論 文

Beyond Language: Creating Opportunities for Authentic
Communication and Critical Thinking

Laura L. Kusaka & Martha Robertson

要

旨

本稿では学部・短期大学部における一年生向けの英語の授業の可能性について、著者二人の実践にもとづいて報告する。スピーキングスキルが中心の授業で行われたもので、教材、教授法、学生の反応を詳しく説明する。入学までの「受験英語」に魅力を感じなく、大学で本格的に英語を学習しようとする学生のニーズを浮き彫りしながら、一年生に対して提供できる授業の中身について提案する。

This article describes the methodology and classroom practices in a
Japanese university, focusing upon ﬁrst-year students enrolled in oral
English communication classes. Using a content-based instruction (CBI)and a sustained-content language teaching (SCLT) approach in our
respective classes, we endeavor to create a classroom situation in which
students engage in meaningful exploration of challenging content andshare the results of their inquiries in an authentic communicative context.
The examples reported involve the use of videos and student-produced
projects. The article suggests that, within the existing curricular structure,
instructors can initiate innovations that expose students to a wider rangeof language forms and structures and have the potential to renew students’interest in learning English.

― 21 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 14

キーワード：content-based instruction, sustained-content language teaching, criticalthinking, autonomous learning, collabortaive learning, communication
skills, project-based learning, communicative competence

Beyond Language: Creating Opportunities for Authentic
Communication and Critical Thinking
The eﬀectiveness of language teaching will depend upon what is being taught, otherthan language, that will be recognized by the learners as a purposeful and relevant
extension of their schematic horizons (Widdowson, 1990).
Our own experience and the experience of other teachers and researchers conﬁrms
a gap exists between the communication skills Japanese students need to function in asecond language and the instruction that they receive in their EFL classes. After six
years of language study in middle and high schools, most incoming, ﬁrst-year university
students perceive English as an academic task involving copious amounts ofmemorization and frequent testing rather than as a tool for communicating ideas andfeelings. Many have become bored with studying English and are disinterested in theirﬁrst-year required classes. Despite years of study, they are ill-equipped to accomplish
basic communicative transactions in English and are acutely uncomfortable when
faced with expressing themselves in authentic conversational situations. To address
this problem, the Ministry of Education has called for a more communicative approachto language learning. Although “communicative” textbooks have been adopted,
teaching practices in Japanese public schools, and even in many university English
classes, show little change.
The gap between communicative competence and the years of language instructionthat public schools and universities provide suggests that it is time to reconsider our
methodology and teaching practices. Clearly, our students need something more thanthey are getting in their current education if they are to participate fully in aninternational society. In today’s rapidly changing world, methods that foster English
communication in an authentic context and acquaint students with a wide range ofknowledge may better serve the language goals of educational institutions and― 22 ―

BEYOND LANGUAGE: CREATING OPPORTUNITIES

individuals. Equally important is a methodology that assists students in developing
the discourse patterns and critical thinking skills essential to understanding andexpressing ideas in English. Such a methodology encourages students to participate
more fully in their own education and can reawaken students’ enthusiasm for language
learning when the focus of instruction moves from mastering English as an academic
subject to experiencing English as a tool for meaningful communication.
Applying these methodological principles to our own practice, we have
implemented an approach to language teaching that integrates language study withcomplex and meaningful content. Classroom activities oﬀer students multiple
opportunities to share their ideas, reﬂect upon their learning, and engage in extended,
unrehearsed communication with peers, teachers, and others both inside and outsideof the classroom. Students work with authentic English materials, and we try, in so far
as possible, to replicate an authentic context for communication in which students
present their thinking and research in much the same manner as they will be called
upon to do in their future academic and professional lives.
This approach, Sustained Content Language Teaching (SCLT), a form ofContent-Based Instruction (CBI), fosters a deeper engagement with language, subject
matter, pragmatics, and rhetorical forms than is possible through the cursory treatmentof content found in many topic-based or theme-based texts (Pally, 2000, chap. 1). In
contrast to conventional English language courses that lead students through a
succession of loosely related topics, a sustained-content curriculum is constructedaround the in-depth exploration of a single idea or question and follows an organic
progression of thought guided by students’ interests and discoveries. Students generatemany of the materials, research diﬀerent aspects of a topic, and share their insights in
an authentic communicative context. In addition to content knowledge, students
acquire relevant vocabulary, encounter complex linguistic structures, gain insights intosocial and pragmatic conventions of language, develop critical thinking skills, andimprove their ability to convey information and ideas to others in the target language.
Language instruction and content are not competing elements, but rather
complimentary functions that facilitate linguistic competence and enhance motivation(Pally, 2000; see also Grabe & Stoller, 1997; Murphy & Stoller, 2001, for fuller discussion of
SCLT).

