The Proceedings of the JALTThe Proceedings of the JALT ...jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/previous/jalt98.pdf · Kip Cates, James Kahny, Daniel Kirk & Lynda-ann Blanchard

The Proceedings of the JALTThe Proceedings of the JALT24th Annual International24th Annual InternationalConference on LanguageConference on Language

Teaching/Learning &Teaching/Learning &Educational MaterialsEducational Materials

\Interpretations IS /a ovember 20-23, 1998

1998~11~20&---23H

Omiya Sonic CityOmiya, Saitama, Japan

EEis$?;h;gT’fXg’JZY!EJFf

Proceedings

Thomson Learning™

5/F Palaceside Building, 1- 1 -1 Hitotsuhashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0003Tel: (03) 5218 6543 Fax: (03) 5218 6551

A three- level , task-based l istening series, developed specificallyfor the needs of high bcginncr- intermediate Asian learners.

(/ act iv i t ies sui table for junior col lege and universi ty classes

r/ a wide variety of listening sources

I/ schema-building and vocabulary work

r/ the development of a wide range of key listening andlearning strategies

I/ a personalized learner-centered approach

d tasks suitable for a variety of class sizes

/ full color artwork. with photographs and livelyi l lust rat ions

r/ teacher ’s guide providing uni t instruct ions, tapescripts,answer key and suggested extensions

Speak OutBased on the same communicative approach as Listen In, SpeakOut is a three-level speaking course for high beginner-intermediatestudents of English

J appropriate for senior h igh school-university level classes

I/ controlled exercises and clearly-stated goals buildconfidence before students move to freer, creativecommunicat ion

c/ frequent opportunities lo personalize language.-“-~- - I d Say it right sections for improving pronunciation

udent Book 1 O - 5 1/ cross-cultural focus related to the usage and nuance of

vdent Book 2 O-5 spoken language

t u d e n t B o o k 3 O-534-83567- r/ Language in context summarizes language for each unit‘1,980 (/Sacher’s

l is tening component provides authent ic input and realistic

.I speaking models

r/ teacher’s guide containing step-by-step instructions,answer key, suggested fol low-up activit ies andphotocopiable worksheets for homework/testing

Associationfor Language

The Proceedings of the JALT24th Annual InternationalConference on Language

Teaching/Learning &Educational Materials

\A7Yhn

ons I$ /a ovember 20-23, 1998

. m--- -a-

Omiya Sonic CityOmiya, Saitama, Japan

tGzExs*~~‘J=.y!WT--f

Proceedings

On JALT98:Focus on the Classroom: Interpretations

—JALT Conference Proceedings—An annual volume produced by the Conference Editorial Team of

the Japan Association for Language Teaching

Co-editors

Cover Design

Layout

Acknowledgments

September 1st 1999, Tokyo

Andrew Barfield, Robert Betts, Joyce Cunningham, Neil Dunn,Haruko Katsura, Kunihiko Kobayashi, Nina Padden, Neil Parry& Mayumi Watanabe

Malcolm Daughtery

Neil Parry

We would like to thank Gene van Troyer, Junko Fujio, Tin TinHtun, and the JALT Central Office for their advice and help.

Copyright © by the Japan Association for Language TeachingAll materials in this publication are copyright © 1999 by their respective authors. All rights

reserved. Printed in Japan. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any formwhatsoever without written permission of JALT, except in cases of brief quotations embodied in

scholarly articles and reviews. For information, address Conference Proceedings, JALTCentral Office, Urban Edge Building 5F, l-37-9 Taito, Taito-ku, Tokyo 110-0016, Japan

Cataloging Data

Barfield, Andrew; Betts, Robert; Cunningham, Joyce; Dunn, Neil; Katsura, Haruko; Kobayashi,Kunihiko; Padden, Nina; Parry, Neil; & Watanabe, Mayumi (Eds.)On JALT98: Focus on the Classroom: Interpretations

Bibliography: p.1. Second Language Teaching—Second Language Learning-Teacher EducationI. Title.September 1999ISBN 4-9900370-6-5

Editorial Advisory Board

Naoko AokiOsaka University

Paul BeaufaitPrefectural University ofKumamoto

David BerghECC Nagoya

Klaus-Börge BoeckmannOsaka University

Wade CarltonShimane University

Larry CisarKanto Gakuen University

Steve CornwellOsaka Jogakuin Junior College

Brian CullenAichi Prefectural University

David DycusAichi Shukutoku University

Thomas H. GoetzHokusei Gakuen University

Tim GreerOtaru Junior College

Aleda Krause

Bill LeeGifu University

Joe LuckettHokusei Gakuen University

Wilma Luth

Laura MacGregorSophia University

Ichiro MaruiKochi University

Elin MelchiorKomaki English Teaching Center

Tom MernerMerner School of English

Michelle NagashimaKoala Club

Rudolf ReineltEhime University

Jill RobbinsKwansei Gakuin University

Markus RudeUniversity of Tsukuba

Stephen RyanEichi (Sapientia) University

Thom SimmonsNihon University

Janina TubbySumikin-Intercom

Olivier UrbainSoka University

Gene van TroyerGifu University of Education

Daniel M. WalshHagoromo Gakuen Junior College

Howard WhiteSaniku Gakuin College

Welcome

We would like to welcome you, the reader, to this volume of papers written bypresenters at JALT98. The 24th International JALT Conference, Focus on theClassroom: Interpretations, was held in Omiya, Saitama-ken in November 1998, andfeatured over 300 presentations. Similar to any other international convention, JALT98was part ritual and part innovation: familiar in many ways, like an old friend, andenchanting too, like a new friendship. Indeed, we trust that voice of friendship quietlyechoes for you through these pages.

Rather than group the papers by content area, or distinguish between practice and theory,we decided to organise the papers by voice. The JALT98 proceedings start withVoices of Experience, which are followed by Voices of Observation, Voices ofInterpretation, and, finally, Voices of Experimentation. This creates, we believe, anintriguing mosaic of teacher and learner development processes at work, and captures,we hope, a strong sense of critical reflective practice.

Perhaps, the proceedings from a conference represent a passing consensus. Perhaps,they help naturalise existing trends, too. We cannot be certain. Fortunately, however,we may turn to you, the reader, for assistance. Please enjoy this recording of differentvoices according to your own needs and interests.

Contents

Voices of Experience

Voices of Observation

Voices of Interpretation

Voices of Experimentation

1

47

127

187

iv

Voices of Experience

Towards More Use of English In Class by JTEsMidori lwanoPaperless PortfollosTim StewartTextbook Creation In Raverse Order for ChlneseChou Jine JungCareer Exploitatlon Activities for EFL LearnersKristin JohannsenLights Up: Drama In the ESL ClassroomJames WelkerManaglng a Succeaatul E-mall ExchangeKatsumi lto & Dorothy ZemachPreparing for the Possibilities of DVD: Exploiting Language In TV CommercialsTim Know/esTheme Music PresentationDale HaskellOutslde Taplng for FluencyDavid Kiuge & Matthew A. TaylorContent and Creatlon: Student-generated TextbooksPaul Borg & Richard HumphriesPreparing Students for the Electronlc WorldSteve WittActivities tor the Independent LearnerSteve Petrucione & Stephen RyanLearner Autonomy In Japanese Classrooms: An Exchange of ViewsLeni Dam, David Little, Haruko Katsura & Richard Smith

Voices of Observation

Entrapped by Underatandlng-The Use of the First LanguageHannah PillayDiagnoatic Analysis ot Motivational Factors In ESLNaoyuki NaganumIn-Servlce Tralnlng wlth Japanese TeachersJudith LamieApplicatlona of Communlty Language Learning In JapanTim GreerTotal Quality Management In the ClassroomGiles ParkerPromotlng English Use In the EFL ClassroomAndrew MacNeill, James M. Perren & Kevin SullivanDiscourse-oriented Pronunclatlon ActivitiesDon Hinkelman & Jerald HalvorsenConveraation Teaching Meets Discourse AnalysisDominic CheethamAre Japanese Weak at Grammar, Too?Mikiya KoaraiGadgets and Gizmos: Gimmicks or Godsends?Chris Pitts & Robert WeschlerClassroom Activity: Learning Strategies ReportFumie KatoDesigning and Using Tasks to Promote Optimum Language DevelopmentJane Willis

6

9

11

14

16

18

23

27

32

35

39

42

47

57

64

69

74

79

88

93

98

106

110

119

V

1

Voices of Interpretation

Autonomy In Foreign Language Learning: From Classroom Practice toGeneralizable TheoryLeni Dam & David LittleTask Ideas for Junior and Senior HighDaina Plitkins-DenningLooklng at Real-world Tasks: Comparing Task-based and Skill-basedClassroom InstructionPeter Robinson, Gregory Strong & Jennifer WhittleThe Language Classroom on a Complex Systems MatrixDuane Kindt, Naoki Kumai, Paul Lewis, Matthew A.Taylor & Michael CholewinskiPhonological Awaraness In EFL Reading AcquisitionBrett ReynoldsJapanese Students Academic Literacy In EnglishMayumi FujiokaEmpowerment and Unionization: Reason, Application and EffectMichael Fox, Bill Holden, Farrell Cleary & John McLaughlinThe Function of Logical Modals In Scientific WritingAtsuko YamazakiTranslating Questionnaires from English Into Japanese: ls It Valid?Dale GriffeeDemystifying the STEP TestLaura MacGregor

Voices of Experimentation

Practicing Action ResearchLois Scott-Conley, Neil Cowie, Janina Tubby, Richard Hodge & Shinichi YokomizoCreativity In High School Oral Communlcatlon B ClassesRenee Gauthier SawazakiQuestioning Creativity: The CUE Forum on Higher EducationJack Kimball, David McMurray, Brian McVeighTeacher Beliefs and Teacher DevelopmentKazuyoshi Sato & Tim MurpheyGlobal Education and Language Teacher TrainingKip Cates, James Kahny, Daniel Kirk & Lynda-ann BlanchardEnglish Language Needs Analysis for EST StudentsRobyn Najar, Guy Kellog, Scott Rogstad, Lorraine Sakka & John ThurmanCALL: Classroom InteractionsDavid Brooks, Joseph Dias, William Bradley, Paul Daniels & James WadaDeveloping a Self-Access CenterJohn E. Ingulsrud, Kate Allen, Miriam Black, Andrew Shaffer & Patrick BenkeEast Meets West-Approaches to Learner AutonomyJill RobbinsMeasuring Wrlting Apprehension In JapanSteve Cornwell & Sandra MackayThe 3D Effect: Comblnlng Course and Self-AssessmentAlan MacKenzie & Nanci GravesCommunication, Context, and Constraint: Working Through the RiddlesMark A. Clarke

127

136

1 3 9

146

1 5 2

160

1 6 5

1 7 1

176

180

187

1 9 3

1 9 9

205

210

2 1 7

222

228

234

243

249

253

vi

Focus on the Classroom

Towards More Use of English in Class by JTEsMidori T. Iwano, Nanzan Junior College

The language of instruction among JapaneseTeachers of English (JTEs) is an issue I havebeen following for the past 5 years. I wouldlike to report on my findings and experiencesin three parts: (a) the situation in my juniorcollege classroom; (b) the guided discussionat JALT98; and (c) several practicalproposals for increasing the use of English inclass.

The situation in my junior collegeclassroomAccording to a survey by Koike and others in1980, while 2% of JTEs teach all (zenbu) inEnglish in their college and university Englishclasses and 4% of them usually (daitai) useEnglish, 60 % of JTEs hardly ever or never(amari or zenzen) use English in their collegeEnglish classes (Koike et al., 1980, p. 70).With the Grammar Translation Method(GTM) or Yakudoku (meaning “read andtranslate”), a JTE can comfortably run areading class in Japanese. “Although the(GTM) often creates frustration for students,it makes few demands on teachers” (Richards& Rodgers, 1986, p. 4). I rememberdisliking my JTEs’ Yakudoku classes incollege, as did my college friends when Iasked them to recall their classes at an alumnimeeting in Nagoya. However, I had neverconsidered using alternative methods in myown classes until I was asked by my MATsupervisor, Nelson Einwachter from theSchool for International Training : “Whydid you use Japanese to ask students if youcould clean the blackboard?”

According to my students over the past 4years, 1 am the only JTE who has been usingEnglish in class at my junior college. Ofcourse, when I feel it necessary to useJapanese, I don’t hesitate to. I encouragestudents in Japanese to ask clarifyingquestions, especially when the topic concernscourse evaluation or required assignments.At the same time, I use English as the

.

medium of instruction from the first class inApril. I do not force students to use English,nor stop their use of Japanese. However, asJapanese students tend to be group-centeredand conformist, they generally try to followtheir teacher if they know what to do andhow to do it. Thus, once a classroom normor culture has been set, it is not too difficultfor JTEs to increase their use of English asmuch as they want.

Such an increase can have direct benefitsfor the students. In April 1998, 26 studentsout of 27 in my English reading classanswered yes to the question: Do you wantMidori to use English? The girl whocircled “no” thought she understood only40% of my English on the first day.However, 7 months later, in November, 25students out of 25 (two students had left thecollege before the summer) wanted me tokeep using English. The lowest self-reported listening comprehension score bythree students was 70% on that day. Thedevelopment in listening comprehension fromApril clearly supports the truism that themore one is exposed to a language, the moreone will learn-and the main venue forexposure to a foreign language is theclassroom (Murphy & Sasaki, 1998).

What official support does the institutionlend to such a view? Unfortunately, whilethe college brochure Gakusei Binran (1998,p. 115) states that all the courses listed inEnglish are taught in English, my courses andall other JTEs’ courses are printed inJapanese, as if suggesting that JTEs’ use ofJapanese in English classes is normal. Notwishing to cause offense to other facultymembers, I have chosen not to act differently(Iwano, 1996). However, I do ensure thatthe syllabus written in Japanese informsstudents that “Ms. Iwano uses English inclass except when the objective is for you toobtain basic translation techniques,” and that“English is the communication language in

Voices of Experience 1

On JALT98

class, which has been upheld by your ‘senpai’(former students)” (p.181).

Although I encourage classroomcommunication in English, I shouldnevertheless acknowledge some merits of theGTM. As Larsen-Freeman (1986)observes,

“[The GTM] was used for the purposeof helping students read and appreciateforeign language literature . . . it wasthought that foreign language learningwould help students growintellectually . . . [and that] the mentalexercise of learning it would bebeneficial...” (p.4).

Therefore, I set aside two Japanese-onlysessions to teach translation techniques fromEnglish to Japanese in the first semester.However, in the second semester of 1998,students negotiated with me to read at least10 guided readers in 15 weeks rather thancomplete seven readers and one translation.They had learned in the first semester that ittakes a lot of time and energy to properlytranslate an English story into Japanese.They consequently preferred to use the targetlanguage in class, as well as decided to readmore English without translation. So, fromthe students’ point of view, there is directevidence that increased use of English by theteacher encourages them to learn Englishthrough actively using the foreign language inthe classroom.

From my experience of using English toteach my English classes, I wanted to meetwith other JTEs who have begun speakingmore in English in class or who areconsidering doing so. This would providean opportunity to discuss problems andsolutions: the focus of the guided discussionat JALT98.

Insights from the JALT98 guideddiscussionIn my 45-minute guided discussion, my aimwas to meet other JTEs and ask them thequestion: “Would you like to use moreEnglish in class ?” To my surprise, a thirdof about 30 participants were non-Japanese.

This brought home to me that the issue of“Ll or L2?” or “more use of the targetlanguage” is a common concern for bothJTEs and native-speaking English teachers or(native-speaking) Assistant LanguageTeachers, (ALTs).

I began my session by giving a “teachingpreferences” questionnaire. I asked theparticipants to rank their agreement on ascale with a series of paired statements thatwere opposite in meaning. I then askedparticipants to discuss in small groups thereasons for their position so that they mightsee to what extent they agreed or not.

For such a group task, I prepared nine setsof statements by quoting or paraphrasingfrom recent influential books and articlesabout English teaching principles andapproaches (Bartram and Walton, 1991;Brown, 1998; Ferguson, 1995; Larsen-Freeman, 1986; Murphey, 1995). Thesepaired statements were:

#l. I don’t mind if my students laugh at mewhen I speak English./I get embarrassedif my students laugh at me when I speakEnglish.

#2. When I make mistakes, I try to use themto learn something about English./WhenI make a mistake, it annoys me becauseit shows my students how bad myEnglish is.

#3. I hate making a fool of myself./l don’tmind making a fool of myself.

#4. I believe the ability to communicate inEnglish is a goal of instruction./1 thinkEnglish learning helps students growintellectually.

#5. I think English is to be used to learn./1think English is to be learned to use.

#6. I think errors are inevitable andtolerable./1 think errors should becorrected.

#7. I’m involved in the social and personaldevelopment of my students./I’m onlyteaching them English.

#8. JTEs can become powerful role modelsfor their students by speaking English inclass./To use English among Japanese isunnatural, embarrassing andunconventional.

2 Vo ices o f Exper ience


#9. We are judged by our expression/Ourcomprehension is more important thanour expression.

Several questionnaire items proved to besomewhat ambiguous to the participants.Some JTEs asked for Statements #4, #5 and#9 to be clarified. As for #4, I introducedthe historical controversy regarding the goalsof English education in Japan: English as apractical communication tool vs. use ofEnglish for intellectual, mental anddisciplinary training. The latter objective oflearning English has long supported the GTM.After this clarification, it was suggested thatthis item be rephrased as: I believe the abilityto communicate in English is the goal ofinstruction./I think knowledge of Englishlinguistics is a goal of instruction. In thecase of #5, I explained the difference between“using English to learn it,” and “learning touse English (Richards & Rodgers, 1991, p.66)” The former is what I have been tryingin class since English is a foreign language inJapan. A revised version of this item reads:We learn English by using it./We learnEnglish so that we can use it in the future.Finally, as for #9, I said I wanted my studentsto be more expressive rather than receptive;thanks to audience feedback, I was able torephrase this statement as: We are judgedby the content and correctness of our Englishexpressions./Whether we understand or not isall that really matters.

The small-group discussion format provedquite fruitful, both in the quality ofparticipant interaction and the resultinginsights. Regarding questionnaire item #8,one ALT suggested that one reason whyJTEs choose not to use English among otherJapanese might be that their ALTs do nottake the risk of speaking Japanese with them.A JTE reported that, together with aJapanese-American teacher hired at herjunior high school, she had drasticallychanged their students’ belief that “English isfor foreigners.” Throughout the discussion,statements related to the “accuracy vs.fluency” issue seemed to arouse heatedinterchange in groups. I used a timer thatmakes a loud beep to stop the groups as I do

in my classroom, and was happy to seeeverybody talking loudly in English from thebeginning.

Next I asked the participants to recall theirformer JTEs or former foreign languageteachers. I asked if they had been taught inthe Ll or L2, and if they had been correcteda lot. When I asked the whole group toshare if they had ever met an ideal teacher,everybody burst into laughter! Severalparticipants recalled learning foreignlanguages by the Audiolingual Method(ALM) in the 60’s in the USA, whereupon aJTE argued that the real problem is that themajority of students cannot go abroad tolearn English. My response was that this isa significant reason for JTEs to try to useEnglish in class; if, indeed, the majority ofstudents are unable to study English abroad,the Japanese classroom may well be theironly opportunity to learn to use the language.

In the next part of the guided discussion, Iasked the participants under whatcircumstances they would use the Ll or L2,as outlined by Ur (1997). I gave them Ur’schecklist from JALT97, which lists sixpossible ways that teachers can use the Ll inthe EFL class. They are: expressingapproval, explaining the meaning of a newword, explaining a tricky grammar point,giving instructions, reprimanding andmanaging classroom, and chatting withstudents. Participants were asked toindicate whether they would use the Ll or L2for all of those tasks. This was doneindividually first, then in small groups, beforeplenary feedback.

The group agreed that it is easier for aJTE to express approval in English than inJapanese. A JTE said he would useJapanese to explain the meaning of a newword or a tricky grammar point. Then theentrance exam hell and heavily loaded JTE’sdaily life were shared with a sigh and asnicker. I started feeling it was going to behard to make a quick decision how to movethe discussion on. I was behind schedule.Inside I was blaming the JTEs who had givenme only sugar-coated feedback about thequestionnaire. I felt that the JTEs wereexplaining to themselves why they did not


On JALT98

use English in class, and that the non-Japanese were being so sweet andsympathetic to the JTEs, but I told myself tobe non-judgmental!

Finally, I introduced Murphey andSasaki’s “four incremental changes”: (a)From conservatism to more risking-to-be-better (b) From all-or-nothing thinking tomore incremental changes (c) Fromperfectionism to more humanism (d) Frominformation giving to more comprehensiblecommunicating (Murphey & Sasaki, 1998, p.24 & p. 32). My plan was to sum up byleading the group discussion to these changesin beliefs and strategies, by connecting, forexample, questionaire item #1 to change 1,#2 to 2, #3 to 3 and so on. However, timewas running out, and I was feeling uneasy.

A closing comment by a JTE concludedthe session: whether to use Japanese orEnglish, when and how much is all up to theobjectives of the English class. Thisstatement is absolutely true. However, Iwas afraid that JTEs might take this closingcomment as an excuse for not speakingEnglish in class, because there are many,many classes prepared for students only topass written examinations; what’s moreresearch shows that “JTEs use Japanese forover 90% of the talking time in theirlessons."(Murphey & Sasaki, 1998) Iacknowledged that everybody present hadagreed to try harder toward more use ofEnglish in class. I thanked the group,wished them good luck and collected thewritten feedback. However, I wasn’t fullysatisfied with the session and so I decided towrite this paper.

ProposaIsTwo short experiences provide an interestingparadox. I once heard a JTE say, “Mystudents don’t want me to speak English inclass.” That is, this teacher believed therewas no need to change, so change wasimpossible. On the other hand, when I onceasked my class at the end of a lesson “Whatwas useful to you?“, I got the reply“Nothing.” This feedback so hurt me that Idropped a whole activity that I had beenexperimenting with (Iwano, 1995). On

hearing this, a classmate at SIT asked mehow many students had said so. “Just one,” Ireplied. Such support from a colleaguehelped me realize that I, like many teachersventuring into new territory in the classroom,tend to overreact to the situation and jump toquick conclusions before giving new ideasthe chance they deserve.

My first suggestion, therefore, is that JTEsapproach the transition to classroomcommunication in English with patience; onemust be prepared to allow considerable timefor the development of new techniques. I norder to approach that transition, however,one must be a willing believer in the benefitsof the planned change.

My 5 years of practice in using English inclass has totally changed me. Moreover,the junior college itself has been forced tochange to stay alive for the past years. Thecollege brochure still states that all thecourses listed in English are taught in English(p. 115), and all other JTEs’ coursesincluding mine are printed in Japanese, as ifsuggesting that JTEs’ use of Japanese inEnglish classes is normal. However, thelatest college brochure (1999) shows achange: Some courses printed in Japanese aretaught by native-speaking English teachers!In other words, JTEs will be forced tochange if they want to keep their positions atschool.

According to my November 1998 survey,100% of my students answered yes to thequestion, Do you think Midori should keepusing English in her first year students’classes next year? In the words of MarkClarke, one of the main speakers at JALT98,I am “a service giver”, and my students are“service receivers.” For me, this means thatI should meet their needs as best I can.Clarke also emphasized the importance of“coherence and flexibility” and “learning aschange over time.” Indeed, my goal is to becoherent in using English, and flexible inusing Japanese.

Some participants in the guided discussionstated in Japanese in their written feedbackthat they would like to use more English, butwere not confident about their English.This is important to understand clearly.

4 Vo ices o f Exper ience


Indeed, from another survey that I did inMarch 1997, nine out of ten JTEs attending alocal JALT meeting answered that they alsoworried about their own English. So did Iearlier. In fact, it is quite unbelievable howmuch I had worried about, and been afraid of,my own English, my students’ feedback-especially returning students’ from Englishspeaking countries and, above all, myJapanese colleagues’ reactions!

Do you remember the historicalcontroversy regarding the goals of Englisheducation in Japan that I reported in Part 2?I learned that Monbusho had taken the sideof English as a practical communication tool.So, I ask JTEs: Who has long supportedthe GTM or Yakudoku? Who has made youfeel so fearful of making errors in class?

If you are a JTE and you don’t have amodel foreign language teacher among yourformer teachers or senpai, you can create anideal role model in your mind. With thatimage in your mind, you can learn classroomEnglish, rehearse your lesson, record yourEnglish and listen to it critically, as I used to.Then you can start your class with a smileand greetings in English. Set a friendlyclassroom norm, use more English in classeach day, and your students will respect you;your English will continuously develop, andso will your confidence. And... you’llbecome humble enough to learn English withyour students happily ever after!

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank Nelson Einwachter,Robert Schalkoff, Rosemary Khoo, TedMiller of Soka University, Robert Bayer of St.Mary College and William Kumai of NanzanJunior College, and also Andy Barfield, NinaPadden, and Ichiro Iwano.

ReferencesBartram, M. & Walton, R. (1991).

Correction. London: LanguageTeaching Publications.

Brown, H. D. (1998), November Practicaltechniques for strategies-basedinstruction. Presented at EnglishEducators’ Professional DevelopmentGuest Lecture Series. Nagoya.

Ferguson, N. (1995). First contacts:Guide for the language trainingconsultant. Gilly-sur-Loire, France:SAPL France.

Iwano, M. T. (1995). Ask, search, knockUnpublished manuscript. Vermont:School for International Training.

Iwano, M.T. (1996). The medium is themessage.. Japanese teachers of Englishusing English in the classroom.Nagoya: South Mountain Press.

Koike, I., Ando, S., Furukawa, S., Haraoka,S., Ibe, S., Ito, K., Ishida, M., Ishikawa,S., Kuniyoshi, T., Matsuyama, M.,Narisawa, Y., Nishimura, Y., Tada, M.,Tajima, K., Tanabe, Y. & Yoshioka, M.(1985). General survey of Englishlanguage teaching at colleges anduniversities in Japan-students’ view.Tokyo: Daigaku Eigo Kyokai.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniquesand principles in language teaching.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Murphey, T. (1995). Identity and beliefs inlanguage learning. The LanguageTeacher, 19, 34-36.

Murphey, T. & Sasaki, T. (1998). JapaneseEnglish teachers’ increasing use of English.The Language Teacher, 22, 21-24 & 32.

Nanzan Tanki Daigaku. (1998). Gakuseibinran. Nagoya.

Nanzan Tanki Daigaku. (1999). Gakuseibinran. Nagoya.

Richards. J. & Rodgers, T. (1991).Approaches and methods in languageteaching. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Ur, P. (1997). Making the best use of yourtime. Paper presented at the 23rd

International JALT Conference,Hamamatsu, Japan.


On JALT98

Paperless PortfoliosTimothy Stewart, Miyazaki International College

If your office looks like mine used to, thereare papers everywhere and the floor is aminefield of paper stacks. This articleintroduces portfolio formats that candecrease the growing mountains of paperfound in teacher’s offices.

I have been using electronic portfolios forthe past four years in university classes.These portfolio formats include audio tape(see Stewart & Pleisch, 1998) video tape,and e-mail portfolios. Here, I focus onformats transmitted by e-mail and outlineseveral ways in which computers can be usedto compose portfolios.

A portfolio approach to assessment allowsteachers to capture each student’s best work.Portfolio-based assessment has advantagesover traditional assessment instruments forboth teachers and students (Hamp-Lyons &Condon, 1993; Valencia, 1990). First,good assessment is based on authentic tasks,contexts, and texts. As students perform avariety of tasks in typical courses, a portfoliofor assessment should reflect the samediversity of material, while encouraging theuse of different methods to evaluate learning.Second, assessment at its best is a processthat chronicles development. A writingportfolio, for example, should contain draftsof work for more than one genre. Third,curricular and pedagogical values shouldguide assessment, and portfolios readilyallow for this. Fourth, portfolios encouragecritical reflection, which is indispensable formeaningful assessment.

Why paperless portfolios?Paperless portfolios are similar toconventional portfolios of writing andreading in most respects. Electronicportfolios can be used for both evaluative anddevelopmental purposes. One importantdifference to conventional paper portfolios isthe variety of skills that can be evaluated overtime. Audio and video tape formats allow

6 Voices of Experience

students to track their own progress inspeaking and listening. The portability ofelectronic portfolios means students canaccess their work freely outside of theclassroom. Also, e-mail makes possiblerapid written communication over distancesbetween students themselves, as well as withthe instructor. Another difference is thatsuch portfolios add to the variety of ways inwhich students can communicate with peersand instructors. This motivates learners asit is more exciting to review a classmate’staped or e-mail message than it is to readpapers pulled from a folder. Furthermore,these portfolios form records of studentachievement in all skill areas that can be usedby both learners and teachers for reflectionand development. Finally, paperlessportfolios can decrease the flow of paper in acourse.

Focus on fluency: E-mail “secretpartner” journalsSecret journals in paper formats have beendescribed elsewhere (Bunker & Yang, 1994;Green & Green, 1993). Here, I outline atype of e-mail journal to help studentsimprove writing fluency (see also, Stewart,1996). Prerequisite skills are basic typingand facility with e-mail.

Selecting partners1) Ask students to complete a survey of

interests.2) Have students choose pen names. Pair

up students in your class with those in alike-sized class with similar writingabilities and interests, and who areunlikely to know one another well. Ifclass numbers do not match, ask one ofyour best writers to do two journals.

Tracking journals1 ) Create a list of partner names and

corresponding e-mail addresses.


2) Send messages from your students toyour colleague for him/her to forward tothe appropriate secret journal partner inhis/her class. Check that the messagehas no information that could be used toidentify the student.

Grades and corrections1) Assign a grade for writing passages

completed on time, of the appropriatelength, and which contain relevantcontent. This can help motivatepotentially tardy partners.

2) Occasionally, you may wish to informyour students about the quality of theirsecret journal messages. Keep in mindthat these are dialogues between studentswhere fluency, not accuracy, is theobjective.

Focus on clarity and accuracy:Annotations for essay correction anddialogue journals

Annotated commentsImagine no more red marks on studentpapers. In fact, there doesn’t even need tobe a physical piece of paper! Exchanges ofwritten work can be made electronically viae-mail attachments or on diskette, andcorrection guidance can be placed into papersthrough annotated comments (Wagner,1997). This method allows teachers tocollect electronic drafts of writingassignments that can be stored in computerfolders serving as writing portfolios and/orgraded separately.

Figure 1. Drop-down menu for inserting annotated comments

With Microsoft Word 98, teachers can insert brackets. An annotated comment cannumbered comment brackets anywhere contain clues such as correction symbols, orwithin a text. Inserted comments are sign other information to lead students to correctposted in a text by highlighting and-numbered errors. The annotation feature on earlier

Voices o f Exper ience 7

On JALT98

versions of Word allows users to placecorrection symbols directly into a text(Wagner, 1997).

How do you do it?

window opens at the base of the

1)

document containing the annotated

Position the cursor at the spot whereyou want to insert an annotation.

2) Select Insert on the menu bar andchoose Comment.

3) To change comments, chooseComment from the View menu. A

comments listed in numerical order.

comment bracket and press the delete

Make desired changes and then clickthe close button and save the change.

4)

key to delete the annotation signpost.

To read comments, a student simplyplaces the cursor over any part of ahighlighted annotation. A messagebox containing the annotated commentappears on the screen. Alternatively,see point 3.

5) After changing their text, a student canuse the cursor to highlight a numbered

The 2000 G-8 Summit

I believe that Miyazaki city will hold the G8 summit B ecausc, there is a

great hole [TS1]to have the summit[TS2]. Do you know The World Convention

N Center Summit[TS3]? The world convention center is in the northern part of. . . ...*

Miyazaki City. It works [TS4]under the Phoenix Seagaia group.

[TS 1] (8) Check your spelling.[TS2] (7) This is not a complete sentence. Maybe join it to the First sentence.[TS3] (6) Check that the last two words are in the correct order.

Figure 2. Screen for viewing and amending comments

Dialogue journalsDialogue journals are discussions betweenstudents and their instructor about coursesubject matter. Some error correction canbe done; however, this journal should be keptas non-threatening as possible to encouragean exchange of ideas that might not occurduring regular class sessions. Journals ofabout 200 words are typed each week in aword processing program. Studentstransmit journal entries as e-mail attachments.

Teacher responses to students’ questions andcomments are inserted into the original textas annotated comments and sent back to thestudents.

ConclusionPaperless portfolios include all of theadvantages inherent in traditional formats,but they contain features that can increasemotivation in some students. Electronicportfolios chronicle development in more



dynamic ways than do traditional paperportfolios by including the use of speakingand listening, as welI as computer technology.In addition, they are more portable than mosttraditional paper portfolios and, thus, allowgreater flexibility in their use.

ReferencesBunker, E., & Yang, D. (1994). Secret

partner journals in reading and writingclasses. Poster Session presented at the28th Annual TESOL Convention,Baltimore, MD.

Green, C., & Green, J. M. (1993). Secretfriend journals. TESOL Journal, 2, 20-23.

Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (1993).Questioning assumptions about portfolio-

based assessment. College Compositionand Communication, 44, 176-190.

Stewart, T. (1996). Secret partner journalsfor motivation, fluency and fun. TheInternet TESL Journal, 2. AvailableURL: [ http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Techniques/Stewart-SecretJournals.html]

Stewart, T., & Pleisch, G. (1998).Developing academic language skills andfluency through debate. The LanguageTeacher, 22, 27-32.

Valencia, S. (1990). A portfolio approachto classroom reading assessment: Thewhys, whats, and hows. The ReadingTeacher, 43, 338-340.

Wagner, M. (1997). Using annotations toidentify composition errors. T E S O LJournal, 6, 26-27.

Textbook Creation in Reverse Order for ChineseChou Jine Jung, University of Tsukuba

IntroductionDuring the past 9 years working as a Chineseteacher, I have endeavored to enhance thetextbooks I use each year. To my regret, Ifound that there was no textbook thatsatisfied both my students and myself. Mostbooks are grammar-centered and containmany unnatural expressions or mistakes.What’s more, the stories for conversationdialogues always look like a police inquiry.Most students lose interest in studying withthis kind of text, so for this reason I devised anew teaching method called TCRO(Textbook Creation in Reverse OrderMethod). I used this TCRO method for atrial term from April 1998 with myintermediate Chinese class.

In a normal class, teachers decide whattextbook they are going to use at the verybeginning. Instead of doing this, TCRO asksstudents to create their own textbook duringthe year and teach the lessons they create tothe rest of the class. The teacher’s only role

.

is one of an advisor or helper in the class.Since TCRO is a student-centered method, itgives the initiative to the students, andencourages them to study much morepositively than before. Students choose atopic of their own liking for their lesson atthe beginning, then collect the words andexpressions they are really interested in,before they finally create a text of their ownmaking. Students therefore study with amuch higher level of motivation because thetopic and subject matter are of their ownchoosing. The teacher helps all students ateach step by giving them useful advice, andthis helps to form a tight relationship betweenthe student and teacher. At the end of theyear, students are asked to teach the text theyhave created themselves to the rest of theclass. This helps students develop an in-depth understanding of what they study, aswell as share their experiences with otherstudents.


On JALT98

Procedure1 . Course introduction: At the

beginning, the teacher must describethe TCRO method as well as the year’sschedule to the class, to provide thestudents with an overview of what theyneed to do during the year. Whendoing this, it is advisable to do a mini-TCRO demonstration to help studentsget a firmer grasp of the method. Forexample:

2 .

3 .

Give a small piece of paper toeach student and ask him/herto write down one expressionthat interests them the most intheir native language(Japanese). Then the teacherhelps the students one by oneto form a correct expressionof the target language. (Forthe demonstration use anunknown language, e.g.,Spanish, Korean, Thai, orsome language you are able todeal with, which will make thedemonstration that much moreentertaining.) After a shortperiod of self-study by thestudents, ask them to teach itto the class.

Dividing into groups: Divide theclass into several groups. The idealnumber of students in one group is 3-4students. As there will be a lot ofgroup meetings outside class, it isbetter to ask students to form a groupwith people they find easy to get onwith. For this reason, some freediscussion time before the groups aredecided will be most beneficial.Choosing a topic: Every groupchooses their favorite topic throughdiscussion in the class. If two or moregroups choose the same topic, let thestudents negotiate about which topicsthey finally decide on. A list ofsuggested topics given by the teachermay help students to find their own;however, to maintain originality of thestudents’ thinking, the teacher shouldnot be involved too much in the

students’ decision-making.Alternatively, you could also askstudents to form a group with peoplewho are interested in the same topic.

4 . Collecting words and expressions: Allgroups are asked to collect thenecessary new words and expressionsthrough a questionnaire. After that,each group must decide through groupdiscussion what content they are goingto study.

5 . Manuscript writing in Japanese(Thinking): Ask each group to have adiscussion and let each member of thegroup choose one scene under thatgroup’s topic for which they areresponsible. Each student in thegroup must make a draft conversationdialogue about the scene he/shechooses. The conversation dialogueshould be written in their nativelanguage (in this case, Japanese).This is quite important, because if youask students to write in Chinesedirectly, most of them will just usewords and expressions they havestudied and create a low-level dialogue,which is far from their original thinking.Moreover, the native language(Japanese) dialogue helps the teacherknow what the students’ originalthinking was. When writing at thisstep, students must as far as possibleinclude words and expressions theyhave collected in their dialogues.

6 . Text writing in Chinese (Expression):Students put their Japanese dialoguesinto Chinese without consulting anybook, dictionary or other person.This is the best way to find how muchgap there is between their originalthinking and their level of Chineseexpression. It is the responsibility ofthe teacher to help the student fill in thegaps.

7 . Proofreading and errata: Theteacher proofreads and corrects anymistakes for students. Afterconsultation with the teacher, studentsmust create a list of errors for theirmistakes made in step 6. Each item


on the list contains their originalthinking in Japanese, an originalChinese expression, and the correct orappropriate Chinese expressiontogether with the reason for the error.Every student must make duplicatecopies of their errata report anddistribute them to the rest of the class.In this way, each student will have theerrata reports for the entire class.This will help students engage incooperative study.Textbook creation: After correctingof all the mistakes, each group mustcreate a lesson, which includes several(corresponding to the number ofstudents in that group) conversationdialogues, a complete grammar notesand drill as well as the word list for thegroups topic.Teaching (presentation) andevaluation: Each group teaches theirown lesson to the rest of the class.Usually it takes an hour for a group todo their teaching. Students can teachtheir lesson any way that they choose,but they must give a quiz to the classafter their presentation. The otherstudents do an evaluation of thepresenters after each lesson is taught.During the preparation for teaching andquiz making, the presenters deepentheir understanding of their own lesson.The quiz and evaluation helps other


students concentrate on the lessonbeing taught.

ConclusionAt the end of the first TCRO trial in my class,I learned that most students like this way ofstudying and that many make rapid progressusing this method. Most importantly,students do not worry about making mistakesin front of their peers, which is quite thereverse of how most students start off, i.e.,reserved and quiet. However, there are stillsome problems occurring in class that need tobe addressed in future research. One is thatboth the teacher and students must spend alot of time outside class proofreading andcorrecting. Another is that when studentsdo not finish assignments on time, this has anegative effect on the schedule for the year.

TCRO is based on the natural way inwhich humans generate language (from deepstructure to surface structure). It helpsstudents to recognize the right way ofstudying independently. This trial of TCROtook one entire year, but TCRO is afundamental way of teaching. Conversely, ateacher can also use a mini-TCRO for anhour’s teaching during class time.Moreover, because of its essential elements,TCRO can be used in any target language,not just Chinese. Above all, TCRO helps tostimulate and heighten student motivation tolearn the new language.

Career Exploration Activities for EFL LearnersKristin L. Johannsen, Kansai Gaidai University

IntroductionChoosing a career is a matter of greatimportance to all students in higher education,and nowhere is this more true than in Japan.The economic climate of recent years hasmade many Japanese students deeplyconcerned about their future in the workingworld.

Career choice is an ideal topic for thecommunicative language classroom. It ishighly motivating, because it directlyaddresses an important personal concern ofthe students. In addition, it allows a naturalintegration of language skills, as studentstake in information by listening and reading,


On JALT98

and then reflect, write, and share ideasthrough group discussion and pairwork.

I will briefly describe a unit of ten careerexploration activities developed for classes inthe Intensive English Studies program atKansai Gaidai University. The activitieshave been used with first- and second-yearjunior college students, and universityfreshmen. Teachers can easily adapt themto other classroom situations.

The central emphasis of the unit is a listkept by each student, entitled “My FutureCareer” and headed simply, “I would like myfuture career to include these things... .”After each activity, students reflect anddiscuss what they have learned, and thenspend a few minutes adding new items ontheir lists. At the end of the unit, studentsdraw on the list to write an essay about theirfuture goals.

Ten career exploration activities1. Twenty Things As homework, studentslist “20 things they love to do.” In class,they work in groups to analyze themaccording to criteria such as: activitiesdone alone/with a small group/with a largegroup, activities involving the wholebody/mind/hands/ senses, relaxing/exciting,indoors/outdoors, and so on. Groupsdiscuss other possible ways to classifyfavorite activities, and add more categories.Finally, the students total the number ofactivities they have checked for eachcategory, and discuss the patterns they End.

2. Collage Students bring old magazineswith pictures to class, and make largecollages of images that reflect their interestsor otherwise appeal to them. When thecollages are finished, the class is divided.Half the students hang their collages on thewall and explain why they selected thepictures, while the other students circulate,looking at collages and asking questions.The groups later switch roles. This activityis particularly appealing to students wholearn in a visual mode.

3. Personality Test Students answer asimplified questionnaire based on the Myers-

Briggs Type Indicator, an instrument widelyused by psychologists to categorizepersonalities into 16 basic types. Afterscoring their results, they receive adescription of their “type,” along with a listof 20-30 careers typically chosen by peopleof that type, adapted from a book for nativespeakers of English (Tieger & Barron-Tieger,1995). Students compare their descriptionsin groups, discuss items that they feel areparticularly accurate or inaccurate, and talkabout the suggested careers. Thesedescriptions provide extensive opportunityfor vocabulary work.

4. “Sherlock Holmes” Game Afterdiscussing how the great fictional detectivecould deduce a great deal of informationfrom a small piece of evidence, students areput in groups. Each student chooses 3-5items from his/her wallet (such as a good-luck charm, a sheet of postage stamps, and anold movie ticket) and puts them in anenvelope labeled only with his/her student IDnumber. The teacher redistributes theenvelopes, and groups write descriptions ofwhat they deduce about the character of theperson who owns the items. Thedescriptions are read out to the class, andowners claim their envelopes. Studentsthen examine the contents of their own bookbags, purses, or backpacks and report on thepersonality of the “owner,” writing aboutthemselves in the third person. Forhomework, they write a detective report onthe person who lives in their room orapartment, trying to view themselves in anobjective way as Sherlock Holmes would.

5. Life Stories As homework, studentswrite out detailed descriptions of threeaccomplishments they are proud of. Alterdiscussing the different types of skills andabilities a person might have, students readthrough a standard breakdown used by careercounselors (Bolles, 1997) which lists andclassifies 71 different physical, mental, andinterpersonal skills, As students read abouttheir accomplishments, a partner checks offthe physical, mental, and interpersonal skillsthat were displayed.



6. The Credits Students do a short readingon all the workers whose efforts areembodied in a the production of a book, fromthe forester who supervises the logging to thetruck driver who delivers the books to theshop. In groups, students are given acommon object (such as a tea bag or musicCD) and asked to brainstorm a list of all theoccupations that were involved in itsproduction-similar to the credits at the endof a movie. The groups are then re-combined, and students listen and take noteson the “credits” for each of the other objects.Finally, students brainstorm the “credits” foran object related to one of their interests(such as a dress or skis).

