excel file and submitted it twice asemester. However, for various reasons, this did not provide the results expected, so the author
decided to improve on the activity by adding more control by the teacher, as well as two elementsthat are deemed to be quite effective for improving learner autonomy: sharing and visualization.
For this practice, the participants were assigned the same activity, but this time using a shared
Google Spreadsheet over a period of one semester. As a result, more than 6,000 expressions(133/136 expressions per learner) were gathered by each class. After analyzing the quantitative andqualitative data for both classes, the author concluded that from the students’ perspective thispractice could well be considered quite effective in promoting greater learner autonomy.
キーワード：授業外学習，表現集，自律性，共有，Google Spreadsheet
1. はじめにICT の高度な発達により様々な媒体から知識や情報を手軽に入手できる時代になった。
外国語教育においても，特に，「聞く」
・「読む」の教材となり得る素材の選択肢は無数にある。学習内容や方法を選択する自由を学習者自身に持たせることが自律的学習の条件とされる（Dörnyei, 2001）ことから，この状況を好機と捉え，筆者は，大学生 EFL 学習者に，自律性を促す目的の授業外学習課題「MTD（My Translation Database）=日英等価表現集」
を数年前から実施してきた。この課題では，学習者が授業外に自分で選んで見た動画や聞いた音楽などから選んだ日英対訳表現を，個人のスプレッドシートに記録していく。これは，プロの翻訳者向けの翻訳支援ツール「翻訳メモリ」をヒントに外国語学習に応用したもので，翻訳メモリとは，過去に行った翻訳をストックし再利用するツールである。この
簡易版としてスプレッドシートで作成した日英対訳集を活用する翻訳者も多い。
本実践は従来の MTD の改良版で，以前はエクセルファイルを利用し，個別に表現集を作成・提出させていたが，学期の中間と期末の締切前に即席で仕上げる学習者がほとんど
1
132

オンラインファイル共有ツールを活用した自律性を促す授業外学習 MTD（日英等価表現集）

で自律学習に有効であるとは言えず，ノルマを与える，毎週の学習をモニタリングするな
ど，さらに教師の介入が必要だと示唆された。これに加え，今回の実践では，共有や可視化といった動機づけに有効（Dörnyei, 2001）とされる方法も追加し，オンラインファイル
共有ツールの Google Spreadsheet を使った改良版の課題が，学習者の自律性促進や動機づけに効果があるかを検証した。
2. 先行研究：自律性を促す学習
ICT が発達し，学習者は豊富な情報を手軽に入手できる時代になった。これに伴い，教師の役割は，「教える」から「導く」へ転換すると言われ（山本，2020），「教授者」だけでなく「情報提供者」「ファシリテーター」「メンター」「共同学習者」など様々な役割が求められるとも言われている（梅田, 2005）。ICT の活用は外国語学習者の動機づけを向上させるという報告もあり（Adolphs et al., 2018），コロナ禍のオンライン授業の実施も一因となり，授業内外学習への ICT 活用はますます加速化するだろう。従来から授業外学習といえば，授業の予習や宿題といった教師からの指示に基づく反強制な学習が多い（坂田・福田，2011）。しかし，授業外にオーセンティックな英語インプット素材に触れる英語学習者は習熟度が高い傾向がある（石橋，2016）という報告もあることから，学習者の自律性に配慮した授業外学習には意義があると考えられる。
自律性を促すには，様々な方法が有効であると言われているが，基本となるのは，学習内 容 や 方 法 を 選 択 す る 自 由 を 学 習 者 自 身 に 持 た せ る こ と で あ る （ Holec, 1981; Dörnyei,2001）。このほか，進度の可視化，学習結果の共有，仲間との教え合いや学び合いも動機づけに有効であるとされる（Dörnyei, 2001）。共有の意義として，秋山（2012）は，学習者は共に学ぶ相手を求める傾向があり，自分以外の学習者の存在を可視化することで学習者同士のつながりを感じ，学習活動の動機づけが維持されると述べている。
3. 実践方法
本実践の参加者は，日英翻訳の選択授業を履修する外国語専攻（主に英語）の大学生
EFL 学習者 2−4 年生 94 人（2 クラス：45/49 人）で，履修資格は TOEIC550 点以上，英語の習熟度は主に CEFR B1 レベルであった。本授業は，「外国語強化科目」として位置付けられており，翻訳のスキル向上ではなく英語力向上を主な目的としている。当該の授業外
学習は，1 学期 14 週間のうち 12 週間行われた。
Google Spreadsheet を用いて各クラスに 1 つのスプレッドシートを作成し（図 1），各学
習者には 1 つのシートを割り当てた。共有ツールには，他者に自分が入力したものを変更・削除されるという危険性があるため，各学習者には「シートを保護」の機能を使い，自分のシートの編集権限を自分と教師のみに設定させた。スプレッドシート内では，他の学習者のシートは編集できないが閲覧することは可能である。
各シートには，試聴した素材の種類，タイトル，日本語訳（字幕など），英語，同義語などの学習メモを記入させ，毎週のノルマを表現 10 個とし，上限はなしとした。教師は毎週の期限の後に，表現集をチェックし確認済の印をつけた。
実践後は選択式・自由記述式のアンケートを行い，共有と自律性について分析した。