A complementary focus upon content and language is not restricted to― 23 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 14intermediate and advanced students. Because students work with content as well as
language, low-skilled students can make signiﬁcant contributions to the class, and all
students can make progress in the acquisition of language forms at their respective skill
and ability levels. SCLT is especially appropriate for Japanese university students whoshare similar educational backgrounds, but who vary a great deal in their capacity togenerate speech and conduct an extended conversation in English. The range ofabilities and competencies found in typical ﬁrst-year Japanese university English
language classes actually facilitates language acquisition when SCLT methods are
employed because students gain communicative competence as they act as resources
for one another. Furthermore, the collaboration inherent in the discovery andapplication process presents more opportunities for comprehensible input andnegotiation of meaning in mixed-level classes than occurs in streamed classes following
an objectives-based curriculum (Grabe & Stoller, 1997; Pally, 2000; see also Johnson &Johnson, 1986; Tinzmann, Jones, Fennimore, Bakker, Fine, & Pierce,1990; Long, 1996).
Unlike many language-teaching methodologies, which tend to be ﬁxed systems
with prescribed techniques, CBI and SCLT are approaches, or philosophies, that canbe interpreted and applied in various ways in diﬀerent educational settings. Our
application of CBI and SCLT is in response to Japanese university students who have
put a great deal of eﬀort into studying a foreign language without attaining
communicative competence. We ﬁnd that a content-based approach reawakens ourstudents’ desire to study English, furthers language acquisition, accommodates itself
to the teaching environment at this institution, and prepares students for the role
English will play in their future.

Content-Based Instruction at Aichi University Junior College
Rationale for Using Content-Based Instruction
For the past six years, I have taught women junior college students. Most arerecent graduates of high schools located within commuting distance of the university.
The overwhelming majority will seek employment upon graduation. When asked
what they hope to gain from their English classes at the tertiary level, they express adesire to learn how to communicate using the language, not having had the opportunity― 24 ―