7. The Worst Job in the World Studentsfantasize about the worst possible job forthem, and write about it in the present tense,describing it in detail as though it were real.They share their paragraphs in groups, amidmuch laughter. Typical examples are prisonguard and inspector in a fish cannery.Students then change each job descriptioninto its exact opposite, “The Best Job in theWorld.” For example, “I work in a prisonfull of angry criminals” becomes “I work in akindergarten full of happy children.” “1 dothe same thing all day” becomes “I do manydifferent things every day.”

8. The Wrong Job The teacher assigns eachstudent a job completely unsuited to him/herby opening the Yellow Pages at random.Examples are construction machinery salesand dog grooming. They write a paragraphdescribing their job duties, and how they feelabout the job. After sharing theseparagraphs with their group, students arethen asked to imagine how they wouldchange the job to make it more suitable forthem. Ideas they generate include aimingfor a promotion, or incorporating elementssuch as training others, research, or startingone’s own business. These provide furtherclues to future job satisfaction.

9. Values In groups, students discuss themeaning of a number of values such asindependence, altruism, creativity, andvariety, and how they apply in a job setting

A method is presented (Bolles, 1997) forprioritizing any list of items by choosingbetween all possible dyads and then totalingthe responses. Students rank their own jobvalues in this way, and discuss the results intheir groups.

10. What is this Job? Students show theircompleted “My Future Career” list to threefriends or family members, translating foranyone who doesn’t speak English. Theythen ask the three people for their ideas aboutwhat specific career the list seems to point to.

Final Essay After completing all theactivities, students write an essaysummarizing what they have learned aboutthemselves, and what directions they hope topursue in the future. I respond to eachessay with extensive comments on thecontent, and questions for the student tothink about.

ConclusionEvaluation for these activities will depend onthe teacher’s individual philosophy. In mysituation, I evaluate holistically on the basisof the final essay. I consider that theobjectives of the unit have been met if thefinal essay shows the student has clarifiedaspects of his/her future direction andidentified areas that still need further thought.

Student feedback has been over-whelmingly positive. Most students say thecareer exploration activities have been veryuseful in clarifying their future, and many saythey enjoy using English to investigate apersonally significant topic. In the words ofone student, “Thank you for giving a greatopportunity to let me think about my future.I’m very appreciated it.”

ReferencesBolles, R.N. (1997). What color is your

parachute?: A practical manual forjob-hunters and career changers.Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Tieger, P. D. & Barron-Tieger, B. (1995).Do what you are: Discover the perfectcareer for you through the secrets ofpersonality type. Boston MA: Little,Brown and Company.


On JALT98

Lights Up: Drama in the EFL ClassroomJames R. Welker, Nagoya University of Foreign Studies

IntroductionIn the eternal search for ways to motivate ourstudents, many teachers have turned todrama. If it stimulates us, perhaps it will dothe same for our students. In response,several books of theater activities are nowavailable specifically for ESL/EFL (e.g.,Butterfield, 1993; Maley & Duff, 1982).These books have at least two shortcomingsfor the Japanese EFL classroom. First, theywere written for Western students in aWestern context. Second, these books offerready-made activities that do not fit neatlyinto classes based on the standardconversation textbooks many of us mustwork with.

As an alternative, the theater offers waysto motivate our students. More useful thanlists of ready-made activities are techniquesthat we can easily incorporate into anyactivity to make it more stimulating to ourstudents. Of the numerous devices andtechniques employed in the theater, six-space,movement, motivation, emotion, action, andreaction are most useful to the languageclassroom. Pairing them up we have threetools we can use to enhance existingactivities or build new ones: space andmovement, motivation and emotion, andaction and reaction.

Space and movementSpace is critical in the theater-performersneed ample and appropriately laid out spaceto move and perform. Directors often haveperformers move around in the middle ofotherwise static situations to raise the interestand energy levels for both the audience andthe actors.

In the classroom, movement will do thesame for students. Our students are alsoperformers, yet we seldom provide them withspace in which to perform. Even the act ofhaving students stand up and move the desks,or lf necessary moving to the part of the


room without desks, gets their heartspumping faster and increases their energylevel.

Implementation. Rearrange the desks and the students to

help them understand that they are not apassive audience to the teacher’sperformance. Try various layoutsdepending on the activity. Furtherrearrange the desks whenever you dorole plays and dialogues to help both “setthe stage” and get the students in theright mindset for the activity--even ifthe activity is “just” a staticconversation.

. Have your students move around asoften as possible, especially when it goesalong with a role play or textbookdialogue. Time lost preparing is madeup for in added energy and enthusiasm.

The single caveat for both the theater andthe classroom is that too much movementmay lead to a loss of focus. Finding theright balance is key.

Motivation and emotionFew actors will let a director tell them tomove across the stage without knowing why.Scripts are analyzed for subtexts and therelationships between characters are carefullystudied so the performers fully understandtheir motivation. Underlying motivation arethe emotions that a character is feeling.Without motivation, a performance cannothelp but be stilted. Teachers should expectthe same in the classroom.

Textbook dialogues and role plays oftenhave only the obvious motivation ofexchanging information or making plans, ifany at all; for example, introducing yourselfto a classmate, making plans for the weekend,asking for or giving directions to the station.Life isn’t that simple. Adding extra

motivation or emotion to a dialogue, roleplay, or even the reading of a passage from atextbook will make the activity more realistic,interesting, and motivating.

Implementationl Have students practice a short dialogue,

a sentence, or a basic greeting usingvarious emotions. This will showstudents that the same words can havemany different meanings depending onhow they are spoken.

. Give students a simple emotion ormotivation to use when reading adialogue out of the textbook orperforming a role play. It is moreinteresting when the subtext is notobvious from the “script.” For instance,a conversation between two strangers ata bus stop could involve one personbeing in a very bad mood and/or oneperson who secretly thinks the other isvery attractive. If the teacher giveseach person their motivation and/oremotion on a card, students can try toguess what was on their partner’s card.With brave students, their interpretationcan be acted in front of the whole class,and everyone can try to guess the realsituation.

. Add a humorous or absurd element to asituation whenever possible to relaxstudents and reduce inhibitions.

Action and reactionGood performers always listen, observe, andreact. Inexperienced performers, on theother hand, often merely wait to say theirnext line. When students do the same, theymay answer a question that was never askedor greet a person who was not yetintroduced.

If students learn to listen to each other andgenuinely react, they become better preparedto use English in the real world--one inwhich their “partner” hasn’t memorized theother end of a textbook dialogue.


ImplementationTake away the script as often as possible.Role plays are better than memorizingdialogues if the goal is for students togenuinely interact.To encourage students to learn toimprovise, give students time to plan adialogue or skit, but don’t let them writeand memorize lines.For role plays, explain the generalsituation to the whole class and then givecards with roles and motivations to eachstudent. If a student doesn’t know themotivation of the other student(s), shemust genuinely listen and react to theiractions. She cannot prepare.Use improvisational activities likeTheatreSports (Heal & Haig, 1998) tohelp build students’ spontaneity. Likemany sports competitions, theatre sportsrequire teams of performers, an audience,and judges. The teams challenge eachother to improvise a scene with set limitsand goals. For example, one gamestrictly sets the number of words eachperformer uses when she speaks; forexample, one performer must always usethree words, another five. A differentgame requires at least one of theperformers to die within a minute.

Hints for teachersTeacher enthusiasm must be much higherthan the level of enthusiasm expectedfrom the students. The teacher musttruly believe in theater-based activities forthem to work.Model the behavior/Ievel of acting youwant students to perform. Show themwhat an unenthusiastic student with amonotone voice sounds like, and contrastit with an enthusiastic performance.Exaggerate both and get them laughingand enjoying themselves before theybegin.Small groups of two to five students tendto be the most productive and enjoyablefor most activities.Audiences aren’t necessary. Whilesome students may enjoy the idea of


On JALT98

performing for an audience, others will beterrified. Students usually need no moreaudience than an enthusiastic teacherstopping to observe for a minute or twobefore moving on.Role plays work best when you establisha conflict to resolve or goal to reachwithin a short time.Keep the time limited. Don’t makestudents half-heartedly go through theactivity wondering when it’s over-instead have them wishing they couldhave had a little more time. Next timethey will be more enthusiastic.

ReferencesButterfield, T. (1989). Drama through

language though drama. Banbury, UK:Kemble Press.

Heal, L., & Haig, L. (1998). Languagelearning with TheatreSports. In Visgatis,B. (Ed.). On JALT ‘97: Trends andtransitions, (pp. 167-171). Tokyo:Japan Association for Language Teaching.

Maley, A., & Duff, A. (1982). Dramatechniques in language learning:Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Managing a Successful Classroom E-mail ExchangeKatsumi Ito, Nagoya Business College

Dorothy Zemach, Central Michigan University

Getting the most out of a classroom e-mailexchange requires careful consideration andplanning. Teachers who start the projectwith clear and similar goals, take steps toprepare their students, and devote time tomonitoring and facilitating the project willmost likely see their students enjoying andbenefiting from the correspondence. In thisarticle, the authors, one in Japan with EFLstudents and the other in the US with JFLstudents, share observations and advicedrawn from several years of managingclassroom e-mail exchanges.

Setting goalsBefore setting up an e-mail exchange, makesure you decide upon specific goals andprocedures. Ask yourself:

(1) Will this be a required part of my class,or will it be offered as an “extra”activity?

(2) What do I want my students toaccomplish? (i.e., gain writingfluency; exchange cultural information;practice specific vocabulary or

.


(3)

(4)

(5)

grammatical structures; increasemotivation through using English as anauthentic communication tool.)How much control do I have over mystudents’ writing? (i.e., can I take mystudents to the computer lab? Can Ilower grades if the assignments are notdone?)How often and for how long do I wantstudents to write?Will my goals best be met by havingstudents correspond with otherESL/EFL learners, native speakers, orother foreign language learners?

Answers to questions such as these shouldbe written out both to clarify your goals foryourself and to communicate them to yourcooperating teacher.

Finding a partner classPerhaps the most widely used site is theIntercultural E-Mail Classroom Connectionsat [http://www.stolaf.edu/network/iecc],where teachers can both post requests forpartner classes and respond to others’


requests. Postings are divided into severalcategories, such as partner classes forelementary, secondary, and post-secondaryclasses, and surveys and projects. TheInternational Tandem Network at[http://www.slf.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/email/idxeng00.html] matches individual studentswith a partner who is learning their nativelanguage; currently, Japanese students can bematched with English, French, or Germanspeakers who are studying Japanese. Inaddition, for each of the above languages,there is a bilingual discussion forum on topicsrelated to language learning and cross-cultural issues. The tandem network alsohandles requests for partner classes.

Once you have found a potential partnerclass, negotiate terms of the project with thecooperating teacher. In particular, makesure that you both agree on the followingpoints:

(1) How often should students write?Having students both send and receiveone letter per week generally workswell. Designating a day of the weekby which each class should respondhelps easily identify students who havenot sent their weekly letter.

(2) What will you do if a student does notwrite ?If students are receiving grades orcredit for the class, it is possible towork the e-mail project into thecurriculum, and deduct points or lowergrades for missed or poorly doneassignments. Other methods ofenforcement could include phoning ore-mailing students to remind them tosend their letters, or confronting themdirectly in class. In our experience,students who have not sent a letter ontime usually have a reason, such asillness or a schedule problem. Suchstudents can “make up” the gap bywriting two letters the following week.It is important to inform thecooperating teacher of the reason forthe missing letter, and of the stepstaken to prompt the student to write..

(3)

(4)

If a student reports not having receiveda letter, it is appropriate to e-mail thecooperating teacher, who should beresponsible for finding out what hashappened. In the meantime, thestudent who has not received a lettershould go ahead and write anyway; inthis way, s/he can still practice his/herlanguage skills, and keep to theassigned schedule.

What will you do if one of yourstudents drops the class, or if yournumbers do not match up evenly tobegin with ?At the beginning of the term, ask ifthere are any students interested inhaving more than one partner (perhapsoffer extra credit for taking on a secondpartner). You might also askcolleagues if they have students whowould be interested in joining yourproject. It is a good idea to have aback-up partner or two in advance, sothat time is not lost during the termhunting for a replacement partner.

How will you evaluate the quality ofwhat students write? How will youknow if the goals you set are beingmet?One approach is to require students toprint hard copies of the letters theyboth send and receive, to beinterleaved in chronological order andkept in a binder, which the teacher canthen take in several times during theterm, Students can also meet everyfew weeks in small groups to discusstheir projects, while you circulate tolisten to the group discussions.Alternatively, students could cc theirletters to you or show the letters oncea week at the start of class.

In addition to finding a class whosegoals and methods approximate toyour own, consider such factors asstudent age and gender, and thepersonality of the cooperating teacher,with whom you will be communicatingextensively!


On JALT98

Preparing the studentsBefore beginning the project, survey of yourstudents to determine their familiarity withtyping, computers, and e-mail. You maywish to assign computer novices to a helpfulpartner who can show them the ropes, ortake such students to a computer lab andsupervise their first letter writing experience.It is useful to provide students with a list ofsentences or phrases in the target languagethat they could use to begin and close theirletters, and (if necessary) appropriate andinteresting topics.

If your partner class is not familiar withthe culture of your students, consider sendingan introductory letter to the cooperatingteacher and the class, pointing out anycultural differences that may complicatecommunication (i.e., use of formal vs.informal language in letters, use of firstnames with strangers, question andanswering strategies).

Managing the projectAs the project progresses, it helps to haveyour class discuss, either in small groups oras a whole-class activity, what they arelearning. They can share culturalinformation as well as specific language

learned or used. You can also ask studentsto e-mail you a summary of and reaction tothe project up to that point, and then discussin class any common difficulties or interestingpoints.

Classes enjoy extra activities tosupplement the e-mail exchange: At themidterm point, consider exchanging byregular mail a small package containingphotos of your school, postcards of yourtown and nearby places of interest, maps ofthe area, for example. A student-producedvideo, audio tape, or newsletter to be sent tothe partner class makes an interesting end-of-term project. Classes might also worktogether to produce a joint web page.

ConclusionThe extra work involved in carefulpreparation and constant monitoring morethan pays off. Students taking part insuccessful e-mail exchanges are usuallyhighly motivated to practice and learn ontheir own. Many of our students havecontinued their exchanges well after thecourse ended, perhaps the highestcompliment that could be paid to ahomework assignment.

Preparing for the Possibilities of DVD:Exploiting Language in Television Commercials

Timothy Knowles, Sophia University

IntroductionTelevision commercials are made to belooked at and listened to over and over again.They are rich in all kinds of language as wellas in visual content. They would surely beinvaluable tools in the language classroom,serving as stimuli for learning activities withwhich learners can feel actively involved.However, up until now, the use of such shortvideo pieces in the classroom has beenseverely limited by technology. Unless ateacher is lucky enough to obtain a video-

disc of commercials, such material has had tobe stored on video tape, from which it is hardto quickly access an item which might beappropriate for a particular moment in theclassroom. Specific linguistic aims are oftenadapted to the commercial rather than thecommercial to the aims.

However, with the imminent introductionof recordable DVD, it will soon be possibleto have a library of commercials and othershort visual resources accessible in the sameway as a “library” of magazine pictures.



Thus, commercials could be categorised andcatalogued, providing a useful framework forready access for any learning purpose. Inthis paper, I propose a method ofcategorisation which might enable televisioncommercials to be exploited more efficiently.

The main rationale for categorisation, andfor use in the classroom, is the fact that atelevision commercial tends to repeatlanguage again and again in order toemphasise its message. As will be seen,such language can take many forms, and isnot necessarily explicit. Purely visual cues,for example, are sometimes even morevaluable, as the teacher and learner are ableto create and attach their own language.

I conclude by suggesting ways to exploitparticular examples. The JALT98workshop associated with this paperemphasized demonstration and teacherinvolvement. However, because it isdifficult to convey the impact of visual stimuliin written text, such a focus is not possiblehere. Teachers are encouraged simply totry creating their own ideas based on theframeworks suggested.

A categorisationIn order to begin a tentative categorisation, aselection of about 200 British televisioncommercials spanning a period from the mid1980s to the mid 1990s was examined. It ispossible that further analysis of commercialsfrom another English-speaking country mayprovide other categories, and of course anyteacher will certainly be able to addcategories to suit his/her own purposes.However, what follows is surely a basis tobuild on. Clearly, as one commercial maybelong to more than one category, there arevarious possibilities for exploitation.

There is little attempt here to bestatistically accurate, and this is not anexhaustive discourse analysis of the languageused in commercials. The accuracy is thatwhich would be appropriate for normalclassroom use. If a commercial is said to“contain” a certain language item, this maymean that the item either appears as writtentext, is spoken (or sung), or is a linguisticrepresentation of what is seen, implied, or

suggested. For example, saying acommercial contains the word buy may meanwe hear or read the word buy, we seesomeone buying, we think that buying isgoing to take place, or (often) that the vieweris being persuaded to buy.

1) Vocabulary itemsMost commercials would be in this category,with sub-categories, depending on the targetvocabulary. Items may be in sets, or singleitems may be repeated. For example, a soapcommercial may contain a set of adjectivessuch as clean, soft, or sparkling, while a carcommercial might contain such items aspowerful or sporty. Sometimes, oneadjective is repeated over and over again indifferent contexts. A beer commercial, forinstance, may revolve around the wordsmooth.

Similarly, there are many commercials inwhich both nouns and verbs appear insemantic clusters (Marzano & Marzano,1988). Such commercials might containitems such as different family members,different sports, lots of animals, schoolsubjects, etc. Alternatively, a variety ofclumsy acts may be performed, or there maya number of small acts which together have apurpose, such as getting ready for a footballmatch. Some doubt has been cast (Tinkham,1993) as to the wisdom of presenting learnerswith such clusters. It is suggested that theclose relationships might cause moreinterference than help. However, theempirical studies behind such an assertionhave measured the results of strategies whichdid little more than introduce the items. It ismy belief that a strong and vivid contextwould create links durable enough toovercome any possible confusion.

2) Grammatical structuresA creative teacher could discover and exploitmany different possible structures within themeaning of a commercial, particularly suchfeatures as verb tenses. However, there aremany instances of repeated structures whichare subtly built into the commercial. Theymay not be obvious until the student isinvited to think more deeply about them, and


On JALT98

it is that thought which may reinforce theacquisition of the structure. Some examplesmight be:

i) This is the man who . . .ii) I want to...iii) If you did, you wouldiv) If you do, you willv ) So (adj.) that . . . verbvi) Used to/but now

3) FunctionsA commercial may quite possibly be placed inboth a grammatical, structural category (forexample, “If I were you”) as well as afunctional category (“giving advice”). Thevery purpose of the commercial itself canusually be expressed in terms of a function(usually persuasion, but occasionally otherssuch as “giving information,” “instructing,”“informing” and “protesting”). However,most useful are commercials containingdifferent structural examples of the samefunction. Common examples are “givingadvice,” “making comparisons,” “makingexcuses,” and “working things out.” Here,there is a clear distinction between whetherthe commercial actually uses the languageassociated with the function or whether theviewer must “think” the function. Forexample, many commercials simply invite theviewer to compare, without using any explicitlanguage of comparison.

4) Everyday situationsMany commercials depict simple, everydaysituations such as buying something, makinga phone call, and making introductions.Sometimes the situations are repeated, usingdifferent language and contrasting strategies.

5) Narrative and dramaMost drama is visual, and the learner has toprovide the narrative. Occasionally,however, there is a scripted drama withdialogue. The most common genre is themystery, with associated possibilities ofpredictive language. Almost as commonare surreal, confusing dramas which compelthe viewer to predict or suggest what couldpossibly be being advertised. .

6) IncongruitiesThe whole of the commercial may be totallystrange. For example, visual elements maybe moving upside down or backwards, or thelips of a speaker might be purposely out ofsync. It is not easy to exploit such examplespractically, as the effect can be overwhelming,but there are possibilities. The most basic isa challenge to describe the incongruities inthe commercials.

7) Idiomatic, colloquial, or “marked”language usageCommercials from both television and othermedia are often considered to be excellentmaterial for teaching idiomatic and colloquialexpressions. However, in the selection oftelevision commercials examined, thelanguage used was for the most partextremely clear and straightforward. Therewere a few which employed extremelycolloquial language such as slang, and otherswhich featured regional, extra formal or old-fashioned English. However, such languagewas generally used in the commercialbecause it was marked. In other words, theviewer would notice the language because itwas different than expected, which is part ofwhat gives this kind of commercial its impact.Such commercials can be successfullyexploited, but the approach must be chosenwith care, to avoid confusion. Much ofsuch marked language appears in parodies ofan existing television style, programme, oreven personality, of which the learnerscertainly, and even the teacher, may not beaware.

8) Clever languageClever, witty, or humorous use of language isvery frequent. Slogans would come intothis category, as well as jokes and puns.Again, when the language is clever, it isreally clever, and this is the whole point ofthe commercial. Usually, the wit isrepetitive: not one pun, for example, but awhole commercial full of puns.Commercials of this type are good choiceswhen the teacher wants to delve more deeplyinto the language.



9) ListeningOf course, most commercials with spokencontent can be exploited with the objective ofimproving listening skills. Occasionally,however, the aural element in a commercial isfar stronger than the visual, and the wordsare to be listened to for content rather thansimply effect. Publicly funded campaignsare good examples, though not the only ones.Such commercials can be used for manytypes of listening exercises, both simple andcomplex.

10) Series of commercialsOften, one company will produce a series ofcommercials over time, all with a similartheme. Some examples are “Bad luck maybe forgotten with a cigar,” “Somebody isdoing something crazy, so he must drink thisbeer, ” “Everything else may be unreliable,but you can rely on this car,” and the mostfamous of all (in the UK): “This beerrefreshes the parts other beers cannot reach.”Over time, such well-known themes spawnfurther themes of self-parody, which cancarry on for years. If there is enough classtime, a number of commercials with the sametheme can be used. The most obviouslinguistic possibility would be comparison,but once learners understand the theme, theycould start to create their own commercials.

11) SongsThese might be known or original.Sometimes the song is simply background,but usually it is very much in focus, with veryaudible and intelligible lyrics. However,there is often a special meaning or effectspecific to the commercial. How thesesongs are used depends on the class, and asthey are so “catchy,” straightforward singingis a real possibility.

12) Public spirit messagesThere are many public campaigns. S o m eexamples in the selection were related todrinking/driving, drugs, AIDS awareness,anti-fur, and anti-apartheid issues. Thesecould be exploited for listening skills, butthey would also lend themselves, more than

any other category, to open discussion andcultural comparisons.

Some examplesOnce a teacher develops an eye for suchthings, nearly every commercial has somepotential in the classroom. My purpose isto help the teacher develop such an eye,rather than simply hand over somecommercials with ready-made plans.However, here are a few examples ofcommercials picked more or less at randomout of the larger selection, with some guidesas to how they could be categorised and used.Each example is written in a formatappropriate for a language resource roomand is designed for busy teachers looking forgood, accessible tools.

1) Description: A man describes three carsas they drop on to the floor beside him.Then one car falls through the floor on tothe basement below. The man climbsdown to the basement, and carries ondescribing this car. (Volkswagen CM)Categorisation: Vocabulary (car relatedadjectives). Also Comparison.Possible use: Class brainstorm foradjectives they might expect in a carcommercial. Write these on the board.Watch the commercial without sound.Ask for more adjectives. Watch withsound, and ask what adjectives theyactually heard.Comment: This could be used at allpost-beginner levels, the only differencesbeing the type of adjectives suggested atfirst and the speed with which they hearthe adjectives in the end. Also, thetechnique could be used with manycommercials for different products.

2) Description: A very long commercial forkitchen appliances. (It is notimmediately obvious, however, thatkitchen appliances are being advertised).There is no dialogue, except for thecompany name repeated. A largenumber of characters dressed in unusualclothes come in and out of a room, andperform a variety of quite mundane


On JALT98

(though inappropriate) actions over andover again. (Ariston CM)Categorisation: Verb formations.Also, vocabulary (clothing, appliances,actions).Possible use: Have the students describeout loud what is going on. For example:“He is coming down the stairs, she isopening the fridge, he is jumping, she isputting a cat in the fridge” etc. During thesecond viewing, they can try “she is goingto put the cat in the fridge” and then “shehas just put the cat in the fridge.”Comment: With a large class, this canbecome very loud and competitive, withthe students learning from each other.Many commercials lend themselves to thissort of choral commentary. If necessary,turn the sound of the commercial off (inthis case, a non-English commercial couldbe used).

3) Description: A commercial for aninsurance company consists of 13 veryshort (2-3 sec.) segments, each with adifferent female, (becoming progressivelyolder) doing something very specific, andsaying “I want to be . . . .” For example, inthe first segment, a young girl is playing inher mother’s dress, saying “I want to belike Mummy.” In another, a youngwoman catches a bouquet at a wedding,saying “I want to be next.” (PrudentialCM)Categorisation: Narrative, CleverLanguage, Listening, Structure (I want tobe...).Possible use: Give the students a paper,divided into 13 rows (one row persegment) and 3 columns. Play thecommercial without sound. The students,in pairs, try to recall the segments andwrite down a short description of each inthe first column. Repeat as necessary.Then say that each of these females issaying “I want to be. . . . ” Ask them toguess what they are saying and write insecond column. Then tell them whatthey are saying, but mixed up. Ask themto match the segment with the utterance,

and write in third column. Then play theentire commercial with sound.Comment: With appropriate adjustmentsthis can be used at many levels. Manycommercials lend themselves to this kindof memory play and guessing, but everycommercial would require a different plan.

4) Description: Any selection of four“series” commercials. A good choicemight be the series of Hamlet commercials,in which a character always has bad luck,but his or her misery is softened with acigar.Categorisation: Drama, Persuasion,Associated Structures for bad luck stories.Possible use: Divide students intogroups of four. Tell them that they are apublicity company with the task ofchoosing the best possible cigarcommercial. Each student in the group isshown one commercial which they adoptas their own (the others do not see it).Then each student describes his or hercommercial to the other three, and tries tosell it to them. Finally, the group chooseswhat it thinks is the best commercial.Comment: This activity is best suited forstudents at the intermediate level andabove. The shorter the commercials thebetter, so that the students who are notwatching don’t lose interest. In practice,the students are happy to describe thecommercial, and only the more advancedwould actually try to sell it. Theyquickly realise that the better they describeit the better it sounds, and after the wholegroup has watched all the commercials,they often change their decision. Thisprocess thus provides an opportunity forimmediate self evaluation.

ConclusionI hope that these basic guidelines andexamples will serve to hasten the day whencommercials and other such short video itemswill be as easily accessible for anyappropriate classroom use as magazinepictures are today. Up to now, televisioncommercials have always been an excellentsource of stimulating language, and a class



based around the language in commercialscan be a wonderful way to motivate learners.In particular, they are very useful for anapproach which values learner autonomy:The messages contained in commercials canbe interpreted in many ways, and learners canbe allowed to interact with the language insuch a way as to support their own learningstrategies.

With the advance of technology, and (wehope) practical developments in the hardwarefor educational purposes, commercials cannow be used to support a curriculum-tocomplement it rather than supplement.They will still engage the learner, and makefor variety in the classroom, but the teacherwill be able to integrate them far more easily

into a cohesive and flexible plan. We neednot restrict ourselves to commercials.Instant access to video segments, whether itbe television, home video, class recordings,or purpose-made published materials, cantransform our language classes.

ReferencesMarzano, R.J., & Marzano, J.S. (1988). A

cluster approach to elementaryvocabulary instruction. Newark, DE:International Reading Association.

Tinkham, T. (1993). The effect of semanticclustering on the learning of secondlanguage vocabulary. System, 21(3),371-380.

Theme Music Presentations: OrganisingOral Audio-Visual Student Presentations of Popular Songs

Dale Haskell, Keio University

Theme music courseFor most students, listening to music is anenjoyable and motivating activity. Forteachers of English, channelling studentinterest in music into language learningactivities promotes enthusiastic participation,productive effort and memorable learningexperiences. During the past three years, Ihave organised a theme music course forundergraduate university students, based onpopular English language songs from the1960s to the 1990s, including folk, pop, rock,reggae, punk, soul and rap music.

Student proficiency in theme music classeshas ranged from elementary to advanced,with the majority of students in lower tomid-intermediate levels. Class activities,including listening, reading, discussion,reporting, and presentation, involve studentsin using English more actively. Songs areselected for their content, particularly forsocial, cultural or political themes. Someexamples of songs used in the course arelisted in Appendix 1. .

In each class, I distribute a worksheetwhich contains the song lyrics, with contentwords deleted for a gap-fill listeningcomprehension task. The worksheet alsoincludes brief English explanations ofpotentially difficult vocabulary, and questionsfor discussion. One song is introduced ineach weekly 90-minute class, with studentsviewing a music video of the song if available,then answering comprehension questionswhich focus on the visual images and music.Students then listen to an audio recording ofthe song and complete the gap-fill exercise.

Questions for discussion engage studentsin analysing the meaning of the song,interpreting the songwriters’ opinions,discussing issues and problems related to thesong, and giving their opinions. Studentsdiscuss worksheet questions in groups of twoor three, briefly noting answers orunderlining relevant sections of the lyrics.After discussion, groups report their answersand opinions to the class.


On JALT98

Figure 1. Presentation guide for theme music students

Theme music presentationsAt the end of each semester, in small groupsor with a partner, students organise oralaudio-visual presentations of popular songs.Students find a video or audio recording oftheir song, and prepare detailed notes aboutthe musicians, music, lyrics, vocabulary,themes, their opinions, and questions fordiscussion. In class, presenters distributetheir notes to other students, play their song,and orally present relevant information andopinions.

The rest of the class is involved in listening,video viewing and reading, with presenters’questions discussed and answered by smallgroups after each presentation. I generallyadvise students to plan a 10 to 15 minutepresentation, allowing extra time for

discussion and listeners’ reactions. In anaverage 90-minute class, it is possible to havebetween three and five student presentations.

Assisting students to prepare successfulpresentations requires careful planning, clearguidelines, and teacher demonstration. Atleast two weeks before student presentationsbegin, I distribute a detailed presentationguide:

When introducing the presentation guide,I emphasise the need to prepare detailednotes, with relevant information about alltopics. Well-prepared notes are thefoundation of successful presentations, andshould be computer printed if possible, thenphotocopied for all students. It may benecessary to assist students with thepreparation of notes in the first semester,



checking information and organisation, anddiscouraging the inclusion of sentences.

After this guide has been introduced, Idistribute model presentation notes anddemonstrate a theme music presentation.One song which I use for demonstration isAnother day in paradise by Phil Collins(1989, track 7) which focuses on homelesspeople. The music video for this song isparticularly effective, with monochromeimages of homeless people, and statisticsabout homelessness. Presentation notes forthis song are included as Appendix 2.

One week after introducing anddemonstrating the music presentation, aschedule is circulated for students to choosea date, then write their names, song titles andmusicians. Student presentations usuallybegin one week later. They are responsiblefor producing, copying and distributing theirnotes, using audio or video equipment, andpresenting information, opinions andquestions.

During the presentations, I assess eachgroup using three equally weighted criteria-content, style, and material. Contentassessment is based on the information,vocabulary, opinions and discussionquestions included in the presentation.Style assessment focuses on the presenters’use of English, with an emphasis on speakingnaturally, not reading a prepared speech.Material assessment is based on the notesdistributed to listeners, which should be wellorganised, and include all topics in thepresentation guide (Appendix 1). Listenersare also assessed on their answers todiscussion questions, opinions and questions.

After all presentations have been made,students complete a review worksheet, whichlists the titles of all the songs presented. Insmall groups, students identify the musicians

and the main themes for each song, frommemory and notes distributed by presenters.This worksheet also contains a MusicAwards section, with students voting forsongs with the best music, and the best lyrics.

Six weeks of class time from theintroduction and demonstration of thepresentation task to the final reviewworksheet activity may be taken up,including the 4 weeks required for studentpresentations. This project provides aneffective format for oral presentations, andenables teachers to assess students’ speakingand organising skills. Music presentationsoffer classes an opportunity to enjoy andunderstand a diverse range of meaningfulmusic, channelling student interest in musicinto a challenging, communicative Englishlanguage activity.

I have not referred to any previousresearch, as this course has beenindependently designed and has not beensignificantly influenced by other studies.Although there are some textbooks andarticles related to the use of music in EFLteaching, they generally focus on listeningactivities, in contrast to the content basedoral presentation focus of this paper. Kane1(1997) in a paper which focused on listeningactivities using music, provided an extensivelist of references for readers interested in theuse of music in EFL teaching.

ReferencesCollins, P. (1989). Another day in

paradise. . . . But Seriously. Cassette.London: WEA International.

Kanel, K. (1997). Teaching with music:A comparison of conventional listeningexercises with pop song gap-fill exercises.JALT Journal 19, 2, 217-234.


On JALT98

Appendix 1: Examples of theme music songs, musicians and themes.

TIME SONGS1960s The times they are a-changin’

The universal soldier1970s War

The last resort

1980s RussiansShort memory

1990s No son of mineLittle child

MUSICIANSBob Dylan

Buffy Sainte-MarieBob MarleyThe Eagles

StingMidnight Oil

GenesisDesirée

T H E M E SCultural & politicalchangeWar & peaceRacism, African politicsU.S. history,environmentNationalism, Cold warWorld history,colonialismFamily conflict, abusePoverty, hunger

Appendix 2: Model presentation notes

PRESENTATION: ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISESongwriter & singer: Phil Collins Album: But Seriously (1989)Style: pop/rock Instruments: acoustic guitar, keyboards, drumsSetting: city streets, rich countries, present dayThemes: homeless people, other people’s reactions, rich & poor contrastVideo: scenes of homeless people, beggars, refugees; homeless statistics-U.S., worldOpinion: powerful music-drums & acoustic guitar, serious themes, empathy with homelesspeople, stylish video with strong, realistic images

Lyrics:1 . She calls out to the man on the street,

‘Sir, can you help me ?It’s cold and I’ve nowhere to sleepIs there somewhere you can tell me?’

2 . He walks on, doesn’t look backHe pretends he can’t hear herStarts to whistle as he crosses the streetSeems embarrassed to be there

*ChorusOh, think twice, ‘cause it’s another day for you and me in paradiseOh, think twice, it’s another day for you, you and me in paradiseThink about it

3 . She calls out to the man on the streetHe can see she’s been cryingShe’s got blisters on the soles of her feetShe can’t walk but she’s trying

* Repeat chorus

Oh, no, is there nothing more anybody can do



Oh, oh Lord, there must be something you can say

4. You can tell from the lines on her faceYou can see that she’s been thereProbably been moved on from every place‘Cause she didn’t fit in there* Repeat chorus

Vocabulary:pretend (verse 2)-act falselywhistle(2)-musical blowingembarrassed (2)-feel ashamed or uncomfortablesole (3)-bottom of footblister (3)-painful bubble of skin, caused by rubbing (e.g., from new shoes)

Discussion questions:1 . What problems does the woman have? (verses 1, 3 and 4)2 . What is the reaction of the man? Why does he react this way? (verse 2)3 . What do you think the singer means by “paradise” (chorus)?4 . How do you react to homeless people? Can we help them? How?

Video comprehension:1 . How many homeless people are in America? In the world?2 . How many people are without adequate shelter?3 . Why do you think there are homeless people?

Outside Taping for Fluency: A Practical SystemDavid E. Kluge and Matthew A. Taylor, Kinjo Gakuin University

Rationale“One of the biggest obstacles to fluency in aforeign language situation,” states Nation(1995, p. 138), “is the lack of opportunityoutside the class room to use the foreignlanguage to communicate.” This is certainlytrue for oral communication classes that meetonce a week for 90 minutes and especially sofor university English majors, for whom someprogress in fluency should be expected.Even in class itself, teachers may find time forfreer communicative practice quite limited.

Encouraged by Schneider’s (1993) workwith pair taping, we implemented a system togive students more speaking practice,requiring them to record free conversationsoutside class and turn the tapes in as weekly.

homework. Our system necessitates amoderate amount of extra work by theteacher, but the rewards more than repay theadditional effort.

Here we describe two procedures foroutside taping, examines the benefits of thesystem, presents student reactions and data,and points out pitfalls to avoid. Ourexperience may offer a good departure pointfor interested teachers.

ProceduresOur courses are “Speaking 1” and “Speaking2,” for first and second year English majorsat Kinjo Gakuin University. Classes meetonce a week, with approximately 20 studentsin each class (all female, ranging in ability


On JALT98

from lower to upper intermediate). Thissection explains the outside tapingprocedures.

Introducing the systemOn the first day of class, students are toldthat they must tape free conversationsoutside class and turn the tapes in ashomework every week.The teacher emphasizes the benefits ofoutside taping in developing fluency, andreports on the favorable experience ofprevious years’ students.The teacher emphasizes that outsidetaping is a requirement for passing thecourse, not an option.Students are asked to choose tapingpartners (groups of three also allowed)for the whole year.Students are told to bring to the nextclass two new blank cassette tapes ofprecisely the length the teacher specifies.The students must label both tapes andcassette jackets precisely as the teacherspecifies (see Figure 1).Students receive a handout with theseand other details that the teacher explains,usually over the first two classes.

Tape players and facilitiesStudents record on the Sony TCM-939. It issmall, light, portable, inexpensive (around8,000 yen), easy to operate, and recordsclearly. Our institution has bought severaldozen of these recorders. Students pick upa recorder, sign out for it in a notebook, andmust return it and sign it back in on the sameday.

TapesEvery week, students fill one side of one tapeentirely with free conversation in English.Each student has two tapes, one forrecording their first and last conversations ofthe year, and evaluating their progress, andthe other for ongoing taping.

Tape 1.Tape 1, the “Keepsake Tape,” contains thefirst conversations of the year on Side A.The teacher collects and keeps these tapesuntil sometime toward the end of theacademic year, whereupon Tape 1 is returnedto each student and they record their lastconversations on Side B. The students,having a tape that contains their first and lastconversations, compare them and evaluateprogress in fluency (see Section 3).

Figure 1. Labeling of cassette jackets (top) and tapes (bottom). Tape 1 (left) is the “KeepsakeTape” and Tape 2 (right) is the Working Tape. Labels on Side B need the same information.

rI

Wed. 2 Rina Kondo 1B 23 1 0Rina Kondo 1B 23

Partner: Maki Shimada 1B 34

Wed. 2 Rina Kondo 1B 23 2 0Rina Kondo 1B 23

Partner: Maki Shimada 1B 34



fWed. 2 Side A Rina Kondo 1 B 2 3 1 0

0

The tape is also a memento or “keepsake” oftheir progress.

Tape 2.Tape 2 is the “Working Tape.” Except onthe few weeks when Tape 1 is used, theWorking Tape will be filled up, turned in, andhanded back to the students every week.

The weekly routineA pair of students have two Working Tapesbetween them. They turn in one of thesetapes every week, and tape next week’sconversation on the other partner’s tape. Atthe next class, the tapes are exchanged andstudents record on the returned tape. Thereshould always be a tape for the teacher toaudit and another for the partners to recordon.

Alternate taping procedures.We use two taping procedures for ourcourses, reflecting differences between firstand second year students, as well as ourindividual preferences. In the procedure forthe second year students, students must:

l fill up one side of a 60-minute tape everyweek (30 minutes)

. record three separate conversations(approximately 10 minutes).

. record each conversation on differentdays, and on days other than the day ofthe class.

.

Wed. 2 Side A Rina Kondo 1B 23 2 00 0

l put pauses between the threeconversations by pushing the play buttonfor 5 seconds.

l give names, student numbers and thedate at the beginning of each of the threeconversations.

. not use Japanese.

. not have long pauses in theirconversations.

. not read dialogues or other material.

First-year students follow the sameprocedure, except that they fill one side of a46-minute tape (23 minutes), with nospecifications regarding the number ofconversations or days to record.

Auditing the tapesListening to every tape completely would bean unreasonable demand on the teacher, butis unnecessary. In auditing the tapes, thebutton most often used is fast forward.Spot checks at the beginning, middle, andend of the tape suffice. With a doublecassette player, the teacher can audit twotapes simultaneously, fast forwarding bothand periodically stopping either to listen toshort portions. Auditing the tapes for aclass of twenty takes from around 30 minutes(first year students) to 60 minutes (secondyear students).


On JALT98

Alternate auditing procedures.Auditing first and second year tapes issomewhat different. For second-yearstudents, the teacher:

. ensures that students have recorded thefull 30 minutes, in English, withoutexcessive pauses.

. ensures that three 10-minuteconversations have been done, and onseparate days (checking names, studentnumbers, and dates at the beginning ofeach conversation).

. reaches the beginning of the second andthird conversations by pressing play andfast forward (the tape automaticallystops at the five second pauses).

. ensures that the full 30 minutes havebeen recorded (there should be no blankportion at the end of the tape).

Auditing first year tapes is similar, but thetape is shorter, and the separate, lo-minuteconversations are not required. The teachersimply fast forwards to the end with periodicspot checks.

Evaluating the tapesWe do not evaluate accuracy or mastery oflanguage, which are evaluated elsewhere.We see the value of taping as developingfluency, and insist only on the requirements inSection 2.4.1.

Alternate evaluation methods.For second year students, each finished tapeis assigned points which ultimately figure intostudents’ final grade. Lapses in followingthe requirements in Alternate TapingProcedures entail reductions in points. Anote on a small index card inserted into thecassette case informs students how manypoints they received, the reason for any lostpoints, a brief note of the topics, and perhapssome praise, encouragement, or personalcomments.

For first-year students, evaluation is doneon a “Done/Not done” basis. When tapesare not turned in, it is clear on the roster.All finished tapes receive a Post-It on the

outside of the cassette case, which maycontain an injunction to do the tape again(common when the system first getsunderway, very rare afterward), a warning orreminder (for minor infractions like slight useof Japanese), a suggestion about English use,praise, encouragement, or a reaction to itemsof conversation.

Student evaluation.Towards the end of the academic year wereturn Tape 1, the “Keepsake Tape.”Students record their last two conversations.They then compare their first and lastconversations (sides A and B) using wordcount per minute, and give impressions abouttheir fluency progress (see Section 3).

Additional procedures and materialsAn additional procedure for second yearstudents is to erase Working Tapes using aSony BE-9H cassette eraser, before returningthem. This is done to make locating the fivesecond pauses between conversations moreeasy when auditing. First year studentsreceive supplementary material containingconversational strategies and a list ofsuggested topics.

Results of outside tapingIn the Self-Evaluation (introduced above)second-year students did a word per minutecount of their first and last conversations, andrated partner taping on ease, usefulness, andinterest using a 5-point Likert scale:

1 Not at all 2 A little 3 so-so4 Yes 5 Very

Students also wrote free comments on theirimprovement and on partner taping in general.

Table 1 shows the results in one class.Words per minute, a rough estimate offluency, ranged from 18.00 to 120.00 wpm atthe beginning of the year (mean wpm of60. 76), and at the end of the year from 21.00to 184.00 wpm (mean wpm of 87.96).Fluency improvement (which could beattributed to factors other than taping) thusranged from 3.00 to 64.00 wpm, with a meanimprovement of 27.20 wpm.



According to Richards (1987, p. 165),speaking for native speakers can becategorized as slow (under 130 wpm),moderately slow (130-160), average (160-190), and moderately fast (190-220).Therefore, though students in this classimproved, speaking remained mostly slow.However, two students (136 wpm) improvedto the moderately slow range, and two others(186 wpm) improved to average, or very nearmoderately fast.