2133

ラムスデン

多夏子

図1

学習者が作成した MTD の例

4. 結果と考察
4.1 収集した表現の数
本実践でスプレッドシートに収集した表現の数を表１に示した。各クラスのトータルは
クラス 1 が 6,127，クラス 2 が 6,503 であった。つまり，両クラス 6,000 を超える表現が入ったクラス全体の表現集ができたということになる。検索機能を使えば，自分だけではな
く他者が記録した表現もキーワードで探すことができ，スプレッドシート全体を辞書や翻訳メモリのように使うことが可能である。集めた表現の平均は全 12 週のノルマ 120 個に対し，両クラスともノルマを超え，その割合は 8 割を超えた。クラス 1 には 200 を超える学習者が 5 人いたが，クラス 2 には 0 であった。そこで，特に頑張る学習者がいる場合，他の学習者の動機づけに効果があるのかという視点で，分析を行った。
表1
MTD 結果 — 収集した表現の数
Max

200 個

Total (class)

n

M

SD

Min

クラス 1

45

136.2

49.4

13

240

5

6,127

クラス 2

49

132.7

27.8

0

182

0

6,503

クラス 1+2

94

134.4

39.5

0

240

5

以上 (n)

全 12 週のノルマは 120 個
まずは，特に頑張る学習者がいれば全員に影響するかについて分析すると，表 1 ではク
ラス 1 の方が平均は高いが，2 クラスの差があまりなく，クラス 1 の方が標準偏差に広が3134

オンラインファイル共有ツールを活用した自律性を促す授業外学習 MTD（日英等価表現集）

りがあることから，影響があるとは言えない。表 2 では，クラス 1 の方にノルマ以下の学習者が多いことから，クラス全員が特に頑張る学習者に影響されたわけではないということがわかる。そこで，次は，この 2 割ほどのノルマ未達成者を除き，集計を行った。
表2
MTD 結果 — ノルマを達成した人数n

ノルマ以上 (n)ノルマ以下 (n)200 個以上 (n)

クラス 1

45

34 (75.6%)

11 (24.4%)

5

クラス 2

49

43 (87.8%)

6 (12.2%)

0

クラス 1+2

94

77 (81.9%)

17 (18.1%)

5

表 3 は，ノルマを達成した学習者のみの集計である。特に頑張った学習者の多いクラス
1 の方がかなり平均が高いが，標準偏差の値も高く，200 以上の特別頑張った 5 人が平均を上げていると考えられるので，この 5 人を除いた集計も行った（表 4）。その結果，クラス 1 と 2 の平均はかなり近くなり，両クラスとも，平均値がノルマを大きく超えた。
大半の学習者がノルマを達成し，平均がノルマを大きく超えたことから，学習者は授業
外学習課題として MTD を肯定的に捉え，積極的に取り組んだと考えられる。この結果が，共有に関連するのか，自律性を促す課題と言えるのかを検証するため，次に，実践後アンケートを分析した。
表3
MTD 結果 — 収集した表現の数：ノルマを達成した学習者のみ
n