BEYOND LANGUAGE: CREATING OPPORTUNITIES

to do so at the secondary school level. However, Aichi University Junior College
students are limited to four semesters of study with only one weekly class devoted to
speaking. During their two years in our program, students most likely will have one
oral communications skills class per semester, or a maximum of four classes should
they elect to take them all. The ﬁrst year of study is an exceptionally critical one
because it is the only time students will be able to focus primarily on their studies,rather than on the job search.
Based upon the type of students, their professed desires, and the goals of the
program, I decided to integrate CBI into my ﬁrst-year English classes to create
opportunities for students to engage in authentic communication about topics relevantto their life experience. Students gain conﬁdence as language learners if they can sharethoughts that are important to them, despite having had little or no experience using
the language for actual communication. Because the majority will soon be in the workforce facing situations in which they must use English for communication, students
need to gain experience interacting with others and negotiating meaning with English
speakers.
One of my biggest challenges has been to tailor the course content andmethodology to the students’ pre-intermediate level of oral communicationcompetence. Most students are able to make simple greetings or self-introductions, doshort narrations on recent personal experiences and answer simple comprehension
questions, but have had little experience with discussion skills. Visual aids, especiallycommercially produced videos, provide a good deal of comprehensible input and arevery eﬀective tools in bridging this gap.
Video’s textually rich content is accessible to a wide range of levels and abilities.
In choosing videos, I consider several criteria. As students are very sensitive to current
trends, I try to choose materials that were produced in the last quarter century. In
addition, I consider whether the subject matter would be interesting to this age group.
Other criteria include having a clear plot line that is easy to follow and that will whet
students’ interest in viewing the next portion. The students must be able to relate to
the characters. The level and content of the language and the way it is delivered areother points to keep in mind. Excessive profanity or lines quickly mumbled can bevery distracting and de-motivating. I also consider the amount of violence and numberof sexually explicit scenes, which some students might ﬁnd oﬀensive.
― 25 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 14For ﬁrst-year students, I have chosen as themes: education, making decisions,relationships with parents and teachers, taking responsibility for one’s actions, dreams
for the future, and school life, all of which I thought especially appropriate for young
adults dealing with similar issues. The tasks to be completed and the ﬁnal product tobe shared are designed so that all students are able to contribute regardless of theirspeaking skills. Some colleagues are skeptical that students of this level can function as
required. That the main focus is upon content and ﬂuency rather than on form andaccuracy is a point that is not often well understood. There seems to be a very strong
belief that students must completely master certain grammatical forms before they areallowed to enter situations that require them to use more complex forms than they can
successfully manipulate. However, I have found that unless students ARE put into
those situations, they will never have the opportunity to learn how to use these forms.
Unless the students are aware of the context in which certain forms can be used, they
most likely will not acquire them.
Students repeatedly have shown that they can discover ways in which to contributeto class and group work and learn from their peers in the process. That their speaking
level is higher or lower compared to another student is not what is important. To have
one’s eﬀorts recognized and the end product or performance be understood by the
instructor and one’s peers is what counts. Without some sort of positive recognition,
the motivation to further develop communication skills is diﬃcult to maintain.
Classroom Practice
Dead Poets Society (1989) was chosen for its accessibility and portrayal of young
people grappling with issues similar to those I wanted my students to consider, i.e.
taking responsibility for their actions, thinking about their future, maintaining
relationships with adults, etc. Worksheets were provided to give support regarding
vocabulary, characters in the story, and the plot line. Students were encouraged to view
the video outside of class time, and the majority of students did so. Journal entries
were also assigned, such as asking students to respond to incidents in the movie andﬁnding similarities with their own experiences as high school students. Students sharedthese journal entries with their peers and then with the class at large. The instructor
wrote student comments on the blackboard to summarize the day’s discussion. This
activity served as the link to viewing the next segment, usually about 20 minutes in― 26 ―