Students thought taping was only a littleeasy (2.04), rather useful (3.76), andmoderately interesting (3.16). Freecomments in some ways gave a moreinformative picture. A few typicalcomments are presented here unedited:

I think this taping is one of the betterways of English speaking. I canspeak English more fluently thanbefore.It is hard to do this homework. NowI compared to a first tape and a finaltape. I think my speaking skillimproved.I think it’s good for students to do thispartner taping. My first time, it wasvery difficult for me to talk in English.But little by little, I could talk more,be interested and be happy in thistaping. If I had not had this chance,partner taping, I would have nottalked in English so much over theyear.

T a b l e 1. Partner taping self-evaluation resultsn=25 Range Min. Max. 1 Median 1 Mean Std. Dev.

First Week 60.76. . . .._..._ . . .._.31.1278Last WeekDifferenceEasy?Useful ?Interesting?

As part of a different, institution-widestudent evaluation, first-year students wereasked whether outside taping improved theirspeaking ability. Out of 19 students, 7answered “Yes” (36.8%), 6 “Yes,somewhat” (31.6%), 2 “Can’t say” (10.5%),4 “Not really” (21.1%), and 0 “No.” Thus68.4% thought outside taping improved theirability

Outside taping has become a vital componentof our courses, and several benefits are clear:

9 Students develop real fluency and easein using English.

. Students nearly always stay in Englishwhile taping, as they are conscious of alistener.

l Students get hours of extra practice anda concrete record of their progress.

Students gain a sense of responsibilityfor their progress beyond the classroom.Teachers gain a better sense of who thestudents are and what their languageproblems may be.Most students enjoy the taping andrecognize its value.The spirit of the school is transformedas hallways and lobbies fill up withstudents chatting in English.

Avoiding pitfallsStudents generally tape enthusiastically, butduring the first few weeks, many students tryto get away with as little work as possible.The effectiveness of the system iscompromised (and headaches in auditingtapes greatly increased) if the teacher is notfirm on the following points:


On JALT98

Insist that students buy the requiredlength of cassette. Refuse tapes of anyother length.Insist on correct labeling. Refusemislabeled tapes.Insist that students record the requiredlength. If students record less, makethem do it again. Once students knowthe teacher is serious, this problemvirtually disappears.Insist that students rewind the tape to thebeginning.Reprimand Ll use, long pauses, orreading into the tape.

Minor items to insist on are giving names,student numbers, and dates on the tape, and(for second-year students) putting the 5-second pause between conversations.Warnings or reductions in points early onusually take care of lapses here.

An additional problem is that signing outfor recorders is an “honor system”; severalmachines have in fact disappeared. It wouldbe better to have staff from whom studentsneed to personally sign out for the machines.Alternately, a Language Laboratory coulditself be used for taping (Schneider 1993) orstudents required to buy their own smallrecorders.

The possibility of deception is present inthis system. We cannot be sure that somestudents are not taping a single conversationand then using it over and over again-aneasily executed technical maneuver. Theinsistence on putting the date in the tape, and(for second-year students) the erasing of thetapes by the teacher make it harder, but not

impossible, for students to “cheat” in thisway. While it is possible that such tacticshave gotten by us, our impression is that it israre or nonexistent. First, we can see andhear most of our students making tapes in thelounge and hallways, and secondly, routineauditing of the tapes shows that studentsmention topical and aseasonal things (soccergames, weather, news events) that show thatthe conversations were recent.

ConclusionIn this paper we have described theprocedures and benefits of outside taping, aswell as pitfalls which can be avoided byvigilance, especially early on. Some extrawork is required of the teacher, but it is wellrepaid by students’ enriched learning,increased autonomy, and improved ability.Much quantitative work remains to be doneon the efficacy of taping. We hope to pursuesuch studies in the future, and hope otherteachers implementing similar systems will doso as well.

ReferencesNation, I. S. P. (1995). Language teaching

techniques. Tokyo: Temple UniversityJapan.

Richards, J. C. (1987). Listeningcomprehension: Approach, design,procedure. In R. Long & J. Richards(Eds.), Methodology in TESOL (pp. 161-176). New York: Newbury House.

Schneider, P. (1993). Developing fluencywith pair taping. JALT Journal 15 (l),55-62.

Content and Creation: Student-generated TextbooksRichard Humphries, Sophia University

Paul Borg, Matsuyama University

Rationale there is no guarantee it will engender interestFor any instructor, the task of choosing an in the classroom or be regarded by studentsappropriate course textbook can be as relevant to their needs. Indeed, withworrisome. Even after a text is selected, economics as the determining variable for



most commercially produced textbooks, easeof production inevitably emphasisesuniformity over culture-specific and, moreimportantly, individual needs. Suchtextbooks are, as Little and Dam (1998, p.8)point out, essentially external to the learner.They are imposed from without. If studentsare to p1ay a central role in devising theirlearning plans, as researchers such as Breen(1984, p. 58) and Nunan (1995, p. 134) haveargued materials production must become akey concern.

ApproachWith these considerations in mind, wedecided to collaborate in devising anapproach that would respond to suchconcerns in a practical manner. We soughtto involve learners in the materials-production process, and to tap into theirinitiative and creativity. We chose pressarticles as the principal source of subjectmatter, in the belief that exploiting currentmedia resources would aid students’vocabulary acquisition and foster theirdevelopment of communicative competence.Moreover, this would, in our view, enhancetheir understanding of not only the issuesprevalent in current media discourse, but alsothe cultural values that underlie them.

The approach involved theimplementation of a thematically-based“content and creation” project, in whichstudents became responsible for creatingtheir own media issues text. Each text thusreflected individual effort and awareness,both in a linguistic and issues-oriented sense.More importantly, this approach allowedstudents to show their own interest andmotivation.

Project participantsThe project involved 200 college students attwo universities in Japan. Mixed levelswere the norm, and although all were Englishclasses, some were inter-departmental innature. Classes were 90 minutes in lengthand were held once a week for approximately30 weeks. Class sizes varied from 7 to 44.

ProcedureA handout (in language appropriate tostudent levels) was distributed to each class,and a detailed explanation/discussion sessionwas held at the beginning of the semester.The handout instructed students to choosemedia articles (related to specified themes) ofinterest to themselves, but on topics that theywould want to share with others. Studentswere supplied with a list of potential mediasources, such as newspapers, magazines,simplified-English publications, and Internetnews sources. They were then directed to:

Buy a notebook (A4 size, at least 60pages).Each week, find and photocopy anappropriate article related to the weeklytheme. Sample themes included: music,sports, foreign travel, travel in Japan,notorious people, and modern trends andstyles.Staple the article on to a left-hand page intheir notebooks.On the right-hand page, write down a partof speech (as used in the article), phrases,or idioms, and a definition and of at least15 words. Then write three new sentences,each containing a new lexical item.Below the definitions, write a shortpersonal reaction to the article (or asummary of at least a few sentences).Study the article, understand it, anddevelop an opinion about some aspect ofit. Be prepared to discuss the article inclass with classmates.Write a short discussion reaction in theirnotebooks (at the end of the class).

Students were assigned to sit in smallgroups, facing each other in circles. Theywould then take turns presenting their articles,Basic level classes or students might just readtheir personal reactions and answer somesimple questions; higher levels wereencouraged to do more. Thus, the methodwas modified to suit different levels: Withlower-level classes or students, there mightbe more concentration on vocabulary work;however, higher level students were


On JALT98

challenged to engage in more extendedactivities, such as:

. Giving verbal summariesl Challenging opinions presented in the

articlesl Offering further information or detailed

personal reactions on the topicsl Organizing extended debates or

discussions on the articles or on thegeneral theme

These media-based assignments wouldconstitute the only required homework forthe course. During the year, student-generated texts would slowly take shape,increasing in size. As they catered to theinterests of the students, they served aspersonal mementos in ways that commercialtexts couldn’t. Additionally, we were ableto include a useful element of flexibility bymodifying themes to incorporate topicalnews stories (e.g., the life and death ofPrincess Diana).

Supplementary activitiesWe used this approach to generate a wholehost of spin-off activities, including role plays,debates and discussions. Also, as a meansof reinforcing new vocabulary, we distributedword lists which we had compiled by usingselected words from the students’ vocabularylists. We then tested the students on lexicalitems which had arisen during the semester.

The teacher’s roleAs the emphasis was placed upon thestudents, we inevitably assumed a supportingrole, walking around from group to group,and sometimes joining in discussions. I nlower-level classes, we encouraged studentsto begin by asking each other the reasons fortheir choice of article, and, when appropriate,to speculate as to how a particular news storymight unfold.

Core principlesThis “content and creation” approach offers anumber of advantages, based on thefollowing principles:


1 .

2.

3.

4.

5.

The focus of the lesson is, in part,negotiated-the teacher sets theparameters (i.e., the general themes) andthe students customize it for their ownpurposes.

Students and teachers are joint decision-makers. The program is essentially“content-based” since it seeks to broadenthe range of topics which students feelcapable of addressing. This approach,in turn, serves to increase students’ability to process written information.

Student talking time is maximized. Allparticipants have a significant amount ofclass time to talk about their work and tointeract communicatively with others.Group dynamics are enhanced. The factthat students work in groups throughoutthe course helps to produce a relaxedlearning environment.While speaking is the main classroomfocus, all four skills are addressed in thepreparation of the materials and infollow-up activities.

CaveatsThe success of this type of activity depends,to be sure, upon the availability of usablemedia resources. It also requires thewillingness of the participating students totake the necessary time to select appropriatearticles.

ConclusionDespite these potential risks, we believe thatfurther exploration of this approach shouldlead to both the refinement of follow-upactivities and even greater levels of learnerautonomy. We envisage, for example,students choosing the themes anddetermining the basic text layout. From astrictly practical perspective, the greatestadvantage is perhaps the high degree offlexibility in using student-generatedtextbooks. This enables the instructor tomonitor larger classes while attending toindividual interests and needs. It alsoallows students to put their interests first inlearning the foreign language.


References Little, D. & Dam, L. (1998). LearnerBreen, M. (1984). Process syllabuses for autonomy: What and why? The

the language classroom. In C. Brumfit Language Teacher, 22,7-8 & 15.(Ed.), General English Syllabus Design Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between(pp. 47-60). London: Pergamon & learning and instruction. TESOLThe British Council. Quarterly, 29, 133-158.

Preparing Students for the Electronic WorldSteve Witt, Senzoku Gakuen College

In recent years, American campuses haveplaced a growing amount of emphasis oncomputer networks. At the University ofIllinois (which hosted 3,038 foreign studentsin the 1995/96 academic year (Institute ofInternational Education, 1997)) students areencouraged to register for classes using thecampus network (Harris, 1997).Computers are the new gateway toadministrative information, class schedules,student loan information, and informationabout campus events. The ubiquity ofcomputers as an access point for campusresources can be best seen in universitylibraries. Most libraries have exchangedtheir card catalogs for online catalogs;magazine articles are indexed and stored onnetworked CD-ROMS; the Internet is usedto connect students to resources shared byuniversity libraries around the country. Thisrequires students to rely on computers notonly to gather information for their researchprojects, but also to learn of events and to getinformation from the administration.

Daily course work is another area wherestudents are increasingly required to usecomputers. Computer interaction is alreadybecoming an integral part of most academicmajors (Rosen, Sears, & Weil, 1987).According to the 1996 Campus ComputingSurvey, 27% of the 660 respondents statethat helping faculty to integrate computertechnology into instruction is the mostimportant information technology (IT) issueat their institution. Other IT issues includeproviding adequate user support (24%)expanding the campus network (18%), andreplacing old hardware and software (17%)

(Green, 1997). Each of these IT issuessuggests that college students will need touse computers in more classes and disciplinesin the future.

The use of computers as a communicationmedium is currently gaining a strong footholdin American college classes. Whereas astudent wishing to avoid computers couldhave previously got by with the occasionaluse of word processing, the computer has, inrecent years, become the primary means ofcommunication and information gatheringwithin many courses and disciplines. Greenprovides the following indicators of this trend(Green, 1997):

l 67% of all undergraduates have access toe-mail and the Internet, while 79% ofcampuses have a World Wide Web(WWW) presence;

l 25% of college classes used electronicmail in some capacity in 1996, comparedto only 8% in 1994;

l WWW-based resources were used in 9%of all college courses, up from 6% in1995.

In addition, almost one third of the 660campuses in the 1996 survey reported havingformal plans to use the Internet and WWW ininstruction. As higher education continuesto focus on how to use their vast computernetworks in the classroom, this number canbut increase.

What implications do these changes inacademia have for a foreign student enteringthe computerised world of American higher


On JALT98

education? One aspect to consider is astudent’s information competency. Just asstudents need to learn how and when toapply certain grammatical rules of language,they also need to become familiar with thetechnical and cultural usage of computers astools for information exchange and research.In other words, students need to know thedifference between a WWW browser and anonline catalog; they need to understand thedifference between finding information on theInternet and finding information on adatabase; they also need to learn when it isappropriate to send e-mail to theirprofessors.

On the one hand, the problem ofinformation competency seems clear if weconsider academic libraries, the mostcomputerised of American campusinstitutions. Newly arrived internationalstudents identify the use of computerdatabases and online catalogs as one of themajor differences between libraries in theirhome countries and those in the UnitedStates. Allen’s 1993 survey of internationalstudents found, for example, that 61%described computer database searching as anovel experience, whereas 50% said theywere unaccustomed to online library catalogs(Allen, 1993). On the other hand, althoughacademic libraries spend considerable timeeducating native speakers on databasesearching and accessing online catalogs,native speakers are not burdened with otherproblems such as language barriers and lackof cultural awareness of library research inAmerican academia (Bilal, 1989). Now thatthe use of computers for daily academicroutines has spread from libraries to thecurriculum, international students faceincreased cultural and technical obstacles incommunicating and gathering information.

As international students encountercommunication barriers, so may their level ofanxiety toward computers increase. Recentstudies show that computer anxiety does notdisappear as computer experience becomesmore universal; these studies also indicatethat the best way to reduce computer anxietyis to make students’ early experiences asstress free as possible (Gos, 1996). If this is

not done, computer anxiety may well placeinternational students at a significantacademic disadvantage. From thisperspective, teaching the use of computers inlanguage programs will become similar totelephone skills, textual analysis, or thesaurususage.

If students have access to computers andthe Internet, it is not difficult to create acourse that emulates and uses many of thesame technologies and resources encounteredon American campuses. For example, onecan access over 175 library catalogs throughthe United States’ Library of Congress’WWW site; the U.S. Department ofEducation’s WWW site offers free searchesof the ERIC database; course materials andhandouts can be published on a classhomepage; and students can be required tocommunicate via e-mail. A course thatintegrates the use of computers for researchand communication within a languageprogram should minimally cover thefollowing topics or units: electronic mail,locating and analysing information on theworld wide web, library research, anddatabase searching. These units can also beintegrated into other classes. For example,electronic mail fits well within the structureof a writing course. At the same time,research over the Internet could be taught inan academic writing course for students whoare ready to write research papers. Whilehelping to develop language skills, such unitscan also give students a basic understandingof how e-mail is used in campuscommunication; how to find and analyzeinformation on the Internet; how to search alibrary catalog and read a bibliographicrecord; and how to search an academicdatabase. Just as language instruction helpsstudents negotiate various grammaticalchoices and social situations, instruction inelectronic communication assists students tonegotiate the computerised campus anddiscover what resources are availablethrough campus networks.

Electronic mailAs soon as students are comfortable usingcomputers for word processing, they will be



ready to use electronic mail. The use of e-mail is similar to word processing except theprint command is replaced by “send.” Oncestudents have their accounts, they can beginsending and receiving e-mail. At this pointteachers can also start sending classannouncements to students, and suggest thatstudents ask questions and turn inassignments via e-mail. To provide studentswith other opportunities to communicate inEnglish, e-mail pen-pals from other classes,schools, or countries should be provided (seeAppendix 1). When students arecomfortable sending e-mail to theirclassroom peers, an assigned pen-pal allowsthem to initiate an ongoing dialogue inEnglish and become more accustomed tousing electronic mail.

Once students are comfortable with e-mail,they can use a listserver (a program whichforwards e-mail to participants of a groupwhenever e-mail is sent to the group). Withliterally thousands of listserver groupscovering almost every subject, there are alsolistserver groups for students studyingEnglish (see Appendix 1). A teacher canalso create their own class forum by using ane-mail program’s address book function.This allows the teacher to sendannouncements easily, and students to “talk”with the whole class at once when they havequestions or comments.

When explaining the use of e-mail tostudents, it is important to explain uniquecultural and linguistic aspects of the medium.For example, students should be informedthat e-mail and all forms of electroniccommunication are not private, so care mustbe taken not to disclose information oropinions that might be later regretted.Further, it should be noted that e-mail isoften written in a more casual manner thanletters (Krol & Ferguson, 1995):Punctuation and capitalization are oftenomitted, for example. Once students havecompleted a unit on electronic mail, theyshould be comfortable communicating withtheir peers, teacher, and others electronically.

The World Wide WebTeaching students how to use the WWW as asource of information is a two-step process.First, one must teach students some technicalaspects such as how to use the browser, andhow the files located on the Internet aretransferred to their computers. Second,students need to learn how to findinformation and analyse it. Althoughcomputer systems and software applicationscan vary, the main goal is to teach studentshow to successfully navigate their wayaround without getting lost in a flood ofinformation. If students don’t feel incontrol of what they are viewing, they willbecome frustrated. Part of putting studentsin control depends on their understanding thestructure of the Internet. As this can bedifficult to explain, teachers may wish to usearticles or books written in the student’s Lland provide an English glossary.

Once students have achieved a basicfamiliarity with the Internet, they are ready tolearn basic search techniques. Here, it ishelpful to use both Internet search enginesand keyword search techniques, as well asdirectories with their large subject indexes ofthe Internet. Some of the larger Internetsearch engines include Infoseek and Excite(see Appendix 1). Each search engineoffers a similar interface, so students caneasily move from one to the next.Searching these databases offers students agood chance to use their language skills byselecting terms that will yield good results.Students should also be encouraged toperform the same search on different searchengines, so that they can learn how each siteleads to differing search results according toits index building techniques and searchalgorithms. Teaching students to use anInternet directory also builds language skillsby requiring students to choose which subjectareas to consult in order to find a particulartopic. In this case, using narrow topicsenables students to get further into thestructure of the directory. An exampleassignment that includes both directories andsearch engines is an information scavengerhunt. In this assignment, students are givena list of questions to answer and are required


On JALT98

to use the Internet to find the answers.Questions can be on any topic, ranging fromthe population of Kathmandu to sites thatinclude the poetry of Emily Dickinson. Thepurpose of the scavenger is simply to getstudents to use their reading and analyticalskills to create search strategies and locatespecific information.

Library research and database searchingLibrary research and database searching skillsare essential to all students on Americancampuses. Luckily for teachers preparingstudents for study in the United States, thereare many online library catalogs available.The Library of Congress site is perhaps thebest place on the Internet to access many ofthese catalogs (see Appendix 1). At thissite, students can search English languagecatalogs from all around the world, includinglarge research library collections. Theprincipal target skills in searching an onlinecatalog revolve around the main accesspoints that these catalogs offer: author, title,and subject. Although each interface thatstudents encounter may differ in form, theyall share those common access points.Once students are familiar with findingknown items and reading bibliographicinformation, they can move to complexsearch strategies with Boolean operators.These involve the use of coordinatingconjunctions such as “and” and “or” inrefining the search.

The transition from using an online cardcatalog to searching a database is not difficult.One of the most widely used databases inacademic libraries is the ERIC database.This comes free of charge on the WWW andprovides an excellent resource for research orsimple practice. The database is available atseveral sites on the Internet; each has adifferent search interface with various searchoptions. It is best to look at each one andchoose the most suitable for a particularlearning task (see Appendix 1). For suchdatabase searches, it is also important toguide students to consider the inclusion ofplurals, the use of synonymous terms and thepossibilities with of Boolean operations, asnon-native speakers of English generally tend

to underuse such variations (DiMartino,Ferns, & Swacker, 1995).

ConclusionAlthough there are many technicalconsiderations in preparing students forcomputers on American campus life, onemust keep in mind the larger context.Students need to be aware that theenvironment they are entering relies heavilyon electronic communication and research.By empowering them with knowledge ofwhat the cultural norms of computing are,training them in the possibilities forcommunication and information retrieval, andby raising their confidence to take advantageof these opportunities, language teachers willenable their students to communicate moreeffectively. This in turn will greatly enhancethe students’ chances of success in Americanacademia.

ReferencesAllen, M.B. (1993). International students

in academic libraries. College &Research Libraries, 54, 323-333.

Bilal, D.M. (1989). International students’acquisition of library research skills:Relationship with their English languageproficiency. The Reference Librarian,24, 129-45.

DiMartino, D., Ferns, W. J., Swacker, S.(1995). CD-ROM search techniques ofnovice end-users: Is the English-as-a-second-language student at adisadvantage? College &ResearchLibraries, 56, 49-59.

Green, K. (1996). The campus computingproject: The national survey ofinformation technology in highereducation. Claremont Graduate School:Claremont CA.

Gos, M. W. (1996). Computer anxiety andcomputer experience: A new look at anold relationship. The Clearing House,69(5), 271-277. Institute ofInternational Education (1996). OpenDoors 1995196.

Krol, E. & Ferguson, P. (1996). The wholeInternet for Windows 95: User’s guide



and catalog. O’Reilly and Associates,Sebastopol: CX.

James R., Smith, Brein N. (1996).Assessing the computer literacy ofundergraduate college students.Education, 117(2), 188-193.

Roden, L.D., Sears, D.C. & Weil, M.M.(1987). Computer phobia. BehaviorResearch Methods, Instruments, andComputers, 19, 167-179.

Zimmermann, S. (1995). Perceptions ofintercultural communication competenceand international student adaptation to anAmerican campus. CommunicationEducation, 44 (4), 321-335.

Appendix 1Electronic resources and how to access them

Electronic mail and listservers

a . There are numerous WWW sites thatallow people to find electronic pen-pals.You can find them by searching in any ofthe search engines.

b . An excellent group of listservers forfinding partner e-mail classes is theIntercultural E-mail Classroom

Connections. For more information sendquestions to <[email protected]> or look atthe following WWW site:[http://www.stolaf.edu/network/ieccc].

c . The EFL/ESL Student Lists offer severaltopical lists for students to join. This isan excellent way for students to practiceEnglish and learn to use a listserver. T ofind out how your students can join sende-mail to Thomas Robb at<[email protected]>.

Internet search engines and directories:

Excite: [http://www.excite.com]Infoseek: [http://www.infoseek.com]Lycos: [http://www.lycos.com]Hotbot: [http://www.hotbot.com]Library of Congress (access to over 175library catalogs):[http://Icweb.loc.gov/z3950/]Educational Resources Information CenterFor a list of all the access points to the ERICdatabases available on the Internet go to thefollowing WWW site:[http://www.aspensys.com/eric/searchdb.html]

Activities for the Independent Learner

Steve Petrucione, Osaka Institute of TechnologyStephen M. Ryan, Eichi (Sapientia) University

The core of our presentation at JALT98 wasa handout outlining 67 prototypes oflanguage learning activities which learnerscan engage in independently, i.e., withouthaving recourse to a teacher. Several of theactivities were demonstrated and the generalprinciples involved were discussed.Because of space limitations, we haveincluded detailed descriptions of only three ofthe activities here, which are indicative of therange of potential tasks. Copies of the fullhandout are available upon request from theauthors.

RationaleThe following six reasons were given for theneed to train our learners in independentlearning. They are:

l Our learners have limited time and covera limited amount of language with ateacher.

l Our learners will need English in thefuture but will probably have to studywithout a teacher.


On JALT98

l Learners must contribute to learning forreal learning to take place.

l Great importance is now being attachedto independent learning, as shown by thevitality of JALT’s Learner DevelopmentSIG.

l Learners have different needs, interests,personalities and motivation for learning.

. Many learners are already learningindependently, as a survey of our ownlearners showed.

Activity One: Let’s Talk About It(Speaking and Listening)

ObjectiveTo demonstrate to learners that talkingtogether about a mutually relevant topic leadsto fluency on the topic.

ProcedureThe participants were divided into groups ofthree. They were then instructed to preparethree sentences on the topic “How I Came toSonic City.” When all three were ready,one began talking. After she was finishedher group mates asked her a total of threequestions.

She answered the questions and theprocedure was continued until all three saidhow they came to Sonic City and answeredthree related questions. The participantswere then given some samples of learners’work and commented on the similarities incontent with what they had just said in theirgroups.

Suggestions and optionsThis kind of activity can be used for almostany topic, from the most mundane such astoday’s lunch, to technical in which a learnertalks about his field of study. The amountof preparation can be left to the learner.Some may prefer to write everything out,others to make only notes. The length canbe left up to the learners to decide. A shorttalk could be one sentence, while a long onemight be 20 sentences. The learners mightdecide to memorize it; it is also permissible tolook at notes while talking. However, it is

better if the learners don’t read, as that isboring and often hard to follow.

BenefitsThe learners are often interested in thisactivity because they are talking about thingsof interest and proximity to themselves.They therefore can remember the vocabularyitems used. It is felt that what David Littlecalls “learning from the inside out” (personalcommunication) takes place, since thematerials come from inside thelearners’minds. Other obvious benefits arethat no textbook or other materials arenecessary.

Activity Two: In the News(Reading, Writing, Speaking)

Objectives1 . To show learners that they don’t need

questions from a book or teacher forreading comprehension.

2 . To demonstrate to learners that makingquestions can be as much acomprehension exercise as answeringthem.

ProcedureThe participants were divided into pairs.They were each given a different newspaperarticle to read, and were told they could usetheir dictionaries to aid understanding. Thearticles were between 120-150 words andhad been picked out by learners in auniversity English conversation class. Afterthey had read their articles and mastered thevocabulary, they were asked to write threecomprehension questions for their partner.When both had written their questions, theyswitched articles, read the new article andanswered the questions their partner hadprepared.

Suggestions and optionsThe teacher can bring in two articles that shethinks of interest to her learners first, and,after that, let the learners bring in their own.The learners can be asked to volunteer to



bring in articles and in a class of 22 or morelearners, experience suggests that two orthree will contribute. Of course, magazinearticles and items from the Internet arewelcome.

BenefitsSince the learners choose the articles, theyare of interest to them. Also, writingquestions for their partner to answer involvesthem directly and leads to concentration andmotivation. The learners feel a need towrite fair and comprehensible questions sotheir partner will understand and be able tocomplete the activity successfully. Writinga question entails knowing the answer, whichbroadens comprehension. An illustration ofthis is where one learner stated an interestingfact about an article, asked a question, andalso demanded proof backing up the answer.

Activity 3: Listen To The News(Listening)

Objectives1 . To show learners that they can often

predict vocabulary if they know the titleof something.

2 . To show that prediction is a valuable toolin developing listening skills.

ProcedureThe participants were told the title of a newsbroadcast from NHK TV and asked to guessfive vocabulary items they thought would beused. They were instructed to write the fiveitems down, and the teacher put some itemson the board that were chosen from theparticipants’ lists.

The news broadcast, about 40 seconds,was played twice. The participants listenedand checked the items they had predicted thatwere actually used. It is a good idea to askseveral learners some easy questions aboutthe content of the broadcast, so they can seethey have picked up information incidentallywhile performing the task.

Suggestions and optionsThis kind of activity is best used with a short,coherent story. The contents of the

broadcast should be something the learnersare interested in. With university students,a news story that they feel directly affectsthem can be used with success. One aboutthe opening of the ski season in Hokkaidowas received enthusiastically. The learnersshould be told that any vocabulary item isacceptable, even proper names. Also thelearners should be told that even if they didn’tpredict any of the vocabulary used, it is still aworthwhile listening activity, because theygain valuable exposure to English whilelistening for the predicted words.Synonyms and near-synonyms to the actualwords used, predicted by the learners, can bepointed out to them for encouragement.Top-down processing, which leads to betterunderstanding, is stimulated as a result ofpredicting.

BenefitsThis activity shows learners that they alreadyknow a lot about a topic from the beginning,and encourages top down processing. Thecontents of the news programs can be tapeddirectly from NHK bilingual new thus beingfamiliar ones to our learners, which makesthem more interesting and easier tounderstand. They should be updated often,as current topics encourage learnermotivation.

ConclusionSixty-seven activities were presented in thehandout. They included using a variety ofmaterials; graded readers, videos, diaries,textbooks, television and radio, computers,native speakers, newspapers, pen friends,magazines, and songs for learningindependently. The activities presenteddemonstrated that learners individually, inpairs, or in groups can practice and improvetheir language skills in an enjoyable andmotivating way, without a textbook orteacher. The learning strategies involved inthese tasks encourage learners to use theiringenuity and develop materials from thingsin their daily life, and, maybe best of all, theirown brains.


On JALT98

Learner Autonomy in Japanese Classrooms:An Exchange of Views

Leni Dam, David Little, Richard Smith and Haruko Katsura

IntroductionAt the end of each presentation by Leni Damand David Little at JALT98 (including theirjoint opening plenary: See Dam and Little,this volume), participants were invited togive anonymous feedback in the form ofwritten comments and/or questions (in eitherEnglish or Japanese). This feedback formedthe basis for a “Special Exchange Session”moderated by Haruko Katsura and RichardSmith on the final day of the conference.

A question from one participant was:“What exactly is a ‘Special ExchangeSession’?” David and Leni had posed thesame question when first asked to take part.They were told: “This is a new,experimental format...allowing participants toconverse with/‘get to know’ main speakers ina relatively informal manner.” This articleattempts to mirror the interactive nature ofthe Special Exchange Session, as originallyconceived and as realized in practice. Thus ,just as they did at the session itself, Davidand Leni offer below their interpretations of,and overall responses to, the writtenfeedback received; representative questionsand comments are reproduced verbatim (setoff from the text in boxes), in order for thevoices of conference participants also to beheard.

Feedback and responses are divided undertwo main headings: (a) Theoretical andcultural considerations (addressed by DavidLittle), and (b) Practical concerns (addressedby Leni Dam). In both sections specificreference is made to the implementation anddevelopment of learner autonomy in theJapanese context.

By foregrounding and presentingresponses to some of the concerns ofconference participants, we hope to helpmotivate further cycles of reflection, teacher-research and discussion among teachersworking in the Japanese context.


Theoretical and cultural considerations(David Little)

Learner autonomy and learning strategies

In his plenary lecture Mark Clarke definedlearning as “change through time.” If weaccept this definition, our role as teachers isto create a framework within which ourlearners can change. If in addition webelieve in the central importance of learnerautonomy, our role is also to help ourlearners to give conscious shape anddirection to that change. This means findingways of enabling them to develop themetacognitive skills they need if they areeffectively to plan, manage, monitor andevaluate their learning.

At the same time, I should like to cautionagainst putting too much trust in what hascome to be called “strategy training,” for fourreasons:

1.

2.

3.

There is no evidence that the mostsuccessful communicators are those whouse the widest range of strategies (thispoint is made by McDonough, 1995).Any strategy can be used eitherconsciously or unconsciously. It is thuspossible that strategy training simplymakes learners conscious of things theywere already doing without being aware ofit.There are limits beyond which we do nothave introspective access to our mentalprocesses: We must be cautious about


saying what we are doing on the basis ofwhat we think we are doing.

4. Forms of strategy training that resembledrill and practice have nothing whatsoeverto do with the development of learnerautonomy.

Learner autonomy and Japanese culture

Human beings all belong to the samebiological species and thus have certainfundamental attributes and experiences incommon. It is inconceivable, for example,that the phenomenon of consciousness issubject to cultural variation, though the wayin which individuals interpret it may be. I nmy view, another human universal is theautonomy of the individual as a “self-producing” organism (Maturana and Varela,1992). In contexts of formal learning,where a central concern is (or is usuallydeclared to be) the growth of critical self-awareness, we exercise and develop ourautonomy, or “produce ourselves,” throughthe reflective processes that are usuallylabelled metacognition. According to thisline of argument, although human societiesand cultures differ from one another in wayswe are familiar with, we should not be askingourselves: “Is learner autonomyappropriate to Japan?,” since to do so impliesthat Japanese learners have no capacity forcritically aware “self-production.” Weshould rather ask: “What forms can learnerautonomy appropriately take when itdevelops within the Japanese culturaltradition?”

Questions about the culturalappropriateness of learner autonomy oftenseem to presuppose that cultures aremonolithic and unchanging. But they arenot; they are constantly evolving, and thenew perceptions that effective educationgives rise to are among the most importantfactors shaping this evolution. If educationis about critical enquiry, it is also aboutquestioning received values, institutions,social norms, and so on, including traditionalnotions about how teachers should teach andlearners learn. To the extent that it is worthanything, education always runs the risk ofsetting us at odds with the society and cultureof which we are part.


On JALT98

At this conference, there has beenfrequent mention of “the typical Japaneselearner.” But the characteristics attributedto this learner (and specified in some of thecomments and questions reproduced in thisarticle) are the same characteristics I haveheard teachers attribute to “typical learners”in Ireland, the United Kingdom, France,Germany, Spain, Mexico, Italy and manyother places. This stereotypical learner isnot the product of any one particular culture,but of the teacher-centred pedagogies thatseem to be fundamental to educationaltraditions around the world.

Practical concerns (Leni Dam)

Many of the comments/questions wereceived touch upon problems that do notnecessarily have to do only with theimplementation of learner autonomy, butwhich are problems generally experienced by(language) teachers. The questions andcomments about lack of motivation andreluctant learners are good examples. I cantell you that Danish teachers say the same oftheir learners. I would claim that in manycases learners have learned to be lazy andreluctant during 12-15 years of education.In other words, it’s not their fault.

Why, then, are learners lazy or reluctant tolearn? Perhaps, because teachers don’tmake use of what learners bring into the

classroom? Because we ask learners to dothings that are not authentic or relevant tothem? Because we ask our learners to dothings without explaining why we want themdone?

In general, but especially with regard tolearner autonomy, it is essential that we getlearners involved in their own learning. Astarting point could be to ask them abouttheir previous experiences-to show respectfor what they bring to the classroom. W eshould ask them what they do know, whatthey can do and what they’re good at.Let’s take “communication” as an example.Japanese learners certainly have knowledgeof communication, but many of the questionsand comments suggest that this knowledgeisn’t being made use of. Textbookdialogues, for example, are not authentic anddo not ask learners to behave authentically.One suggestion is to use pictures of peopletalking in various situations around whichlearners can build their own dialogues. Theteacher can then work from the learners’dialogues.

44 Vo ices o f Experience


It is essential, whenever we ask ourlearners to do things we find important, thatwe are prepared to explain to them why wewant these things done-and the way wewant them done. Examples: doinghomework, work in groups, writing diaries.If and when the teacher specifies his/herviews and .intentions, it is then easier for thelearners to get involved and to respond withtheir own ideas. The final decisions for theorganization of the learning environmentmight then be made in co-operation andnegotiation between teacher and learners—aprerequisite for learner involvement.

Teachers can be more worried thanlearners about the change of teacher role inthe classroom, the change of role whenmoving from a teacher-directed teachingenvironment to a potentially learner-centredand -directed learning environment. Againit is my experience that this worry is sharedby most teachers around the world who wantto change their practice. The problem hastwo sides: “How is it done?” and “Will thelearners accept the change?” Here the sameprinciples apply as to all teaching andlearning. You have to start from what youknow already, taking small steps and makingchanges appropriate to your ownenvironment. First and foremost, bringyour ideas, your problems, and concerns intothe classroom to share with your learners informats of negotiation and evaluation. I nthis way, the process will be a shared concernand thus an authentic step towards learnerautonomy. Secondly, a good idea will be toshare the process with colleagues. Last butnot least, you have to accept the fact thatlearning to “let go” takes a long time-evenlonger than it takes for learners to “takehold”!

ConclusionAt the Special Exchange Session itself, afterthe above responses, participants were askedwhat issues they would like to continue tosee addressed in the remaining time.Groups were formed around the followingconcerns:

1 . How teachers can take the first stepstowards enhancing learner autonomy;

2 . Sharing experiences for teachers alreadyinvolved in developing learner autonomy;

3 . Learner autonomy in content classes;4 . The use of Ll in awareness-raising.

These, then, appear to be areas ofremaining concern which could repay furtherdiscussion and investigation by teacher-researchers in the Japanese context. (Someadditional areas are suggested in theAppendix.)

All groups became so involved in theirdiscussions that the time was extended andonly a short period of feedback followed.However, there were some concluding wordsof encouragement at the Session itself, withwhich we also conclude this article:

ReferencesMaturana, H. R., and F. J. Varela, (1992).

The tree of knowledge: The biologicalroots of human understanding. Boston


On JALT98

and London: Shambhala. (Revisededition; first published 1987.)

McDonough, S. H., (1995). Strategy andskill in learning a foreign language.London: Arnold.

Appendix: Further questions for teacher-research and discussion among teachers inJapan

For reasons of space, only a sample of thewritten feedback received from conference

participants could be reproduced above, andresponses-although based on all of thefeedback received--could only be of ageneral nature. Below we therefore presentsome more comments and questions fromparticipants, believing that, while these havemostly been addressed in a general wayabove, they might form a good basis for moredetailed discussion and research by teachersinterested in learner autonomy in theJapanese context:


In this paper, I explore the issue of the use ofLl in the language classroom. I examinethe experiences, reactions and views of bothEnglish teachers and students in Malaysiansecondary schools by means of interviews.My research points out that there aremisconceptions as well as truecommunication needs involved. I concludethat there is a real necessity for a clearlydefined methodological base to bedeveloped by local expertise.

In the course of doing fieldwork for myPh.D. on Malaysian secondary schools, Iencountered extensive use of BahasaMalaysia in the teaching of English,especially amongst teachers of English inrural schools and in less able classes inurban schools. Like all teacher educators, Iexperienced considerable uneasinessobserving teachers teach English using thetranslation method. This prompted me toinvestigate the issues behind thisphenomena.

In this paper, I will begin by relatingvarious teachers’ initial experiences andviews which highlight some of the issuesconcerning the use of Bahasa Malaysia inthe language classroom. Then, I willexamine the issues from the viewpoint of thestudents. I will go on to examine some ofthe underlying reasons as to why thisphenomenon occurs in the Malaysianclassroom’. It is hoped that the insightsfrom this paper will enable teachers andteacher educators to rethink the issue of theuse of first language in the teaching of

English.

Initial experiencesIn the course of interviewing teachers as towhy they used the Ll in the teaching of L2,I found that most teachers began by relatingtheir first experiences of teaching theEnglish Language.

.

.

My first experience of teachingEnglish, in fact I tried my best, whenI got my first class, my first lesson,100 per cent English, whether theyunderstand me or not. In fact, Iwas trying to go out of the class forrecess, they just sit down and keepquiet and smiling at me. Then Iasked, “Do you understand?”

I was shocked when they keep quiet.So I said “Faham atau tidak” (Doyou understand or not?). They said,“Tidak faham ” (We don ‘tunderstand). That’s what they said.So after that incident, then only Irealise that 100% English in class isimpossible, due to their problems invocab.

l I tried not to utter one Malay word.I speak for the whole period butfinally I gave them something towrite, just a few lines. They told me,“Teacher, what did you say. I didn’tunderstand any word. ” It was awaste of 40 minutes.

Voices of Observation 47

On JALT98

. Tomorrow, you will see, when I gointo class, the students just keepquiet, heads down. It was mymistake as well because the first fewd a y s , you tend to be very strict andthen you want everybody to speakEnglish. No Malay word. Noteven a single Malay word in classand these people become “takut ”(afraid) and afraid to speak English.So they keep quiet. Even the goodstudents, the girls. Some of thegirls, they can speak English. Theyrefuse to speak English. And now Ihave to use different strategies.

. Most of the time I have to translateEnglish to Malay, Malay to Englishbecause otherwise they don’t knowanything. I have to translate.Actually I know it is wrong but whatto do, I don’t have the choice I guess.I really had to go down to their leveland use very simple English. I hadeven to use B.M. You know we aretaught not to use mother tongue inexplanation. But Z find that I havet o .

It appears that most of the languageteachers began their career with theaspirations of using English to teachEnglish. However, rude awakeningsawaited as they struggled to teachEnglish in rural schools. The discoverythat the students did not understand themwhen they tried to teach English throughEnglish caused “reality shock” (Veenman,1984)-that is, the dissolution of ideals inthe face of reality which can often causea change in attitudes and behavior. Theteachers’ helplessness in the situationmade them turn to the use of BahasaMalaysia, but this use seems to leave asense of guilt because their ELT trainingsays it is wrong to use the Ll in theteaching of English. Nevertheless,despite that feeling, most of themcontinue to use the Ll to teach English.

My observations of a number of teachersindicate that the use of Ll can vary from asmuch as 10% to 90% of the lesson,depending on the type of school and thesocio-economic status of the community.Such a high proportion of use is bound tosend alarm signals especially in the light ofcurrent theories about language teaching andlearning. Concern would naturally focuson how this would disadvantage thelanguage learner. Although this is alegitimate concern, one should alsoinvestigate and try to understand why is itteachers do what they do. Unless weunderstand, and uncover the hidden theoriesor beliefs in use, we will always beprescribing what teachers should do, ratherthan understanding the situation andworking at feasible means of addressing theissue, together with the teachers.

Areas where Bahasa Malaysia is usedThe data gathered indicates that teachershave various reasons for the use of the Ll inthe classroom. These, in my view, can bebroadly classified into three categories:explanations, class management andmotivation.

Explanations

To explain vocabularyVocabulary, they give us a blanklook, so we know they don’tunderstand. They don’t understandafter explaining. They can’t find asuitable word to understand. So wehave to revert to Bahasa.

Only the weak class. That alsocertain words, you need to explain tothem. You can’t explain in English.You have to change the language.

Especially, vocabulary words...I givethem the Bahasa Malaysia wordsand finish off the thing.

48 Voices of Observation

To explain grammar rulesHelp them to understand myexplanation in the class. If Iexplain in English, they willabsolutely not understand. I havetried last year.

Why is’ the answer like this and whythis one is not the way like it is?They ask me like that. So I explainin Malay. Then they will ask mewhy. So I said is the way theEnglishman speak

Say the book say grammar-whatare the uses of conjunction, before,what. I just translate from the book,direct from the book Dotranslation. To facilitate students’understanding

I use B.M. just to make themunderstand.

Sometimes you expect them tounderstand what you say. But I’llhave to repeat many times to makethem understand. Sometimes I haveto repeat in Malay. They will askyou in Malay...They want to makesure.

I don ‘t speak English to them. Ispeak in Bahasa because when Ispeak in English, I don’t think theyunderstand. Also one or two theyunderstand, like “Open your books. "That they understand, But speak inEnglish, I don’t think theyunderstand.

These teachers find that the Ll is usefulin helping students understand thevocabulary of L2 and to know the rules ofL2 usage. Research by Lai and Luk (1996)also indicates a similar pattern of useamongst primary school teachers in HongKong. Although this can be a usefulstrategy, one needs to raise the question asto whether these teachers observe the


distinctions between equivalence of form,semantic equivalence and pragmatic features(Atkinson, 1987, p. 246). Failure to do so,Atkinson warns, may lead to over-simplification and word for wordtranslations which could be crude andinaccurate.

Class Management

To give instructionsl Instructions, here, they are very slow

in hearing. You tell them once, theycannot. English is a alien languageto them. They are not quick torespond. So I tell them twice inEnglish and then in B.M. defeats thepurpose lah but then I get my workdone, that way.

. They will ask you in Malay, forexample, if I ask O.K., “Can youplease take out your book, yourexercise book?” They will ask youin Malay, “Keluarkan buku cik gu. "To save time.

. Sometimes, time constrains. Sosometimes you have to. You arerunning out of time. You are goingtoo slow. You can 't stretch thelesson...there is a lot more to cover...I give them B.M. words and finish offthe thing.