M

SD

Min

Max

200 個以上 (n)

クラス 1

34

155.3

35.3

120

240

5

クラス 2

43

139.5

16.9

120

182

0

クラス 1+2

77

146.5

27.6

120

240

5

表4
MTD 結果 — 収集した表現の数：ノルマを達成し， 200 個以下の学習者のみ
n

M

SD

Min

Max

クラス 1

29

143.4

21.4

120

185

クラス 2

43

139.5

16.9

120

182

クラス 1+2

72

141.1

18.8

120

185

4.2 実践後アンケート
上述の量的分析の裏付けとして，4 段階選択肢で取ったアンケートの結果を表 5 に示す。
4135

ラムスデン多夏子

学習者の自律性とは選択することが基本とされる（Holec, 1981; Dörnyei, 2001）通り，表 5の 1-3 のように学習者は，自分で学習内容を決めることに学習効果を感じている。また，
今回は毎週 10 個のノルマを決めたが，これに肯定的，かつ，7 の「課題でなくても MTDを続けたい」という学習者が 3 分の 2 近くいたということは，教師に決められなくても学習者自身がある程度の決まりを作っておけば，自分でも自律的な習慣づけが可能だと感じたのだと推測できる。
今回の実践で共有シートを使うにあたって，学習者が自分の学習の様子を他の学習者に見られるのを好まないのではないかという心配があったが，これを嫌だと答えた学習者は8.7%で，ほとんどの学習者がお互いの学習成果を共有することに肯定的であることがわかった。また，前述のように共有効果が高かったクラス 1 の方が，「他の学生の MTD も見て学習した」と答えた学習者が多かった（クラス 1: 68.2%; クラス 2: 61.7%）。
表5
MTD 結果 — 選択式アンケート（ n=91 ）（大変）そう思う
自律性について
1. 学習する表現は自分で選ぶのがいい

84 (92.3%)

2. 学習する表現は教師から与えられたくない79 (86.8%)

3. 与えられるより自分で選んだ表現の方が覚えている

87 (95.6%)

4. 表現集を作るだけでも英語学習につながる

63 (69.2%)

5. 週に最低 10 個という決められたノルマがあるのがよかった

77 (84.6%)

6. MTD をやって，前より授業外に英語に触れる時間が増えた

80 (87.9%)

7. 授業の課題でなくても MTD を続けたい

59 (64.8%)

8. MTD は英語能力に効果があった

74 (81.3%)

共有について
9. 他の学生の MTD が見えるのは嫌ではなかった

84 (92.3%)

10. 他の学生の MTD も見て学習した

59 (64.8%)

ツールについて
11. MTD 作成にスプレッドシートを使うのはいいアイデアだ

86 (94.5%)

選択肢：大変そう思う・そう思う・あまりそう思わない・全くそう思わない
記述式のアンケートでは，自律性に関するものでは，ノルマがあったので習慣になりや
すく達成感を感じられたこと，自分で好きなものを選択し楽しみながら学習できたといったコメントが目立った。「調べた表現が他の授業で出てくると感動した」「次に同じ表現に出会った時に自分の成長が感じられた」など，自分で選択することの特別感や記憶への残りやすさもあり，感情的にも学習への動機づけにつながったと思われる。
共有に関するものでは，「他の人が見ているから」「自分への責任感が生まれて」「他の人に負けずに頑張ろうと思って」モチベーションが高められたというコメントがあった。
「た
5
136