BEYOND LANGUAGE: CREATING OPPORTUNITIES

length.
To close the video part of the unit, students chose topics concerning the issues in
the movie, such as school rules and conﬂict with parents, and made short presentations
to the class. Students were given delivery guidelines emphasizing eye contact, speaking
slowly and clearly, and using note cards with only key words and not sentences. The
video classes and activities provided the base for the next phase, during which thethemes introduced would be further developed.
By six weeks into the fall semester, students had begun to adjust to a lifestyle very
diﬀerent from high school and had come to realize both the good and bad points of
the university environment. I wanted the students to connect the themes of the ﬁlm
with their own lives and to look critically at their own surroundings. First, theybrainstormed aspects of the university campus that they deemed warranted
improvement. Then, they made a list and formed groups of two or three students
according to topic. Next, the groups determined what the problem entailed, decided
how to collect relevant data, and developed a poster presentation to demonstrate theirresearch to the class.
One group consisted of students who had purchased notebook computers asrecommended by the department. However, they found that their classes did notsupport or encourage computer use, so they wondered how other students and teachers
felt about this situation. Another group looked into the lack of bicycle parking lots on
campus. Two other groups focused their attention on the student union building, with
one looking into ways of improving the cafeteria menu and another into how students
could make better use of the facilities. These projects reﬂected the students’ day-to-day
concerns.
Classroom sessions during this phase involved groups working on questionnaires,
planning ﬁeld-work, consulting with the instructor, collating data, and drafting theﬁnal poster. Students negotiated with other teachers to allow time for questionnaireadministration, sent email inquiries to teachers about their opinions, spoke withcollege staﬀ, and took photos of problem areas. As they worked with their data,
students realized that more questions could have been asked and that some weresuperﬂuous. They struggled with the discrepancy between their original intention andhow the project actually developed. Some groups worked at a faster pace than others,
but this encouraged and motivated those who were sometimes ﬂoundering.
― 27 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 14Students assembled the ﬁnal product outside of class. On presentation day,students were allowed to use note cards. The rationale of their project, the methodology,
the results, and their analysis were clearly stated. The groups ensured that each member
had a signiﬁcant role in the explanation of their project. If presenters were nervous,
they were good at disguising it, for students spoke in loud, conﬁdent voices, making agood eﬀort at maintaining eye contact. Their posters were large and some very colorful,with a range of artistic talents shown. Some groups used computer-designed graphs orpie charts, whereas others used photos of campus areas in question. At the conclusion,
they ﬁelded questions from their peers and the instructor, who also gave presenters
feedback in written form.
Evaluation
Students were evaluated as follows: classroom participation 30%, journal writing
30%, and presentations 40%. Students were informed of the evaluation criteria in thecourse description catalog, and in the syllabus handed out on the ﬁrst day of class.
Because interaction with one’s peers is essential to this type of class, a large percentageof the grade is allotted accordingly. I routinely observe how individuals are using theirtime during the class and make mental notes. Journal writing also is heavily weighted
because the writings become the starting point for group discussions. Because oral
communication skills are the focus of the curriculum, presentations constitute almost
half of the total grade.
Reﬂections
In retrospect, there were several other possibilities that could have been explored.
For example, students could present their poster session to other classes. Repetition
would give them the opportunity to make further improvements. Prohibiting the useof note cards would wean them from this support and result in a more spontaneousdelivery. Another idea would be to re-examine the posters themselves to improve form
and accuracy of language use. These tasks would encourage students to become more
reﬂective of their work. Finally, creating an opportunity for the students to present
their ideas to the authorities in charge would be an ideal ﬁnish for this cycle. (In one
case, a student did pass on her group’s ﬁndings regarding notebook computer purchaseand usage to an instructor of computer skills.)― 28 ―

BEYOND LANGUAGE: CREATING OPPORTUNITIESMaking what we do in the classroom relevant to the students’ lives remains oneof my big concerns as an instructor. Encouraging students to make inquiries about
issues directly aﬀecting them increases their involvement and furthers critical thinking.
Since what they discover through their own research and ﬁeld-work is indeed theirown work, the chance to inform others of their results can rightly be consideredauthentic communication. Through collaborative eﬀorts, students experience theprocess of making meaning with others, and, as they work toward common, negotiatedgoals, they discover the communication tools that foster communicative competence.

Integrating Content-Based Instruction into a CoordinatedLanguage Program
Rationale
Like Laura, I ﬁnd that a content-based approach to instruction engages students’interest, helps them to become independent learners, and fosters their development as
English speakers better than curricula built around textbooks that change topics
frequently and exhibit only a superﬁcial concern for content. First, I will describe myexperience in a coordinated English language program and demonstrate how teachersinterested in a content-based approach to language teaching can incorporate CBIprinciples into a structured curriculum. Then I will describe the role of sustained
content and cooperative learning in English language courses in the Department ofComparative Cultures at Aichi University.
The Program Structure
Our junior college English language program consisted of ﬁrst-year required
courses and second-year electives. Students were streamed into 6 levels, based on
written tests and oral interviews. First-year classes met twice a week for 90 minutes.
Each level had a required textbook, and the curriculum called for four mandatory
activities: a book review, a movie review, STEP test practice, and a ﬁnal project, withdates set by the program.
The teaching situation facilitated collaboration, as teachers shared a common
room and all classes were held on the same days in the same building. A colleague and― 29 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 14