. The staff uses very little Englishoutside the classroom. They wantthe students to understand quickly.They speak in Bahasa Malaysia sothat the students wi l l understandquickly2.

To scold studentsl Scold them in English, half the words

they don’t understand. It doesn ‘thave the “oomph. ” So I have torevert to Bahasa. Nowadays, whenI am scolding...I stick to Bahasa.


On JALT98

The use of Ll in this category seemsto focus on the use of L1 in classmanagement mainly as a time savingfactor. Is the use of Ll in this case adevice merely to make life easier forthe teacher ? Or is it, as Pennington(1995) says, a means to compensatefor their ineffective teachingstrategies?

Motivation

To prevent students from losinginterest

l Sometimes you explain for fiveminutes, you make them lose interest.They Want to know quick, you know.You can’t wait for them to give theright word.

To meet students’ needs. I ask them whether they want me to

try and teach 100 per cent English,80% English, or 50/50 and they said50/50 . That’s the only way, but theway you teach them, even though youare teaching 50% English, 50%Bahasa Malaysia.

l Although, the class was quite good,quite clever but for English, theywere waiting for me to translate forthem. To facilitate responses fromstudents

l If I use English only], I will not beable to get a response from them.They will keep silent. Keep quiet.Just me talking in the class inEnglish. Will stare at you, staringat you. And if I ask them in Englishto what the exercise I wanted them todo, they don’t know.

l If I don ‘t mention any Malay word, itwould be a waste of my voice.Nothing, there ‘11 be nothing fromthem. They will just sit or sleep.They would be very sleepy because

they don’t understand anything. SoI resort to Malay.

The data in this section appears to justifythe use of Ll as motivating students throughvarious means. It seems that extendedexplanations in L2 concerning rules ofgrammar or vocabulary will result instudents losing interest as it will take themtoo long to understand. The use of Ll isalso seen as a strategy to facilitate student-teacher communication. Further, teachersseem to use the justification that they aremeeting students’ needs as it is a learnerpreferred strategy.

It appears from the data described, thatthe teachers have some clearly definedstrategies and valid reasons for their use ofLl in the English language classroom.However, the data needs closer re-examination, as I believe there is more to itthan meets the eye.

The students’ point of viewWhat then are the viewpoints of the studentswith regard to this issue?3 There is avariety of views ranging from students whowant the teachers to use Ll in the Englishlanguage classroom so as to enable them to“understand” what is being taught in class,to those who feel the teacher should put inmore effort in making the students useEnglish in the classroom.

Learners who prefer the use of Ll

. If it is possible, please translate intoBahasa Malaysia, things we find itdifficult to understand.

. The teacher uses more B.M. becausewe not understand If he usesEnglish, so to help us he uses. B.M.

Here many teachers translate. They areafraid that the students do not understand.The teachers speaks in English, then theteacher speaks in B.M. They want to helpthe students to understand.



Learners who prefer the use of L2

l I like if my teacher teach Englishlesson in class use English. MaybeI can’t understand what he is talkingabout but I want to try to understand.

l Instead of encouraging us, force touse the language. Teachers justencourage us but it is better if theyforce us.

. We prefer the teacher to use English,so it will be easier for us to learnEnglish words. The teachertranslates for us if it is difficult tounderstand, it is also good We getto study the English word andunderstand the meaning at the sametime.

The data indicates that there is supportfor the teachers’ contention that the use ofLl is a learner preferred strategy.Although there are students who thinkotherwise, these generally form the minority.Out of the 12 students interviewed, ninewanted the teacher to use the Ll, whilst onlythree felt the teacher should use moreEnglish. Has the overuse of Ll in theclassroom led learners to believe that theywill not understand any L2 unless it hasbeen translated? Johnson (1995) notes thatlearner’s perception of language classroomswill influence the patterns of interaction inthe class. Hence, although there isevidence to indicate it is a learner preferredstrategy, one should treat such evidence withcaution.

Entrapped by understandingIt seems that the variations of the word

“understand” are a recurrent feature in theconversations with regard to why teachersand students feel they have to use BahasaMalaysia in the teaching of English. Thegeneral view is that the use of the Ll willfacilitate understanding and if the studentsunderstood they would learn. “Under-standing” is viewed as a major key to

mastering the English language by bothteachers and students. What remainsunclear is what sort of understanding of theEnglish language would be promoted by theuse of Bahasa Malaysia and how that wouldhelp students learn the language.

What is cause for alarm is that thisunderstanding appears to be the dominantperception or “theory in use” as to how alanguage is learnt. On the surface level, itappears to support Krashen’s (1985) viewthat comprehensible input is needed toenable a learner to learn a language.However, the emphasis in this case appearsto be on short-term and immediatecomprehension of input rather thancomprehensible input.

Further, two other vital aspects oflearning a language, meaningful productionand negotiation of meaning, appear to bereceiving very much less attention from theteachers. In Canada, it is often stressedthat immersion learners need opportunitiesto produce comprehensible output in orderto learn the L2. Such opportunities canallow students to draw on their lexical,phonological and structural resources tonegotiate meaning which is a vital aspect ofarriving at clarity and precision incommunication.

By paying little or no attention to theseaspects of language learning, it appears thatthe teachers have inadvertedly denied theirstudents opportunities of mastering the L2.

The other issue that arises is whetherteachers treat the English language as asubject with a content base rather than actsof communication. The fact that theteachers feel students need to be givenextended explanations of grammar rules andvocabulary could point to these being seenas the content of the English Language.This could explain why understanding isseen as crucial as this perception of learningis often related to content-based subjects.The teachers’ perception of understanding asthe major key to language learning raises arelated question with regard to teachereducation programmes. Have suchprogrammes concentrated too much on the


On JALT98

methodology of teaching English and notgiven teachers a deeper understanding of thepsychology of language learning or evensociolingusitics especially in the area ofcodeswitching?

The need to communicateThe other question to raise is how muchunderstanding has got to do with the need ofthese teachers to feel they arecommunicating with their students. Anyteacher or student would testify to the factthat one of the most frustrating aspects ofteaching and learning of a second languageis the lack of meaningful communicationwhen only the L2 is used in the class. I sthe use of Bahasa Malaysia an attempt onthe part of the teacher to promote somemeaningful form of communication with thestudents to build student-teacher rapport?Is this not a legitimate need? And how dowe then address this need?

The fear of silenceAnother issue connected to this perceptionof understanding could be the teacher’s fearof silence. The transcripts of lessons Ianalysed showed that the average wait timein EFL lessons was on average 2 secondslong. The reasons given ranged fromhaving to cover the syllabus in a specifiedtime, to a fear that a longer wait time wouldlead to a slower paced in lesson which thenmight lead to boredom and disruption in theclassroom. In my view, the discomfortteachers feel with regard to silence, maycause teachers to jump in and fill thesilences with translations in the Ll of whathas been taught. Learners of the L2 on theother hand may need longer periods ofthinking time to respond to the questionsraised. The failure of teachers tounderstand the anxiety and tension on thepart of the students in learning a secondlanguage may contribute to a situation wheresilence is interpreted as a failure tounderstand, which can only be resolved byresorting to the Ll.

Images of a successful teacherThere are other deep-seated beliefs abouteffective teaching which can cause this fearof silence. Educators may believe that agood teacher is one who should be able toget responses from the class quickly andmoreover, does not remain quiet but impartshis/her knowledge to the students constantly.The teacher’s self-image of what a good andeffective teacher is, may affect his/herability to deal with silences in the classroom.The result of this is more teacher talk andless student talk and possibly the use of theLl by the instructor to fill in the gaps ofsilence

Language and cultural identityMy classroom observations and transcriptsof lessons indicate that teachers who sharedthe same Ll as the learners used far moreBahasa Malaysia in the lesson inlinguistically homogenous communities ofLl. As one of the students said,

l In the English lesson, the teacherexplains and we do the exercise. Ifit is a Chinese teacher, she woulduse more English to explain. If it’sa Malay teacher, she would use moreMalay.

Do teachers and students who share thesame Ll experience some kind of cultural,social or identity barrier when they use L2 toteach and communicate with staff andstudents? Data from teachers teaching inrural schools where there is more or less asingle linguistically and raciallyhomogenous community seem to indicate asense of awkwardness in using L2 tocommunicate.

. Right, now when I’m teaching, whenI am speaking English with them Ifeel awkward because I’m a Malay,they are Malays. When I’mspeaking to them English, somethingyou know is a problem to them, I feelawkward and feeling that, feeling ofwhat I should say, that is not an



appropriate thing to do. That’swhat I feel when I spoke to otherMalay teachers who are teachingEnglish.

. . ..And so I encourage them to speakEnglish to me. They sometime hardfor them to speak English to mebecause both are Malays, so I thinkthat’s a problem because I am aMalay and they are Malays. Sothat’s what you call as weird,awkward.. .

The data raises the question whetherlanguage teachers face a kind of LanguageSchizophrenia when they teach Englishbecause by birth they represent their ownnative language and culture but byprofession they represent a foreign culturewith its attendant patterns of behaviour.Antier (1976) believes that “the teacher ofEnglish almost sheds his (Ll) personalityduring the four or five hours a day he iscalled to perform in front of his audience”(1976, p. 53). Hence there is a danger thatthe teachers’ insistence on using Englishonly can lead to them being labelled“western”, “proud” or “trying to show offtheir superiority”, and may isolate themlinguistically in an environment where themajority have a very limited command ofthe English language. Literature onlanguage, culture and identity point to thefact that language can be a powerfulinclusion or exclusion force. With veryfew support systems to turn to, the EnglishLanguage teacher (who is often a novice) isleft with a difficult balancing act wherestudents and colleagues are concerned.(See case studies of Salak South Secondaryschool and Sejati Secondary School in Pillay,1995.)

Whilst acknowledging there is an issue ofculture and identity, one should exploreways of turning the issue around theteachers’ understanding of this conflictcould aid students in their language learningefforts. Is there place for negotiation withlearners with regard to rules for the use of

Ll? How can the teacher set in placestrategies that can help weanthe learners from a dependence ontranslation so that translation becomes an aidrather than the focus of the lesson?

A conspiracy of silence?Why is it that despite evidence of thewidespread use of Ll in the teaching of L2,EFL/ESL methodology books on the wholehave paid very little attention to how the useof Ll could facilitate the learning of L2?Why do teachers feel defensive or have asense of guilt when found using the Ll inthe classroom? Why does the ELTcommunity in this country not explore ordevelop strategies whereby Ll could be usedmore effectively to teach L2 learners?

Phillipson (1992) argues that this lack ofattention can be traced back to theconference of ELT experts at MakerereUniversity in Uganda in 1961, which laidout the tenets which have become theofficial and largely unchallenged doctrineunderlying much ELT work. The tenetsare:

English is best taught monolingually;the ideal teacher of English is a nativespeaker; the earlier English is taught,the better the results, the more Englishis taught,the better the results, if otherlanguages are used too much,standards of English will drop. (1992,p. 185)

Phillipson goes on to add that although thesetenets have been challenged by research,they are seen as natural and common senseand continue to exert considerableinfluenceover ELT specialists. In my view,part of the problem is that it suits the ELTexperts (who come mainly from the Westernworld) to maintain the status quo of Englishonly classrooms, out of vested interests.The ELT world can be divided into theCentre, i.e., countries where English is thecore language, and countries at the periphery,where English is a second or foreignlanguage. 4 Expertise is still being


On JALT98

exported from the centre to the periphery somuch so that ELT has become a multibilliondollar business whose activities arecoordinated and often implemented byagencies like the British Council and theUnited States Information Agency whichhave government backing. As Medgyessays

it is a huge industry regulated by strictlaws of economy, interested in sellinguniversally acceptable packages and assuch unable to respond to local needs.Further, ELT experts who comemainly from the Western countries,generally do not have any knowledgeof local languages and as such have avested interest in maintaining thestatus quo, that is, English onlyclassrooms. (Medgyes, 1994, p. 64)

I do not wish to indulge in “Centrebashing” because the Centre cannot beexpected, when ELT is run like a business,to cater to individual needs. It is we whoare at the periphery, who need to takematters into our own hands and startaddressing issues like these. If we believethat the use of Ll can help our learners ofEnglish, then we must start working out anappropriate methodology. Sheerdetermination is not enough since one musthave the political will as well as economicresources to do that. But if ever ELT inMalaysia is to come of age, we must start bydefining our problems and our solutions tothem.

A role for the use of LlRecent research findings reveal that the useof “English only” in the EFI/ESL classroomhas negative effects on learners whose Ll isnot English. Auerbach (1995) reports ofbilingual learners in the US who werecompletely lost and found it a waste of timewhen their tutors insisted on the use ofEnglish only. Klassen (1987) reports thatESL classes were virtually inaccessible tothe Latinos from lower income groupswithout the use of Ll literacy.

Auerbach (1995) also reportsmonolingual teachers experienced enormousfrustration at their inability to“breakthrough” in their ESL classes and atbeing forced to reduce lesson content to themost elementary, childlike uses of thelanguage. Skutnabb-Kangas (1979) arguesthat insistence on “English-Only” in theclassroom may result in slower acquisitionof English, a focus on childlike anddisempowering approaches to languageinstruction.

Another effect of a monolingual approachis often that students suffer severeconsequences in terms of self-esteem andself-confidence. According to Auerbach(1995), there is a sense of powerlessness aslearners are not only excluded fromparticipation in the class but their knowledge,life experience, and language resources areexcluded from classroom discourse.Auerbach comments:

prohibiting the use of the nativelanguage within the context ofEFL/ESL instruction may impedelanguage acquisition precisely becauseit mirrors disempowering relations.(Auerbach, 1993, p. 16)

Hence, it appears that insistence on the useof English only may completely precludeparticipation and progress on the part of thelearners.

On the other hand, when Ll is used(either for initial literacy or as a bridge toEFL/ESL), teachers report quite differentresults. Some teachers and experts claimthat not only is language shock alleviated bythe use of the Ll, but progress in EFL/ESLis faster as the bilingual classroom allowsfor the transition from Ll to L2 in a safesetting.

Brewster’s (1996) research findingsindicated that the use of Ll or L2 in theclassroom by teachers depended on the tasktype and aim. Teachers could use L2 fortasks that were easy to perform, e.g., givingroutine instructions, praise and givingactivity instructions. They found it



difficult to use L2 for tasks such asdisciplining, running tests, giving meaningsof words. Tasks which the teachers founddifficult or impossible to perform includeexplaining grammar rules and chattinginformally to students. These findings aresimilar to a survey done by Lai and Luk(1996) amongst students on teachingpractice in Hong Kong.

In my view, ELT Teacher Educationcourses need to address this issue since thereare thousands of teachers who are faced withthis problem of balancing the need to be amodel English Language speaker, with thedesire to keep channels of communicationopen. The fact that ELT methodologybooks and courses on the whole ignore thisissue leaves the teacher in a methodologicalvacuum. ELT teachers need to be givenconstructive help, rather than be made to“feel guilty” or be defensive when “caught”using the Ll in the classroom.

Future directionsWe need also to rethink the idea of auniversally acceptable ELT methodology,and start defining a methodology that issensitive to local cultural constraints whichteachers face in practice. All too often,native language teachers in ELT seem todictate to the non-native instructors the waythings should be taught or the ideology to befollowed. It is time that the Peripherybreaks itself from this mould of dependencyon the Center and starts defining an ELTmethodology which is appropriate for itsown local context (Holliday, 1994). Whois in a better position to decide how andwhen the Ll should and could be usedeffectively in the ESL classroom--thenative or the non-native teachers? (Medgyes,1994)

If projections are to be believed, thenGraddol’s (1997, p. 11) assertion that in the21 st century “those who speak Englishalongside other languages will outnumberthe first language speakers and, increasingly,will decide the global future of thelanguage” may well dictate the shape ofthings to come in the future.

.

There needs to be more extensiveresearch into teachers’ use of Ll in the L2classroom. We need to understandteachers’ practices rather than theorize.This will involve extensive research intoclassrooms which will then enable us tounderstand why teachers used the Ll atparticular points. This, in turn, will help usnot only to draw up a detailed framework ofpractice but also to help develop alternativestrategies for teachers to use. Furthermore,ELT teacher education has to acknowledgethat ELT teachers are going to use the Ll inthe teaching of English despite all ourattempts to prevent it. Rather than act likethe ostrich that buries its head in the sandand pretends that the problem does not exist,we need to be more pro-active in the matter.We must start thinking of ways toincorporate some forms of discussion anddebate of the issue in our trainingprogrammes, so that, teachers will have amore informed view of the issue. We needto clarify and develop practical strategiesthat will enable teachers to minimise the useof Ll in the classroom. We also need torethink the design of our languageimprovement programmes for teachers sothat we can give teachers increasedconfidence in the use of the L2 in theclassroom. Wright and Bolitho (1993) saythat a linguistically confident and awareteacher is in a much stronger position tocompensate for shortcomings in thecurriculum design than one who is not.

ConclusionIn this paper, I have examined the use of Llin teaching English from the viewpoints ofthe teachers and students. I have shownthrough the use of interview data that bothparties have their reasons for the use of Llin the L2 classroom. The analysis of thedata shows that there are misconceptions aswell as genuine communication needsinvolved in the issue. I would like toconclude by arguing that if there is to be aplace for the use of Ll in the classroom, itneeds to have a clearly defined


On JALT98

methodological base, which has to bedeveloped by local expertise.

Notes1 . The data used in this paper comes from

interviews with teachers who wereteaching in rural schools. Of the six“voices” you hear, two have taught for 7years, three for less than 3 years and oneis a temporary teacher.

2 . The asterisked comments have beentranslated from Bahasa Malaysia intoEnglish.

3 . The data in this section is taken fromsmall-group interviews with a total oftwelve students.

4 . The terms “centre” and “periphery”were first used by Galtung (1971).

ReferencesAntier, M. (1976). Language teaching as

a form of witchcraft. ELT Journal, 31(1) 45-53.

Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue inthe classroom: A neglected resource.ELT Journal, 41(4), 241-247.

Auerbach, E. R. (1993). ReexaminingEnglish only in ESL classrooms.TESOL Quarterly, 27 (l), 9-33.

Auerbach. E. R. (1995). The politics of theESL classroom. In J. W. Tollefson(Ed.), Power and inequality in languageeducation (pp. 9 -33). CambridgeUniversity Press. Cambridge.

Baskaran, L. (1991). The New Englishes.Jurnal Bahasa Moden. Keluaran 6.Language Centre Universiti Malaya (pp.88-91)

Brewster, J. (1996). Researching teachers’perceptions of their Ll and L2 use andlanguage improvement needs. System,25 (l), 175-190.

Cook, V. (1991). Second languagelearning and language teaching.London: Edward Arnold.

Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (1986).Bilingualism in education. London:Longman.

Galtung, J. (1971). A structural theory ofImperialism. Journal of PeaceEducation, 82 (2), 81-117.

Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English?London: The British Council.

Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mothertongue in the classroom. ELT Journal,46 (4), 350-355.

Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriatemethodology and social context.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Johnson, K. (1995). Understandingcommunication in second languageclassrooms. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Klassen, C. (1987). Language and literacylearning. The adult immigrant’saccount. Unpublished master’s thesis.University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis.New York: Longman.

Lai, M.L. & Luk, C.M. (1997, May). NoLl in L2 classes? How likely? Paperpresented at the Fourth MELTAConference, Kuala Lumpur.

Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-nativespeaker. MEP monographs. London:Macmillan Publishers.

Pennington, M.C. (1995). Eight casestudies of classroom discourse in theHong Kong secondary English class.(Research report No.42). Hong Kong:City University of Hong Kong,Department of English.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguisticimperialism. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Pillay, H.D. (1995). Fragments of avision: A case study of Englishlanguage curriculum implementation infive Malaysian secondary schools.Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of East Anglia, U.K.

Skutnab-Kangas, T. (1979). Language inthe process of cultural assimilation andstructural incorporation of linguisticminorities. Rosslyn, VA: NationalClearing House for Bilingual Education.



Ur, P. (1996). The communicativeapproach revisited. Paper presented atthe Association de Profesores de Ingles,Granada, Spain.

Veeman, 0. (1984). Perceived problems ofbeginning teachers, Review ofEducational Research, 54 (2), 143-178.

Wright, T. and Bolitho, R. (1993).Language awareness: A missing link inlanguage teacher education. ELTJournal, 47 (4), 292-304.

Diagnostic Analysis of Motivational Factors in ESL

In the current study, I empirically examine through a questionnaire the Language LearningMotivation Model that I proposed at the JALT97 conference. For that model, I constructed aprocess of motivation in which intrinsic motive leads to more concrete language learningmotivation under the influence of various personal and social factors. This model was basedon a literature review of motivational studies in psychology and applied linguistics. I alsoexamined the possibility for a pedagogical application of the model to the process of languagelearning. However, just knowing the theoretical framework of motivation is insufficient forapplying it to real educational contexts. It is also necessary to confirm how questions ofmotivation affect each learner. For that purpose, in this study, each factor in the languagelearning motivational model is measured, and a diagnostic scale of language learningmotivation that can clarify the motivational patterns of the learners is constructed.


On JALT98



r I;m | 1 r1PI PI PI [41 bl RX71 PI mw111 [121[W[141

f g 7 クラスター

(274) (120) (AmD E 5 クラスター

(274) (120) <AB?>


On JALT98

Wf*iMEly, M. C. (1986). Language learning

motivation: A descriptive and causalanalysis. The Modern LanguageJournal, 70, 28-35.

Harter, S. (1982). The PerceivedCompetence Scale for Children. ChildDevelopment, 53, 87-97.

Koizumi, R. and Matsuo, K. (1993). ALongitudinal Study of Attitudes andMotivation in Learning English amongJapanese seventh-grade students.Japanese Psychological Research, 35, l-1 1 .

Konishi, M. (1990). Changes inMotivation for English LanguageLearning: A Series of Fourmeasurements. The IRLT Bulletin, 4, l-2 3 .

MacIntre, P. D., Noels, K. A. and Clement,R. (1997). Biases in Self-Ratings ofSecond Language Proficiency: TheRole of Language Anxiety. LanguageLearning, 47 (2), 265-287.

Pintrich, P. R. and De Groot, E. V. (1990).Motivational and Self-RegulatedLearning Components of ClassroomAcademic Performance. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Tremblay, P. F. and Gardner, R. C. (1995).Expanding the Motivation Construct inLanuguage Learning. The ModernLanguage Journal, 79 (4), 505-518.

Vallerand, R. J. , Pelletier, L. G. , Blais, M.R. , Brière, N. M. , Senécal, C. andVallières, E. E (1992). The academicmotivation scale: A measure of intrinsic,extrinsic, and amotivation. Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 52,1003-1017.

Yoshitomi, A. (1990). Attitudes andmotivation of Japanese High SchoolStudents in Learning English as a ForeignLanguage. Sofia Linguistica, 28, 111-




On JALT98

62 Voices of Observat ion



On JALT98

In-service Training with Japanese TeachersJudith M. Lamie, University of Birmingham

In this paper, I outline the demands of recent curriculum developments in English teaching inJapan and introduce the findings of a research project which, based on a series of case studies,suggests that in-service training courses are necessary to change teachers’ attitudes, beliefs andclassroom practice and to enable them to deliver the revised curriculum effectively.

IntroductionIn 1988 the Ministry of Education, Scienceand Culture (Monbusho, l988) acknowledgedits failings with the teaching of English andhighlighted a number of key areas which, inits opinion, were preventing teachers frombeing successful. These were comprised ofa lack of exposure to spoken English, a lackof confidence in communicating in English,large class sixes, difficult teaching materials,and adherence to traditional teaching methods.Concurrently, Monbusho announced its ownview of the basic principles that should lie atthe heart of the teaching of English. Thesewere:

to listen to as much authentic English aspossible; to read as much living Englishas possible; to have as many chances touse English as possible; to extend acultural background; and to cultivate asense of international citizenship.(Monbusho, 1988)

In the Ministry’s view, English teaching wasseen to have two main thrusts: theacquisition of the language itself, and adeveloping knowledge of English-languagecultures. The key terms in the languageacquisition part of the proposition wereauthentic, living, and use; these aspects ofEnglish had never been afforded suchimportance before.

In 1989 the principles listed above


achieved official documentary status in theNew Revised Course of Study: Emphasison Oral Communication (NRCOS). N o wrequired to teach towards communicativecompetence, Japanese teachers of Englishmay have felt justified in believing thatMonbusho would deliver a curriculum withboth the resources and the training to helpachieve it. What, though, is the reality?

ResourcesAll public schools in Japan, under the SchoolEducation Law, are required to use textbooksin the teaching of English in junior and seniorhigh school which have either been approvedby Monbusho, or produced by the Ministryitself. Following the curriculum reform newtextbooks were created which professed toassist in its implementation. However, theoutcome has not always appeared to be in linewith the objective, as this comment from aJapanese teacher of English, taking part in anin-service training programme, suggests:

From the perspective of thedevelopment of CLT and the materialsbased on communicative methodology,I must say that there needs to be a lot ofimprovement in the methodology andthe materials in Japan. The constraint,that teachers in Japan have to use theauthorised textbooks which are basedon the structural approach, is onedifficult factor in improving the


methodology. (Lamie, 1998, p. 536)

The sentiment was echoed by respondentsto a General Survey Questionnaire (GSQ)which I developed and distributed to about100 teachers in 1996. In responding to aquestion on how far they perceived theirteaching to have, or have not, changed, 31%of teachers highlighted the negative effect thatthe University entrance examination had ontheir teaching, and 30% referred to the needfor further resource provision and in particularincreased changes in prescribed textbooks:

l The main stumbling block is thetextbooks I have to use and the classsize.

l In my opinion we should place moreimportance on the “use” rather thanthe “usage” in our English lesson.In that sense Oral Communication, anew subject, is welcome. But theproblem is the content of thetextbooks.

With such criticisms by teachers entrustedwith the reform, the need for expandedsupport and, in particular, training provisionbecomes paramount.

TrainingThe penultimate section of the GSQ centredon the topic of training. Ranging from shortone-day local seminars to one-year overseasdevelopment programmes, in-serviceeducation and training (INSET) sponsored byMonbusho is widespread and varied, butremains voluntary. As a result, thoseteachers not sufficiently motivated to attendcourses need not do so. Responses from theGSQ indicate that National Conferences onthe implementation of the NRCOS have notbeen well attended (50% of senior highschool teachers and 25% of junior highreported receiving no formal governmenttraining). Moreover, although Prefecturalseminars have been more popular--possiblydue to availability and convenience-with75% of senior high and over 80% of junior

high teachers taking part, there is still a needfor more INSET sessions to be organised.Teachers who have not taken part in suchsessions also need to be encouraged to do so.

What is abundantly clear from the surveyis that those teachers fortunate enough toattend training courses have all derivedmotivation and a positive attitude towardschange from their experiences:

l Two British Council summer seminarsin Tokyo have changed me a lot.These taught me the importance ofhaving a theory and how to realise theobjectives that I have.

l with the Tsukuba in-service training Ibegan to think about introducinglistening and speaking practice.

l I was given a chance to study inBritain and now feel I have a chanceto change my teaching. Now I try tospeak more English to the studentsand to improve their ability. I thinkstudying in Britain changed me a lot.

The following description of an overseasteacher training programme illustrates thatparticipants not only think that they havechanged, but demonstrates that alterations inattitudes, beliefs and methodology haveoccurred, and that actual change in classroompractice is increasingly likely as a result.

The 12-month Japanese secondaryteachers’ programme

BackgroundThe Japanese Secondary Teachers’ (JST)Programme at the University of Birminghambegan in 1990 as a direct result of theNRCOS. Sponsored by the Ministry ofEducation and administered by the BritishCouncil, it has been responsible for trainingnearly 100 junior and senior high schoolteachers of English. The aim of theprogramme is to develop the teachers all-round English ability; to provide information


On JALT98

and training on alternative methodologies toenable them to deliver the revised curriculumeffectively; and to give the participants aninsight into the cultural background of theEnglish language in Britain.

Evaluation and changeEvaluation of the course initially focused onthe programme itself. Teachers were invitedto comment on individual subjects andcomplete subject assessments, which weredesigned to improve the content of thetraining in relation to the teachers’ needs.This programme evaluation continues to takeplace, but in order to determine theprogramme’s ongoing effectiveness, it hasnow been coupled with participant evaluation.The data collection procedures are designedto gather two types of information:

. information concerning the subjects’attitudes (see Table I) towardseducation, and any change followingthe period of in-service training;

classroom and ensuing change.

The Attitude (30 questions) and Methods (15questions) Questionnaires, based on Telford’s(1970) scales for attitudes and beliefs, andorganisation and methods respectively, aregiven to the participants, on a semi-structuredinterview basis, before the programmecommences, and again at its close. Theycover information on the following areas:Aims, Organisation, Grammar, Materials,Vocabulary, Skills, Language in Use, andTesting.

Each item or statement on thequestionnaires scores between 1 (traditional)and 5 (progressive). The terms traditional[T] and progressive [P] are used asbenchmarks only. The development fromone to the other indicates an awareness ofresources, materials, and methodologiesbeyond those previously adhered to: thehigher the score, the more progressive theinterpretation. Results from the MethodsQuestionnaire (see Table I I ) indicated thatperceived methodological changes had taken

. information relating to the methods place in all recorded cases (see Table III).

(see Table II) the subjects used in the

Table I. Attitude Scale - extract

TEACHER ATTITUDE SCALEPlease read each statement and put a circle round the number which best representsyour views1 = I strongly agree2 = I agree3 = I cannot say4 = I disagree5 = I strongly disagree



Table II. Methods Scale - extract

TEACHER ORGANISATION AND METHODS SCALEPlease read each statement carefully and put a tick in the box for which bestrepresents what you Do in the classroom

Organisation 3

Students often work in groups and pairs

Students always work individually

Students mostly work in groups and pairs

Tick one

Students work equally individually, in pairs and in groups

Table III Methods Questionnaire Results Teachers A & B

The most constant area of developmentwas Classroom Organisation andManagement, where no respondentdemonstrated a move to the traditional. Inaddition, Language Use, Vocabulary andListening all demonstrated shifts to theprogressive. However, Grammar andMaterials remained the two areas firmlyensconced in the traditional approach.Considering the prescribed nature of theresources mostly used in the English

classroom in Japan, and the strong influenceof the grammar-focused University EntranceExamination, this result is to be expected.

Attitude change is much more delicate toapproach+nd more difficult to achieve.What a teacher believes is at the heart of whata teacher is, professionally and personally.Attitudes are frequently not specific, difficultto articulate or comprehend. As a result,attitude change is complex (Fullan, 1991).Due to this, changes in practice frequently


Lawrence J. Cisar

what you Do in the classroom

On JALT96

precede change in beliefs (Fullan &Hargreaves, 1992; Guskey, 1986; Huberman& Miles, 1984). At first glance, the findingsfrom the Attitude Questionnaire would appearto concur with this point of view. Forexample, Teachers A and B (introduced in

Table III) displayed an overall attitude changeof 9% and 20% respectively. However, oncloser inspection of the data, an attitudeshift of 40% for Teacher A resulted and 37%for Teacher B (see Table IV).

Table IV

Once again, questions relating toOrganisation and Language Use provided themost change in responses from T to P;interestingly, those on Grammar andMaterials proved to be particularlyprogressive, indicating that teachers may havea belief that a more liberal approach should betaken in the classroom. As previouslymentioned, however, they feel that they havedifficulty transferring this to classroompractice, given the constraints placed on them.

ConclusionTeachers are integral to the success ofimplementing curriculum innovation.Teacher education, development, and supportare imperative if curriculum development andchange in the classroom are to take place.Japanese teachers of English in junior andsenior high schools are still waiting for thefull weight of this support to occur. Over 90teachers have taken part in the INSET courseat the University of Birmingham, which has


proven, within its limitations, to be a success.Participants on the JST programme havedemonstrated a change in an area consideredthe most difficult and challenging to change:attitudes and beliefs. If the constraintsplaced on such teachers are further addressedby the Ministry of Education, Science andCulture, other changes in practice are destinedto follow.

ReferencesFullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of

educational change. London: Cassell.Fullan, M.G. & Hargreaves, A. (1992).

Teacher development and educationalchange London: Falmer Press.

Guskey, T.R. (1986, May). Staffdevelopment and the process of teacherchange. Educational Researcher, 5-12.

Huberman, M. & Miles, M. (1984). .Innovation up close: How schoolimprovement Works. New York:Plenum.


Lamie, J. M. (1998). Teacher educationand training in Japan. Journal of In-service Education, 24 (3), 531-551.

Monbusho (1988). Japanese teacher ofEnglish/assistant language teacherconference proceedings. Tokyo:Author.

Monbusho(1989). The new revised courseof study: Emphasis on oralcommunication. In Monbusho (1994)

Handbook for team teaching. Tokyo:Gyosei Corporation.

Telford, D. (1976). An investigation intothe relationship between the attitudes andpractices of junior school teachers. In L.Cohen (Ed.), Educational research inclassrooms and schools+ manual ofmaterials and methods (pp. 233-239).London: Harper & Row.

Applications of Community Language Learning in JapanDavid Greer, Tosa Women’s Junior College

In this paper, I explain Community Language Learning (CLL), an approach in which theteacher, proficient in the target language (TL) and the students’ native language, uses taperecordings of student conversations and counseling techniques to encourage the students toperceive their “selves” as TL speakers. I then describe a “generic” CLL classroom and thetechnique that CLL uses to develop the TL self in the student. However, this understandingof the approach is adapted to Japanese women’s universities, in consideration of the culture inwhich I teach. In this paper, I also describe how I (a) conduct the free conversation period(during which the students’ conversation is recorded); (b) counsel the students after theconversation; (c) use the students’ written impressions of their experiences as additionalcounselling; and, (d) use a second recording to help the students feel the “presence” of theirTL selves.

Introduction conversations and counseling techniques toCommunity Language Learning (CLL) is an encourage the students to perceive theirapproach to language learning in which the “selves” as speakers of the TL (Curran, 1972,teacher, proficient in the target language 1976; Rardin & Tranel, 1988; Stevick, 1980,(TL) and the students’ native language (NL), 1990). The language student who developsuses tape recordings of student-generated an understanding of his or her TL “speaking


On JALT98

self’ is a confident language learner, lessanxious about making errors when speakingin the TL (Brown, 1994; Clark, 1980).

The observer of a beginning CLL classwould see a group of students having aconversation about topics they had thoughtof themselves. The students speak to eachother in their NL, the teacher translates whatthe students say into the TL and has themrepeat it. A tape recording is made of thestudents’ conversation so that they can heartheir voices in the TL. CLL succeeds whenthe students stop relying on the teacher’shelp to speak in the TL, this informs the“breakthrough” in CLL: the emergence ofthe students’ nascent TL selves.

How CLL develops the TL selfThe CLL teacher uses a technique to createthe TL self similar to that which Dowrick(1977) used to raise his subjects’(emotionally and physically challengedchildren) self-confidence. Dowrick hadphysical therapists help the children performtasks that, in their present condition, thechildren could not do. He videotaped thechildren’s performance; however, he editedthe videotapes so that the therapists did notappear in the final version. The children,seeing their new “selves” performing thetasks unaided, reported higher levels of self-confidence and motivation. They haddeveloped “can do it” selves andsubsequently aspired to satisfy the goals thatthese new images of themselves had created(as cited in Markus & Nurius, 1986).

Dowrick’s subjects “saw” their newselves perform without help; the CLLstudent, on the other hand, “hears” his or herTL self. The CLL teacher helps the studentsay what he or she wants to say in the TL(through translation and pronunciationpractice) and records the student’s utterance;however, only the student’s voice, speakingin the TL, is heard in the tape playback.

Two caveatsLarsen-Freeman (1986) and Rardin andTranel(l988) noted that CLL is a pliantapproach to language learning, not a rigid

method. Adams (1990) and La Forge(1983), for example, described how theyapplied CLL in their Japanese classrooms;their interpretations, however, reflected theirnotions of how CLL should be applied intheir respective teaching environments.Adams, on the one hand, worked with amixed class of college students (ofunspecified number) and involved thestudents in CLL’s translation/transcriptionprocess. He also included a post-conversation error session in which all thestudents participated. La Forge, on theother hand, applied his version of CLL-with 25 male high school E.S.S. (EnglishSpeaking Society) members ranging in agefrom 14 to 17-as a disciplined gasshuku(training program) “in connection with thecultural mechanisms of Japanese society” (p.110).

The CLL that I explain in this paper,however, reflects my interpretation of theapproach relative to the environments inwhich I taught: required Englishconversation courses (30 weekly 90-minuteclasses) at a women’s private junior college(two classes of first-year general Englishmajors, 18 and 10 students, respectively)and a women’s public university (one classof 17 English literature majors). SinceCLL is a humanistic approach to languagelearning (Stevick, 1990), conventionalevaluation through grades reduces itseffectiveness. Consequently, I do notrecommend methods to evaluate the CLLstudents’ “progress” in this paper.

The CLL teacher adapts CLL to thestudents’ cultureThe CLL teacher adapts the approach to theclassroom; the teacher must not forget,however, the central tenet of CLL: Thatthe student, to develop the TL self,. can onlydo so in an anxiety-free environment inwhich he or she feels confident toexperiment in the TL. What constitutes asource of anxiety in one culture, however,may not be problematic in another. Thus,while the CLL teacher strives to create aproductive environment, he or she does so



with the understanding that a large part ofthat environment already exists in thecultural background and individualpersonalities that the students bring into theCLL classroom.

A country’s education system is part ofthe country’s culture. The Japaneseuniversity student has developed an“English self’ in Japan’s English languageeducation system. This self is the student’spresent attitude toward English and his orher self-image as a speaker of it. Thatattitude often is reflected in the persona thestudent exhibits in the CLL classroom.Curran (1972) noted that the moreexperience the beginning CLL student hashad with traditional TL education the greaterthe resistance the student feels towardspeaking in the TL. Secondary-levelEnglish education in Japan is directedtoward successful completion of universityentrance examinations; consequently, thesystem does not tolerate errors (Rohlen,1983). The resulting fear of errorsparalyzes many students in CLL’s earlystages. Furthermore, “entranceexamination English” (juken Eigo),demands a knowledge of literary, rather thancolloquial, English; as a result, manybeginning CLL students feel that speaking inEnglish demands that they “discuss elevated,important topics,” rather than those thingsthat they usually talk about amongthemselves in Japanese.

Former CLL students have consistentlyexpressed two additional reasons for theirresistance to speak, both of which may beattributable to their culture: first, areluctance to initiate a conversation for fearof causing a fellow student to err and “loseface”; and second, a hesitation to speak firstin English, without waiting for mytranslation, for fear of seeming arrogant infront of the other students (for more on theseissues, see Lebra, 1976). Stevick (1980)noted that North American CLL studentshave similar concerns. My students,however, have felt such a high degree ofanxiety about these issues that I now talkabout them on the first day of new classes.

I do not, however, suggest a “solution” forthese “problems”; simply bringing the issuesto the students’ attention, letting them knowthat I am aware of their unvoiced concerns,relieves their initial misgivings.Counseling, as the class progresses, furtherlessens their anxiety.

The CLL classroom: The first classIn the first class, I try to alleviate thestudents’ general apprehension about what Iexpect them to do. I begin with someanecdotes about my Japanese speaking self.I relate (in Japanese) that in many situations(using the phone, speaking in front of groups,trying to comprehend in noisyenvironments), my Japanese self is “shy:”It has trouble performing, whereas myEnglish self does not. The students’nascent English speaking selves, I assure thestudents, may be shy too. I then explainhow CLL is similar to traditional Japaneselearning techniques, karada de oboeru (tolearn by doing), that the students haveexperienced in Japanese traditional art formsand sports clubs.

I then describe a typical class. I explainthat in every class, the students willparticipate in the “conversation corner” (theCLL free conversation period) in groups of4 to 6. The students can choose withwhom they wish to participate (theremaining students are involved in textbookor handout activities). The conversationcorner is an appropriate number of chairs,arranged in a circle, in a back corner of theclassroom. It is a place to practicespeaking, I emphasize, without worryingabout mistakes. (I do not correct “errors”in the conversation corner.) I show thestudents the hand-held tape recorder that Iwill use to tape their conversations. Torelieve their anxiety about having theirconversations recorded, I tape myself,speaking in Japanese in front of them. Italk about the anxiety I still feel when I tapemy voice, and explain the physiobgicalreasons our voices sound “different” toourselves when we hear them on tape. Iplay the tape back before I return to


On JALT98

explaining the conversation corner. Oncethe students are seated, I explain, I ask themto begin. The conversation comer lastsexactly 10 minutes. The students decidewhat they want to speak about. They canspeak in Japanese, English, a combination ofthe two, or say nothing at all. I movebehind whichever student wants to speak(which she indicates by raising her hand).I translate what she says and she repeats it;if she has trouble, we record in “chunks” ofspeech, recording as many words as thestudent can express.

The class ends by having the studentsintroduce themselves in whichever languagethey wish; if they choose to speak inJapanese, it is translated it into English andthey repeat it. They are also givenhomework to prepare them for theconversation corner: The students are toldto listen closely to the conversations theyhave, and the conversations that others havearound them, over the next week. They areto notice how their conversations rarely havesingle topics, and how people seldom talk intextbook ABAB patterns.

The CLL classroom: Subsequent classesAt the beginning of every class, a scheduleof activities is written on the blackboard sothat the students can see what is expected ofthem at any time. I write the conversationcorner group numbers on the board and havethe students write their names in the groupsin which they want to participate.Textbook (or handout) work is also assignedto students waiting their turn in theconversation comer.

The first group of students comes to theconversation corner and we begin. Aftertwo or three minutes of silence, a studentasks me in Japanese what they should talkabout-that question is the beginning oftheir conversation. I translate the utterance(“What should we talk about?“) and havethe student record it. We then wait for thenext student who wants to speak. I neitherpraise nor censure a student’s conduct in orout of the conversation corner; to do so setsa standard of expected behavior that the

student feels she must live up to.After 10 minutes elapse, I tell the

students that the time is up. I draw a chairinto the group, sit down, and ask eachstudent, in Japanese, the deliberatelyambiguous “How was it today?” (Kyo wa dodatta no) without referring to any aspect ofthe conversation comer or any student’sindividual performance. If a student’sresponse is noncommittal (“Okay, I guess.“),I nod and ask the next student. If herresponse is specific (“I wanted to saysomething but was too embarrassed.“), Irephrase her sentence so that sheunderstands her problem is not “personal”:“Yeah, there are lots of times when I’vewanted to say something in Japanese butwas too embarrassed to.”

My sympathetic counseling response,however, has limited efficacy: Thestudents are more concerned with what theirfellow students think. Consequently, afterthe conversation corner, I have the studentsanonymously write, and hand in, theirimpressions of the conversation cornerexperience. The paper is labeled, inJapanese, “impressions” (kansobun); I donot tell the students what to write. I readthese impressions after class, mark thosethat are pertinent, and read them aloud at thebeginning of the following class (respectingthe students’ anonymity). Reading theimpressions to the class strengthens theclass’s feeling of community and lowersboth general class, and individual student,anxiety.

Before class the next week, I make atranscript of the conversations. On thetranscript, I correct the students’ errors that Iignored in the conversation comer; I do not,however, bring these errors to the students’attention. At the beginning of the class, thetranscripts are distributed to all the studentsso that each group can read the other groups’conversations. I read the transcripts aloudand review pronunciation points. Each groupthen assembles in the conversation comer tomake the second recording. (I do not letthe students hear the first recording; it is fullof debilitating false starts, mis-



pronunciations, etc.) Each student and Ipractice her utterance until she canpronounce it (again, in chunks if necessary)accurately. Then, the tape is played back.It should be noted that the more accurate thestudent’s pronunciation, the greater she feelsthe “presence” of her English speaking selfwhen she hears her voice during theplayback. The students are again askedwhat they thought, and write theirimpressions.