オンラインファイル共有ツールを活用した自律性を促す授業外学習 MTD（日英等価表現集）

くさんの生徒が時間をかけて集めた表現だと思うと，価値のある大切なもののように感じる」というコメントもあり，共有を通した学び合いを超えて，協働学習としての意義を表すものであった。このほか，「学校だと見せてとは言いにくいが共有ファイルだといつでも見られて参考にできる」「今までやったことが共有ファイルですぐに見える」「他の学生の活動を見られることはあまりないので貴重な試み」といった，新しい ICT ツールとしての面白みを感じたコメントもあった。
5. まとめ本実践の本来の問いである「改良版の課題が，学習者の自律性促進や動機づけに効果があるか」については，自己決定や自己選択，学習プロセスの可視化，共有を通じた学び合
いなどの点から，多くの学習者の自律性が促され動機づけに寄与したと考えられ，効果があったと言える。ただし，Google Spreadsheet を初めて使用した学習者がほとんどであったことから，その新規性や利便性から興味を持って課題に取り組めたことも，肯定的な反応の一つであったとも考えられる。しかし，今まで教えられたり与えられたりといった受動的な学習に慣れている学習者でも，多くが自律的に課題に取り組む力を持っており，自律的学習への欲求を持っていることも今回の実践でわかった。また，同じ授業を受けている仲間との教え合い・学び合いや協働という点で，共有が授業のダイナミズムを作る一方法であると示唆できた。
本実践は，情報源，学習表現，学習量など，学習者自身の選択の範囲が多く与えられており，自律的学習としての要素は多く満たしていたが，課題であったから効果があったとも考えられる。本当の意味での自律的学習を促す提案となったかを検証するため，数年後の追跡調査によるデータ収集を今後の課題としたい。
引用文献
秋山豊（2012）.「大学通信教育における生涯学習支援の推移と動向」『大正大学大学院研究論集』36, 197 – 206.
石橋嘉一（2016）.「日本人大学生の授業外英語学習ストラテジーに関する研究」総合研究大
学院大学博士論文.
梅田康子（2005）.「 学習者の自律性を重視した日本語コースにおける教師の役割—学部留学生に対する自律学習コース展開の可能性を探る」『言語と文化』12, 59 – 77.
坂田浩・福田 T.スティーブ（2011）.「継続的英語自律学習を支援するためのワークシート：「Learning How to Learn と自己評価用紙の作成について」『徳島大学国際センター紀要・年報』14 – 24.
山本崇雄（2020）.『「教えない授業」の始め方』アルク.
Adolphs, S., Dörnyei, Z., Glover, T., Henry, A., Muir, C., Sánchez-Lozano, E., & Valstar, M. (2018).
Digital innovation in L2 motivation: Harnessing the power of the Ideal L2 Self. System, 78,
173 – 185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.07.014
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Pergamon.

6137

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

139

JACET Kansai Journal Publication Policy(Revised December 1, 2017)
1. Aims
JACET Kansai Chapter’s journal serves as a medium for publication of research by its
Chapter members and thus promotes research activities.
2. Journal title

The journal is entitled JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ).
3. Contents of Journal

JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ) publishes submitted papers, invited papers, and other works.
4. Establishment of the JKJ Editorial Committee

JACET Kansai Chapter establishes the JKJ Editorial Committee to publish JACET Kansai

Journal (JKJ).

5. Publication expenses

JACET Kansai Chapter bears publication expenses of JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ).
6. Submission guidelines

The JKJ Editorial Committee determines submission guidelines and procedures for JACET

Kansai Journal (JKJ).
7. Amendment

Amendment of this Publication Policy (Japanese version) will be subject to approval by the
JACET Kansai Chapter Executive Committee. The English version will conform to theJapanese version.
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Established December, 2008
Revised March 7, 2015
Revised December 1, 2017140