I decided to build our low-intermediate courses around three extended projects thatwould facilitate cross-classroom exchanges. Although not as in-depth as a semesterlong focus upon a single topic, the projects would allow students to develop bothcontent and language expertise as they gathered information from various sources,
analyzed and evaluated the information, and presented their results to members of theother class. I will describe one of the projects.
Theme Park Competition
This project was an extension of the textbook’s chapter on theme parks. After the
students had been introduced to the topic by the text, groups were assigned to researchissues of design, safety, facilities, location, transportation, entertainment, expense, andso forth on the Internet. At least one source had to be in English. At the same time,
students were to interview friends about their reasons for visiting theme parks andtheir favorite activities. After students shared their research with their group members,
the class came up with a list of criteria that a successful theme park would meet. Then
we teachers announced a ﬁctitious competition to build the best theme park. Teams
were to design a theme park and create an attractive poster showing the features andfacilities at the park. The poster would be entered into the competition. This part ofthe project took about ﬁve classes, or two and one half weeks.
The next phase of the project involved teams selling their theme park idea to theother class whose teams of judges would choose the winning theme park. Team
members had to familiarize themselves with the criteria for a successful park and beable to explain how their park met those criteria. They also had to come up withunique features and selling points that could win the competition in their class. As
each team would also judge the theme parks designed by the other class, students hadto think about the questions that they would ask the other class in order to select awinner.
The poster presentations were spread over two class periods so that each class had
at least 45 minutes to present their posters to the other class. Teams in the presentingclass hung their posters on the wall and informally described the selling points of theirpark to teams of judges from the other class. Students were not allowed to use notes orread from papers. Judges went from team to team, asking questions and gathering
information to decide upon a winner. All conversation was extemporaneous. Judges― 30 ―