Concluding remarks: The breakthroughin CLLIn CLL’s early stages, students have troublewith pronunciation. As the studentsbecome used to the CLL cycle (firstrecording, counselling, practicing, secondrecording, counselling), however, theiranxiety decreases, their pronunciationsteadily improves, and the silences in theconversation corner diminish.

The breakthrough in CLL occurs whenthe students’ English speaking selvesemerge, usually by the sixth class.Ironically, the appearance of the students’English selves first takes place in theirnative language. During the first 5 classes,the students hypercorrect their Japanese:They speak in the formal “desu-masu” formof the language which reveals their highlevel of anxiety. The breakthrough beginswhen the students in the conversation cornerspeak in the everyday register of thelanguage they use with their friends outsidethe conversation corner. Within a week ortwo after the breakthrough, the students’English selves develop further: They beginto mix English with their Japanese. Oncethe breakthrough occurs, the CLL teacher’sload lightens: The students are more openduring the counselling sessions (they nolonger have to write their impressions) and,as their pronunciation improves, the need fortranscripts and second recordings decreases.

CLL demands a lot from the teacher; thereward, however, is well worth the effort.To the teacher who has spent a long time inhis or her adopted country, who knows itspeople and language well, CLL is an

opportunity to use that knowledge andexperience in a meaningful way. Thedrudgery of all the “work” that the teacherputs into CLL disappears once the students’English selves take over the conversationcorner. As the students gain confidence intheir new selves they rely less on theteacher-until the day comes when a student,responding to something another student hassaid in the conversation corner, grabs thetape recorder, answers in English, and then,looking up at the teacher, sheepishly asks,“Do I have to wait for you?”

ReferencesAdams, C. (1990). CLL: A way of

tending gardens. The Language Teacher,14 (6), 37-39.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles oflanguage learning and teaching. (3rded.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall Regents.

Clark, R. (1980). Language teachingtechniques. Brattleboro, VT: ProLingua Associates.

Curran, C. (1972). Counseling-learning:A whole-person model for education.Apple River, IL: Apple River Press.

Cm-ran, C. (1976). Counseling-learning insecond languages. Apple River, IL:Apple River Press.

Dowrick, P. (1977). Videotape replay asobservational learning from oneselfUnpublished manuscript, University ofAuckland.

Laforge, P. (1983). Counseling and culturein second language acquisition. NewYork: Pergamon Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniquesand principles in language teaching.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Markus, H. & Nurius, P. (1986). Possibleselves. American Psychologist, 41 (9),954-969.

Rardin, J. & Tranel, D. (1988). Educationin a new dimension: The counseling-learning approach to communitylanguage learning. East Dubuque, IL:Counseling-Learning Publications.

Rohlen, T. (1983). Japan’s high schools.


O n JALT98

Berkeley, CA: University of California Heinle.Press. Stevick, E. (1990). Humanism in language

Stevick, E. (1980). Teaching languages : A teaching. Oxford: Oxford Universityway and ways. Boston, MA: Heinle & Press.

TQM in the Language ClassroomGiles Parker, Nagasaki University

Total Quality Management has been used by industry to improve efficiency. Likewise,language teaching is also concerned with efficiency. It may therefore be useful to see howthe principles from one area of endeavor can inform our own. In this paper, I describe thephilosophy of TQM and how it can be put in to practice in our classes. I raise some of theproblems with TQM found in the literature and from personal experience, and provide hintson how to solve them. I conclude that TQM provides a coherent set of principles similar toideas found in learner autonomy. It is thus a useful informant for language teaching.

TQM (Total Quality Management) I~%?i%J$@$+!%@i?&~ZL&T@~ $h7Z 3 ti,~~~~~~~~:t;~jL\T~~~L~~~a)~a~t;3L\7~~~\~~;~7~\\~~~7, -I-.~~~~~~~:7~\a~~~~~~~~~~~kj~~~~);;i~)~~~~j~~td:Jfai$Titjak%~bo ~~~~~d:TQM~~~;%~~~~~~~~~,Qdz~~tff~~T~~mjtr~~"d~zb~~~L~\\~TTaMtt~-b-~~~~$I;~~~~~;fCI)~E#it:5fikt-t, ~;bzL;~~~kc~3td:;t3E~,~~~~~~LL~c\~ M%ikL7 TQM t+r?i+%s?aQ@l c~~,~hb~XCr~~--~~~~;~,~L, itP-3~~~~~~~~~~.~~~R~~~7(kL~~IZ~~~7~1\~5

Introduction.The Total Quality Management (TQM)movement is most often related to attemptsby industry to increase profits and reducecosts by providing quality service andproducts. Certain TQM principles havebeen transferred to education, asdocumented by Herman and Herman (1995)and Murgatroyd and Morgan (1993), whodescribe innovations in management at adistrict or school-wide level. Otherexamples of TQM in education are given inMeacham Wilson and Coolican (1996) whoexplore teacher empowerment byinvestigating intrinsic motivation, and Cole(1995) who discusses the use of TQMprinciples in selecting faculty. Lastly,Browder (1994) investigates what teacherempowerment means to four teachers.

However, it is possible to apply TQMprinciples at a more immediate level in theclassroom, where teachers act as managersand work with students to producesomething of quality. Both TQM andlanguage teaching are concerned withefficiency, which is why an investigation ofits principles may prove useful.

This paper presents a discussion of therelevance of TQM to language teaching. Ishall begin by discussing the principles thatunderline TQM and showing how they arereflected in the classroom. I shall nextoutline generic problems from the literatureand also from personal experience, andfinish by giving hints on using TQM. Much of the subsequent discussion may befamiliar in that TQM shares manysimilarities with notions found in learner



autonomy.

TQM and language classroomsTQM evolved from ideas developed byAmereican management guru Peter Denningin the 1950’s. Denning envisioned a wayof empowering workers so that everyonewithin an organization could takeresponsibility on a quest for quality. Flood(1993) provides a useful definition ofquality: “Quality means meetingcustomers’ (agreed) requirements, formaland informal, at lowest cost, first time everytime.” What follows is a more detaileddiscussion of the principles within TQM andtheir applicability to language classes. Theprinciples are united by the theme ofempowerment.

EmpowermentTQM gives people responsibility for theirwork. It asks them how they could do theirjob better. It involves them in the decisionmaking process. This leads to increasedconfidence and motivation. People beginto feel they “own” their job. It also impliesempowered customers who are moreinteractive in the production process.Empowerment implies a reevaluation of theroles and responsibilities of the teacher andthe students. It is already found inclassrooms espousing learner autonomy.Classrooms that see language as a toolencourage empowerment. Teaching learnerstrategies, interaction strategies,encouraging learner awareness andresponsibility or self-access is empowering.It is implied in all the following principles.

Customer needs = organization needsEfficiently providing the required product isthe main aim of TQM. This impliessystems for data collection of customerneeds and responses. A TQM based classinvestigates the needs of its students viaquestionnaires, self-reports, interviewtranscripts or diagnostic testing. It alsoinvestigates the needs of the sponsors, forexample universities, employers, parents,and society as a whole. Data are used to

inform the content and style of the class anddiscussed with the students to create a morerelevant syllabus.

Continuous improvementTQM is committed to continuouslyimproving quality. This implies usingcollected data to improve the productionprocess. TQM also means training toincrease skills and knowledge. T Q Mencourages research, experimentation andbenchmarking, i.e., different groups workingon the same task compare ideas andexperiences. A TQM classroom provideschances for feedback to improve both theteacher’s and students’ performance.Activities include a feedback section todiscover the strengths and weaknesses, andwhether the performance goals and criteriawere realistic and attainable. Ellis (1995)gives suggestions on how to asses theefficiency of an activity. Benchmarkingmeans that students working on the sametask can discuss their performance and learnfrom each other, for example peer-teachingand peer-editing.

Top-down commitmentCommitment must be seen in the actions ofthe people who make decisions. The“total” in TQM implies completecommitment across all levels of theorganization (Flood, 1993). Myer andZucker (1989) suggest that in failingorganizations people are not committed toanything other than what each individual canget out of the company. A teacher mightshow commitment by involving the studentsin the decision-making process. This canbe done by students and teachers sharingtheir learning/teaching journals. If theteacher leads by example students may gainin confidence and begin to be moreinteractive.

Systematic measurementSystematic measurement implies regular,objective data collection to monitor the workdone, often relying on statistical measures.Data gained in this way are used to pinpoint


On JALT98

success or failure and are reapplied to theprocess to increase quality. In class,measurement should be objective,meaningful, responsive and agreed betweenthe students and the teacher. However,TQM does not rely solely on statisticalmeasurement. Teachers and students canuse qualitative data collection devices suchas questionnaires and interviews to obtainmore reflective information. Furthermore,students can create their own evaluationcriteria and descriptors and explain what aparticular grade or percentage means.Students can agree a format for evaluatingeach others’ performance as suggested inO’Sullivan (1996).

Proactive managementA TQM oriented organization aims topredict successes and failures and is notinterested in reactive management.Likewise, teachers and students need to beaware of the issues involved in making anactivity (Ur, 1996). This includes explicitawareness of the rationale, goals, criteria forevaluation, pacing, procedure, resources,and means of feedback. Teachers andstudents can anticipate and solve problemsthat may arise by piloting the activity.

Added valueIn a TQM organization, every job must addextra quality to the product. There must bea sound rationale behind what happens.Any act that does not add value in someobjectively measurable way is questioned.In a TQM classroom, students are aware ofthe relevance and purpose of each activity.Students can predict how an activity willhelp them, or explain the link between oneactivity and the next.

Ease of communicationTQM views people as equals. In a non-hierarchical environment, communication isshort, responsive and personal. Peoplehave agendas beyond the work place. ATQM oriented classroom means teachingclarification strategies, learner strategies andinteraction strategies as a way of facilitating

communication. It encourages positivefeedback in visible and personal ways(Whetton & Cameron, 1991). Givingstudents the skills and security to askquestions will inevitably empower them andimprove the quality of the class.

The human factorTQM recognizes the need for creativity,responsibility, and fun as sources ofmotivation. It highlights McGregor’s(1960) Theory Y managers who assume that(a) work and study are as natural as play; (b)self-control is of fundamental importance inreaching goals; (c) everyone has the capacityto solve problems; (d) motivation includessocial aspects, self-esteem and self-actualization; (e) people can be self-directedand creative if properly motivated. TheTQM classroom would capitalize on thehuman factor by realizing that learners andlanguage can be unpredictable, and thatlanguage interacts with human experience.Students can generate meaningful andmotivating activities and materialthemselves.

Defining objectives and agreeingrequirementsObjectives are explicit and negotiated.Goals are inspiring and challenging.Employees are encouraged to take part indefining the goals and to share the mission.People are aware of the relationship betweentheir efforts and the goals. Furthermore,producers and customers define a certainstandard. A TQM classroom aims forconsensus about the goals, procedures andtiming for an activity. During class it isuseful to discuss the aims, measurementssystems, and procedures for an activity.Students will perform better if they areaware of the rationale behind a languagetask. Nunan (1988) has argued for morenegotiation in the classroom and suggeststhis will increase language learning.

This concludes a discussion of the basicprinciples of TQM and how they can beapplied in the classroom. Now I will



present some of the problems that may arise.

Problems in using TQM in the languageclassroom.Problems generic to TQM in industry alsoapply to TQM in classrooms. First I willpresent problems described in the literature.Then I will discuss problems that havearisen from my own experience.

The attitude of management is offundamental importance. Parry (1993)points out that TQM programs in businessesoften fail due to ill-prepared or uncommittedmanagement. As Simmons, Vazquez, andHarris (1993) explain, “Many managers arereluctant to let subordinates make their owndecisions for fear things will get out ofcontrol.” For teachers, empoweringstudents would be like letting the fox guardthe chicken coup. Teachers might feelthreatened and fear a reduction in disciplineand standards.

Managers, like teachers, are oftenhidebound. Many teachers teach as theywere taught. Challenging theirassumptions or asking how they can createmore efficient classes is not an issue.Furthermore, there is often pressure toconform to the local teaching style.Richards and Lockhart (1994) quote aJapanese EFL teacher with this problem:“If I do group work or open-endedcommunicative activities, the students andother colleagues will feel that I’m not reallyteaching them.”

Lack of awareness of the opportunitiesprovided by TQM is a problem. As Foy(1994) puts it “people who have beenhostages take a long time to adjust tofreedom.. . .” People need to be shown thebenefits of empowerment. Poor planningis another problem. Parry (1993) suggeststhe sudden shock of TQM could be fatal.We should be wary of poor data collectiondevices and unvalidated questionnaires andsurveys, and watch for over-concern withmeasurement and untested tests. Weshould try to maintain a balanced focus ongoals and processes.

On a more personal level, TQM forces

me to ask questions not raised in theliterature. A fundamental concern is thenotion of “quality”. I feel “quality” issomething beyond attempting to meetexpressed needs. Cultural appropriacy isanother question. Students in Japan seemto be uncomfortable with notions of strictcriteria, objective standards and givingfeedback to each other and to their teacher.Students are unwilling to comment on or, asthey see it, criticize each other. However,this is not limited to Japanese classroomsbut may be evident wherever empowermentis promoted. My final concern is moredifficult to explain. In my experience,TQM gradually strips the class of mystery.At times I feel it is too explicit. Objectiveand systematic measurement and datacollection prevent me from relying onimpressions and intuition. I wonder, whatis the role of intuition and gut feeling? Ienjoy the mystery of seeing somethinghappen in class and NOT being able toexplain it. I enjoy living and teaching withmy senses. I think my students do too.This is something I have yet to resolve.

Hints on using TQMThe following advice comes from industry,but transfers to our classes. Empowermentdoes not take place immediately but evolvesthrough a gradual process of takingresponsibility. It needs a strategic step-by-step process and must be definedoperationally (Holpp, 1994). This meansthe teacher needs to explain what studentswill be able to do and what responsibilitiesthey will take at which times and under whatconditions. Similarly, Parry (1993)suggests managers develop action plans.We can make our students aware of thegoals, procedures, timing and relevance ofeach activity.

Empowerment demands interactive skills.Parry (1993) gives a list of skills that aidTQM. Empowerment is developed byincreasing (a) analytical thinking, (b) theability to ask questions, (c) the ability tolisten to and organize information, and (d)the ability to reinforce appropriate behaviour.


On JALT98

These skills might constitute learningstrategies which would prove useful in anysituation.

Foy’s (1994) suggestion that action-learning approaches are good ways ofempowering people can be transferred tolanguage teaching. Her view that problem-solving is an opportunity to instil TQMideals correlates with the current languageteaching paradigm where task-focused groupactivities engender greater language use.Students need time to get used to their newrole, therefore teachers should createactivities that slowly broaden their horizons.We can also encourage coaching andbenchmarking, or peer-teaching.

Many of the ideas found in TQM andempowerment should not surprise us.They are already reflected in our classroomswhen we advocate and teach learnerstrategies (Wendin & Rubin, 1987); whenwe use needs analysis and negotiation tomeet students’ requirements (Nunan, 1988);when we use collaborative group work(Coelho, 1991) or when we encouragelearner autonomy. TQM is more than justa business practice for strategic leveldecision making; it is a relevant andpractical set of principles that already informour classes and will lead to more efficientlanguage teaching.

ReferencesBrowder, L.H. (1994). Exploring the

meanings of teacher empowerment.International Journal of EducationalReform, 3, 137-153.

Coelho, E. (1991). Jigsaw. Ontario:Pippin Publishing

Cole, B. (1995). Applying total qualitymanagement principles to facultyselection. Higher Education, 29, 59-75

Foy, N. (1994). Empowering people at

work. Aldershot: Gower.Herman, J. L. & Herman, J.J. (1995). Total

quality management for education.Educational Technology, 35 (3), 14-18.

Holpp, L. (1994). Applied empowerment.Training, 31, 39-44.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side ofenterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Meacham Wilson, S., & Coolican, M.J.(1996). How high and low self-empowered teachers work withcolleagues and school principals.Journal of Educational Thought, 30, 99-117.

Murgatroyd, S., & Morgan, C. (1993).TQM and the school. Buckingham:Open University Press.

Myer, M., & Zucker, L.G. (1989).Permanently failing organizations.Beverly Hills, CA Sage.

Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centredcurriculum. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

O’Sullivan, B. (1996, November) Testingspoken language in large groups. Paperpresented at the JALT Conference.

Parry, S. (1993) The missing ‘M’ in TQM.Training, 30, 29-31.

Richards, J.C., & Lockhart, C. (1994).Reflective language teaching in secondlanguage classrooms. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Simons, G., Vazquez, C., & Harris, P.(1993). Transcultural leadership:Empowering the diverse workforce.Houston: Gulf.

Wendin, A., & Rubin, J. (1987).Learner strategies in language learning.Eaglewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ur, P. (1996). A course in languageteaching. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.



Promoting English Use in the EFL ClassroomAndrew J. MacNeill, James M. Perren, Kevin M. Sullivan

Kwansei Gakuin University

There is research suggesting that use of the first language (Ll) can help build classroomrapport and increase L2 output. However, in an EFL setting there is both a lack ofopportunity to use the L2 outside of class and peer pressure to use the Ll in class. Therefore,it is necessary for the instructor to maximize use of the target language within the class. I nthis paper, we include a theoretical overview of the use of the Ll vs. the use of only the L2 inEFL classes; examples of classroom policies and activities developed and used to promote L2use; and, explanations of how the policies and activities have increased L2 use.

IntroductionResearch into code-switching in the Englishas a foreign language (EFL) classroomshows that students’ use of their firstlanguage (Ll) can help build classroomrapport among students (Ogane, 1997).There are also claims for the pedagogicalusefulness of the Ll in English classes(Auerbach, 1993; Lucas & Katz, 1994;Weschler, 1997, 1998). However, in anEFL setting, it is necessary for the instructorto maximize use of the target languagewithin the class, both because of a lack ofopportunities outside of class to use the L2and because of peer pressure inside of classto use the Ll. In this paper we describeour particular teaching situation, providetheoretical background for promoting L2 use,show examples of classroom policies andactivities developed for and used in theirclasses to promote L2 use, and explain howthe policies and activities have increased theamount of L2 use.

.

Teaching situationThe Intermediate English classes of theKwansei Gakuin University LanguageCenter consist of three 90-minute classes perweek for two semesters. A maximum of25 students in the 440-549 InstitutionalTOEFL score range are placed in a lowerand an upper level class for each universitydepartment. The main goal of the course isto help students listen to and expressthemselves in spoken English. Thestudents have already spent 6 years in juniorand senior high school studying English, butthey have not had much practice in speakingand listening to English. Students in theprogram are usually highly motivated, forthey choose to take these classes instead oftheir regular department English classes,(which meet only once per week).

Students’ participation grades (30% oftheir course grade) are based in part on theirusing exclusively English in class.Students lose points for Japanese use duringclasses (see Appendix A for the program-wide participation grading policy). In our


On JALT98

promotion of this rule, we see complete L2use as the ideal situation, rather than as theminute-to-minute reality of the students’speech. We also acknowledge that otherteachers may have very different teachingsituations.

Theoretical backgroundWhether or not to enforce an English-onlyrule is a delicate matter. Use of the Ll inthe language classroom has long been asubject of debate in language education (seeAuerbach, 1993, and Lucas & Katz, 1994,for ESL and Weschler, 1997, for EFL).Tudor (1996) points out that in a foreignlanguage learning environment “theclassroom may be the main or even the solelearning opportunity” (p. 188). In addition,students need to learn how to describe thingsfor which they do not know the words andhow to ask for clarification in the L2. Cole(1998) sees benefits to use of the Ll, butalso asserts that:

when students continue using Ll toexplain simple vocabulary or to get outof trouble instead of using “Help”language, they are using too much Ll.Japanese [Ll] should not be used tosave students embarrassment atmiscomprehension and placate fears offailure or compensate for lack ofmotivation. (p. 13)

Moreover, it can be very difficult forstudents in a monolingual L2 class to use theI.2 with their peers (see Class Survey,Appendix B, Questions 19 and 20). I ntrying to get the most English use possible inthree and a half hours of English class perweek, we have developed and used thefollowing English-promoting classroompolicies and activities in their classes.

Classroom policiesThe no Japanese contractThe No Japanese Contract uses the Japanesebatsu game, or penalty concept, as anamusing way of curtailing student use of Ll.Students are given the opportunity to

.

participate in helping to determineconsequences of their Japanese use bybrainstorming and then voting on possiblepenalties. In our classes these haveincluded singing a song in English, givingan one-minute impromptu speech in English,and bringing snacks for everyone to the nextclass meeting.

This policy helps to promote English usebecause the students are held accountablefor deciding on the penalty and are careful tohonor their contracts. Students are oftenwilling to police each other as the eventualpenalty has an element of fun and/or areward for everyone. This concurs withChang’s (1992) finding that “when studentsare invited to regulate language usethemselves, they consciously use the targetlanguage more, and the teacher’s role as ESLenforcer, or corrector diminishes” (cited inAuerbach, 1993, p. 7).

As the course progresses this policy losesits element of fun and tends to dwindles out.However, Japanese use tends to become lessof an issue during class activities as studentsbecome more comfortable speaking inEnglish with each other.

English use enforcement policyThis policy is directly related to the formalgrouping of students in the class. Thestudents are divided into six groups of fourmembers each which are changed threetimes per term. This grouping format is adaily routine and allows students both tointeract more in English and to reduceanxiety (Helgesen, 1993). In addition,students fulfill various roles (leader,secretary, timekeeper, reporter, and languagepolice officer) in their groups so that eachgroup member has a specific responsibility.The group member who takes on the role oflanguage police officer (six in each class)writes tickets to students who speakJapanese in class. A student who receivesa ticket can choose to pay 10 yen towards afuture class activity, recite a short poem inEnglish, or give a Japanese-to-Englishtranslation of what they said in Japanese.

At the beginning of the course, the idea



of formally enforcing the use of English byother members of a group was received bymost students as fun. As the semesterprogressed, however, the process of writingtickets and allowing time for retribution wasperceived by students as monotonous and anineffective use of class time. Nevertheless,as the students’ anxiety level concerningopen discussion in English subsided, theneed to enforce became less of a priority.By the end of the school year, ticket writingwas completely eliminated.

The no-punishment policyBefore the following policy was put intoeffect, the teacher did a short survey of the

Figure 1.The No-Punishment Policy

students to promote understanding of therationale behind the policy and to get theiropinions in order to fine-tune some of thepoints (e. g., whether to allow Japaneselanguage use before class begins, seeAppendix B, Question 17). As expected,many students thought that it is difficult touse English in class, especially when othersare using Japanese (Appendix B, Questions19 and 20), and many of them wanted theteacher to force them to use English(Question 15). The survey was then usedby the other two authors in their classes toget student input (all six classes showedsimilar results).

1. You will each have five tickets with your name on them to keep.

2a. If you use any Japanese in class (from the opening bell until the end of class), you must giveone ticket to the teacher.b. If you use any Japanese during group work (or pair work), you must give one ticket to your

group leader (or partner), who will pass it on to the teacher later.c. If a member of your group (or pair) uses any Japanese during group work (or pair work) and

you don’t take a ticket from him/her, then all of you must give one of your tickets to the teacher.

3. At the end of the week, the number of tickets that you have left is your score for the week forthe “Speaking & Writing in English in Class” portion of the Class Participation grade. (Forweeks 3-15, the scores will be averaged together to make the final grade.)

4. At the beginning of class on Mondays, you will receive your tickets back to start out the newweek with another five chances.

5. So that you can get used to the policy, for this first week on/y, you can call a one-minute "timeout" and use Japanese to get an explanation from a classmate. However, it must last no more:han one minute.

6. Remember that it’s O.K. to ask in English about a Japanese word (e.g., “How do you saysekkyokuteki in English?").

As an alternative to punishments, the No-Punishment Policy (see Figure 1) also aimsto make students more aware of their use ofJapanese in the classroom and to encourageEnglish use. When students who are usingJapanese are asked to try using English,sometimes they are honestly not aware that

they have been speaking Japanese. Whenthe teacher politely requests one of thestudents’ tickets, the student is madeconcretely aware of the use of Japanese.This policy also makes it clear that studentsneed to think about their own Japanese useand how their classmates’ Japanese useaffects them. Thus, in the second week of


On JALT98

the semester, after the students have becomemore comfortable with each other and afterthey have practiced English classroomlanguage (e.g., asking for clarification andexplaining), the teacher implements thispolicy.

The No-Punishment Policy does notsignificantly affect students’ participationgrades. The goals are awareness of Ll useand encouragement of L2 use. One groupof the students took this policy so much toheart that, before doing janken (paper,scissors, stone) to choose roles for apresentation, they even asked the teacher,“How can we do janken in English?”

One potential problem with this policy isthe time needed for collecting tickets forJapanese use. Students often do not havetheir tickets or leave them in one area of theclassroom before moving to another forgroupwork. After the first few weeks,awareness is raised. The teacher stops

collecting tickets, instead writing downstudents’ names and politely informingthem.

Classroom activities

Group discussionThis student-generated activity can be usedas a warm-up activity for every class. Atthe beginning of the semester students aregiven a number as they walk into theclassroom. Each number corresponds toone of the class meetings of the term. Thenames of the students are then filled in to achart containing the day on which eachstudent is responsible for preparing thediscussion. Students are required tochoose a topic. Then they must produce ahandout with three questions on the topicand three vocabulary words with definitions(see Figure 2).

Figure 2.Example of a student-generated group discussion handout

AbortlonBy Yoko Sato

1. Are you for or against abort

2. Do you think it la rlght for the government to decide whether people canhave an abortlon or not? Why?

3. If you got pregnant right now, would you have an abortion?

Vocabularyhave an abortion/abort (v) - the act of stopping the development of achild inside woman, surgical termination of a pregnancyabortlonism (n) - the issue of whether abortion is right or notabortlonlst (n) - a doctor who performs abortions

For each discussion, students are placedin groups of four to six. They decide on aleader, a reporter, and a recorder, anddiscuss the topic for 15 to 20 minutes. Thestudent that prepared the discussion thenasks the reporter for each group to share themost interesting points raised during theirgroup’s discussion.

Since the students choose the topics, thetopics are generally on subjects that are ofinterest to their classmates as well.Similarly, because students prepare thequestions and vocabulary words, thelanguage used in preparing the materials isat a level that is manageable for the majorityof their classmates. Students are motivatedto use the target language when they are


discussing things that pertain to their ownsituations. They also feel at ease when thelanguage required to participate is at a levelthat they can control.

The logistics involved in implementingthis activity may seem a little timeconsuming. Likewise, it may take studentsa while to get used to the idea of discussingissues in English. However, once aschedule has been made and a fewdiscussions have taken place the activitytends to drive itself, and students begin torelax and participate in the discussions. Itis important to have a back-up activity ordiscussion should a student be absent or failto prepare for their scheduled discussion.

Media article discussionAs with the Group Discussion activityabove, this activity increases the use ofEnglish in class by combining group-basedactivities and student-generated materials.Group-based materials support the culturalnorm of Japanese society by allowingstudents to maintain equal status amongtheir classroom peers (Anderson, 1993).Each student in the group is responsible forselecting a magazine or newspaper article tocopy for other group members.

The objectives for this activity are toprovide opportunities for students toimprove reading, listening, and speakingskills. It also encourages studentautonomy by allowing students to choosematerial that is interesting to them.

Figure 3.Example of chatting in English


English use is also increased in class byplacing restaurant-style table tents on eachgroup’s desk with useful expressions for usein group discussions. The expressions canbe changed for specific language learningoccasions (e.g., warm-ups, articlediscussions, general group work; seeAppendix C for examples).

There were some difficultiesimplementing the Media Article Discussionactivity throughout the academic year.Topic selection at the beginning wasunlimited. This was beneficial for studentmotivation, but counterproductive for agroup of female students, for example, whowere not interested in a sports articleintroduced by a male student. In addition,some previously introduced topics wereduplicated and created some boredom forstudents who had participated in the sametype of discussion.

Chatting in EnglishAfter weekends, holidays, and vacations, thelevel of student energy can be quite high.However, this energy usually flows intostudents chatting in Japanese with theirclassmates. In order to turn this situationinto English practice, students are given anexample of useful expressions on theblackboard and five minutes at thebeginning of class to chat with a partnerabout their own weekends, holidays, orvacations. Figure 3, shows an example.

A: Hey, how was your weekend?B: Great/Fine/It was O. K./Lousy.A: ‘Whaja” do? (What did you do?)B: Nothin’ much/l hung out at home and watched TV/I hung out with friends/l played tennis with my

club. How ‘bout you?

The Chatting in English activitypromotes English use in two primary ways.First, it takes what is usually a time forJapanese use and turns it into English use..

Second, it serves as a reminder to thestudents that if they finish any activitiesearly, they can chat not in Japanese but inEnglish, especially when their teacher tells


On JALT98

them this explicitly with an encouraging“You’ve just shown that you can chat inEnglish.” This activity also promotesEnglish use more traditionally by teachingpronunciation (relaxed pronunciation, suchas “whaja”) and vocabulary (teaching wordsthat students often do not know, such as“lousy,” and distinguishing betweenJapanese-style expressions like “play withfriends” and English “hang out withfriends”). It can still be difficult for somestudents to avoid chatting with theirclassmates in Japanese, but others make areal effort to chat in English while workingin class.

ConclusionThis paper has provided some backgroundon and various ideas for promoting Englishuse in an EFL environment. It showedhow the authors have implemented English-language-use policies (based on a program-wide participation grading policy, AppendixA) and activities in their classes to promoteEnglish use. As noted above, there can besome difficulties with these policies andactivities. However, with these policies asthe impetus and activities as the means,students can make themselves and eachother more comfortable using English.This should lead to a positive feedback loopof increased use of English, increasedconfidence, and back to increased use ofEnglish. The next step is to investigate (a)what students can do to encourage eachother to use English in class; and (b) to whatextent and for what purposes studentsshould be allowed to negotiate allowable Lluse in the EFL classroom.

ReferencesAnderson, F. (1993). The enigma of the

college classroom: Nails that don’t

stick up. In P. Wadden (Ed.), Ahandbook for teaching English atJapanese colleges and universities (pp.101-110). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Auerbach, E. (1993). ReexaminingEnglish only in the ESL classroom.TESOL Quarterly, 27, 9-32.

Chang, J. (1992). Bilingual debates amongChinese students. TESOL Journal, 2 (1),37.

Cole, S. (1998). The use of Ll incommunicative English classrooms.The Language Teacher, 22 (12), 11-13.

Helgesen, M. (1993). Dismantling a wallof silence: The “English conversation”class. In P. Wadden (Ed.), A handbookfor teaching English at Japanese collegesand universities (pp. 37-49) . Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Lucas, T. & Katz, A. (1994). Reframingthe debate: The roles of nativelanguages in English-only programs forlanguage minority students. TESOLQuarterly, 28, 537-561.

Ogane, E. (1997). Codeswitching in EFLlearner discourse. JALT Journal, 19,106-122.

Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centredness uslanguage education. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Weschler, R. (1997, November). Uses ofJapanese (Ll) in the English classroom:Introducing the functional-translationmethod. The Internet TESL Journal, 3(11) [Online.] Available:[http://www.aitech.ac.jp/-iteslj/Articles/Weschler-UsingLl.html].

Weschler, R. (1998, November). Themother tongue--What’s her role?.Guided Discussion at the 24th AnnualJALT Conference.



Appendix AProgram-Wide Grading System for Class Participation

Excellent90-100%27-30

The student speaks in class several times each day, almost always in English,without being asked to do so, offers his or her own opinion often, and willinglyparticipates in conversation. He/she almost always comes to class preparedand helps to keep a lively discussion going, is attentive, listens carefully, asksrelevant questions, and is a great asset to the class.

Good80-89%24-26

The student usually speaks in class, mostly in English, without being promptedand offers his/her opinion if asked to do so. He/she usually comes to classprepared, pays attention, and occasionally asks good questions that are helpfulto the class.

Fair70-79%21-23

The student is somewhat reserved, seldom speaks in class, and then only ifprompted or questioned. He/she speaks English in class only part of the time,usually only in structured practice, offers own opinion with diiiculty, does notalways pay attention in class, does not attempt to converse, seldom asksquestions, and makes only a slight contribution to the class.

Poor60-69%18-20

The student speaks only when forced to do so and generally uses moreJapanese than English In class. He/she is very reserved, withdrawn, does notfollow class discussion, daydreams, has to be made to pay attention, rarelycomes prepared, occasionally sleeps in class, will never offer an opinion, andmakes no contribution to the class

Unsatisfactory0-59% Incommunicative-Unsatisfactory.0-17


On JALT96

Appendix BClass survey on the use of Japanese and English (with results)

(NO NAME, PLEASE)As you know, Intermediate English I and II are conducted in English. In addition, part ofyour participation grade represents how much you use English (and not Japanese) in class.

However, there are a number of ways to get more English in class. To help us decide, pleaseread the following statements and check (A or D) “agree” or “disagree” to show youropinions about the use of Japanese and English.

Results (N=131, from our six Intermediate I classes):

93 1 38

GENERAL1. Japanese people don’t need to be able to speak English well.2. Speaking English is useful when traveling outside of Japan.3. I want to be able to have conversations in English.4. I think I will speak with foreigners in English in my future career.5. It’s strange to speak English with other Japanese people.6. I am not confident in my ability to speak English.7. I don’t like speaking English.8. I can express my feelings better in Japanese than in English.9. I want to improve my ability to speak English and to understand spokenEnglish.10. It takes too much time to say what I want to say in English.11. When I can’t express my ideas in English, I feel stupid.12. I need to translate English into Japanese in order to understand the meaning.13. Sometimes I can hear something in English and respond in English withouttranslating to Japanese.14. It’s fun to express my ideas in English.

CLASS15. I want the teacher to force us to use English.16. When my classmates use English, it’s difficult for me to understand them.17. Whenever we are in the classroom, even before class starts or after it ends,we should use only English.18. When chatting with my classmates, I would rather use Japanese.

GROUP WORK19. If other classmates in my group were speaking Japanese, I think it would bedifficult for me to speak English.20. If other classmates in my group were speaking Japanese, I would feeluncomfortable asking them to speak English.21. As long as my group’s final answers are in English, I think it’s ok to discussin Japanese.



Appendix CGroup work expressionsFigure C1. Useful expressions for general group work

Questions or Comments

I don’t understand this, could you help me?

Responses

1) Sure, this is the answer.2) Yes, how can I help you?

What are we supposed to do now?

Should we ask the teacher for help?

Now I understand!

Speaking English isn’t so difficult after all.

I think we should finish the next task.

Yeah, let’s ask the teacher.Excuse me! Can you help us please?

I knew you could get it.

No, it really isn’t. In fact, it’s rather easy.

Figure C2. Useful expressions for media article discussions

Answer These QuestIons Addltlonal things you can say

Do you agree or disagree with the writer? Why or 1) No I don’t agree because. , ,why not? 2) Yes, I agree because , . ,

Is the article interesting?Why or why not?

I think ( or don’t think) the article is interestingbecause . . .

l

Does the article apply to you and your life? Why This article applies (doesn’t apply) to my lifeand how or why not? because . .

III

Did you learn something new by reading theI

I learned from this article that , , ,article? What did you learn? I


On JALT98

Discourse-oriented Activities ForPronunciation Teaching

Don Hinkelman, Sapporo Gakuin UniversityJerry Halvorsen, Sapporo Kokusai University

Pronunciation teaching in Japan often uses activities where language is taken out of context-such as repetition of individual words or contrasting pairs of words. However, recentresearch on pronunciation pedagogy suggests that suprasegmentals (intonation, pauses, stress,rhythm, and linking) are more important to communication than segmentals (individualsounds). Furthermore, the most important aspects of intonation and stress are communicatedin the context of a discourse. Thus, by teaching pronunciation through activities at sentenceand discourse level, students will be better prepared to handle the listening and speaking skillsneeded to survive real world conversation outside of controlled classroom or languagelaboratory environments. We first discuss trends in pronunciation pedagogy, stressingresearch on discourse intonation and guidelines for communicative pronunciation instruction,Second, it demonstrates a procedure for adapting textbooks to include discourse-levelpronunciation exercises that introduce suprasegmental awareness to Japanese false-beginnerlearners in secondary and university level EFL classes.

IntroductionUntil recently, it was common for Englishteachers to focus mainly on the segmentallevel of pronunciation, such as “l” and “r”,by using cassette tapes or choral repetitionin class. The teacher periodicallyinterrupts students to model sentences orwords and listen to students’ efforts. Thisis an example of “bottom up” methodology(Evans, 1993). The consequence of thisattention to isolated words is students whoare capable of repeating the necessary wordsor phrases in practice but are unable to

transfer this skill when actually engaged infree conversation. Garant (1992) finds thatjunior high school students in Japan cannotrecognize vocabulary words in differentcontexts, despite having repeated the wordseveral times. Japanese students whomerely imitate the teacher in form-orientateddrills, without paying attention to meaningor content, are usually unable to carry overthe newly learned patterns outside of theclassroom (Evans, 1993). Such bottom-upmethodologies have recently come undercriticism for having little effect on



meaningful communication (Celce-Murcia,1987).

In this paper we discuss current trends inEFL pronunciation pedagogy and describediscourse-oriented activities whichemphasize suprasegmentals such as thoughtgroup phrasing, focus word stress andintonation ending pitch and word linking.A procedure for adapting textbooks that donot currently incorporate suprasegmentalinstruction is explained along with examplesof discourse appropriate for classrooms inJapan.

Discourse-oriented approaches topronunciation teachingCelce-Murcia & Goodwin (1991) favorteaching pronunciation throughcommunicative activities because studentsfrequently lose their skill when confrontedwith a communicative situation. Morley(1991) maintains that “a focus onmeaningful practice and especially speech-activity experiences suited to thecommunication styles and needs of learnersreal-life situations” (p. 494) to be one of theguiding principles of current pronunciationpedagogy. Gilbert (1993) states:

the most important functions ofintonation in English are: (1) toshow contrast between newinformation and old information, and(2) to show boundaries betweenthought groups. (p. 33)

Brazil (1994a, 1994b, 1997) describes adiscourse intonation method whichencourages students to examine the contextof a situation before deciding on thepronunciation and intonation to be used.Within a discourse, the listeners canunderstand important points bydistinguishing between “proclaiming tones”(falling) for new information and “referringtones” (rising) for shared/old information.

In analyzing Japanese problems withpronunciation, Riney & Anderson-Hsieh(1993) conclude that the first priority ispractice at the suprasegmental level.

Figure 1 illustrates these levels ofpronunciation (based on Evans, 1993 andHinkelman,l995). Segmentals (phonemes,clusters, and syllables) are at the bottom ofthe diagram and are the focus of “bottom-up” pronunciation teaching approaches.Suprasegmentals (pauses, intonation, stress)are at the top of the diagram and are thebasis of “top-down” pronunciationapproaches. Other leading researchers inpronunciation pedagogy agree thatsuprasegmentals are underemphasized(Avery & Ehrlich, 1992; Gilbert, 1993;Celcie Murcie, 1987; Morley, 1991) that“meaningful practice beyond the wordlevel” is necessary (Naiman, 1992); and thatdiscourse level instruction is the priority(Brazil, 1997). Evans (1993) states that theorder of pronunciation instruction shouldbegin at the “top” with suprasegmentals andprogress “down” to segmental practice at theend. Thus, discourse-oriented approacheshave now gained considerable theoreticalsupport. The next section examines howan instructor can implement these top-downstrategies practically in the classroom.

Adapting textbooks for top-downpronunciation instructionOral communication textbooks often do notinclude explicit activities to practice anykind of pronunciation, let alone discourse-oriented pronunciation (Hinkelman &Halvorsen, 1998). In spite of this,instructors can easily adapt their currenttextbooks to add pronunciation activitiesthat practice suprasegmentals in a top-downprocess.

Pause markingTo do this, first select a sample conversationfrom the textbook, focussing on a fewsentences. Then, ask students to listen tothe teacher or the tape of the conversation,marking the pauses they hear with a blackslash on the text. After saying thesentences two or three times, have studentscompare their markings with a partner, thenreveal the pauses intended by the speaker onthe blackboard or OHP. Example 1 shows


On JALT98

pauses marked between sentence clausesand Example 2 has pauses marked betweenitems in a list. In written conversations,

commas and periods often indicate pauses,but not always, as shown in Example 3.

Figure 1: Levels of Pronunciation

A Thought-Group Phrasing

I Focus Words

I Ending Pitch 1 Discourse Level

I Word Linking & Reduction I

Suprasegmentals Word Stress

Clusters/SyllablesWord Level

Sound Level

Example 1 Hi John, / how was your vacation? /

Example 2 Great. / I went swimming, / camping, / and mountain climbing. /

Example 3 I stayed home / but I wanted to go skiing / or snow-boarding. /

Point out that pauses are used to separatethought groups and help the listener catchwhat is important. Have the students thenpractice the discourse orally,overemphasizing the pauses at first(mentally counting, “1, 2, 3”, during thepause). Then ask them to mark longerconversations and compare the number ofpauses they marked with the teacher’s marks.This pause-marking process will helpstudents be aware of the “highest” level ofdiscourse as they move down to the nextlevels, concerning discourse intonation andstress.

Focus word markingWith visual cues, students can more easilyadjust their voice to change pitch, rhythm,and stress. In addition to pauses, studentscan listen for focus words and circle them inanother color. Focus words are usually keywords that add new information oremphasize a contrasting point. Thus, theycan only be determined in the context of afull discourse. They are characterized by astressed syllable and a rising/fallingintonation. The following examplesillustrate some focus words.



Example 4 Person A.

Person B:

Person A:

Person B:

Person A:

Person B:

Nice to @ you.

Nice to meet you, @

And where are you m

I’m from the northern part of e.

$@Cd?

ern part.

Ending pitch markingThe next step, marking the rising or fallingpitch at the end of thought groups, is alsonot too difficult for beginning students.The teacher should first write and model afew easy sentences which show differentpitch patterns. Ask students to guess thedirection of the pitch change and then drawan arrow (in a different color to accentuate)at the spot in the sentence (see Examples 5-8) . For more advanced classes, exceptionsto these four basic patterns can be

demonstrated and explained (see Brazil,1997; Gilbert, 1993).

Word link markingA fourth step in adapting a textbookdialogue is to mark reductions and linkingbetween words in sentences. Read adialogue or popular song and have studentslisten for words that are connected withoutbreaks. Mark these with a loop in adifferent color as in Examples 9-12.

Example S Do you like this? 7 (a yes/no question)

Example 6 Yes, L I love fruit. \ (statements)

Example 7 What kind of fruit do you like best.? \ (an open-ended question)

Example 8 I like apples, 7 oranges, 7 and bananas. \ (a series of answers)

Example 9

Example 10

Example 11

Example 12

I’d like to m%

e a reservation fv room.

How much is it?

Why did you give him the present?

Do you know what time it is?

Beginning students may need linksmarked by the teacher. In more advancedclasses, ask students to guess the rules. SeeGilbert (1993) for an explanation of linkingand reductions. All four of these activitiesneed not be done for every lesson, but addedat different points in lessons over the year.

ConclusionIn this paper, we have outlined howdiscourse-oriented activities to teachpronunciation might be introduced tobeginning level classes in oralcommunication at universities andsecondary schools in Japan. As current


Lawrence J. Cisar

Lawrence J. Cisar

Lawrence J. Cisar

Lawrence J. Cisar

Lawrence J. Cisar

Lawrence J. Cisar

Lawrence J. Cisar

On JALT98

textbooks do not reflect recent trends inpronunciation pedagogy, we suggested aprocedure for incorporating tasks onphrasing, intonation, linking, and endingpitch. By teaching students to listen forpauses, focus words, ending pitch and wordlinking, teachers can adapt their currentmaterials to top-down pronunciationmethodologies that emphasizesuprasegmental activities over segmentaldrills.