『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）投稿要領（2019 年 11 月 11 日改定）
第１条 投稿者の要件
１項 投稿者は投稿時において JACET 関⻄⽀部会員でなければならない。
２項 ただし，第 2 著者以下は，他⽀部に所属する JACET 会員であってもよい。
３項 投稿者および連名著者に学会費の未納がある場合，投稿は受理されない。
第 2 条 投稿原稿の要件
１項 他誌に投稿中もしくは他誌に掲載済みの原稿の投稿は認めない。
２項 同一人物を第 1 著者とする複数の原稿の投稿は認めない。
３項 各種学会等での口頭（ポスター）発表に基づく原稿は審査対象となるが，原稿末尾に口頭（ポスター）発表の事実を正確に記載するものとする。
第 3 条 投稿原稿の種別
１項 投稿原稿は，大学等における英語教育およびその関連分野に関わる内容のものとする。
２項 投稿原稿は下記の 4 種類とする。
(1) 研究論文（前項で定める分野に関する学術論文。関連する先行研究に基づき，適切な研究手法を用いて，実証的または理論的に新しい発見や洞察を提供するもの)(2) 研究ノート（前項で定める分野に関する簡易な学術報告。関連する先行研究に基づき，適切な研究手法を用いて，実証的または理論的に新しい発見や洞察を提供するもの）(3) 実践論文（大学等における英語教育の実践研究に関する論文。授業改善やカリキュラム改
革などの実践について，先行事例または理論的な背景を踏まえた理由づけと，具体的根拠を持った実践の記述や省察を提示することにより，教育改善や実践研究の発展に寄与する知見を提供するもの）(4) 実践報告（大学等における英語教育の実践報告）
ただし，投稿締め切り日を起点として過去 1 年以内に開催された JACET 関⻄⽀部大会
および国際大会における口頭（ポスター）発表，または，同期間における JACET 関⻄⽀
部研究会(SIG)での活動に関係する内容に基づくものに限る。
第 4 条 投稿原稿の分量
１項 投稿原稿の分量は以下の通りとする。
(1) 研究論文（20 ページ以内)(2) 研究ノート（10 ページ以内）(3) 実践論文（20 ページ以内)(4) 実践報告（6 ページ以内）

141

２項 投稿原稿の分量には，タイトル，概要，キーワード，引用文献，図表などをすべて含むものとする。
３項 紀要編集委員会による書式等の修正指示をふまえて修正を行う場合も，1 項に定める制限を超えないこととする。
第 5 条 投稿原稿の作成
１項 使用言語は英語または日本語とする。
２項 投稿原稿の執筆にあたっては，紀要編集委員会が作成する当該年度の投稿用テンプレートを使用し，テンプレート記載と書式チェックリストのルールに厳密に従うこととする（テンプレートやチェックリストについては，JACET 関⻄⽀部ウェブサイトを参照のこと）。
３項 投稿原稿において，投稿者の氏名や所属，また，本人が特定できる引用文献や謝辞などは一切記載しないこととし，これらが入るべき場所に同等量の空行を挿入しておく。
第 6 条 投稿の⽅法
１項 投稿者は，投稿に先立ち，JACET 関⻄⽀部ウェブサイト上のオンライン投稿フォームより必要事項を入力し，送信する。
２項 投稿者は，期日までに，(a)投稿原稿(MS Word ファイル)と(b)その PDF ファイルおよび(c)書式チェックシートの計 3 ファイルを紀要編集委員会事務局宛に送信する。
３項 前項で定める送信メールの件名は「JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要投稿：氏名（所属先大学等名）」とする。また，メール本体に氏名・所属・職名・原稿題目・メールアドレスを明記する。
第 7 条 投稿原稿の受理
１項 紀要編集委員会は，投稿された原稿の書式等を確認し，必要に応じて，修正・再提出を求める場合がある。
２項 修正を求められた場合，投稿者は，別途指定する期日までに修正原稿および修正報告書を提出する。期限に遅れた場合は投稿を辞退したものとみなす。
３項 紀要編集委員会は，前条に基づく修正が不十分であると判断した投稿原稿を不受理扱いとすることができる。
第 8 条 投稿原稿の審査
１項 研究論文，研究ノート，実践論文については，原則として 3 名の査読委員による査読を行い，その結果をふまえ，紀要編集委員会において採否の判断を行う。
２項 1 項に定める審査の過程で原稿種別の変更を求める場合がある。
３項

1 項に定める審査の過程で原稿内容の修正を求める場合がある。この場合，投稿者は，指定された期日までに修正原稿および修正報告書を提出する。期限に遅れた場合は投稿を辞退したものとみなす。