BEYOND LANGUAGE: CREATING OPPORTUNITIES

returned to their own classroom and conferred with team members. Each team cast avote for one poster and explained their reasons to the class. Then the whole class voted
by secret ballot for the winning theme park, writing the most important reasons fortheir choice. One park was selected from each class, and a representative from thejudges presented an award to the winning team.
Reﬂections
Although our three projects were shorter in duration than true sustained content
courses, they nevertheless provided students with an opportunity to direct their own
learning, conduct research, build critical thinking skills, acquire content knowledge,
collaborate on tasks with meaningful outcomes, and engage in discourse in an authentic
communicative context. Although some students used Japanese in the classroom, andsome consulted Japanese language sources, most students performed as much of theirwork as they possibly could in English. During the preparatory phase, teams frequently
had to discuss their progress and explain their ideas to the whole class in English.
Thus, they soon began to see that group work was best conducted in English as arehearsal for whole class discussions and presentations.
Even within streamed classes, language acquisition progresses in diﬀerent ways at
a diﬀerent pace for each student. The focus upon content rather than upon discrete
language items accommodated these individual diﬀerences. Student attainment waspossible on many diﬀerent fronts, and each individual student could make a signiﬁcant
contribution to the class.
As students collaborated on group tasks and shared complex information, they
were exposed to a far wider range of vocabulary words and linguistic forms than they
ever would have encountered or used in following the textbook. The in-depth
exploration of a single topic provided the students with numerous opportunities toreinforce their learning of both content and language. The recurrence of vocabulary
items and grammatical structures in an authentic context assisted memory andheightened students’ awareness of the pragmatic features of English (Snow, Met, &Genesee, 1989).
Despite the competitive nature of two of the projects, the very serious discussions
and rigorous preparatory work that went into the ﬁnal products raised these eventsfrom the level of entertaining games. The contests were a reward for hard work as well
― 31 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 14as providing a form of feedback as to how well the team had prepared. Although, theprojects did not extend as far into the “real world” as Laura’s projects, the students
nevertheless researched topics that were meaningful to them, acquired content
knowledge that enhanced their understanding of real world situations, and, by being
asked to share their knowledge in the manner in which learners in other academic andprofessional programs do, formed an authentic student discourse community.
Evaluation
Grades for the projects were based primarily upon the various tasks leading to theﬁnal product. Students compiled their project work in a folder that was evaluatedholistically. Some tasks, such as summaries of Internet articles, were assigned individual
grades, whereas other tasks, such as presentations, received a group grade.
Self-evaluations, peer-evaluations, and group self-evaluations were included in
the grading process. Certainly not all work in the process was graded. Students wereinvolved in deciding the criteria for evaluating presentations and projects. Teacher
assessment and peer-evaluations were sometimes combined to arrive at the ﬁnal
grade.
The three projects comprised 60% of the course grade. The book review, themovie review, and the STEP test made up 30% of the course grade for all sections in
the program. Teachers were allowed a 10% “TDI,” or “teacher discretion grade,” which
we used to reward class contributions, group work skills, and improvement. Thus, abalance was achieved between program requirement grades and teachers’ instructional
grades.
Had our program had a heavily-weighted exit test or ﬁnal exam, the evaluation
process would not have been as accurate or as appropriate or as comprehensive.
However, the progress we observed made us conﬁdent that our students could do atleast as well, if not better, on an objective test as students in other sections of the
program. In addition, they had acquired learning skills, research skills, content
knowledge, pragmatic competence, ﬂuency, and self-conﬁdence that no standardized
test is designed to measure.

― 32 ―

BEYOND LANGUAGE: CREATING OPPORTUNITIES

Sustained Content in Aichi University Department ofComparative Cultures
The Department of Comparative Cultures integrates language instruction with
content that furthers students’ understanding of world cultures. For my two sectionsof ﬁrst-year English, I chose the same video as Laura, “Dead Poet’s Society.” Our diﬀerent
applications of CBI illustrate the ﬂexibility of content-based instruction in meetingthe needs of incoming students and fulﬁlling requirements in diﬀerent programs.
English Conversation 1, Classroom practice
The primary objective for the ﬁrst three weeks was to acquaint students with thetechniques of English discourse, especially small group discussion and group process.
The second objective was to encourage them to think interpretively about topics andapply critical thinking skills, such as classiﬁcation, analysis, and cause and eﬀect, totopics discussed (Bloom, 1971). Therefore, I assigned group tasks that would help
students acquire the vocabulary and skills for analysis and interpretation, for example,
asking the groups to decide what qualities are important in a boyfriend or girlfriend,and then engaging the whole class in classifying, analyzing, comparing, and synthesizingthese qualities. The vocabulary elicited would be transferred to discussing charactersand events in the ﬁlm. Through these exercises, students became accustomed tosupporting their ideas and elaborating upon the contributions of others.
As students practiced discussion skills and performed tasks in small groups, theylearned to support each other and to respect individual abilities and contributions(Tinzmann et al, 1990). Small groups chose a leader, a note-taker, a reporter, and afacilitator. These well-deﬁned roles helped students direct their discussions and carryout decision-making processes in the early stages of learning to collaborate.
Students wrote a one-page homework assignment each week in their journals. At
ﬁrst, I assigned topics that raised the same issues of independence, responsibility, andself-reliance that would emerge from the ﬁlm. As the course progressed, topics weredrawn from the ﬁlm or from questions raised in class discussions. Students shared
their writing in small groups, reading aloud from their notebooks or speaking
extemporaneously. After about 15–20 minutes of discussion, the reporter for the grouporally summarized the group’s discussion, and the whole class responded to the ideas― 33 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 14