ReferencesAvery, P. & Ehrlich, S. (1992).

Preliminary considerations in theteaching of pronunciation. In P. Avery& S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching AmericanEnglish pronunciation ( pp. 11 l-157).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brazil, D. (1994a). Pronunciation foradvanced learners of English, student’sbook. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Brazil, D. (1994b). Pronunciation foradvanced learners of English, teacher’sbook. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Brazil, D. (1997). The communicativevalue of intonation in English (2” ed.).Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1987). Teachingpronunciation as communication. In J.Morley (Ed.), Current perspectives on theteaching of pronunciation (pp. l-12).Washington, D.C.: TESOL Inc.

Celce-Murcia, M. & Goodwin, J. (1991).Teaching pronunciation. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a

second or foreign language (pp. 137-153).Boston, Mass.: Heinle & Heinle.

Evans, D. (1993). Rightside-uppronunciation for the Japanese:Preparing top-down communicativelessons. JALT Journal, 15, 38-52.

Garant, M. (1992). Traditional, semi-traditional and non-traditional teamteaching in Japanese junior high schools.The Language Teacher, 17, 25 & 27-29.

Gilbert, J. (1993) Clear speech (2nd ed.).New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Hinkelman, D., & Halvorsen, J. (1998)Pronunciation in context: Currenttrends in pronunciation pedagogy. In T.Christensen (Ed.), Japan Association forLanguage Teaching Hokkaido Chapter1998 Proceedings (pp. 23-30).Sapporo: JALT Hokkaido Chapter.

Hinkelman, D. (1995). Pronunciationpractice for students and teachers ofEnglish: Directions for curriculum andsyllabus design. In T. Kato & T.Yamaguchi (Eds.), Papers on Englishstudies (pp. 3-35). Sapporo:Hokkaido University of Education.

Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciationcomponent in teaching English tospeakers of other languages. TESOLQuarterly, 25, 481-520.

Naiman, N. (1992). A communicativeapproach to pronunciation. In P. Avery& S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching AmericanEnglish pronunciation (pp. 185- 196).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Riney, T. & Anderson-Hsieh, J. (1993).Japanese pronunciation of English.JALT Journal, 15, 21-36.



Conversation Teaching Meets Discourse AnalysisDominic Cheetham, Sophia University, Tokyo

Focus on form can be a valuable part of language learning, but for conversation, the crucialquestion is “What kind of form?“. In this paper, I briefly explore how discourse analysis canbe used to provide labels for looking at conversation, and how these labels can be exploited inthe classroom.

IntroductionVery few people these days would argue thata professional athlete who watches videotape of their own performances or of expertsin their sport is wasting their time. There isa great deal to be learned from this kind ofanalysis, not least because it relieves theathlete from the pressure of having to watchin real time. The tape can be stopped, re-played, or slowed. Even if theobservations are in real time, an athlete, acommentator, or even a knowledgeable fan,with their practised eye, can notice and learnmuch more than could a watcher naive to thesport.

In language teaching the value ofexamples was long ignored, down-played orrejected. In recent years, however, the useof discourse samples has become moreacceptable complex (in Business Englishand English for Academic Purposes, forexample). Indeed, if Johnson’s (1995)arguments for language to be treated as askill are correct, and if the evidence for thenecessary role of attention in learning fromboth psychology (Baddeley, 1990) andlinguistics (Schmidt, 1990) is also correct,this recent acceptance is a step forward.Yet, even now, the idea of language learnersas critical observers of language in use is notat all widespread. In conversation teaching,it seems to be a markedly restricted idea.

.

In learning to make conversation in aforeign language, learners are faced with anumber of problems, but the two mostformidable are: (a) the chance toexperience and observe expert conversation;and, (b) the “attentional” tools to enablethem to cease to be naive observers ofconversation. To address the first problem,we simply need to make conversational texts,in both their aural and written forms,available to learners. To address thesecond, we need to help learners to payattention to conversational texts and todifferent aspects of such texts.

Sources of textsTo provide learners with conversation texts,teachers have a number of options:

1) Many textbooks have tape scripts toaccompany tapes. Even wheretapescripts are not available in astudents’ book, publishers seem quitewilling to allow photocopying oftapescripts from teacher’s books,provided of course that the students areusing the course book. The downsideof this option is that many commercialmaterials are at best not authentic, andat worst unnatural: They do not offergood data for language learners.


O n JALT98

2 ) Any person competent in English canmake a tape of a conversation and thentranscribe it. The conversations donot have to be 100% natural. Theycan be planned, but should not bescripted, unless the aim is tospecifically look at the features ofscripted conversation. Scriptedconversations are usually differentfrom unscripted conversations.

3) Students can record their ownconversations and compare them tomore expert examples.

4) Tapescripts from films and televisionprogrammes are possible sources,though teachers and students need tobe aware if the materials were scripted.

5) Conversations can even be taken fromnovels. These obviously lack tapes;they are scripted and may be written toends very different to creatingexamples of authentic-likeconversation (Cheetham, 1997a).However, they can still be veryinteresting objects of study in aconversation class.

6) Finally, if the teacher has access toexcerpts from conversation corpora,these can be very useful, though, ofcourse, they will usually lackaccompanying tapes.

In short, there is a wide range of choices,and the choice of text will depend uponavailability and course aims.

Becoming non-naive observersTo help learners become less naiveobservers or conversation analysts is more

Figure 1.A short list of conversational functions

difftcult. There is an enormous literatureon the analysis of conversation (Brown &Yule 1983; Coulthard, 1985; Levinson 1983;Sacks 1995; Tsui 1994), but the literature isvery diverse. Unlike the grammatical modelsthat pervade textbooks, there are nocommon standards and few commonlyaccessible tools.

A number of folk-linguistic terms such as“sarcastic,” “polite,” “slang,” “humorous” arecommonly applied to conversation. Otherfolk-linguistic terms include “promise,”“suggest,” and “disagree.” Valuable thoughthese labels may be, they are often difficultto apply to a text, and they are alsofrequently culturally bound. What’s more,the range of terms is not comprehensiveenough to allow the complete labelling ofentire texts.

Other relatively more multi-culturallabels such as “question,” “answer,” and“information” have better pedagogicpotential. Readers familiar with DiscourseAnalysis will be aware that “question,”“answer,, and “information” are folk-linguistic terms for the formal functionalunits of the Sinclair-Coulthard model ofclassroom discourse (Sinclair & Coulthard,1975). Though not originally developed todescribe free conversation, later adaptationsof the model were (Burton, 1981; Tsui,1994). As a result, it is possible to use asimplified version or adaptation (Cheetham,1997b) for classroom use. One suchtaxonomy is outlined below.

0 Q (question) Language used to increase the asker’s state of knowledge.l A (answer) Language used to supply the knowledge requested in a question (or to

show an inability to supply the knowledge “I don’t know”)0 I (information) Language used to change the state of knowledge of another.0 AC (accept) Language used to show understanding or acceptance of a previous

element (not necessarily agreement). The response to “I” can be “AC” or theresponse to an “A,’ or an “R” (below) can be an accept. Accepts are often short,



formulaic, or repetitions of preceding material; words such as “uh huh”, “mmm”and “yehr” are common accepts.

0 D (direct) Language used to attempt to control the behaviour of another.0 R (react) Behaviour produced as a response to “D”. If preferred, this can be

subsumed under a more global “A”.0 (orientation) Formulaic language used in response to specific situational/cultural

norms. Greetings, Goodbyes, Happy Birthday, Merry Christmas, words saidbefore eating, upon arriving home, and so on, if formulaic. Orientations usuallyoccur in reciprocal pairs.

With just these seven elements, mostconversation can be labelled, and learnerscan very quickly and easily acquire themeans to talk and think about conversationin a less naive manner.

Example text and conversational analysisThe following sample stretch ofconversation is a piece of naturallyoccurring discourse taken from the

Birmingham University COBUILD database.It is quite simple and accessible for learners,but it nevertheless displays a wealth ofconversational features that could befocused on to raise learner’s understandingof conversation. The sample features asituation where two people are making anorder in a restaurant (M=male, F=female,w=waitress).

Figure 2.A conversational extract for sample analysis

1 M

2 w3 M4 w5 M6 w7 M8 w9 M1 0 w1 1 M1 2 w1 3 M1 4 F1 5 M1 6 F1 7 M1 8 w1 9 M2 0 F2 1 w2 2 M2 3 w2 4 F2 5 M2 6 w

And I wouldn’t mind erm how do these actually come then?These, theseCome on their own.Pardon?These just come on their own and you choose the topping.Oh right. Oh I see. Okay. So I choose a topping do I.Uh huh. Small or large pizza?E m I'll have a small one please.Uh huh. [pause]With erm, erm, prawns.Mhm.Prawns and erm tomatoes. [pause] Yeah that'll do yeah. Yeah.Is there anything else you’d like? Garlic bread side salad?Erm would you like a side salad?I'll have aYeah.side salad yes please.Side salad yeah.Two side salads yes.Yeah.Thanks very much.Okay.Thank you.Thank you.Thanks a lot. Do you want to take these as well.Thank you.Thank you.

Labelling the parts of this conversation is line 1 a single question, or is it anrelatively easy, but not automatic. Learners uncompleted piece of I (Information)might wonder about line 1, for example. I s followed by a Q (Question)? There is no


correct answer, but the close focus on thelanguage needed to make a decision is likelyto result in learning and in a betterunderstanding of conversation. In line 3,learners can see how “Pardon?” as aquestion, can be used to challenge anunsatisfying answer, and to elicit a moredetailed answer. In line 12, the waitressasks two questions. The second Q(Question) is a kind of repetition of the first,but is more finely focused. This is acommon conversational technique, and iseasily used as a target pattern for eitherwritten or spoken practice. There are manyother points of focus that can come from thisshort selection: the use of “Thank you” asAC (accept); the use of “Yeah, that’11 doyeah. Yeah” (line 12) as two acceptsproduced by one speaker to close his owncontribution; the following of one questionby another (line 13); the use of discoursemarkers, and so on.

ApplicationsThere are many different areas of discourseanalysis, and in this paper I have focused ononly one, a set of functional labels. Othersthat can be very useful are analysis of bothlexical and phrasal repetition and analysis ofdiscourse markers. The latter can becombined with the pedagogical model ofconversation outlined in this paper. Here,discourse markers can be treated as sub-elements of the main elements listed.Analysis of script, lexical phrase, topicfunction and topic content are also possible.I have focused on this one analysis becauseit can be used as a descriptive skeleton uponwhich other analyses can form the flesh. Itallows, in other words, a commonality ofdescription and a framework for crossreference.

There are many ways that discourseanalysis can be used to help the teaching ofconversation. I have focused on analysis,as a form of consciousness raising and as anelement of treating conversation as acomplex skill. There are of course manydifferent kinds of activity that can be basedon that discourse analysis. There are,

however, six general categories of activitythat I have found to be useful. Space doesnot allow a detailed discussion, so I restrictmyself to a simple gloss, and a briefrationale for each type.

1) AnalysisLabelling or identifying different partsof conversation; counting; calculatingratios; identifying patterns.Rationale: i) Conscious raising as anelement in skill learning (conversationas a skill); ii) As an attention directingtechnique (attention as a necessary orconstructive element to learning).

2) DiscussionDiscussion of appropriate labels;discussion of the uses of differentelements or combinations of elements;discussion of options; relating thesebasic functions to other functions.Rationale: i) Using conversation as adiscussion topic (discussion as acommunicative task); ii) Attention is anecessary preliminary to discussion.

3) TranslationConverting patterns of conversation tothe home language; usingintrospective techniques to gauge thecross linguistic commonality ofpatterns and parts.Rationale: i) Supplies an alternativetranslation parameter to the usualgrammatical or lexical identityparameters; ii) Many sociallyfunctional elements, such as discoursemarkers and orientations do nottranslate directly and attempts attranslation highlight this; iii) Patternsof conversation are often similar indifferent languages, and this(hopefully) facilitates skill transferfrom the home language to the targetlanguage.

4) ReproductionTaking patterns of conversation andusing the pattern as a template for



learners to create their owninteractions; spoken or written.Rationale: i) Patterns give asignificant amount of support for thelearner, but still allow creativity andvariation; ii) Repetition enhanceslearning; in this case the repetition isof patterns rather than of content; iii)Creative manipulation of languagetheoretically leads to “deeper” learning(Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Craik &Tulving 1975).

5) Re-organisingTaking texts and expanding orreducing them by adding, removing, oradapting conversational elements; akind of editing process.Rationale: i) Particularly usefulwhere learners re-organise their owntexts; a form of conversational re-writing; ii) Requires close attention tocohesion, coherence, andconversational style.

6) MetalanguageLabels for conversational elements canbe useful classroom tools; simplydirecting learners to start aconversation with a question, or withinformation, or asking learners to“Give a piece of information about . . .”can be useful tasks.Rationale: i) Facilitates organisationand implementation of activities; ii)Expands the number and type of easilyavailable conversation exercises.

ConclusionA focus on form can be very useful inlanguage learning (Long & Crookes, 1992)either from a skills perspective or from anattention perspective. In this paper, I havepresented a simple but versatile set of labelsthat can be applied to conversation, andsuggested possible applications. There aremany other options. The kind ofapplication of discourse analysis thatappeals to different teachers, materialsmakers and syllabus designers will depend

upon their differing views of languagelearning. Whatever the background of theparticular user, there are many ways inwhich discourse analysis can be usefully andsuccessfully applied to conversationteaching.

ReferencesBaddeley, AD. (1990). Human memory.

New York: Lawrence EarlbaumAssociates.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourseanalysis. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Burton, D. (1981). Analysing spokendiscourse. In R. M. Coulthard & M. M.Montgomery (Eds.), Studies in discourseanalysis (pp. 61-81). London: Routledge& Kegan

Paul. Cheetham, D. (1997a). Conversation inliterature. Lingua, 8. Sophia University,Tokyo: Foreign Languages in GeneralEducation.

Cheetham, D. (1997b). The learning andteaching of conversation. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University ofBirmingham, U.K.

Coulthard, M. (1975). An introduction todiscourse analysis (2nd ed.). London:Longman.

Coulthard, M. (Ed) (1992). Advances inspoken discourse analysis. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Coulthard, R.M. & Montgomery, M.M.(Eds.) (1981). Studies in discourseanalysis. London: Routledge &Kegan Paul.

Craik, F.I.M. & Lockhart, R.S. (1972).Levels of processing: A framework formemory research. Journal of VerbalLearning and Verbal Behavior 11, 671-684.

Craik, F.I.M. & Tulving, E. (1975). Depthof processing and the retention of wordsin episodic memory. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: General 104,268-294.

Johnson, K. (1996). Language teachingand skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.


O n JALT98

Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Long, M.H. and Crookes, G. (1992). Threeapproaches to task-based syllabus design.TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27-56.

Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures onconversation. Oxford: Blackwell.

Schmidt, R.W. (1990). The role ofconsciousness in second languagelearning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, R.M. (1975).Towards an analysis of discourse.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tsui, A.B.M. (1994). English conversation.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Are Japanese Weak at Grammar, too? A Look at JapanesePerformance on TOEFL Section II

Mikiya Koarai, Hokusei Gakuen University

Japanese TOEFL examinees have scored among the lowest not only in Listening and inReading Comprehension but also in Grammar-oriented Section II, Structure and WrittenExpression. This paper aims to answer the question whether they were equally weak overallin the section or there were specific weaknesses to be found for Japanese examinees. As aresult, the followings were identified as problematic points for more Japanese test takers: (a)singular/ plural distinction, (b) article use, (c) the choice and usage of prepositions, (d) theplacement of the adverb with the “-1y” suffix, and (e) noun/adjective choice for modification.These weaknesses are likely caused by linguistic differences between Japanese and English,and may cause trouble in detecting sentence structure. Future research into the correlationbetween the results of this study on the grammar section of TOEFL (Section II) and thereading section (Section III) is recommended.

Grammar instruction through grammar teaching for the high school Englishtranslation dominates formal instruction of curriculum, grammar instruction is stillEnglish as a foreign language (EFL) in the favored over speaking and listeningsix years of junior and senior high school in instruction. It would be therefore natural toJapan. Despite all the recent Ministry of assume that Japanese learners do better onEducation emphasis on communicative English grammar tests than tests whichcompetence and oral communication measure listening and speaking skills.


However, the results of the Test of Englishas a Foreign Language (TOEFL) show thatJapanese examinees’ scores in the grammar-based Section II (Structure and WrittenExpression) are among the lowest of all test-takers from Asian countries (ETS, 1996, p.6; Keizai Kikaku-cho, 1996, [Online]).These scores are also as low as in theReading Comprehension section.Interestingly, Swinton and Powers (1980)suggested that Japanese test takers’ poorTOEFL performance in ReadingComprehension be attributed to their poorcompetence in grammar. Their findingsseem to contradict further the belief thatJapanese teachers and administrators haveabout the students’ English grammarcompetence. To clarify thesecontradictions, linguistic, instructional andeducational, and environmental influenceson Japanese learners will be discussed inrelation to results obtained in the TOEFLSection II (Structure and WrittenExpression).

The form for the test can be found in ETS(1997b, pp. 93-99). TOEFL Section IIconsists of 40 Multiple Choice (MC) itemswith four options. These 40 items arepresented in two parts: Structure (15items) and Written Expression (25 items).The last item in each part was consideredexperimental and not scored, leaving a totalof 38 items for analysis and discussion inthis study. Data analysis was conductedfrom the raw scores and individual itemresponses furnished by ETS.

The three groups showed contrastivecharacteristics in age, gender, test takingreasons, and prior TOEFL experience.Both the JJ and JA groups were youngerthan NJ (see Table 1). Young examineesaged below 22 comprised almost half of theJapanese groups. Such young examineesmade up 30% of the NJ group (see Figure1).

SubjectsData from the August 3, 1996 TOEFLadministration were provided byEducational Testing Service (ETS) in theform of 1,966 random samples in threegroups: Japanese in Japan (JJ; N=l,000),Japanese taking TOEFL in North America(JA; N=175), and non-Japanese (NJ; N=821).

More female test takers were found inJapanese groups, particularly in JA (two-thirds female), while males and femaleswere equal in NJ (see Figure 2). Thegender balance for JJ was between JA andNJ. This is may be attributed to the higherpercentage of graduate applicants in JJ thanin JA. There were twice as many JAundergraduate as graduate applicants, whichlowered the average age. NJ showedsimilar tendencies to JJ regarding test takingreasons (see Figure 3).

Table 1August 3, 1996 TOEFL examinees statistics by age


N J J A J J

N 821 175 1,000

Age Mean 25.2 23.0 23.4

Age S D 6.44 5.50 5.62

Voices of Observat ion 99

On JALT98

Age range I 115-17 q 1&21 n 22-24 n 2529 83MS q 40+I

JA 2.9

JJ 1.9

NJ 3.4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% S O % 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 1. Age

I n MALE 0 FEMALE n N/A I

J A .7

J J .7

N J .7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 2. Gender



JA

JJ

NJ

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 80% 100%

Figure 3. Test taking reasons

Repeater rates were much higher in theJapanese groups, particularly in JA.Twenty percent of JA were first-timers,while almost 40% of them had four priorTOEFL experiences. On the other hand,

NJ’s first timers made up 40% of the group,and less than 20% had taken the TOEFLfour times previously (see Figure 4).

JA

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Figure 4. Prior TOEFL experience

Thus, Japanese groups included youngerexaminees, more females, and morerepeaters. Most of the JA degree seekerswere undergraduate applicants, with moreexperience in TOEFL, test taking.

Descriptive statisticsTable 2 shows the lower mean scores of theJapanese groups compared to NJ (p < .01).

53% 80% 70% 80% 90% 100%

K-R 20 (Kuder Richardson-20 test) andSEM (standard error of means) show thedata were reliable. The K-R 20 values ofthe three groups for Section II arecomparable to the data of ETS (1997c, p.30), as are the SEM values (ETS’s SEM forthis section is 2.7).

Voices o f Observat ion 101

On JALT98

Table 2Descriptive statistics of the three groups on TOEFL Section II (August, 1996)

( J J )Nk

S D

NonJapanese (NJ) Japanese in America (JA) Japanese in Japan

821 175 1,00038 38 38

26.6* 23.9* 25.5*6.44 6.35 6.93

KR20 .86 .84SEM 2.41 2.54

.902.19

(*p < .0l)where N = the total number of examinees for each group

k = number of items in Section II, Structure and Written Expression= mean score (arithmetic average point based on raw scores)

SD = standard deviationKR 20 = reliability index calculated on Kuder Richardson Formula 20SEM = Standard Error of Measurement

MethodThe methods of analysis used for this studywere: (a) comparisons of item facility (IF)values and item discrimination (ID) valuesbetween groups, (b) descriptive itemanalysis, (c) analysis of distractors, and (d)item-test correlation. IF, ID, and the point-biserial correlation coefficient used for item-test correlation were all based on Brown(1996) as well as other statistical terms andcalculations. A spreadsheet applicationsoftware (Excel for Macintosh, v. 4.0)generated statistics based on the dataprovided by ETS.

ResultsLinguistic influencesLinguistic influences for JJ and JA wereidentified in the following areas: (a) thelocation and order of adverbs of manner(with the "- ly" suffix); (b) distinctionbetween a noun and an adjective forpremodification; (c) article use; (d)prepositions; and (e) singular/pluraldistinction and subject-predicativeagreement.

Location and order of adverbs with the "-ly ” suffix

In a sentence with a pattern of “S+V+O,”an adverb of manner frequently with an “-ly” suffix is placed after the verb and itsobject. This “rule” seems to be regarded asrigid and unchangeable, since manyJapanese failed on such items that requiredknowledge about possible locations.Adverbs of manner can take almost anyposition in the sentence, according to thefocus and relative weight of the adverb inthe sentence, and the length and importanceof the object(s). The second example inthe below shows less emphasis on themanner compared to the first one:

(1) He drove the car slowly into thegarage.

(2) He slowly drove the car into thegarage.

(Both adapted from Quirk & Greenbaum,1973, p. 138)

Japanese showed lower performance on fiveitems presenting this type of problem.Awareness raising concerning the location ofadverbs is thought to be very important forJapanese learners to identify the sentencestructure.



Noun/adjective choice for modificationItems which required examinees to

distinguish between the noun modificationand adjective modification of a followingnoun were found to be among the mostdifficult for nearly all levels of Japaneseexaminees in this study as identified by IF,ID, and item-test correlation, though thenumber of such items were only three.

Whether a noun is used as a modifierinstead of an adjective is often a source ofconfusion. Take the word “education,” forexample, to show how a noun is used tomodify other nouns. There are suchphrases as “education system,” “educationproblem,” and “education cost” (AsahiShimbun, 1996, pp. 238-234).“Educational system” and “educationalpolicy” (Konishi (ed.), 1994, p. 569), and“educational cost” also exist and are used inthe same meanings. It seems, though, thatlearners of English as a foreign language aretold to memorize them as they are whenencountered.

Little accountability, if any, of this“N+N” combination may only help developlearners’ obedience to the text anddiscourage the motivated mind to divergefrom the confines of translation and rotememory as the only means of learning.

Corpus building of noun premodificationis proposed by presenting examples ofadjective premodification and nounpremodification focusing on the differenceand similarity of the meaning. It shouldalso be noted whether a singular or pluralnoun is used for noun premodification; forexample, “Curriculum design and materialsdevelopment in TESOL” and “InternationalAdmissions Officer.” It will be beneficialto let students collect examples of nounpremodification from various writings andvarious sources of information throughnovels, newspapers, journalistic writings,names for governmental departments andagencies, advertisements, and web pages.In so doing, students will become able tolearn underlying rules of nounpremodification.

Article useArticle use or omission was found to be

more problematic for Japanese TOEFLexaminees in this study. Japanese tended todepend on articles to figure out sentencestructure. If a sentence came with noarticle, more Japanese made mistakes inidentifying the sentence verb. On the otherhand, when they could not find the wrongpart of expression, their last resort was theexisting article, as shown in six items.Teachers can invite students in theirinstruction to think about how a thing ormaterial exists. Petersen (1988) presentsan interesting error example of article use:

(3) *Last night, I ate a chicken in thebackyard. (Petersen, 1988, p. 10).

Petersen says that this sentence could makesense if imagining a man in the darkbackyard with chicken blood and chickenfeathers around his mouth. Frequentlyfound in English both spoken and written byJapanese learners, this kind of error can betraced back to the lack of articles inJapanese.

Preposition usePrepositions attracted more Japanese than

non-Japanese examinees when they wereused as distractors, as identified by fiveitems. An item with a “deferred”preposition showed a marked decline inJapanese responses. A “deferred”preposition is one whose object is placedprior to it because of a shift in the focus; itremains at the original location separatefrom the object, for example:

1 . The gentleman you spoke of left her abig fortune.

Reliance on translation was identified as apossible cause in such cases, particularlybecause a deferred preposition does notappear in translation. Rather thanpromoting understanding through translation,teachers need to encourage a conceptualunderstanding and analytical knowledge ofsentence structure.


On JALT98

Singular/plural distinctionThe concept of singular/plural is missing

in Japanese. This troubled Japaneseexaminees in identifying sentence structure,as evidenced by five items. When thesentence subject is remote from its verb orpronoun, more Japanese examinees werefound to make wrong choices for a suitableverb or pronoun form. In other words,there were many items that requiredconceptual analysis of sentence structure onthe basis of the singularity/plurality of anoun within particular sentences. Thishighlights the need for an understanding ofthe mechanism and principle ofcountability/uncountability, as shown in thefollowing contrastive pair of examples:

5. of language.6 . He delivered a very imp Speech is

the primary form ressive speech.

In sentence 5, “speech” is a concept ofuttering sentences or expressing ideas usingvocal cords. In sentence 6, however, it isan act related to a specific time and place.

Instructional and educational influencesDependence on translation was broadlyrecognized in the item analysis and analysisof distractors. Rather than applyinggrammatical and syntactical rules forproblem solving, students tried to detectstructural and grammatical problemsthrough translation. This tendency wasclearly identified when a loan word wasused as a verb phrase, although it wouldhave been familiar in katakana as a noun(e.g., campaign, or WA’-9).

Environmental influencesIt is speculated that native-speakingenvironments do little to help studentsstudying in English-speaking countries toacquire grammar, structural accuracy, andcorrect use of expressions unless thosestudents are young or have a basicgrammatical and syntactic understandingbefore they arrive in such countries. Sincethere were no data available on the

proficiency levels that Japanese examineesin North America had before coming, nor onthe length of their stay, no watertightconclusions can be drawn here. However,the larger number of frequent TOEFL testtakers among JA may suggest that thoselow-proficiency adult learners had greaterdifficulty in learning grammatical featuresmissing in Japanese.

DiscussionJapanese TOEFL examinees showed fiveprincipal linguistic weaknesses as discussedabove. A lack of understanding of thosepoints caused them trouble in identifyingsentence structure. Low-performingexaminees tended to rely excessively ontranslation. Lower-level performers aregenerally more influenced by linguisticdifferences between their first language andthe target language, as Ryan & Bachman(1992) point out: “the influence of Ll isgenerally greatest at the initial stage of SLA,or at lower L2 proficiency levels, and likelyto diminish as L2 proficiency increases” (pp.23-24). The greater percentage of low-competence JA may suggest that they learnin an “acquisition-rich” environment withinsufficient L2 proficiency to facilitatelearning from their environment. Johnsonand Newport (1995) show the relationbetween age of arrival in the US and L2proficiency. This may indicate that suchstudents came to the US or Canada toimprove their English to the necessary levelfor college admission, as well as explainwhy young JA under age 17 performed verywell on the test. Research on the effect ofstudy-abroad programs shows that higherpre-reading/grammar competence leads to abetter proficiency gain in the native-speaking country in all other skills (Brecht& Davidson, cited in Freed, 1995, p. 13).Further, Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsberg(1995), in their discussion of the level ofadult learners benefiting from formalgrammar instruction, conclude:

Investment in grammar instruction inthe early years of instruction may

104 Vo ices o f Observat ion


result in advances in speaking andlistening skills at the upperintermediate and advanced levels. . . .formal instruction in grammar can beseen as a one key element inproducing expert language learnerswho will develop the independentcapacity to gather and assimilateinformation and skills on their ownthrough contact with native speakers.(pp. 59-60)

Thus, many Japanese TOEFL examinees inthis study, especially many JA, did not havean adequate level of grammar competence toallow them to maximize what they couldlearn. As a result, these low performerstend to be overdependent on weak strategiessuch as direct translation.

Grammar learning is often met withantipathy on the learner’s part. However,knowledge of grammar rules and control ofgrammatical structure still play a criticalrole in assessing proficiency levels (Hughes,1989, p. 141).

Recommendations for Further ResearchRecommendations for further research are asfollows: (a) an investigation of therelationship between the TOEFL grammarsection and the TOEFL reading sectionresults for Japanese examinees, as suggestedby Swinton and Powers (1980); and (b)research into the relationship between study-abroad experience/programs andgrammatical competence prior to and afterthe experience.

The results of this study have identifieddiscrete grammatical points problematic forJapanese examinees. However, as can beseen with questions of syntacticidentification, discrete points are notseparate but complex problems in actuallanguage use. Thus, in order to reduce theheavy reliance on translation forunderstanding English, guided conceptuallearning to help develop appropriateanalytical skills and strategies should beencouraged.

ReferencesAsahi Shimbun. (1996). Japan almanac

1997. Tokyo: Author.Brecht, R. D., Davidson, D. E., & Ginsberg,

R. B. (1995). Predictors of foreignlanguage gain during studying abroad.In B.F. Freed (Ed.), Second languageacquisition in a study abroad context (pp.37-66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Brown, J. D. (1996). Testing in languageprograms. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall Regents.

Educational Testing Service. (1996). Table9 . TOEFL total and section score means-all examinees classified by nativelanguage. In TOEFL test and score datasummary 1996-97 edition (p .6).Princeton, NJ: Author.

Educational Testing Service. (1997a).TOEFL 1997-98 bulletin of informationfor TOEFL, TWE, and TSE. Princeton,NJ: Author.

Educational Testing Service. (1997b).TOEFL practice tests. Princeton, NJ:Author.

Educational Testing Service. (1997c).TOEFL test & score manual 1997 edition.Princeton, NJ: Author.

Freed, B. F. (1995). Language learningand study abroad. In B.F. Freed (Ed.),Second language acquisition in a studyabroad context (pp. 3-33). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for languageteachers. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Johnson, J. S. & Newport, E. L. (1995).Critical period effects in second languagelearning: The influence of maturationalstate on the acquisition of English as asecond language. In H. D. Brown & S.Gonzo (Eds.), Readings on secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 75-115).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.(Reprinted from Cognitive Psychology, 21,60-99.)

Keizai Kikaku-cho [Economic PlanningAgency, Government of Japan]. (1996,November). Heisei 8-nendo kokuminseikatsu hakusho [White paper on the


On JALT98

national lifestyle fiscal year 1996]. [On-line]. Available:[http://entrance.epa.go.jp:70/0h/j-e/doc/s8honbun-j-e.html].

Konishi, T. (Ed.). (1994). Taishukan’sGenius English-Japanese dictionary (2nd

ed.). Tokyo: Taishukan.Petersen, M. (1988). Nihonjin no eigo

[Japanese English]. Tokyo: Iwanami.

Gadgets and Gizmos: Gimmicks or Godsends?

Quirk, L., & Greenbaum, S. (1973). Auniversity grammar of English. London:Longman.

Ryan, K. E., & Bachman, L. F. (1992, June).Differential item functioning on two testsof EFL proficiency. Language Testing,9, 12-29.

Chris Pitts, Kyoritsu Women’s CollegeRobert Weschler Kyoritsu Women’s University

Recently, there has been increasing interest in learner autonomy and autonomous language-learning strategies. At the same time, microprocessor-based devices with potentiallanguage-learning applications (e.g., electronic dictionaries) are becoming cheaper, morepowerful and more portable. Are these gadgets and gizmos, as some might call them, justgimmicks? Or are they godsends-potentially powerful tools for autonomous languagelearners?

IntroductionRecently, there has been increasing interestin learner autonomy and autonomouslanguage-learning strategies. For example,there were eight presentations with the word“autonomy” or a synonym of it in their titlesat JALT98. Only presentations offering theHoly Grail-“How to make your studentstalk in class”-formed a larger group. Atthe same time, hand-held electronic deviceswith potential language-learningapplications (e.g., electronic dictionaries)are becoming cheaper, more powerful andmore portable. Are these pocket-sizedgadgets and gizmos, as some might callthem, just gimmicks-here today and gone

tomorrow, like the Tamagochi? Or are theygodsends, learning tools with the potential torevolutionize autonomous languagelearning? In practice, their true worthprobably lies somewhere between these twoextremes, and, in this paper, we exploresome of that area between disdain of newtechnology and manufacturer’s hyperbole.

What is autonomous learning?According to Little & Dam (1998),autonomous learning is a learning style that“grows out of the individual learner’sacceptance of responsibility for his or herown learning” (p. 7). We feel that, as aconsequence of accepting that responsibility,



autonomous learners would do at least someof the following:

l decide their own goals;l decide how they will attain those goals;. monitor and evaluate their own

progress;. actively seek out tools and methods

which enhance their capacity to learn asefficiently as possible;

. accept that L2 study is a never-ending,never-perfect process.

The practical problem for prospectivelearners when they “seek out tools and

methods” is that they face a bewilderingarray of study aids. Rather than let the tooldictate the method, students should decidetheir goals and methods first. Anappropriate tool is almost certainlyavailable.

Trends in gadgetryWhile their memory capacities andprocessing speeds are increasing, nearly allmicroprocessor-based devices are becomingsmaller, lighter, more standardised, andcheaper (see Table 1). However, are thesetrends necessarily good news for languagelearners?

Table 1 Trends in gadgetry

..Size, weight

Price

More portable, carry and useanytime/anywhereMore affordable

rocessing power

Tape recorders/playersTape-recorders were the size and weight l Micro-cassette recorders can record

of a suitcase full of bricks just two and play back speech with adequategenerations ago. Today, Sony Walkman- fidelity. They are small and lighttype personal cassette players small and enough to use anywhere and anytime,light enough to slip into a shirt pocket are e.g., to capture dialog from movieswidely owned. Unobtrusive ear pieces and TV, classroom interactions, orhave replaced bulky headphones. However, whatever the learner wants or needswith no recording function they are limited to listen to again.to playing the audio tapes that accompany l A new generation of “Digitallanguage textbooks, or other cassettes Memory Recorders” or “ICprepared elsewhere. Recorders” based on Integrated


On JALT98

Circuit memory chips are now on themarket (e.g., the Toshiba Voice Bar).Because they do not use tape theyhave no moving parts, are as light andslim as thick ballpoint pens, can storeup to two hours’ of sound, andprovide instant playback of anysegment of the recording.

The traditional way to review a recording,by rewinding the tape, is cumbersome andinaccurate, and risks stretching or breakingthe tape. The memory chip avoids theseproblems, and enables the autonomouslearner to review material as often asnecessary for comprehension ormemorization. Note that the sound qualityof the smaller models may not be clearenough for some learners.

Electronic dictionaries and phrase books

. The earliest electronic bilingualdictionaries with one-worddefinitions-more of a liability thanan asset to a serious languagelearner-have been superseded bydevices which provide comprehensivedefinitions and usage examples.Some models even “speak” thedisplayed target language words,albeit with varying degrees of clarity(e.g., the Casio EX-Word Series)

l Many electronic dictionaries comingon to the market recently have newfeatures such as word games, whichcan help users to memorizedefinitions and spellings (see Perry,1998).

. Multi-language electronic phrasebooks, definitely a gimmick a fewyears ago, are becoming morecomprehensive and practical (e.g., theFuji Xerox Lyucho Series).Although designed primarily fortourists, some students may benefitfrom using one. We can’t imagine asituation in which anyone would need.

the instruction “Take me to abroad”from the Seiko SD-5200 speakingdictionary. In any case, it may beinstructive that this erroneoussentence is not only in the dictionary,but was also used in a photograph inpromotional material (Seiko, 1998, p.18). Fuji Xerox, however, show anunderstanding of their target marketby including the example expression,“I left my bag here but it was gonewhen I came back” (Fuji Xerox, 1996,p. 7).

Input methodsThe QWERTY keyboard is still the

most common input method, but newdevices featuring recognition ofhandwritten and scanned-in printedwords (e.g., the Seiko Quicktionary) arealready on the market.

l Voice recognition software forcontinuous text input is also availablenow; widespread practicalimplementation is “on the horizon.”(Ryan, 1998)

Interfacing with the InternetWhereas a desktop computer was needed

to send and receive e-mail five years ago,we can now do it from a minuscule portabletelephone. Students can stay in touch withtheir pen-pals overseas without using thecollege computer.

. Using a cellphone together with a tinypersonal digital assistant (PDA) (e.g.,the 3COM Palm Pilot or NTT PocketBoard), students can access the vastand ever-expanding language-studyresources on the Internet (seeSperling, 1998) from almostanywhere, at anytime.

SummaryModern technology offers a panoply ofresources to help foreign language studentsstudy where and when they choose. Wefeel that some of the microprocessor-based



devices now available could be powerfultools for those students who are comfortablewith the autonomous learning style (i.e., notall students). Perhaps some devices wouldalso be useful to students who preferteacher-centered learning. Whether aparticular device is worth the price is adecision that, rather like choosing a paperdictionary or textbook, ultimately has to bemade by the students themselves. Webelieve that at least the teacher can makestudents aware of what is available.

Focus on paper vs. electronic dictionariesDespite having the same fundamental

content and function, paper dictionaries(PDs) and electronic dictionaries (EDs) areutterly different in most other ways, notablycost, weight and look-up speed.

We looked at several widely availablePDs (English-Japanese and Japanese-English, either as a single book or a pair ofbooks), and EDs (excluding those with dataon CD-ROM, speech functions, and otherextras). We compared the ratios of theircontents, counted as the number ofheadwords, to weight and cost.

Number of words per gram (survey average)The paper dictionaries surveyed have an

average 285 words per gram, while theelectronic dictionaries surveyed have threetimes that ratio, an average 881 words pergram.

Number of words per yen (survey average)The paper dictionaries surveyed offer

buyers an average 37 words per yen, whilethe headwords in the electronic dictionariessurveyed are just over three times asexpensive-an average of only 13 words peryen.

Direct content comparisonThe above figures are, however, the

averages of a rather randomly-chosen surveysample. One direct comparison that we canmake is perhaps even more revealing. Theheadwords and definitions in the Seiko TR-7700 ED are taken from Kenkyusha’s New

College Dictionary, but marketed in adevice one eighth of the weight of thetraditional paper form, at just over five timesthe cost. Note that the Seiko ED alsocontains the content of Roget 's Thesaurus II.

Look-up speed comparisonAnother factor we investigated was look-

up speed: Is an electronic dictionary (ED)in fact faster to use than a paper dictionary(PD), and if so, just how much faster? Weassumed that look-up speed is important fortwo reasons: First, anything that impedesthe learner’s efficiency also detracts fromtheir overall motivation to continue thesearch. Secondly, when listening to someform of spoken input (such as a conversationor lecture) and using a dictionary at the sametime to look up unknown words, the fasterdefinitions can be found the more quicklythe student can stay with the flow and thusdecipher the contextual meaning.

In an informal experiment, a group of 23students looked up the definitions of a list of10 English words using Casio EX-WordEDs, while another group worked on thesame list using a variety of PDs. The twogroups then exchanged dictionaries andrepeated the exercise. We found that thelook-up speed of the ED group in both caseswas about 23% faster-a significantdifference if speed is an important factor.

How many students already ownelectronic dictionaries?A survey of our students at KyoritsuWomen’s University and College showedthat between 10% and 12% of students ownan ED. Owners’ feelings about them covera spectrum of emotions, from “I never useit” to “It is my good friend,” with severalstudents expressing frustration at theinadequacy of the word definitions.

Looking to the futureProducing meaningful translations of naturallanguage by computer without humanediting is still in the future. Furthermore, itis not possible, using current technology, tominiaturise the computing power needed for


On JALT98

machine translation into a portable device.Nonetheless, advances in artificialintelligence and supercomputing are makingfully automatic machine translationpracticable for some limited applications,and the vast resources of the Internet arebecoming more accessible every month.Within the foreseeable future, almostinstantaneous translating and interpretingservices could be available to anyone willingto pay the fee, from anywhere on the planet.When this happens, many language teachersmay find themselves not just renegotiatingtheir roles, but actually looking for differentjobs.

ReferencesFuji Xerox (1996). Lyucho Tell and Tell

product brochure GE-2012.Little, D. & Dam, L. (1998) Learner

autonomy: What and why? The

Language Teacher, 22 (10), 7-8 & 15.Perry, B. C. (1998) Interactive exercises in

electronic learners’ dictionaries. In P.Lewis (Ed.), Teachers, learners andcomputers: Exploring relationships inCALL (pp. 113 - 117). Nagoya: JALTCALL National Special Interest Group.

Ryan, K. (1998) Speech recognition forlanguage learners: On the horizon. InP. Lewis (Ed.), Teachers, learners andcomputers: Exploring relationships inCALL (pp. 189 - 195). Nagoya: JALTCALL National Special Interest Group.

Seiko Instruments Inc. (1998). I Cdictionary product brochure STD-TPMS-X861CD0204.

Sperling, D. (1998) Dave Sperling’sinternet guide (2nd ed.). New Jersey:Prentice Hall Regents

Classroom Activity: Learning Strategies ReportFumie Kato, University of Melbourne

This research explores factors which contributed to successful learning in the Japaneseintroductory course at the University of Sydney. On the basis of analyses of student datacollected in 1996, procedures specifically for reading and writing Japanese script weredeveloped and integrated into the above course as an intervention study throughout 1997.The research specifically focused on providing learning strategies, time managementinstructions and an enjoyable anxiety-free learning environment in order to increase thesuccess rate.

One of the intervention techniques, Learning Strategies Report, was a classroom activity.The aim was to provide learners with opportunities to discuss their learning strategies,problems and its solutions, and consequently to enhance learners to use more effectivestrategies. The effectiveness of the Learning Strategies Report is described and discussedalong with a consideration of the qualitative and quantitative results. The number ofunsuccessful learners in 1997 significantly decreased compared to 1996.


IntroductionThe context of the research reported in thispaper concerns factors which contribute tosuccessful language learning, specificallyfocusing on learning strategies instructions,time-management practices and studentmotivation levels. The project consideredaspects of acquiring Japanese as a secondlanguage, particularly reading and writingJapanese script.

Approximately 130 students each yearenrol in the introductory first year Japanesecourse at the University of Sydney.Although a majority of the students studywith diligence, many students leave thecourse along the way and others fail.Approximately only one half of the studentspassed the course in 1995. Regretfully, therest of the students became unsuccessfullearners. The main aim of this project wasthus to increase the success rate throughintegrating several intervention techniques.In this paper, I describe the developmentand the implementation of one of theintervention procedures, as well as evaluatethe outcome of the application.

Two types of learnerWritten Japanese uses three types ofsymbols. It is necessary to master these tobe a successful student at the University ofSydney. As Japan adopted its writingsystems from China, the characters and themeanings of both script are quite similar.Students who have a background ofChinese characters thus, have a priorknowledge of Japanese script from theoutset. Conversely, western students, whohave no background of Chinese characters,are exposed for the first time to learningcharacters. This appears to beconsiderably hard. The two types of

learners in the introductory course arestyled Group A (with backgroundknowledge of Chinese characters) andGroup B (without such a background).