４項 実践報告については，査読委員による査読は行わず，編集委員会において投稿要件と内容

142

の確認を行い，採否の判断を行う。
５項 4 項に定める内容の確認の過程で所定の修正を求める場合がある。
第 9 条 投稿原稿の著作権１項 『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』に掲載された原稿の著作権は本学会に帰属する。
２項 投稿者等が，『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』に掲載された自身の原稿の複製・転載・公開を行おうとする場合は，事前に本学会の承認を受けることとする。
３項 前項により原稿の複製・転載・公開を行う場合は，「本論文の著作権は一般社団法人大学英語教育学会に帰属する」旨を明記するものとする。
４項 投稿者の所属する大学等が，『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』に掲載された原稿を機関レポジトリ
等に収録しようとする場合は，事前に本学会の承認を受けることとする。
５項 前項の依頼があった場合，本学会は，発行後 1 年以上経過したものについては機関レポジ
トリへの収録を認めることとし，経費は請求しない。
６項 投稿者は，投稿原稿が採択・掲載された場合，上記の 1 項〜4 項を了承したとみなす。
第 10 条 本要領の改廃
本要領の改廃は紀要編集委員会において行う。
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
2005 年 6 月制定
2007 年 6 月改定
2008 年 12 月改定
2009 年 7 月 25 日改定
2011 年 6 月 5 日改定
2014 年 3 月 8 日改定
2016 年 2 月 24 日改定
2017 年 12 月 1 日改定
2018 年 5 月 5 日改定
2019 年 11 月 11 日改定

143

JACET Kansai Journal Submission Guidelines(Revised November 11, 2019)
I. Requirements for contributors
1.

Authors must be JACET members.

2.

If the first author is a Kansai Chapter member, coauthors can be JACET members of otherchapters.

3.

Manuscripts can be submitted by Kansai Chapter members in good standing who have paid
their dues for the current year.

II. Requirements for manuscripts
1.

All manuscripts must be original and must not have been published elsewhere, nor be underconsideration for publication (including overseas journals).

2.

Only one manuscript can be submitted by each contributor as the first author.

3.

If the research has been presented orally or as a poster and this is so indicated, the manuscript
can be considered for publication. However, presentation details (location, date, and name ofconference) must be included in the submission.

III. Manuscript type1.

Manuscripts should be related to research on English education at the tertiary or other levels.
Manuscripts regarding other relevant areas are also accepted.

2.

Four types of manuscripts will be accepted for submission:(1) Research Papers: Academic papers concerning any research field(s) stipulated in III-1,
which contain sufficient review of existing literature, employ appropriate research methods,
and provide new empirical or theoretical findings/insights;(2) Research Notes: Short academic reports concerning any research field(s) stipulated in III-1,
which contain sufficient review of existing literature, employ appropriate research methods,
and provide new empirical or theoretical findings/insights;(3) Practitioner Papers: Academic papers related to practical research on English education at
the tertiary or other levels, which contain sufficient information of theoretical backgroundor previous practice examples, offer innovative practices or provide concrete evidence tohelp promote a deeper understanding of practices, and thereby contribute to educational
improvement and practical research development;(4) Practitioner Reports: Reports on the content of an oral or poster presentation at a JACET
Kansai Chapter Convention or a JACET International Convention that was made within
one year of the submission deadline / Reports on activities undertaken at JACET Kansai

144

SIGs which have occurred up to one year prior to the submission deadline.
IV. Manuscript length1.

Manuscript length should be as follows:(1) Research Paper—no longer than 20 pages;(2) Research Note—no longer than 10 pages;(3) Practitioner Paper—no longer than 20 pages;(4) Practitioner Report—no longer than 6 pages.

2.

Manuscript length includes title, abstract, keywords, references, and any figures, tables, orother materials.

3.

Revised manuscripts cannot exceed the manuscript length stated above.

V. Manuscript formatting
1.

Manuscripts can be written in either English or Japanese.

2.

All manuscripts should be prepared using the current template and format checklists preparedby the JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ) Editorial Committee (For the template and checklists,
please see the JACET Kansai website).

3.