raised by the small groups. By beginning with an individual task that allowed time forreﬂection and that could be shared with others in a meaningful way, students gained
the skills and conﬁdence to participate fully in discussions with the whole class.
The next six weeks were devoted to the ﬁlm. First, students searched the Internet
for English sources of information about Dead Poets’ Society. Small groups were assigned
a topic, such as Peter Weir, the director; Robin Williams, the lead actor; the soundtrack;or awards won by the movie. Each group member had to bring at least one reasonably
comprehensible English article on their group’s topic to class. Groups prepared a 10minute oral presentation about their topic from the information they had gathered.
Students were allowed one small note card with key words and phrases, but notsentences, for their presentation.
We then watched the opening scenes of the ﬁlm with no language support inorder to encourage close observation and build schema to create a context for the ﬁlm.
We watched the remainder of the ﬁlm in 25–45 minute segments over next few weeks,observing natural breaks in the action. Language support included close captioning
and, sometimes, Japanese subtitles. Class discussions focused upon themes and literary
elements, interpretation of character and action, cinematic features, soundtrack,
directing, acting, and students’ personal responses. Discussion was mostly in English,
although when articulating diﬃcult concepts, students resorted to Japanese as theystruggled to ﬁnd appropriate ways to communicate their ideas in English. These
opportunities were prime times for direct instruction in language, and students gained
better recall of vocabulary and grammatical forms because the instruction was provided
when support was needed in an authentic communicative context (Halliday, 1999;
Hymes, 1971; Krashen, 1982, 1985; Swain, 1988).
The ﬁnal weeks of the course were devoted to activities such as a graﬃti wall
where students wrote their responses to quotations and situations from the ﬁlm, a ﬁnal
project, and an exercise in which teams wrote questions they would like to ask
characters in the ﬁlm, and members of another team assumed the role of the character
and answered the question extemporaneously. Students wrote the questions before
they prepared their ﬁnal presentations, and answered the questions during a gamewith topics and points on the last day of class. When students assumed the role ofcharacters in the ﬁlm, they gave thoughtful, extended, and complex answers, supporting
their ideas with examples and illustrations.
― 34 ―

BEYOND LANGUAGE: CREATING OPPORTUNITIESThe ﬁnal project was an explication de scene, in the form of a 15-minute grouppresentation. Groups chose an important scene from the ﬁlm and, as in an explicationde texte, analyzed and explained how the scene worked and what the scene contributed
to the ﬁlm. The soundtrack and the cinematography were discussed, as well as the
directing, acting, meaning, and functions of the scene. This capstone project required
students to demonstrate not only content knowledge, but to apply the linguistic,
critical thinking, interpretive, and group process skills acquired during the course.
One class period was allowed for students to prepare their scenes. Students
worked with the video in two nearby classrooms, and I moved between the rooms
giving assistance as requested. All students were totally engaged in their work. Teamschose a variety of innovative formats for presenting their work, and their presentations
were well received.
Reﬂections
At the beginning of the term, students struggled with basic interpersonalcommunication. They were not accustomed to the in-depth interaction and extended
discussion that are at the heart of sustained content courses. When they worked inteams, they tended to divide group tasks and focus upon the end product, rather thancollaborate in a manner that enhances understanding and builds upon each individual’scontribution. Their expectations for the class were low. Over the course of the semester,
students developed expertise in collaborative-learning, gained ﬂuency in expressing
their ideas, improved their reading, writing, listening, and research skills, and exhibited
greater motivation and interest in both language and content study.
The students’ progress and improved motivation may be attributed to contentbased instruction, the collaborative approach to learning, and the creation of anauthentic context for communication. Students want to communicate their thoughts
and feelings about things that matter. Content dealing with real, complex humanissues is a far better stimulus for discussion than generalized topics like sports or
fashion. Despite lack of language facility, even the most basic level students havesomething to say, and a collaborative approach to learning gives them the support tomake their views understood. The exploration of a topic and the sharing of results thenbecome genuine information exchanges among people personally invested in theoutcomes.
― 35 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 14