Intervention studyThe project focused on three factors, whichwere: (a) learning strategies, (b) time-management skills, and (c) motivationlevels. Student data were collectedthroughout 1996. On the basis of theanalyses of the data and the results ofreviewing studies, several interventiontechniques, Learning Strategies Report, MyGoals and Success, Exercises and Myprogress, and Fumie Kato's Homepage,were developed and prepared for students in1997. These techniques were incorporatedinto the script classes as an interventionstudy throughout 1997 in order to see ifoutcomes could be improved.

Learning strategies instructionThe research reported in this paperspecifically focused on learning strategiesinstruction. Differences between the twotypes of learners noted above were alsohighlighted. One of the important issuesin providing learning strategies instructionis “raising awareness of a learner’s strategyrepertoire and consideration of the way inwhich he or she uses those strategies”(Rubin, 1994, p. 2). As one example inraising awareness, Rubin (1994) introducedactivities such as reading a ‘book, discussingwhat they understood in a small group,making a list of problems and discussingagain how they could solve the problems.Meyers & Jones (1993) argue that smallgroup activities (four to six participants pergroup), in which students will share theirideas and learn from each other, are


On JALT98

beneficial for creating an active-learningclassroom.

Learning strategies reportA classroom activity, Learning StrategiesReport (LSR), was designed andimplemented as a learning strategiesinstruction during 1997. The purpose ofthe LSR activity was thus to allow studentsto:

1 .2 .

3 .

4 .5 .

6 .

talk with classmates;recall the strategies used inlearning script;exchange/share the information onthe strategies which classmatesused;identify problems;consider solutions to the problems;andconsequently, motivate learningJapanese effectively, enjoyably andcollaboratively.

Students in the script classes formed smallgroups each containing four to six students.One encourager and one recorder wasselected in each group each time and had aspecific role, i.e., making sure everyonecontributes (encourager), and recordingminutes (recorder) in a LSR sheet (seeAppendix 1). The LSR activity wasimplemented into the scheduled script class-hour for 10 minutes each, three times in thefirst semester and once in the secondsemester in 1997.

Learners’ perceptionsComments on the LSR activity werecollected through two questionnairesconducted at the end of the first and thesecond semesters in 1997. The studentcomments were analysed with use ofGrounded Theory Methods.

A causal condition was to conduct theLSR activity within the script class-hour.Four aspects of properties of the causalcondition were identified as follows: (a)discussing with classmates, (b) identifyingproblems, (c) solving problems, and (d)

improving learning strategies. Studentgeneral views on the LSR were firstlydescribed in accordance with the above fourproperties, followed by the differencesbetween the two types of learners. Actualstudent comments are presented in italicsbelow.

Discussing with classmates. The LSRwas beneficial because it provided theopportunity to discusslcommunicate withother people, to exchange ideas, to exchangelearning experience and also to discuss myproblems or solutions with my classmates.Through this activity they had interactioninstead of working individually. Withoutthis, people didn't know each other.

Identifying problems. Through thediscussions many students realised othershave the same problems as me! and knewthat other classmates were having somedifficulties too. This appeared to be sometype of relief to find that you are not alonein the areas you are having problems.Identifying problems through this kind ofdiscussion is worthwhile, and the LSRhelped us to realise our problems easily.

Solving problems. After studentsidentified problems, they continued todiscuss/exchange ideas on how to learnscript, to discuss how to get through theseproblems and common problemsencountered that can be solved at this time.Students were interested in knowing howother classmates solved their problems.

Learning strategies. Through theabove activities, students learned new waysof solving problems, along with otherlearning strategies. The LSR activity washelpful to see how other students were goingand what methods of learning worked bestfor us, and to introduce new ideas that mayhelp my learning. The LSR provided uswith many different ways of learningJapanese and also an opportunity tocompare & contrast my learning strategies.

Consequently approximately 60 to 70%of Group B and 50% of Group A studentsviewed the activity of the LSR as excellentstrategies for them.

Some students did not find the LSR



activity useful. The main reason was thatstudents are already set in my own ways ofstudying and have worked out my ownstrategies for learning script, and hencenever changed my strategies for learningdue to these reports. This was becauseeveryone has different ways of learning. I nterms of the effectiveness, although studentsidentified problems, the effectiveness insolving the problems are not that good andnot everyone knows how to improve thesituation. Obviously students who did nothave any problems viewed it as a waste oft ime.

Differences between groups A and BMore students in Group B (84% inSemester 1 and 71% in Semester 2) than inGroup A (73% in Semester 1 and 65% inSemester 2) recognised the usefulness ofthe LSR activity in learning Japanese script.A list, which displayed student views on theLSR together with the two groups (seeAppendix 2), clearly indicated two differentissues between the two groups. Thesewere (a) “discussion” and (b) “learningstrategies.”

The LSR activity provided students inboth groups with some kind of reliefthrough clarifying that they were not alonewith their problems. In particular, GroupB students favoured the LSR, valuing itmore than Group A students as a way toimprove their own strategies. Manycomments on “Discussion” in a subcategoryof the context of phenomena were found forGroup B, whereas there were no commentsunder this subcategory for Group Astudents. This suggests that Group Astudents appeared not to appreciate theopportunity for discussion as much asGroup B students.

Learning StrategiesMore comments were also found within

another subcategory, “learning strategies,”for Group B than for Group A, e.g., it wasexcellent to find new ways to tackle difficultlearning areas, to learn ways to overcomeproblems, etc. Obviously, Group B

students appeared to have problems anddifficulty in learning Japanese; thus theyrequested that it would have been better tohave at least one of these earlier on in thecourse, better sooner, it’s a shame there isn 'ttime to do it more often. However, asGroup A students had already acquired theknowledge of the characters per se, theirneed to know the learning strategies weremuch less prominent than Group Bstudents.

Outcomes of the intervention studyKanji Learning Methods

Four questionnaires, which inquiredabout “kanji learning methods,” were usedfor analysing the quantitative results.These were administered at the end of thefirst and the second semesters once eachduring the two years. Three factors(Writing methods, Using cards/booksmethods, Using sentences methods) withinthe kanji learning methods were identifiedthrough principal component analysis. T oinvestigate the differences of patterns andtendencies of kanji learning methodsbetween the two years, a profile analysiswith three levels of variables (within) andtwo levels of years (between) wasperformed.

The F ratio for the tests of parallelism inGroup A was significant in Semester 1: F (2,222) = 2.54, p < 0.1, and the test for overalldifferences between years was alsosignificant throughout the year: F (1, 111)= 3.43, p < 0.1 and F (1, 106) = 5.36, p <0.05 in Semesters 1 and 2 respectively.The profiles in Group B deviatedsignificantly in Semester 1 fromparallelism: F (2, 168) = 5.45, p < 0.01.

These results indicate that students in1997 used significantly different methodsfrom students in 1996 in Semester 1. I nSemester 2, differences of kanji learningmethods only in Group A showed assignificant between the two years.

The mean scores (M) and the standarddeviations (SD) of the three factors areshown in Table 1 and the items in Appendix3.



Table 1. Mean scores and standard deviations of three factors in semesters 1 and 2 in 1996and 1997.

Semester 1 Semester 2G r o u p A G r o u p B Group A Group B

M S D M S D M S D M S D M S D M SD M SD M SD1996 1997 1996 1997 19% 1997 1996 1 9 9 7

Writing 2.9 0.9 3.1 0.8 3.4 0.8 3.2 0.6 2.7 0.7 3.0 0.7 3.1 0.6 3.3 0.7Using Cards/Books 2.3 1.1 2.7 1.0 2.1 1.0 2.6 1.1 2.5 1.0 2.9 0.9 2.7 1.2 2.9 1.0Using Sentences 3.9 1.0 4.0 0.9 3.6 1.0 3.7 0.8 3.7 0.7 3.9 0.7 3.8 0.5 3.7 0.7

Graphs were drawn using the above data inorder to determine to what extent differencesexisted between students in 1996 and 1997(see Figure 1). It indicated that students in1997 appeared to use kanji learning methodsmore frequently than students in 1996,specifically the students in Group A in 1997who appeared to use the strategies muchmore in all aspects of the three factorsthroughout the year than students in 1996.

In comparing group level, students in GroupB used the strategy of Writing Methods inlearning kanji more frequently than studentsin Group A. It is understandable thatstudents without a background of Chinesecharacters (Group B) studied harder usingthe Writing Methods rather than Group Astudents (with a knowledge of Chinesecharacters).

1 Group A 1

2.2 _,........................................................................2.1 I I I I I

Wrt Crd Snt Wrt Crd SntSemester 1 semester 2

Wrt Crd Snt Wrt Crd Snts e m e s t e r 1 s e m e s t e r 2



Successful and unsuccessful learnersSuccessful learners were those whocompleted and passed the course. Thegroup classified as unsuccessful learnerscomprised students who dropped out of thecourse, did not take the examination or wereassessed as Fail. Student numbers ofsuccessful and unsuccessful learners were

compared and contrasted between 1996 and1997. The sample size in total was 259students for both years. Table 2 showsstudent numbers for those who dropped out,failed and thus were classified asunsuccessful learners in the course in bothyears

Table 2. Sample size, student numbers of dropped-out, failures and thus were classified asunsuccessful learners.

Year N Drop-out1997 134 331996 125 38

Fail Unsuccessful4 37

12 50

A 2 x 2 chi-square analysis was performedinvestigating the effects of the interventionstudy in 1997. The obtained X2 = 4.23, df= 1 was significant at the .05 level,suggesting that students who dropped-out,failed and thus were unsuccessful in 1997significantly decreased as compared tostudents in 1996.

SummaryAnalysis of data collected from the studentsin 1996 was used to design and developfour intervention procedures which wereused with the 1997 students in anintroductory Japanese first-year course atthe University of Sydney. This paperspecifically focuses on one classroomactivity, Learning Strategies Report, as ameans of learning strategies instruction.The results of the technique illustrated howthe activity affected the students’ use ofstrategies in learning script.

Analysis indicated that students in 1997,specifically Group B students who neededsubstantial assistance in learning Japanesescript, greatly benefited from the LSRactivity. The intervention proceduresimproved kanji learning methods for

students in both groups and consequentlyincreased the success rate, suggesting thatproviding learning strategies instructionwas one of the important factors influencingstudent achievement in learning basicJapanese.

ReferencesMeyers, C. & Jones, T. B. (1993).

Promoting active learning. SanFrancisco: Joesey-Bass.

Rubin, J. (1994). Learner strategyinstruction. Paper presented at LehmanCollege, City University of New York.

Rubin, J. & Thompson, I. (1994). How tobe a more successful language learner:Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

AcknowledgmentI wish to acknowledge the contributionsupport and encouragement of manycolleagues at the University of Sydney,notably Dr J. Harvey, Associate ProfessorK. Sinclair, Associate Professor R. Debus,Dr E. Chapman, R. Robinson and L. Carson.The research reported here forms part of aPh.D. program.


On JALT98

Appendix 1Learning strategies report

Date:itudent Names:

Learning Strategies ReportG r o u p :

(Encourager)(Recorder)

Learning strategies used last week:

1) How did you learn Japanese script last week?

2) What problems do you have? Please write, if any.

3) What suggestions can you provide in order to solve theabove problems?


Appendix 2

Student views on LSR in 1997Ti5 2

E5%

kno adverb)

4 hood, all right,

content of Reaction:(Sources: T w o Questionnaires and Interviews)

8Same problems: realising others having same problems, finding out I’m not alone in the areas having problems, seems there’s a lot ofproblems and difficultiesL.S: learning from one another how to improve our J. learning skills, recognising my problems, introducing new ideas, referring to see howI can change to other’s L.S if I have trouble, highlighting any problems that others may have encountered and bring my attention to howthey solve it., knowing other S’ L.S but one must know what is the best for oneself when they studyEnvironment: I like the freindly environment, people didn’t know each other (*except this opportunity)

rategiesi’z5 %

Discussion: opportunities to discuss with others, exchanging ideas how to learn script and discussing how to get paned the problems,exchanging learning experience, discussing my problems or solutions with others, communicating with others and finding out how theylearned, being able to talk with others, having interaction instead of working individually, ascertaining the level as which others areprogressing & common problems that can be solved at this time,Same problems: rea;osed that most S faces tje same problem/difficulties, identifying problems and knowing I’m not the only one who hasproblems, discussing and seeing if we had common problems, realising our problem easily, nice to know others were also stressing out,L.S: finding out how others’ are learning finding new ways to tackle difficult learning areas, trying other I-S, seeing how others are goingand what methods of learning work best for them, learning other’s L.S to improve my own, providing US many different way on learning J.,comparing & contrasting my L.S with others, one of the suggestion really helps me, learning ways to overcome problems, learning how tostudy J. more effectively, as a guide, knowing other’s strategies in studying that we might followEnvironment: making the class closer, little contact with others doing J. (*excepting this), like sneaking to fellow learners of J.Request: having at least of these earlier on in this course, a shame there isn’t time to do it more often, better soonerOwn Way: other’s L.S do not affect on me, different people have different learning habits, everyone has different way of learningTime: do outside class time, too much discussion in class, not enough time to really discuss, If I don’t (*have trouble), this is painless and awaste of time

is6%

Others: only good friends communicate with one another, effectiveness in solving the problems is not that good, not everyone know how toimprove the situation, too much discussion about that in classOwn Way: never change my L S, work out my own LS, did not use it, people use different L.S to suit them, set in my own ways ofstudying (which is probably disadvantageous)Time: most Ss found it a waste of timeOthers: a bit more structured, that’s good if it’s helpful to the teachers83 A-t -

BNotes.

2 L.S, - learning strategies, G - Group, n - student number

-4

L.S.R - Learning Strategies Report, S1 - Semester 1, S2 - Semester 2, J. - Japanese, t - Agree, - - Disagree, * - Inference made by researcher Ss - students, p,-

On JALT98

Appendix 3Items including three factors in kanji learning methods

Writing Methods1. I write each kanji 20 to 30 times.2 . I write them repeatedly until I memorise them.3 . I write down all kanji I am studying once a day.4 . I learn kanji for about 20 minutes per day.5 . I write kanji and repeat it after a few hours.6 . I use the origin section on the computers in the computer lab.7 . I try to find some associating pictures/keywords for memorising.8 . I test myself on writing without looking at them.

Using Cards/Books Methods1 . I make small cards and read them whenever possible.2 . I practise with Japanese books.

Using Sentences Methods1 . I apply kanji to sentences.2 . I write sentences, check the unfamiliar kanji and then read the sentences.3 . I do exercises on the computers in the computer lab.


IntroductionTask-based learning (TBL) offers a changefrom the grammar practice routines throughwhich so many learners in Japan havepreviously failed to learn to communicate.It encourages learners to experiment withwhatever English they can recall, to trythings out without fear of failure and publiccorrection, to take active control of theirown learning, both in and outside class. ATBL framework also provides a naturalcontext for conscious study of languageform.

An effective communication task used asa central component of a TBL lesson canencourage even shy learners to recall and putto use whatever English they already knowin order to achieve the task outcome.

Tasks of many types can be designedaround any topic or theme and can beadapted for any level of learner.

OverviewIn our workshop in Omiya, we began byagreeing on definitions for the terms taskand TBL and I offered a brief rationale forthe use of TBL. I gave an overview of sixdifferent designs of task, with illustrationsfor each. Participants then divided intogroups according to the age and needs of

their learners and selected a topic that theymight use with their classes. Each groupthen began the process of designing a set oftasks on their topic, evaluating them andthen reporting back their best ideas to thewhole group. This article will follow theorder of the workshop proceedings.

What do we mean by “task”?We defined task as a goal-orientedcommunication activity with a clear purpose.Doing a communication task involveslearners in achieving an outcome, creating afinal product that can be appreciated byothers. They are exchanging real meaningsfor a real purpose, expressing what theywant to say, making free use of whateverwords or phrases they already know in orderto fulfil the task.

Tasks in this sense would not includeacting out dialogues or role plays using pre-set language patterns or given forms-thesewould be called “language practiceactivities.”

A framework for using tasksThe framework here can be adapted fordifferent kinds of classes:


On JALT98

Pre-task

Task - Planning - Report

Language Focus

This allows teachers to set up tasks in theclassroom so that students will get the mostout of task-based learning. In any taskcycle there needs to be a balance ofconfidence-buildingfluency activities wheremistakes do not matter, (i.e., when studentsdo the task in the privacy of groups or pairs),and linguistic challenge, where accuracy andfluency are both desirable (i.e., the publicreport phase). When reporting on their task,students naturally want to be accurate sincethey are “going public,” i.e., talking orwriting for a wider audience. The Planningcomponent in the task cycle bridges the gapbetween private task and public report, andgives learners time to work out how to saythings better, with teacher and dictionarysupport. This planning stage is one of therichest learning opportunities in the cycle asstudents work to improve the quality of theirown output, to prepare for reporting back.

The task cycle obviously needs to bepreceded by a Pre-task stage so that learnersknow what they are going to talk about andwhat the goals of the task are. This givesthe teacher a chance to chat about the topicand to highlight relevant words and phrases,and perhaps even demonstrate a similar task.

The task cycle is followed by a closelook at the language arising out of the taskor the text-samples of known or newgrammar patterns, common phrases,discourse signals, words in context. Thisgives learners a chance to notice new thingsabout language, to write down expressionsthey like, new words and the phrases theyare used with and examples of grammarpatterns. They can ask questions about thelanguage and look things up in dictionaries.They can consolidate and systematise whatthey know already.

This framework was more fullydescribed in Willis (1998).


Why task-based learning?Task-based learning, used as outlined above,aims to create opportunities for language use,to help students activate whatever languagethey know already, and to discover forthemselves what other language they need tolearn. If students know what they lack,they are more likely to look out for thesemeanings and forms in the input they areexposed to. Ideally this input wouldinclude both spoken and written exposure.The processes involved in task-basedlearning stimulate natural, organic languageacquisition. Ellis (1997) summarises theresearch on this in far more detail than ispossible here.

Many teachers have found that doingtasks often increases learners’ motivation tolearn and use the language. They also findthat a task-based approach is more suitablefor mixed ability classes than directgrammar teaching, since it allows individuallearners to operate at their own linguisticlevel, and to build on what language theyhave already, no matter how little this is.

Topic choiceAny topic or theme can generate manydifferent types of tasks. However, broadtopics such as pollution, clothes or weatherare more effective if narrowed down andmade more specific (except perhaps whendesigning very simple tasks for low levelclasses). For example, instead of weather,most learners will probably find topics likeextremes of weather or storms morestimulating. Sometimes an interesting textwill supply a good angle on a topic, like thetext chosen by Dave Willis for JALT97about the child with a pistol who raided asweet shop. From this text, you couldbroaden out into the topic of “kids crime” ornarrow down on to “punishment for


children.”Topic choice will depend on the

backgrounds and needs of the learners. Forteenagers, you might choose dating, orgetting a part-time job. In the Middle East,teachers chose topics such as camel racing,hospital ward design and the DubaiShopping Festival. At JALT98, groupschose a wide range of topics, includinggovernments, preparations for winter, andeffective business meetings.

Classifications of task typesI felt teachers needed a classification shortenough to hold in the memory, and yet behighly generative. I finally found abreakdown of task types designed by agroup of teachers, Matthews, Francis and

Bain, (1987) who were working together todesign materials to improve thecommunication skills of native-speakerchildren and young adults. It took intoconsideration the main cognitive processesneeded for the tasks.

My classification is an adaptation oftheirs. It does not claim to be exhaustive.And some tasks may well involve acombination of more than one type. Its aimis to help teachers generate a range of taskson any topic, and then select the best ones totrial and include in course materials.

Six types of taskIn the workshop, we first looked at thisoverview of task types, and I illustrated itsuse with the topic of CATS.

Ordering and Sorting

Listing Comparing

YOUR TOPIC

Problem solving Creative tasks/projects

Sharing experiences/opinions,anecdote telling

A listing task might be: List threereasons why people think cats make goodpets; a comparing task might be to comparecats and dogs as pets, or to compare thebehaviour and characters of two cats you (oryour partner) know; a problem solving taskcould be to think of three practical and lowbudget solutions to the problem of how tolook after a cat when the whole family areaway from home. An experience sharingtask could involve sharing stories about cats.Of course, you could think of many othertasks for each type.

I made the point that, generally speaking,the task types around the top of the circle arecognitively less challenging than the threetypes at the bottom. For the moredemanding tasks, it’s a good idea to allow

some silent preparation time (either in classor as homework the day before), so thatlearners can at least think of what to talkabout before they get started.

After this, groups decided on their topics,and we went round the circle, one type at atime. For each, we first discussed some ofthe processes involved in that task type and Igave some examples of tasks (more detailsin Willis, 1996, Appendix A). Then thegroups had five minutes or so to wme upwith two or three different tasks of that typearising out of their topic, and to evaluatethem in terms of general objectives of TBL.Each group then reported to the wholeaudience their two best ideas for tasks.

This way, the whole group gained thebenefit of hearing the results of other


On JALT 98

groups’ discussions, which proved anenriching experience. In doing this,participants were also experiencing forthemselves a series of typical TBL cycles.

We found that not all the task types wereequally productive for every topic. Sometopics lend themselves more readily to sometypes than to others. It is also unlikely thatany teacher would want to set six tasks onevery topic! But, once the topic vocabularyis learnt and familiar to learners, it makessense to set two or three different task typeson the same topic, then students, onceconfident with the basic vocabulary, gainpractice in a wider range of interactiontypes.

Here are more details of each type of task.

1 . Listing can entail pair or classbrainstorming, or fact-finding, (i.e.,asking other people, or reading extractsfrom brochures, reference works etc.Listing tasks can be based on topicsinvolving people, places or things (e.g.,for “dating”: List the places where youmight meet up with other young peoplein this town) or actions, reasons, events,(e.g., List the things you might say whenyou want to start a conversation withsomeone you don‘t know). Theoutcome here is the list that can beshown to others, discussed andevaluated.

2 . Ordering and Sorting tasks can involvesequencing, ranking in order of priorityor cost, and classifying. These taskscan often be based on the lists generatedin a Listing task, e.g., Rank the qualitiesof a good government in order ofimportance. Or they can be based on atext, e.g., Wite a list of the eventsfromthe newspaper story in the order inwhich they actually happened. Theoutcome here is an ordered list, whichstudents then report to other groups andgive reasons for the order they chose.The latter task (sequencing events)could be done from memory, andpossibly within a set limit-which

would make it more of a challenge andwould mean that the Reports would allbe different-not everyone wouldremember every single event.

3. Comparing tasks can involve theprocesses of matching, findingsimilarities or finding differences.Learners can match information fromtwo different sources, to identifysomething or someone; e.g., matching adescription of a route to a map, ormatching photos with descriptions ofpeople. They can compare twoversions of the same story, twosummaries of the same report or review,or play “Spot the difference,” usingpictures and/or texts. Comparisontasks could follow the completion of alisting or ordering task (1 or 2 above):Learners can compare results, and/or listsimilarities and differences.

4. Problem Solving can include shortpuzzles, including logic problems orriddles, (which tend to be cognitivelydemanding, leaving little room in themind for attention to languageprocessing), real-life problems, such asthose typically found on problem pagesin magazines, or longer case studies,such as those used in businesssimulations. Incomplete texts canform the basis for a problem solvingdiscussion, e.g., a completion task.Students can sometimes be asked tocome up with two or three alternativesolutions to a problem and evaluatethem. Thus, a complex problem-solving task may well include elementsof other task types, e.g., listing, rankingor comparing. The outcome will ofcourse be the suggested solution,presented to the class in oral or writtenform.

5. Sharing Personal Experiences tasks cangive learners a chance for moresustained, personal talk, i.e., talk that ismore typical of social interactions,rather than being purely functional ortransactional. They include anecdote-telling, reminiscing, e.g., childhood



6.

memories of holidays or of criticalincidents, and giving opinions on/describing reactions to a specific issueor event. Some tasks like these can bedone purely in writing, which is thenhanded round for others to read andreact to again in writing.Creative Tasks and Projects tasks willnormally take a longer time andsometimes be done over a series oflessons and/or in students’ own time.They may be preceded by tasks of alisting or ordering type. They couldinvolve creative writing, possiblystimulated by a poem or short story.They could be media projects:recording interviews, carrying outsurveys, social or historicalinvestigations. These should alwaysbe produced with a specific audience inmind, e.g., a school magazine ornewspaper for other classes or anotherschool, a brochure for parents or visitors,or a video to show to another group.

And finally, when evaluating a potentialtask, keep in mind that the aim is tostimulate learners’ use of language. Thus,a listing task, such as Make a list of sixfamous racing camel riders in Dubai, maystimulate little more than a few Arabicnames; whereas Make a list of four qualitiesyou think a good camel rider should have,and be prepared to justify your selection islikely to stimulate far richer languageoutput.

Instructions for tasksEach task that you design needs to have agoal-some kind of tangible outcome thatcan be achieved through the use of language,and then shown or reported to other people.Instructions for the task need to makelearners aware of this outcome, and howthey are expected to reach it.

From research on “closed” and “open”tasks (Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1993,p.125; Willis, 1996, p. 28) it would seemthat more (and better quality) interaction islikely to be generated through closed tasks

with specific instructions. Consider thesetwo sets of instructions and try to imaginethe resulting interactions:

1 . In twos, discuss the advantages anddisadvantages of travelling by bus.

2. In twos, think of three advantages andtwo disadvantages of bus travel in cities.Then write these out neatly, in order ofimportance, for other pairs to read.

With specific instructions, learners feelmore secure; they know what outcome toaim at (in the latter case, a list of five items,ranked in a specific order), and they willalso know precisely when they havefinished.

It is always a good idea to try your taskinstructions out on a colleague. Get themto spend a minute or two actually doing thetask with you or someone else. Then youwill have first hand experience of whetheryour task, as it stands, is likely to stimulatethe kind of interaction which may promotelearning.

Spoken language and recordings of tasksMost course materials nowadays give goodexposure to written texts and the grammar ofwritten language, but pay scant attention tospontaneous spoken language. There aremany features of spoken language which arevery different from planned, writtenlanguage (for example, ellipsis andexpressions of vagueness are common whenspeaking but less appropriate in writing); iflearners wish to improve their own spokenlanguage, a study of such language featurescan really help. Interestingly, researchcarried out in Japan by Aston MSc studentshas suggested that spoken English grammaris more akin to the grammar of Japanesethan is traditional English grammar, which isbased on written language (Guest, 1998; Hill,1998). In order to gain real spoken datawhich is directly relevant to the tasks youhave designed, arrange for two fluentspeakers to record themselves doing thetasks in the target language. Set a timelimit of one, two or three minutes depending


On JALT98

on the task type and the level of students.If possible get two pairs to record and thentranscribe the most suitable recording.(See Willis, 1996, pp. 86-99 for advice onmaking task recordings.)

The transcription can be copied and usedfor language-focused exercises after thestudents have done the same task in class.The basic meanings will by then be familiarand the context clear. Students lovestudying what they feel is colloquial, spokenEnglish, and they often notice ways ofsaying what they themselves had wanted tosay but for which they lacked the language.

There are other purposes for suchrecordings:

task recordings and a transcription of theinteraction (or selected parts) can give usinsights into the kind of language that istypical of that kind of task, and what canbe expected of learners.

they can be used, as a whole or in part,as a starting point for a task, to set thescene and to stimulate pre-taskdiscussion.

transcripts of recordings help us topick out focal points for languagestudy and consciousness-raisingactivities. (Willis D. & Willis, J.,1996, pp. 63-76)

From here to the future: Summary andway forwardIn this paper, as in my workshop, I havesuggested that using a typology of tasksallows a more systematic approach to taskdesign. Using a variety of types of task, oftopics and of starting points we are givingour learners a broader coverage of languageand a richer variety of language experiences.By recording tasks, we can gain some ideaof how fluent speakers carry out the tasks wedesign, so that we know what we can expectof our own students: The recording givesus some base-line data that we can use inclass. Through transcribing the bestrecordings and using the transcriptions as a

focus for language study, we can gaininsights in how spoken language is typicallyused, and devise appropriate language studyactivities to highlight features of languageform. In taking up a holistic task-basedapproach, we can help our learners becomeactive and confident language users in arange of circumstances.

In our workshop, groups designed onlyfive out of the six types of task; so rich wasthe discussion stimulated by the process. Ihope that the co-operative task designprocess begun in the workshop (or,hopefully, stimulated by this article) will actas an impetus for you, as teachers, to gettogether with fellow colleagues in yourinstitution and continue the process-selecting topics and designing tasks that willhelp your learners to acquire and use Englishnaturally.

ReferencesCrookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.) (1993).

Tasks and language learning:Integrating theory and practice.Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Duff, A. & Maley, A. (1990). Literature(Resource Books for Teachers Series).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second languageacquisition. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press

Guest, M. (1998). Spoken grammar:Easing the transitions. The LanguageTeacher, 22 (6), 21-24.

Hill, K. (1998). Hitting the metatargetwith spoken grammar tasks. AstonUniversity MSc Dissertation

Matthews, R. Francis, P. and Bain, R. (1987).Talking to learn: The Shropshire talkproject. Shropshire: ShropshireCounty Council in association withMacmillan Education.

Pica, T., Kanagy R., & Foludun J. (1993).In Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (Eds), Tasksand language learning: Integratingtheory and practice. Philadelphia:Multilingual Matters.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second languagepedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University



Press.Shehan, P. (1996). Second language

acquisition research and task-basedinstruction. In Willis, J. & Willis, D.(Eds.), Challenge and change inlanguage teaching. Oxford:Heinemann ELT.

Willis, D. & Willis, J. (1996).Consciousness-raising activities in thelanguage classroom. In Willis, J &Willis, D (Eds.), Challenge and change in

language teaching. Oxford:Heinemann ELT.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Melbourne: AddisonWesley Longman

Willis, J. & Willis, D. (Eds.) (1996).Challenge and change in languageteaching. Oxford: Heinemann ELT.

Willis, J. (1998). Task-based learning:What kind of adventure? The LanguageTeacher, 22 (7), 17-18.


D THEOCUMENT

COMPANY

~-&-t+~;,3zt2:, JALT98tr3k”-. -+--~X~~~~‘khk$-o

Fuji Xerox provides paper andcopy machine services at JALT 98.

FUJI XEROX


Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning: FromClassroom Practice to Generalizable Theory

Leni Dam, Royal Danish Institute of Educational StudiesDavid Little, Trinity College, Dublin

As our title is meant to indicate, this presentation is both practical and theoretical. It willgive an account of a particular language learning environment where the development oflearner autonomy has been a central concern for more than 20 years; but it will also seek toelaborate a theoretical perspective on the basis of that account. In many ways the learningenvironment and the learners we shall describe are culturally distinctive. Nevertheless, asour title is also meant to indicate, we believe that what we have to say is relevant to alllanguage teaching-learning environments, irrespective of cultural context or the age andprevious experience of the learners. We could ourselves illustrate the arguments we shallmake with reference to other kinds of learners in other places; for example, Irish universitystudents learning continental European languages, or refugees from various countries learningEnglish in Ireland.

What is learner autonomy?

David Little: For us, autonomy is simplydefined as “the ability to make your owndecisions about what to do” (CollinsCobuild Dictionary). When it is applied tolearners of foreign languages, we woulddefine it as follows:

Learner autonomy is characterized bya readiness to take charge of one’sown learning in the service of one’sneeds and purposes. This entails acapacity and willingness to actindependently and in co-operationwith others, as a socially responsibleperson. An autonomous learner is anactive participant in the socialprocesses of learning, but also anactive interpreter of new informationin terms of what he/she already anduniquely knows. (Bergen, 1990, p.102)

Three features of this definition areparticularly worthy of note. First, learners’readiness to take charge of their ownlearning is a matter of capacity but also ofattitude and motivation. Secondly, learningis assumed to be an inescapably social (andthus interdependent) process in which theindividual learner nevertheless alwaysretains his or her independence. Andthirdly, the autonomous learner is proactiveboth in the social interaction that frames hisor her learning and in the individualprocesses of reflection by which learning ismonitored and evaluated.

It is a common mistake to assume that thedevelopment of learner autonomy requiresthe teacher somehow to fade into thebackground. This is impossible for tworeasons. First, teachers are the people whocreate the contexts of formal learning:without them, it is unlikely that any learningwill take place. Secondly, althoughlearners are capable of exercising a degreeof autonomy from a very young age and in

Voices o f In te rpre ta t ion 127

On JALT98

the earliest stages of learning, the gradualgrowth of their capacity for autonomyrequires the stimulus and support of ateacher. In other words, learner autonomy“does not entail an abdication of initiativeand control on the part of the teacher” (Little,1991, p. 4).

Leni Dam: A simplified model of ateaching-learning sequence proposes that inclassrooms some activities are directed bythe teacher and others by the learners. T othe extent that autonomy is a capacity thatexpands on the basis of appropriate learningexperience, learners should be able toassume control of more and more aspects ofthe learning process as time goes by. Thishappens as a result of ongoing negotiationbetween teacher and learners. But theteacher will always be responsible formaintaining the learning environment.Note this means learning-centred, notlearner-centred. In other words, althoughthe individual learner’s personality, pastexperience, interests and perceived needsmust all be taken into account, learning itselfis the chief focus of attention. Note toothat the interactive processes of negotiationdraw the teacher into the learning process.We propose that learning is a cyclicalprocess in which planning is followed byimplementation, which in turn is followedby evaluation. Reflection plays a crucialrole in each phase of the cycle.

Why learner autonomy?A theoretical perspective

David Little: Why do we believe thatlearner autonomy should be at the centre ofour pedagogical agenda? Educationalcritics, theorists and psychologists haveprovided a variety of answers to thisquestion, but all of them have emphasizedthat we can only learn anything on the basisof what we already know. Equally, all ofthem have tended to focus on the danger oflearner alienation from the content andprocess of learning. Over the years wehave found the account that Douglas Barnes

gives of this danger both illuminating andchallenging. He distinguishes between“school knowledge” and “actionknowledge” in these terms:

School knowledge is the knowledgewhich someone else presents to us.We partly grasp it, enough to answerthe teacher’s questions, to do exercises,or to answer examination questions,but it remains someone else’sknowledge, not ours. If we never usethis knowledge we probably forget it.In so far as we use knowledge for ourown purposes however we begin toincorporate it into our view of theworld, and to use parts of it to copewith the exigencies of living. Oncethe knowledge becomes incorporatedinto that view of the world on whichour actions are based I would say thatit has become “action knowledge.”(Barnes, 1976, p. 81)

According to this view, education succeedsto the extent that it enables learners tointegrate “school knowledge” with their“action knowledge”. This should beunderstood as a two-way process: “actionknowledge” provides the soil in which“school knowledge” takes root, while“school knowledge” helps learners todevelop an analytical perspective on “actionknowledge” (Vygotsky, 1986, makes adistinction between “spontaneous concepts”and “scientific concepts” and sees therelation between them in a similar way).

One teacher’s experience

Leni Dam: This theoretical viewcorresponds exactly to my own experiencein the language classroom more than twentyyears ago. As now, I was working withpupils of 14-16 years in un-streamedlanguage classes. Although I used up-to-date methods and materials and put a greatdeal of energy and effort into preparing andteaching my classes, it seemed that nothing Idid could dispel my pupils’ lack of interest

1 2 8 Vo ices o f In te rp re ta t ion


in learning English and their general tired-of-school attitude. Almost in desperation Ithrew the problem back at them, challengingthem to say what they would find interestingand worthwhile. In other words, I forcedthem to share the responsibility for decisionsthat I had previously taken on their behalf-decisions, for example, concerning thechoice of learning materials and classroomactivities. Almost immediately Idiscovered that by involving my pupils inplanning and carrying out teaching-learningactivities, I was forcing them to reflect ontheir learning to an extent that they hadnever done previously. I was also forcingthem to review and evaluate their ownlearning. In this way we gradually createda virtuous circle: Awareness of how tolearn came to influence what was learnt,which in turn led to new insights into how tolearn.

Developing learner autonomyOrganizing the learning environment

Leni Dam: At the beginning we stressedthat we see autonomy as “the ability to makeyour own decisions about what to do.” I norder to support the development ofautonomy in our classes it is thereforeessential to establish a learning environmentwhere the learners are required to makedecisions for which they must then accept

responsibility. As we have seen, for thelearner “this entails a capacity andwillingness to act independently and in co-operation with others, as a sociallyresponsible person” (Bergen, 1990, p. 102).For the teacher, it entails a capacity andwillingness to “let go” (Page, 1992). It isimportant to emphasize that learners needpractice in order to become good decisionmakers, just as they need practice in order tobecome good communicators in their targetlanguage. Developing learner autonomy isa long and arduous process for learners andteachers-a process in which the keywordsare awareness-raising, trust, respect andacceptance. In order to support the processI have developed the following structure fora lesson or period:

Over the years I have tried out differentmodels of classroom organization. Thepresent model has proved an especiallyuseful support to learners and teachers in theprocess of developing learner autonomy, forthe following reasons:

1 . Teacher roles and learner roles are welldefined: It is clear what is expected ofthe teacher and equally clear what isexpected of the learners. In the firstpart of the lesson the teacher is in chargeand decides what to do. In the secondpart, the role of the teacher changescompletely;

The structure of a lesson or period

0 Opening of lesson

1 Teacher-initiated and directed activities promoting awareness-raising as regardsl Learning, the learning environment, and the roles and responsibilities expected from

its participantsl Useful language learning activities in terms of

- interpreting- expressing

l Learners’ and teacher’s evaluation of teacher-initiated and directed activities

2 Learner-initiated and directed activities:l Sharing homeworkl “Two minutes” talk9 “Free” learner-chosen activities in groups, pairs or individually within the given

.


On JALT98

conditionsl Planning homework-and perhaps next stepl Learners’ evaluation of work carried out individually, in pairs, or in groups

3 “Together’‘-a plenary session for the whole class including the teacher:l Presentation and evaluation of results or products from group work, pair work or

individual workl Joint events such as songs, lyrics, story-telling, quizzes, etc.l Joint overall evaluation of the lesson

the learners are now in charge, andthe teacher is a participant inprocesses for which the learners areresponsible. In the third part teacherand learners share responsibility.

2. In the first part of the lesson, the role ofthe teacher is not to provide the learnerswith “school knowledge” (for example,information about some aspect of thegrammar of their target language), but tosupply them with ideas as to how best tolearn the language: what to do and howto do it. In the second part, they canchoose from these ideas according totheir own needs and interests, but alwaystaking into account the demands of thecurriculum.

3 . In order to help the learners takeresponsibility for their own work, Ihave provided them with a possibleagenda. It can be changed over time,but it has proved itselfespecially useful at beginners’ level.

4. Reflection and evaluation arefundamental to all three parts of thestructure and provide a necessary basisfor the negotiation by which the learningenvironment is collaborativelyestablished and developed. It isthrough reflection and evaluation thatthe learners as well as the teacher are notmerely allowed or encouraged butrequired to influence the course oflearning and the role that they play in theprocess.

David Little: I should like to emphasizethis last point by expanding it in two ways.First, the gradual growth of the learner’s

130 Voices of Interpretat ion

(©Darn, 1998)

capacity for reflection and evaluation is notonly central to the development of learnerautonomy in the foreign languageclassroom; it is alsofundamental to the educational enterprise ingeneral. Bruner (1986) puts the matterthus:

If he fails to develop any sense ofwhat I shall call reflective interventionin the knowledge he encounters, theyoung person will be operatingcontinually from the outside in-knowledge will control and guide him.If he succeeds in developing such asense, he will control and selectknowledge as needed.(p. 132)

In other words, by helping our learners todevelop a capacity for reflection andevaluation in the foreign language classroomwe are helping them to develop a skill thatthey can apply to other aspects of theireducation and other domains of life.Secondly, it is fundamental to the approachwe are advocating that reflection andevaluation are carried out as far as possiblein the target language. Teachers oftenobject that their learners simply do not havesufficient target language proficiency to dothis. But such an objection overlooks thefact that the capacity for reflection andevaluation can only develop gradually, onthe basis of practice. If we do not help ourlearners to reflect and evaluate in their targetlanguage, we are neglecting a corecomponent of target language proficiency,and thus selling them short. We shall


return to these considerations later in thepresentation.

Useful tools for developing learnerautonomy

Leni Dam: Three useful tools fordeveloping learner autonomy are posters,learners’ diaries and the teacher’s diary, allof which help to make the learning processvisible and public within the classroom.Posters may contain ideas for languagelearning that the teacher wants the learnersto choose from. Alternatively they mayprovide an overview, drawn up by thelearners themselves, of who is doing whatand why; ideas on “how to present ourwork,” or joint evaluations and “things toremember.”

The learners’ diaries will follow thestructure of a lesson or period. When anew item occurs on the agenda, the learnerswill enter this in their diaries and recordwhat happens. In fact, the diary is perhapsbetter called a log book, since it is used torecord and comment on the events of the dayas the lesson proceeds and to set down plansand learning contracts for the future as wellas self-evaluations and peer evaluations(which can be drawn upon for whole-classdiscussions or for teacher-learnerevaluations).

The teacher’s diary is also anindispensable tool. Here the teacher canwrite her plans for each lesson, comment onwhat actually happened during the lesson,and note down possible changes or revisionsto be made in the future. The teacher’sdiary also serves as a model for the learners’diaries and ensures that the teacher herself isfully involved in the processes of planning,reflection and evaluation in which she wantsto engage the learners.

The importance of evaluation

Leni Dam: I said earlier that my decisionto involve my pupils in responsibility fortheir own learning necessarily involvedthem in evaluation. Unfortunately, many

teachers regard evaluation as a waste of timebecause it takes away from their teachingtime. What they fail to realize is thatevaluation is an essential component ofeffective learning. It is impossible toinvolve learners in their own learningwithout requiring them to evaluate theirchoice of activities and learning materials,the effort they put into their learning, andthe progress they make. Evaluation, inother words, is the essential starting pointfor negotiation and co-operation with theirpeers and with the teacher. Here are threeexamples of self-evaluation taken fromlearners’ diaries at different stages:

Today it was a qrrrrrriiii! day, it wasavfuld! We tried to play our play ontape, but everytime I should saysomting I said it wrong! my homework will be to read one more chapter.(Boy aged 11, first year of English)

Comments on my work with Malene:I think we are working very goodtogether, and we have learned a lot ofnew words. The activities were a bitborrowing, but we had fun anyway,and talked a lot of English.Tomorrow we will make a story.(Girl aged 13, third year of English)

Dear LeniI think it has been a very excitingautumn. We have done and made alot of funny things. But it has alsobeen hard work. After we camehome from England I was very tired ofthe English language. I didn’t wrotein my diary for a long time and Ididn’t spoke a word of English. Butnow it is over. I like English againand that is a good thing. About theproject “Homelessness and poverty”we just made I think we did a good job.But it isn’t really the way I like towork. I think our group-work was toserious. We just wanted to win... orhow can I say it . . . to be the best! Ithink that I had to live up to the rest of

Voices of Interpretation 131

On JALT98

the group’s work expectation. I feelt(sic) that what I did wasn’t goodenough compared to the others? work.But apart from that I think I learned alot of things. And we (the group) hada very good time and also fun. (Girlaged 15, end of autumn termevaluation)

David Little: When commenting onBarnes’s distinction between “schoolknowledge” and “action knowledge,” I madethe point that while “action knowledge” isthe soil in which “school knowledge” takesroot, “school knowledge” helps learners todevelop an analytical perspective on “actionknowledge.” These examples provide uswith clear evidence of meta-cognition inaction as the three learners reflect on andevaluate their learning from three quitedistinct viewpoints. They also provide theperfect answer to those teachers who arguethat reflection and evaluation should be donein the mother tongue on the ground thatlearners do not have the linguisticsophistication to do justice to their insights.These three learners clearly cope very well;and (as I noted earlier) if they were notrequired to write their evaluations in English,a central element in their proficiency wouldremain undeveloped.