All manuscripts should be prepared without the author name(s), affiliation(s), or
Acknowledgments which might reveal personally identifiable information. Leave an
equivalent amount of space for adding the information later.

VI. Submission
1.

All contributors must complete a submission form on the JACET Kansai website.

2.

All contributors must send three files by email to the JKJ Editorial Committee office: (a) the
manuscript as an MS Word document, (b) an additional copy as a PDF, and (c) the format
checklist prepared by the JKJ Editorial Committee.

3.

All contributors must use the following subject item template for the email message: Paper
submission to JACET Kansai Journal: Corresponding author name (corresponding author
affiliation). Also, the email message should include the following information: Author
name(s), author affiliation(s) and position(s), manuscript title, and author’s email address.

VII. Acceptance of manuscripts
1.

The JKJ Editorial Committee may request contributors to revise their manuscript.

2.

Contributors must submit their revised manuscripts along with revision notes by the deadline.
The JKJ Editorial Committee does not accept late submissions.

3.

Failure to follow the JKJ Editorial Committee’s requirements could result in a rejection of thesubmission.

145

VIII. Review of manuscripts
1.

Research Papers, Research Notes, and Practitioner Papers are subject to peer review by atleast three scholars. The JKJ Editorial Committee will decide approval of manuscripts based
upon the results of the peer review.

2.

During the review process, the JKJ Editorial Committee reserves the right to request a change
in the manuscript type.

3.

During the review process, the JKJ Editorial Committee reserves the right to request therevision of manuscripts. Contributors’ failure to submit by the deadline will be considered a
withdrawal.

4.

Practitioner Reports are not subject to peer review. However, the JKJ Editorial Committee
will ensure that all requirements are completed and that contents follow the JKJ standards.

5.

During the process described in VIII-4, the JKJ Editorial Committee reserves the right torequest the revision of practitioner reports.

IX. CopyrightIf the manuscript is accepted for publication in JACET Kansai Journal:
1.

JACET will hold the copyright for all work(s) published in JACET Kansai Journal.

2.

Anyone, including the author(s), who wishes to reproduce, reprint, or republish the work in

JACET Kansai Journal, must obtain permission from JACET.
3.

Anyone, including the author(s), who wishes to reproduce, reprint, or republish the work in

JACET Kansai Journal, must clearly state that JACET holds the copyright.
4.

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

5.

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

Kansai Journal has been published. This will be granted at no cost.
6.

Authors who do not accept the above conditions (stated in IX-1 through IX-4) must withdraw
their manuscripts before publication.

X. Amendment
Amendment of these Submission Guidelines (Japanese version) will be made by the Editorial
Committee of the JACET Kansai Journal. The English version will conform to the Japaneseversion.
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Established June, 2005

146

Revised June, 2007
Revised December, 2008
Revised July 25, 2009
Revised June 5, 2011
Revised March 8, 2014
Revised February 24, 2016
Revised December 1, 2017
Revised May 5, 2018
Revised November 11, 2019147

オックスフォードのリーダーをデジタルで。オーディオやアクティビティなど
便利機能を活用して、英語力を総合的にアップ！
オックスフォード・リーディングクラブ

長期休暇の多読課題におすすめです。
■ オックスフォード・リーディング・ツリーをはじめ、
オックスフォード大学出版局のグレイディッド・リー
ダー 1000 冊以上が読める■ クラウドベースの ebook 技術で学習履歴を管理

今すぐ
で
６冊無料
験！
お試し体

１ヶ月のみの購読も可能

批判的思考力とハイレベルな英語力を養う
高校生におすすめの教材、第３版好評発売中です！
■ オンライン授業に活用しやすい
Q: Skills for Success
デジタル教材が充実。
オンラインプラクティス（モバイル端末用に最適化）、Classroom Presentation
Tool（指導用デジタル教材）、e-books

スチューデントブック

オンラインプラクティス付き¥3,630（税込）

スチューデントブック分冊版
オンラインプラクティス付き
サンプルページ
Q: Reading and Writing
Student Book レベル 3（CEFR B1）¥２,８０5（税込）■ CEFR A1から C1まで難易度別にご用意。
「Listening & Speaking」「Reading &Writing」
2つのコースにより構成されています。単独でも採用可能です。