Evaluation
Grades were assigned to notebooks (30%), presentations (50%), and classcontributions (20%). Notebooks contained class notes, journal assignments, group
work, and vocabulary development. They were graded holistically according to criteria
developed and shared with the class early in the term. Midway through the term, I
collected the notebooks and gave feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of their“textbook” so that students could make improvements before the end of the term.
Self-evaluations, teacher assessment, and peer-evaluations were all considered in
the presentation grade. Students kept a learning journal, writing a few sentences after
every class about what we had done and how they felt about their learning that day.
Students also were asked to write a reﬂections page evaluating their learning and thechallenges they faced. These tools gave me in-depth feedback about the students’perspectives of the course and my teaching.

Conclusion
In this article, we have explored ways in which authentic communication andcritical thinking can be incorporated into the English curriculum at Japanese postsecondary educational institutions. We have introduced classroom practices that are
new to the university foreign language classroom such as group work, project-based
work, and presentation skills. As university students are expected to take an increasingly
proactive stance in their education, the language classroom experience should also
mirror this overall institutional goal. A break with the practices instilled during theirlengthy examination-driven study is necessary for students to become more active,
engaged, and questioning participants in their own learning.
In our experience, engagement in the language learning process happens when alink is created between language study and the outside world. Students see no reason
to engage in learning if the outcomes are not relevant to their lives or if, in the case oflanguage study, the focus of study does not further their own desire for communicationand self-expression. As students gain a deeper understanding of content area and its
connection to self and society, their investment in their own learning increases.

― 36 ―

BEYOND LANGUAGE: CREATING OPPORTUNITIESReferences
Bloom, B. S. (1956/1971). Handbook of formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In M. Snow & D.
Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content(pp. 5–21). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. [Electronic version] Retrieved
September 12, 2005, from CARLA.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Mattiessen, C. (1999) Construing experience through meaning: A language-based
approach to cognition. London, New York: Cassell.
Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Johnson, R. T. & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: cooperative learning in the science classroom.
Science and Children, 24, 31–32.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. NY: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. NY: Longman.
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/ non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom.
In M. Clarke & J, Handscombe (Eds.), On TESOL ’82: Paciﬁc perspectives on language learningand teaching (pp. 207–225). Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, (pp. 413–468). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Murphy, J. M., & Stoller, F. L. (Eds.) (2001). Sustained-content language teaching: an emerging
deﬁnition. TESOL Journal, 10 (2/3), 3–5.
Pally, M. (2000) Chapter 1: Sustaining interest/ advancing learning: Sustained content-based instruction
in ESL/EFL – Theoretical background and rationale. In M. Pally, (Ed.). Sustained content
teaching in academic ESL/EFL: A practical approach. Boston: Houghton-Miﬄin. [Electronic
version] Retrieved September 12, 2005, from http://www.marciapally.com/susconch1.html
Swain, M. (1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language
learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6 (1), 68–83.
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language
and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 201–217.
Tinzmann, M. B., Jones, B. F., Fennimore, T. F., Bakker, J. Fine, C, & Pierce, J. (1990) New learningand thinking curricula require collaboration. In What is the collaborative classroom? NCREL.
Retrieved September 12, 2005, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/rpl-esys/collab.htm
Widdowson, H. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. (1993). The relevant conditions of language use and learning. In M. Krueger & F.
Ryan (Eds.), Language and content: Discipline and content-based approaches to language study(pp. 27–36). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

― 37 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 14

Weir, P. (Director). (1989). Dead Poets’ Society [Motion picture]. United States: Touchstone Home
Video.

― 38 ―