オックスフォード大学出版局

Email: elt.japan@oup.com ／ＴＥＬ: 03-5444-5454

148

149

150

成美堂 2022 年度 新刊のご案内〒101-0052 東京都千代田区神田小川町 3-22
TEL 03-3291-2261 / FAX 03-3293-5490

Complete Communication Book 1

AFP World News Report 6

Complete Communication Book 2

Meet the World 2022 -English through Newspapers-

Live Escalate Book 3: Summit

A COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH TO THE
TOEIC® L&R TEST Book 1: Elementary−Basic− ................... 定価 2,530 円(本体 2,300 円+税 10%)−Intermediate− ........ 定価 2,530 円(本体 2,300 円+税 10%)............................... 定価 2,750 円(本体 2,500 円+税 10%)............................... 定価 2,750 円(本体 2,500 円+税 10%)............................... 定価 2,200 円(本体 2,000 円+税 10%)............................... 定価 2,420 円(本体 2,200 円+税 10%)

Reading Palette Red −Basic−............................... 定価 2,090 円(本体 1,900 円+税 10%)

Reading Palette Green −Pre-Intermediate−............................... 定価 2,090 円(本体 1,900 円+税 10%)

Science Stream .. 定価 2,090 円(本体 1,900 円+税 10%)Strategic Reading for Global Information............................... 定価 2,090 円(本体 1,900 円+税 10%)BEST PRACTICE FOR THE TOEIC® L&R TEST

−Intermediate− ...... 定価 2,750 円(本体 2,500 円+税 10%)

Understanding the World Today............................... 定価 2,090 円(本体 1,900 円+税 10%)Globalization: The Future of Japan andthe World ........... 定価 1,760 円(本体 1,600 円+税 10%)Global Pathways .. 定価 2,090 円(本体 1,900 円+税 10%)
Good Grammar, Better Communication............................... 定価 2,090 円(本体 1,900 円+税 10%)

株式会社

成 美 堂

●書籍の情報はホームページでもご覧になれます。

URL: https://www.seibido.co.jp e-mail: seibido@seibido.co.jp

151

JACET Kansai Journal 24（JACET 関西支部紀要 第 24 号）
2022 年 3 月 31 日発行
編集・発行：大学英語教育学会 (JACET) 関西支部
〒520-2194 大津市瀬田大江町横谷１−５
龍谷大学 先端理工学部
里井

久輝 研究室内

E-mail: jacetkj＠gmail.com
URL: http://www.jacet-kansai.org/
代

表 者：植松 茂男

ISSN 1880-2281

JACET Kansai Journal

No. 24 March 2022
Editorial Note
里井久輝

Invited Papers
OTOSHI, Junko

1

An Online Practice for L2 Source-Based Writing

TSUTADA, Kazumi
Writing as a Social Citizen: With Consideration on Assessment and Feedback

15

野田 三貴
ESD クラスでのチャットを活用した協働的プレライティング活動

33

山下 美朋
オンライン下でのプロジェクト発信型英語プログラムの挑戦―ライティング指導に焦点をあてて―

46

KAMIJO, Takeshi

57

Evidence-Based Argumentative Essay Writing: A Review of Previous Studies and Directions
for Future Research

NAGAO, Akiko
Recent Contributions of the Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Second Language Writing Research

72

Research Paper
OBERMEIER, Andrew
The Eﬀects of Learning Multiword Expressions Deliberately: Implications Regarding Implicit
Knowledge Development

NISHIDA, Rieko
Motivating University Students in CLIL in the Japanese Context: Longitudinal Perspectives

96

116

Practitioner Reports
ラムスデン 多夏子
オンラインファイル共有ツールを活用した自律性を促す授業外学習 MTD（日英等価表現集）

132

Appendices『JACET 関西支部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）刊行規定

139『JACET 関西支部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）投稿要領

141

Kansai Chapter
The Japan Association of College English Teachers