Some examples of useful activities

Leni Dam: When deciding which activitiesto introduce to the class, it may be helpful toask oneself the following questions: Doesthe activity give scope for the learners tomake use of their previous knowledge and toexpand on it? Does it allow them to beginfrom their own interests, needs andpotential? Does it give scope for differentkinds and levels of learner input as well asdifferent learner outcomes? Does it givescope for authentic communication andlanguage use? Does it focus on processrather than product ? Will it be possible forlearner products to be re-cycled or used byother learners? In other words, will therebe an authentic audience for the products?

In general, how do I as a teacher get thelearners involved in their own learningrather than providing them with schoolknowledge?

Let me give a few examples. Instead ofteaching the vocabulary we find in all coursebooks for beginners-desk, blackboard, wall,wastepaper basket, etc.-let the learnersproduce word cards with their “own” words,chosen perhaps from a picture dictionary.These can be used by others as well as bythemselves. Instead of providing learnerswith ready-made games, let them producetheir own games. Instead of letting thelearners practise ready-made dialogues fromcourse books, let them produce their ownplays. Instead of the teacher asking andlearners answering, involve the learners inreal and relevant communication amongthemselves-sharing homework, peer-to-peer talks about matters of personal concernand interest (two minutes’ talk), planningwhat to do, etc.

The difference in communicativebehaviour between learners taught alongtraditional lines and learners activelyinvolved in their own learning emergesclearly from the following two examples ofpeer-to-peer talks. The talks were recordedat the end of the second year of English.The first example was recorded in aclassroom where learning was shaped by acourse book designed according tocommunicative principles:

J: I’m going to have a family withtwo ehm chil... childrens, and I’mgoing to live in a big house.

I: When is your birthday?J: My birthday is now.I: Ah, my birthday is on the sixteen

ah ja of ehm of May. When is yoursister’s birthday?

J: My sister’s birthday is in is on thetwenty-seventh of February.

I: What films do you like?

The second example was recorded in myown classroom with two of my weakestlearners. As it happened, here too it is the

132 Voices of interpretation


birthday of one of the participants:

D: What did . . . what should you dotoday?

L: Today I ehm I shall have mybirthday.

D: Have your birthday today?L: Yes.D: Happy birthday.L: Thank you. So I should home and,

and and make a made a cake to my. . .

D: Birthday cake?L: Cake, yes, so I should have this

cake and, so to, afternoon my ehmy friend is coming and my Dadand Mum’s friend is coming too,so I should have birthday [?].

Learner autonomy in different cultures

David Little: We began our presentationby drawing attention to the fact that ourpractical examples are all taken from oneparticular environment. Not only is Danishculture in many respects a close relative ofEnglish culture; Denmark also has a strongtradition of participatory democracy. Thusit may seem that what we have beendescribing is the obvious, perhaps inevitableproduct of a positive attitude towards theEnglish language and a socio-culturaltradition that is strongly oriented to the ideaof learner autonomy. Such a thought mayprompt the speculation that learnerautonomy is an essentially western concept,and as such inappropriate in non-westerneducational contexts. Against this view wewould make the following three points:

1. Whatever the stated aims ofnational and regional curricula,learner autonomy is not awidespread achievement inwestern educational systems; thedominant pedagogical tradition inthe west is at odds with the view ofteaching-learning that we havebeen elaborating in thispresentation.

2 . To the extent that non-westerneducational systems seek topromote critical thinking andindependence of mind, they arecommitted, at least by implication,to the ideal of learner autonomy.This may set them at odds withother aspects of the cultures ofwhich they are part, but it is onlyin the imagination that cultures areentirely self-consistent systems.In reality they are fuzzy andunderdetermined, and oftencontradictory.

3 . The possible range of culturaldiversity is in any case constrainedby our common biologicalendowment. The fact that a childborn in Rumania to Rumanian-speaking parents can be brought upin England by English-speakingadoptive parents as a nativespeaker of English, should remindus that our linguistic and culturalidentity is always provisional.

None of this should be taken to imply thatwe underestimate the importance of culturalfactors in education as in other domains oflife. On the contrary, we would argue thatany attempt to foster the development oflearner autonomy must take account of localcultural factors-for example, the physicalenvironment, how teachers and learnerstypically interact with one another, and(more generally) the relation between socialknowledge systems and the discourse bywhich knowledge is mediated. But wewould also argue that in its essence learnerautonomy transcends cultural difference.(For a more detailed consideration of theseand related issues, see Little forthcoming,Aoki and Smith, forthcoming.)

Learner autonomy: With what result?Giving the last words to learners.. .

David Little: In the end, a secondlanguage pedagogy designed to foster thedevelopment of learner autonomy must be


On JALT98

judged by its results. As far as learners areconcerned these should include thedevelopment of an ability to use the targetlanguage fluently and flexibly not only forcommunicative but also for reflectivepurposes. Here are two examples ofevaluations written by two of Leni’s pupilsafter four years of learning English. Theyare remarkable for their combination of clearand fluent expression with a developed self-awareness, and they stand as conclusiveproof that foreign language learning cancontribute much to the personaldevelopment that effective education brings:

Most important is probably the waywe have worked. That we wereexpected to and given the chance todecide ourselves what to do. That weworked independently . . . And we havelearned much more because we haveworked with different things. In thisway, we could help each other becausesome of us had learned something andothers had learned something else. Itdoesn’t mean that we haven’t had ateacher to help us. Because we have,and she has helped us. But the dayshe didn’t have the time, we couldmanage on our own.

I already make use of the fixedprocedures from our diaries whentrying to get something done at home.Then I make a list of what to do orremember the following day. Thatmakes things much easier. I havealso via English learned to start aconversation with a stranger and askgood questions. And I think that our“together” session has helped me tobecome better at listening to otherpeople and to be interested in them. Ifeel that I have learned to believe inmyself and to be independent.

. . . and teachers

Leni Dam: Throughout this presentationwe have been concerned with some of thethings that teachers can do in order to help.

134 Voices of Interpretation

their learners to become autonomous.When learners succeed to the extent thatthese last two examples show, teachers aswell as the learners themselves aretransformed by the experience. As aSpanish teacher commented in 1989: “Themost positive thing about the way I amworking now is that I have become a humanbeing in my classes.”

This is not to say, however, that thepursuit of learner autonomy is withoutdifficulties. Here are some of the problemsthat have been identified by teachers I haveworked with:

Learner autonomy seems to conflictwith parents’ as well as learners’attitudes and expectations: “It is theteacher’s job to teach.”It can make the teacher feelinsecure: “Will they learnenough? What about the weaklearners.”It can be difficult to handle in largeclasses.Teachers find it difficult to let go.Learners find it difficult to takehold.Are learners really capable of beingresponsible?An autonomous classroom isdifficult to administer: chaos, lackof time, waste of time.What about curricular demands andtests?

Of course, some of these problems are morereal than others, and given time and theteacher’s developing skill, all of them can besolved. In any case, the problems soon fallaway into insignificance when set againstthe successes that can be achieved byfostering the development of learnerautonomy:

l Motivation and engagement on thepart of the learners.

l Socially responsible learners.l The teacher’s insight into the

individual learner’s needs and


ways of learning.l The learners’ linguistic

competence.l The satisfaction deriving from the

fact that the teacher has become aco-learner.

References and suggestions for furtherreading

Aoki, N., & Smith, R. (forthcoming).Autonomy in cultural context: The caseof Japan. In S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe(Eds.), Learner autonomy in languagelearning: Defining the field andeffecting change.

Barnes, D. (1976). From communicationto curriculum. Harmondsworth:Penguin.

Bergen. (1990). Developing autonomouslearning in the foreign languageclassroom. Bergen:Universitetet i Bergen, Institutt forpraktisk pedagogikk.

Bruner, J. (1986). The language ofeducation. In J. Bruner, Actual minds,possible worlds (pp. 121-33).Cambridge, MA, and London: HarvardUniversity Press.

Dam, L. (1994). How to recognize theautonomous classroom. Die neuerensprachen 93 (5), 503-27.

Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy:From theory to classroom practice.Dublin: Authentik.

Dam, L. (1999). Dennis the menace-andautonomy. In B. Mißler & U. Multhaup(Eds.), The construction of knowledge,learner autonomy and related issues inforeign language learning: Essays inhonour of Dieter Wolff (pp. 13-26).Tiibingen: Stauffenburg.

Dam, L. (1999b). Why focus on learningrather than teaching? From theory topractice. In D. Little, L. Dam & J.Timmer (Eds.), Why focus on learningrather than teaching. Dublin: TrinityCollege, Centre for Language andCommunication Studies, in associationwith IATEFL.

Dam, L., & Legenhausen, L. (1996). Theacquisition of vocabulary in anautonomous learning environment: Thefirst months of beginning English. In R.Pemberton, E. S. L. Li, W. W. F. Or, & H.D. Pierson (Eds.), Taking control:Autonomy in language learning (pp. 265-80). Hong Kong: Hong KongUniversity Press.

Dam, L., & Lentz, J. (1998). It’s up toyourself if you want to learn.Autonomous language learning atintermediate level. (Video and booklet)Copenhagen: Royal Danish Institute ofEducational Studies (DLH).*

Holec, H., (1981). Autonomy and foreignlanguage learning. Oxford:Pergamon.

Legenhausen, L. (1998). Traditional andautonomous learners compared. Theimpact of classroom culture oncommunicative attitudes and behaviour.In C. Edelhoff and R. Weskamp (Eds.),Autonomes Lernen. Munich: Hueber.

Legenhausen, L. (1999a). The emergenceand use of grammatical structures inconversational interactions: Comparingtraditional and autonomous learners. I nB. Mißler and U. Multhaup (Eds.),Construction of knowledge, learnerautonomy and related issues in foreignlanguage learning: Essays in honour ofDieter Wolff (pp. 27-40). Tiibingen:Stauffenburg.

Legenhausen, L. (1999b). Focus onlearning rather than teaching-with whatresults? In D. Little, L. Dam & J.Timmer (Eds.), Why focus on learningrather than teaching? Dublin: TrinityCollege, Centre for Language andCommunication Studies, in associationwith IATEFL.

Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy I:Definitions, issues and problems.Dublin: Authentik.

Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue:The dependence of learner autonomy onteacher autonomy, System, 23 (2), 175-81.

Little, D. (1996). Freedom to learn and


On JALT98

compulsion to interact: Promotinglearner autonomy through the use ofinformation systems and informationtechnologies. In R. Pemberton, E. S. L.Li, W. W. F. Or, & H. D. Pierson (Eds.),Taking control: Autonomy in languagelearning (pp. 203-18). Hong Kong:Hong Kong University Press.

Little, D. (1999). Why focus on learningrather than teaching? In D. Little, L.Dam and J. Timmer (Eds.), Why focus onlearning rather than teaching? Dublin:Trinity College, Centre for Language andCommunication Studies, in associationwith IATEFL.

Little, D. (forthcoming) Learner autonomyis more than a Western cultural construct.In S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe (Eds.),Learner autonomy in language learning:Defining and field and affecting change.

Page, B. (Ed.). (1992). Letting go--takinghold. A guide to independent languagelearning by teachers for teachers.London: Centre for Information on

Language Teaching (CILT).Ridley, J. (1997). Learner autonomy 6:

Developing learners’ thinking skills.Dublin: Authentik.

Thomsen, H., and G. Gabrielsen, (1991).New classroom practices in foreignlanguage teaching: Co-operativeteaching-learning. (Video and booklet)Copenhagen: Royal Danish Institute ofEducational Studies (DLH).*

Ushioda, E. (1996). Learner autonomy 5:The role of motivation. Dublin:Authentik.

Vygotsky, L. (1986): Thought andlanguage. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

* These two items can be ordered fromDPB (Danish Pedagogic Library, PO.Box 840, 240O Copenhaven NV,Denmark). Price per video (excludingpostage) 200 Dkr.

Task Ideas for Junior and Senior High SchoolDaina Plitkins-Denning, Language Institute of Japan

In this article I describe a task-based lesson format that has been successfully used with juniorand senior high school students to (a) increase motivation, (b) promote class participation, and(c) enhance language learning. The task format is outlined and a specific lesson plan isincluded.

IntroductionLanguage teachers are constantly challengedto interest learners in what is going on inclass and to motivate them to participate-without resorting to “entertaining” or usingrewards for participation. I have beenable to interest and motivate learners towillingly join in activities through using andadapting the task framework outlined by

Jane Willis (1996). The resulting lessons,which have been successfully used with bothsecondary school students and adults,motivate students to participate; promotecommunicative outcomes, even at a simplelevel; and include a meaningful element oflanguage focus.

The format that I suggest buildsmotivation to participate by offering learners



an element of choice in the lesson; a chanceto demonstrate previous knowledge; and anopportunity to carry out a task that is notsolely a linguistic exercise, but one with acreative outcome (e.g., solves a problem,answers a question, or creates somethingnew). There are three basic phasesinvolved in this format: an opener, a taskand a language-focus element.

OpenersThe opener does not simply introduce thetopic or activate schemata, but grabs studentinterest, and lets learners demonstrate whatthey know about the topic, or what theywant to know. The topic is important forattracting student interest, and themes suchas sports, food, and personal/entertainmentspace work well with secondary schoollearners. The goal is to allow learners torespond freely to stimulus, have choiceabout what is to be learned, as well as achance to demonstrate prior knowledge.Questions that learners can relate to such as“What summer sports do you like?” or“Where is a good place to go on Sundayafternoons?’ are easy to answer and allowfor the expression of individuality. Realiais a powerful tool for attracting studentinterest and eliciting vocabulary at this stageof the lesson. I make lists of learner-generated vocabulary on the board andaccept all student answers, as long as theyare intelligible and relate in some way to thestimulus. Students respond to having theircontributions accepted, and often amaze mewith their creativity and humor.

TasksThe task provides a chance not just topractice language, but to achieve anoutcome outside of the language practice.For students who are not motivated bylearning itself, interesting tasks designed torequire language use can provide theimpetus to use English. Secondarystudents love to draw and design, and to talkto each other. Successful tasks givelearners the opportunity to draw things suchas imaginary people, or their own homes; or

design entertainment centers or idealboy/girlfriends. Speaking activities whichallow learners to find out things about eachother, such as the items commonly found intheir refrigerators or what activity the mostpeople did during vacation can be valuable.

These projects take a little time, butwithout dictating grammatical structures,you can assure that students use a certainamount of English by having them report tothe class after an allotted period of time. Ifthe project is on paper, you can requireEnglish labels, too. Learners are willing toask questions relating to spelling, wordchoice, and grammar when they are carryingout fun, motivating tasks. As for concernsabout accuracy, it has been shown (Foster,1996) that students automatically use themost correct language that they are capableof when “performing” for or reporting totheir teacher or peers.

Language focusMotivation is important for getting studentsinvolved in learning, but it is also necessaryto have students concentrate on form, andtry to master the code that makes uplanguage. Research has shown (seeSkehan, 1994) that doing activities thatmake patterns and features of languagesalient for learners, without spoon feedinggrammatical rules, is effective forcommunicative language learning. Asstudents share the results from the tasks, youcan write on the board some of theirstructures that illustrate the grammaticalpoint that you want them to notice,correcting any errors. With lower-levellearners in particular, I find it useful tovisually highlight features such as theregular simple past -ed, a/an vs. some, orhave t noun vs. be t adjective fordescribing people. You can highlightfeatures by asking learners to do a short task(e.g., “Circle all of the has’s and put a boxaround all of the is’s. Look at what comesafter each.“). It is important to keep thetarget language in mind when designingtasks. Once learners have “noticed” afeature of language, reinforcement activities


On JALT98

such as drills, listening or written practice,or repetition of a task similar to the originalone, should follow.

A lesson planThe following lesson, describing people, isdesigned to highlight the difference betweenhave + noun vs. be + adjective.

1 .

2 .

3 .

4 .5 .

6 .7 .

8 .

Bring interesting magazine pictures ofdifferent people.Hold up the pictures in turn, ask, “Whatdoes s/he look like?’ or “Describe thisperson,” and write responses on theboard (e.g., blue eyes, old).When students have generated a sizablelist of words, divide them into groups oftwo to six people, give groups a blankpiece of paper and colored pens, andinstruct them to draw any person theychoose.Set a time limit.When groups have started, tell them thatthey must also write sentences, inEnglish, to describe the person on aseparate piece of paper.Circulate and help students.When time is up, collect pictures, hangthem up, and ask each group in turn toread its description. Instruct othergroups to listen and match thedescription to the correct drawing. A sstudents speak, select suitable sentencesand write them (error-free) on the board.After several groups have read, and thereare several sentences on the board, askone student to circle all of the haves, andanother to box (or use two colors) thebes. Help learners to “see” the patternthat emerges when using have and be for

describing people.9 . Once the pattern is understood, have

learners either use it by repeating a tasksimilar to the original one or practice itemploying more tradi-tional techniques(e.g., substitution drills, writingexercises, dictations).

ConclusionThe plan described above is an example ofhow high-interest topics and activities thatlearners find fun can be integrated intoproductive lessons. The motivating and“fun” parts of a lesson need not and shouldnot be separate from the learning focus.We can use interesting non-linguisticelements such as creative choices andenjoyable activities to enhance thecommunicative language learning process.

ReferencesFoster, P. (1996). Doing the task better:

How planning time influences students’performance. In D. Willis & J. Willis(Eds.), Challenge and change inlanguage teaching (pp. 126-135).Oxford: Heinemann.

Skehan, P. (1994). Second languageacquisition strategies, interlanguagedevelopment, and task-based learning.In M. Bygate, A Tonkyn, & E. Williams(Eds.), Grammar and the languageteacher (pp. 175-199). HemelHempstead: Prentice Hall.

Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework fortask-based learning. In D. Willis & J.Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change inlanguage teaching (pp. 52-62). Oxford:Heinemann.


Looking


at Real World Tasks: Comparing Task-based andSkill-based Classroom Instruction

Peter Robinson, Gregory Strong, and Jennifer Whittle,Aoyama Gakuin University

In this study, we compare an analytic or task-based approach and a synthetic approach tosyllabus design in developing student discussion abilities. Three different classes offreshmen students participated in weekly discussion activities over one semester. In thetask-based approach, students in small groups watched others perform discussions, then rated,recorded and described examples of turn-taking language. In the synthetic syllabus, studentsheard the functional language for soliciting opinions, expressing agreement and disagreementand rehearsed the language in pairs.The pre-test and post-test consisted of videotaped group discussions of five minutes whichwere rated by three native speakers for eye contact, gestures, turn-taking language, anddiscussion content. Groups using both approaches showed significant difference from theirpre-test to post-test scores with greater improvement in content and turn-taking language thanin eye contact and gestures.

Two approaches to syllabus designA useful distinction in conceptualizingoptions in syllabus design was initially madeby Wilkins (1976; see also Long & Crookes,1992; Nunan, 1988; Robinson, 1998a; White,1988). This distinction refers to thelearner’s role in assimilating the contentprovided during group instruction and inapplying it individually to real-worldlanguage performance and inter-languagedevelopment. Synthetic syllabuses involvea focus on specific elements of

the language system, often serially and in alinear sequence, such as grammaticalstructures, language functions or reading andspeaking micro-skills. The easiest, mostlearnable, most frequent, or mostcommunicatively important (sequencingdecisions can be based on each of theseultimately non-complementary criteria, andon others) are presented before their harder,later learned, less frequent, and morecommunicatively redundant counterparts.These syllabuses assume the learner will be


On JALT98

able to put together, or synthesize in real-world performance, the parts of the languagesystem (structures, functions, skills etc.) thatthey have been exposed to separately in theclassroom.

In contrast, analytic syllabuses do notdivide up the language to be presented inclassrooms, but involve holistic use oflanguage to perform communicativeactivities. One version of an analyticsyllabus is adopted in task-based approachesto language teaching (see Hudson &Yoshioka, 1998; Long, 1985, in press; Norris,Brown & Robinson, 1998a, 1998b; Skehan,1998). The learner’s role in thesesyllabuses is to analyse or attend to aspectsof language use and structure as thecommunicative activities require of them.This analytical learning is governed by: (a)the learners’ developing inter-languagesystems; (b) their preferred learning styleand aptitude profile; and (c) the extent towhich they are themselves motivated todevelop to an accuracy level which may notbe required by the communicative demandsof the task. Additionally, interventionistteacher techniques can be used during orfollowing task performance to draw learners’attention to aspects of task performance that,non-target-like, are judged to be learnableand remediable (see Doughty & Williams,1998; Long & Robinson, 1998). For thesereasons, researchers have argued thatanalytic approaches to syllabus design,accompanied by focus on form techniques,are more sensitive to Second LanguageAcquisition (SLA) processes and learnervariables than their synthetic counterparts.They have also claimed that such approachesdo not subvert the overall focus on meaningand communication encouraged duringclassroom activity.

Our study represents an initial attempt tooperationalize a task-based approach to thedevelopment of real-world academic oraldiscussion ability, in which students firstperformed academic oral discussions, before

“noticing” (Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 1990)either during or following task participation,aspects of their performance that could beimproved. Two groups operationalized thisapproach--one in which the post tasknoticing activities were frequent andstructured (Group 2), and the other in whichthe activities were less frequent and lessstructured (Group 1). This latter groupapproximated to experiential learningthrough exposure alone, while the formerimplemented a greater number ofinterventionist teacher-led noticingactivities.

We contrasted this approach with a morefamiliar and traditional synthetic EAP(English for Academic Purposes) syllabus,in which a third group of students (Group 3)were first taught academic discussion micro-skills (agreeing and disagreeing,exemplifying points, turn-taking procedures,for example); were next encouraged topractice these micro-skills; and were thenasked to practice them further, largely inisolation from integrative whole taskpractice (see Table 1).

The studentsThe analytic or task-based approach and thesynthetic approach to syllabus design werecompared over one semester at AoyamaGakuin University (eight classes deliveringinstructional treatments, and one class eachfor pre and post-testing). Three classes of19, 20 and 21 students, each at anintermediate level of English languageability, participated in the study. ‘Thestudents were English majors in the firstterm of their freshman year, This was thefirst of two years in an integrated languageskill program that combines 6 hours ofweekly instruction in speaking, listening,writing, and reading.Upon entering the program, the students takea language placement test and are groupedaccording to three

1 4 0 Vo ices o f In te rp re ta t ion


Table 1Operational distinctions between analytic and synthetic teaching

ANALYTIC1. Pre-Task

Teacher helps students prepare forthe task by describing the elementsof a discussion: turn-taking, eyecontact and gesture, phrasal orturn-taking language, anddiscussion content. Students viewa video of others doing a discussion.

2. Task

Students read the text andparticipate in a discussion.

3. Post-Task/ Observation andSel f -Ref lect ion

Students watch other groups doingthe task, compare groups, rate theirefforts by viewing audio and videocasset tes. Students preparetranscripts, identify examples ofeffective turn-taking language, anddiscussion content.

different levels of ability. The curriculumis organized into themes at each of theselevels, and students undertake a variety oftasks andactivities such as writing journals and essays,reading and reporting on newspaper articles,doing book reports and oral presentations,and participating in small group discussions.In terms of a needs assessment, surveys ofthe students indicated that they wanted to domuch more speaking in class and that theywere frustrated because they felt they wereunable to communicate with native speakers.At the same time, their teachers indicatedthat the most of the students had little abilityto participate in discussions, even inJapanese.

The treatmentIn the analytic or task-based approach,

SYNTHETIC1. Presentation

reacher helps students prepare forask by providing them with anoverview of the components of adiscussion and examples of theypes of functional language used:expressing agreement anddisagreement, and solicitingspinions, etc. Mention is made ofnon-verbal elements of adiscussion such as eye contact andgesture.2. Practice

Students read the text and practicethe appropriate language.

3. Production

Students have discussions, andteacher gives them feedback.

students in small groups of 3 or 4 personsworked on a weekly cycle of tasks (whole-group oral discussion), and then post-taskactivities that included self-reflection ontheir task performance, and/or groupdiscussion of comments they, made abouttheir own and each other’s performanceusing audio and video recordings of theirgroup discussions. Group 2 performedmore of these than Group 1. In the initialclasses, a limited number of pre-taskorienting activities were used by both task-based groups to orient students to thefeatures of turn-taking, gesture, andlanguage use, which they could profitablyattend to and comment on throughout therest of the semester in subsequent post-tasknoticing activities.

At the beginning of each class, groups of3 or 4 students sat together and watched

Voices o f in te rp re ta t ion 141

On JALT98

other students performing discussions, notedthe features of those discussions, and ratedthe group’s performance. Selections fromrecordings of their own discussions werelater transcribed by each set of groupmembers and were used while they lookedfor examples of successful and unsuccessfulphrasal or turn-taking language, anddiscussion performance, among otherfeatures of group discussion. The studentsthen compared their observations with thoseof their classmates.

In contrast, students in the class followingthe synthetic, skills based syllabus (Group 3)learned about different kinds of functionallanguage used in discussions such assoliciting opinions, expressing agreementand disagreement. The appropriateexpressions were shown to the students,before they rehearsed them on a weeklybasis in pairs, applying them to follow-upactivities, with little opportunity for whole-task discussion practice.

Each week, all the students in the twotask-based classes were randomly assignedto discussion groups of three or four persons.Pedagogy in the skills-based class largelyinvolved individual and pair work. Toensure that both groups used topics ofsimilar interest and difficulty, the discussiontext Impact Issues was used in each class.About 45 minutes was spent on discussionactivities during each week of the 8-weektreatment. The issues selected fordiscussion were chosen according to thethemes in the Integrated English Program.

The rating instrumentsThe pre-test and post-test consisted ofvideotaped group discussions of 5 minutes inlength. The individual students in eachdiscussion were scored by three experiencednative speaker raters who averaged over tenyears of EFL/ESL experience. The ratersunderwent a training session where they

practiced use of the rating instrument (seeTable 2 on the following page). In turn, thethree ratings, from 1 to 5 on a S-point scale,for each of four categories (turn-taking, eyecontact and gesture, language use, content)were averaged. Inter-rater reliabilitywas .76.

ResultsResults of the repeated measures ANOVA(Group x Category x Pre- and Post-test) ofthe rating averages show no significantdifferences for the factor Group, butsignificant differences for Category and forPre- and Post- test (p<.0l). As can be seenin Figure 1, all groups improved from pre- topost- test, with greater improvement in theareas of content and language than in eyecontact and gesture. A priori plannedcomparison revealed a significant differenceon the post-test between task-based Group 1and the superior skills-based Group 3.Task-based Group 2 and the skills-basedGroup 3 were equivalent.

ConclusionBoth structured task-based teaching,incorporating focus on form activities, andskills-based teaching were found to beequivalent, with skills-based teaching havingadvantages over unstructured experientialtask-based learning. This is possibly due totransfer of training and expectations fromprior language learning experience, since theskills-based approach is the most similar to ourstudents’ previous English learningexperience in Japanese high schools.Longer-term studies of the effects of thedifferent kinds of instruction are needed.Nonetheless, the results suggest thatstructured focus on form, plus extensive taskpractice is equivalent to carefully



Table 2Rating scale used to assess oral discussion tasks

Turn taking

* (1) follows apredictable circularpattern, precededby lengthy pauses.

l (2) follows a lessrigid format, oftenpreceded bylengthy pauses.

* (3) fairlyspontaneous andunplanned,hesitations andpauses still occur.

* (4) fairlyspontaneous, withfew pauses.

* (5) no obviouspattern, and nopausing.

A B C D- - - -

Eye contact andgesturel (1) minimal to noeye contact-nogestures.

* (2) limited eyecontact--oftendirected at oneperson whenspeaking-maylook down or awayif not speaking-gestures are rare.

* (3) eye contactmaintained, but notused for turn taking,or emphasizingpoints-somerhetorical andspontaneousgestures.

* (4) good evendistribution of eyecontact-followseye contact signalsto participate-gesturesaccompanyagreeing/emphasizing etc.

* (5) even,confidentdistribution of eyecontact-usesappropriategesture--whenlistening usesgestures and othercues to take thefloor.

A- B-c- D-

Phrasal language

(1) speakers simplystate opinion--nophrases foragreement/disagreement, ore m p h a s i s - n oclarificationrequests.

* (2) no variety in l (2) main pointsthe phrases used to identifiable-agree/disagree and content predictable-emphasize-- few supportingclarification details andrequests are rare. examples.

* (3) varied use offixed phrases--occasionalclarificationrequests andconfirmationchecks.

* (4) a greatervariety of phrasesand speech acts--confirmationchecks andclarificationrequests arecommon.

l (5) a rich, naturalvariety of non-formulaicphrases-usescomprehensionchecks andclarificationrequests.

A B C D- - - -

Discussioncontent* (1) uninteresting,un-engagingcontent nosupporting detailsor examples-mainpoints hard toidentify.

* (3) main pointssupported bydetails andexamples--imaginative andinteresting--listenersoccasionally smileand laugh.* (4) interesting andthoughtful--mainideas andexamples areclearlydistinguished--often surprises,amuses orotherwisestimulates listeners.

A_B C D- - -


On JALT98

Interaction Bar ChartEffect: Discussion subtests * Pre/posttest * ClassDependent: DiscussionWith Standard Deviation error bars.

300-5‘ZY

250-

g 200-‘ st 1 5 0 -

2 loo-=

3 50-

Term

Figure 1.Results of the Repeated Measures ANOVA

targeted and sequenced micro-skills teaching.This is a promising finding.Non-verbal aspects of discussion abilities—particularly turn-taking ability-are the leastsusceptible to instruction over the short term,in all conditions. It is not clear yet whetherthese are best acquired incidentally, over alonger period, compared to verbal aspectswhich may benefit more from an explicit,intentionally directed focus of learnerattention, and subsequent rehearsal andmemorization. Alternatively, students mayhave felt more motivated and focused onverbal aspects at the expense of non-verbalaspects.

One practical concern regardingclassroom research of this kind is to ensure afair and accurate assessment of the different


groups. This is made more difficult in thiscase by the use of videotaping for pre- andpost-test assessments. There must becareful consideration of such details asstationary cameras and microphones; cameradistance from the student groups; theplacement of students so that their faces andupper bodies are entirelyvisible on camera in order to assess eyecontact and gesture; and the positioning ofgroups in the room so that natural light fromwindows does not affect filming. Finally,discussion lengths, preparation time, and theuse of notes while speaking must becontrolled for, i.e., made uniform betweengroups. This is important because studentsreferring to notes will speak moreconfidently, but use less eye contact and


gesture.Finally, while research into focus on form

has begun to show positive results forimprovement in structural aspects oflanguage use at the sentence and discourselevel (see Long & Robinson, 1998, forreview), pragmatic conversational andacademic discussion abilities have so farbeen little examined. Effective pedagogicfocus on form techniques for themanipulation of learner attention to theseaspects of language development will beinitially difficult to determine and study.However, they promise much in the long runfor EAP pedagogy and the development oforal academic task ability.

ReferencesDay, R., & Yamanaka, J. (1998). Impact

issues. Singapore: Longman.Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998).

Pedagogical choices in focus on form.In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),Focus on form in classroom secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 197-262). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instructionin second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K.Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.),Modelling and assessing second languageacquisition (pp. 77-99). Clevedon,Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Long, M. H. (in press). Task-basedlanguage teaching. Oxford:Blackwell.

Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Threeapproaches to task-based syllabus design.TESOL Quarterly, 26, 55-98.

Long, M. H., & Robinson, I? (1998).Focus on form: Theory, research,practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom

second language acquisition (pp.15-41).New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Norris, J., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. &Yoshioka, J. (1998). Designing secondlanguage performance assessments (Tech.Rep. No. 18). Second LanguageTeaching and Curriculum Center:University of Hawaii Press.

Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Robinson, P. (1995). Attention,memory and the “noticing”hypothesis. Language Learning,45, 283-331.

Robinson, P. (1998a). State of the art:SLA theory and second language syllabusdesign. The Language Teacher, 22 (4),7-14.

Robinson, P. (1998b, October). Aptitude-treatment interactions in the developmentof oral academic discussion taskperformance. Plenary paper presentedat the KOTESOL Conference, Seoul,South Korea.

Robinson, P. (in press). Task complexity,cognition and syllabus design: A triadicframework for examining task influenceson SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.),Cognition and second languageinstruction. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role ofconsciousness in second languagelearning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach tolanguage learning. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

White, R. (1988). The ELT curriculum.Oxford: Blackwell.

Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses.Oxford: Oxford University Press.


On JALT98

The Language Classroomon a Complex Systems Matrix

William Naoki Kumai, Nagoya Seirei Junior CollegePaul Lewis, Aichi Shukutoku Junior College

Matthew Taylor, Kinjo Gakuin UniversityMichael Cholewinski, Nagoya University of Foreign Studies

Duane Kindt, Nanzan University

In recent years, interest in applying Chaos/Complexity Science (CCS) to language teachingand learning has increased. It could be that despite its foundation in the hard sciences,teachers are finding that insights from CCS help explain complex behavior in their classrooms.In this paper, we introduce the basic concepts of CCS, before describing how the presentersand participants used a “Complexity Matrix” based on these concepts to further theirunderstanding of the infinitely complex nature of classroom dynamics and pedagogy.

The language classroom on a complexsystems matrixImpetus is growing in applyingChaos/Complexity Science (hereafter CCS)to language teaching and learning; yet, theconcepts and terminology can beintimidating. After describing thefundamental types of complex behavior asdefined by classic chaos and complexityscience, we introduce a “complexity matrix”derived from these behaviors. We followwith the results of our JALT98brainstorming and discussion session thatattempted to extend this matrix to languageteaching and learning. Ultimately, weargue that that CCS offers a workableframework to further understand theinfinitely complex nature of classroomdynamics and pedagogy.

Classic chaos matrixBehaviors in chaotic systems can be dividedinto three categories (see accompanyingfigures in the Appendix). To illustrate thefirst category, Fixed behavior, consider asimple pendulum. It swings and slowly

comes to rest, its energy dissipated. Itstops at a point directly below the pivot; thispoint is clearly “attractive” to the pendulumin some abstract way, and we call it anattractor. This system representstransitional movement towards a point (i.e.,one solution), and is largely trivial.

Imagine now a battery-poweredgrandfather clock; the pendulum now willswing indefinitely. This is Periodicbehavior. We can plot motion against time(see Appendix: Periodic, Time Series), ormore abstractly in phase-space (the left-handPeriodic Attractor cross section and topview). This has two solutions, each onerepresenting an end point of the swing.

Periodic behavior is common in everydaylife, and can be highly complex. Thecombination of the moon orbiting the earth,and the earth going round the sun, makes themoon seem to pirouette when seen fromsome viewpoints. However complex, thisremains periodic, and can be analyzed intocombinations of simpler cycles. There will,of course, be more points (solutions) on theattractor diagram (the right hand Periodic



Attractor figures).Chaotic behavior is less trivial. Here,

chaos refers not to white noise, but a quasi-random system with in-built structure. The“strange” attractor (see Chaotic Attractor)shows a limited structure outside whichthere is no movement. Inside, it isimpossible to predict exactly what willhappen. The cycles go round quasi-periodically; they may cross, but they neverexactly overlap. This would happen in areal situation with a powered pendulumbuffeted by the wind.

By increasing battery power anddisturbance from outside factors such aswind, we can “tweak” the system. As weadd power, we move from fixed to periodicbehavior, before entering the chaotic region.The number of solutions goes from one totwo to four to eight and rapidly increases.This is represented by a BifurcationDiagram, which plots the number ofsolutions as we tweak the system.

Close examination of the chaotic regionshows three interesting points: (a) theonset of chaos is very sudden; (b) lines ofstructure are visible within the chaos; and,(c) there are points where the chaos vanishessuddenly to give windows of complete order.To understand this, consider a physicalanalogue-flying. If we fly a shortdistance, say 30 minutes, we may have twopossible destinations (solutions). Increasingjourney-time to an hour will increase thisnumber. By eight hours, there are a hugenumber of possible destinations. However,increasing journey time will not alwaysincrease the number of solutions. As wereach, say 18 hours, there are only a handfulof airports, those able to accommodate thelargest planes, that we can reach in one leg.For a trip to the hundreds of possible end-points in Europe, most travelers will travelvia one of the “hubs”; the end is the same,but the route may differ.

Describing Complex behavior using theClassic Chaos Matrix is a beginning, but itdoes not provide a complete picture, for it isthe regime between “ordered” and “chaotic”behaviors, i.e., where “hubs” occur, that

interest us most. To help expand ourmatrix, we will turn to the behavioral classesof cellular automata.

Cellular automataThe “Game of Life” is a checkerboard worldin which individual squares can be either“alive” (occupied) or “dead” (unoccupied),the states of a given square beingdetermined by three simple rules:

(1) A square dies if there are less thantwo live neighboring squares.(2) A square dies if there are morethan three live neighboring squares.(3) A live square is born if there areexactly three live neighboring squares.

From these simple rules, an extraordinaryrange of behavior unfolds, similar to thatoutlined in the Chaos Matrix: stablestructures that do not change, “blinking”patterns that repeat themselves, and wildproliferations with no apparent order at all(see Appendix). Yet what gives the Gameof Life its peculiarly lifelike qualities is thatall of these behaviors occur at the sametime.

Checkerboard worlds like the Game ofLife are called cellular automata (CA), andwere crucial in the development ofComplexity Science. Wolframsystematically investigated very simple CAand found four distinct kinds of behavior:fixed (uniform), periodic, chaotic, andcomplex (cited in Levy, 1992). Schuchart(1998) has explored possible classroomanalogs to the four behaviors, e.g., “dead”classes, repetitive drills or routines,disorderly classes, and complex interaction.Of particular interest is “complex” behavior,which is neither completely ordered norcompletely chaotic.

At this point, we are ready to develop aComplexity Matrix by adding “complex”behavior. We will collapse the “fixed” and“periodic” classes into a single class,“ordered,” since they have very similarcharacteristics. Finally (for reasons thatwill become clear), we will place complex


On JALT98

behavior between the ordered and thechaotic. The matrix now represents threediscrete classes of behavior-ordered,complex, and chaotic, which capture theessence of systems studied in complexityscience, and might illuminate manyclassroom phenomena as well (seeAppendix).

The Langton model: Edge of chaosComplex behavior, where the sum is greaterthan the parts, is seen at the “edge of chaos.”Language classes can exhibit relative order,as in a repetition drill, or they can exhibitrelative chaos, as in a class lackadaisical instaying in L2 during an activity. Yet,sometimes there is what appears to be aphase transition, like ice turning to water,where the class is motivated, on task, andusing sustained, spontaneous L2. I nbetween the order and the chaos lies theregime known as the “edge of chaos.”

The key in reaching the edge of chaos isfinding the right balance, or mixture, oforder and chaos. Highly motivatedstudents tend to be at the edge of chaosnaturally, as they try many new ways ofachieving success within the framework ofan activity, a state known as “self-organizingcriticality.” For students in general,however, one must think about the learningenvironment, to look at mixtures ofcooperation and competition; old and newinformation; static and dynamic; orframeworks and freedom.

Think about a pair activity wherestudents take turns asking to borrowsomething from their partner. By forminggroups of four, and having three studentsasking for the same object, giving theirreasons, we introduce competition (“chaos”).The lending student responds only torequests in L2; the borrowers are witnessesthat ensure Ll requests are not successful(“order”). Note: Each regime--order,chaos, and edge of chaos-has its place inthe classroom. For example, during a testwe require orderly behavior!

The Kauffman model: FitnesslandscapesDuring an activity, a language class, taken asa whole can exhibit optimal languagebehavior, such as avoiding Ll and practicingthe L2 phrases called for by the activity.On the other hand, suppose some studentsuse the phrases incorrectly; the class will notbe performing at an optimal level. Lookingat all the possible outcomes of an activity,one imagines a “landscape” of optimal andnon-optimal levels, called “fitness” levels.As students change their language behavior,the class moves along the landscape,climbing peaks or descending into valleys.In theory, as the class climbs a peak, weakerstudents are pulled up as well, parallelingthe zone of proximal development proposedby Vygotsky (1978).

Kauffman (1995) showed throughcomputer simulations that interactions holdthe key to fitness landscapes. Applyingthis concept to the classroom, we can seethat without enough interactions, there islittle reinforcement to sustain the class at apeak. With too many interactions, thepeaks themselves are low because ofconflicting constraints, a condition known asthe complexity catastrophe. Anotherproperty of fitness landscapes is that valleysoften connect peaks, which means that aclass may have to descend to a valley toreach a higher peak. In other words, aclass has to “unlearn” a less optimalbehavior to find a better combination.Finally, landscapes are dynamic (constantlychanging), i.e., when one individual’ssuccess depresses others’, as in a game orcompetition.

By exploiting the fitness landscape in theclassroom, we can ensure that students havethe freedom to find alternatives; that there isa mechanism in an activity to share ideasand discoveries; and, that there is somereinforcement, such as feedback, noticing,and recycling. Fitness landscapes give us amodel to understand and exploit the groupdynamics of an activity. Cooperativelearning techniques are good examples ofways a class can better explore its fitness

148 Voices ot Interpretation


landscape.After giving a description of the three

basic classes of complex behavior, (ordered,complex, and chaotic), we worked with theworkshop audience in applying some ofthese ideas to what we call the PedagogicMatrix. This framework gives us apowerful tool for discussing CCS and itsrelevance to classroom dynamics andpedagogy.

Results of the discussionIn the discussion portion of our workshop,participants discussed in groups what theymight put in the “ordered,” “complex,” and“chaotic” columns of the matrix for thefollowing categories: Syllabus, Routine,Teachers, Learners, Materials Design, orActivities. The participants’ manyprovocative ideas are summarized here.

l For Syllabus, one group thought an“ordered” syllabus was rigidly setfrom the beginning. A syllabusmight become more “complex”(become flexible or incorporatenovel items) as the courseproceeds. A “chaotic” syllabuswould be the lack of any syllabusat all. (Others thought anegotiated syllabus was also“complex.“)

l For Routine, one group contrasteda rigid, unchanging classroomroutine (“ordered”) with no fixedroutine at all (“chaotic”). In a“complex” routine, the teacherwould have flexibility within aroutine. One group mentionedstudies showing Chinese learnersto be more comfortable with ahighly ordered routine and NewZealanders with a very relaxedone.

l For Teachers, participants thoughtthat teachers may insist onconformity (“ordered”) or, at theother extreme, be overly ambitiousin their expectations of“individuality” among the learners

(“chaotic”). A “complex”compromise seeks a workablebalance between these extremes.Another group felt that a lessonplan, or text, by definition movesfrom an “ordered” state on paper,to a “chaotic” one in which all betsare off about how it will unfold inthe classroom.

l For Learners, one group felt that alearner’s overemphasis on“correctness” represents an“ordered” part of languagelearning. The learner may moveon to use the language as a processof discovery (“complex”).Alternately, “chaos” results whenlearners confront, or are presentedwith, unanswerable questions.

. For Materials Design, MarcHelgesen observed that ELTtextbooks have a problem bothwhen they are too ordered (theformat identical in each unit) andwhen they employ extreme novelty(the format nearlyincomprehensible to teachers orstudents). The latter in particularalmost never survive on the market.Long-selling textbooks tend toadopt one of two strategies to keepfrom being either too “ordered” ortoo “chaotic”: (1) using a “70%standard unit format” (about 30%novelty in the format of each unit),or (2) having nearly the sameelements in each unit, butrearranging the sequence in whichthey appear. Helgesen also notedthat content-based material may besuccessful in an ESL/EFL context,but in Japan the result is often“chaotic” as it presents learnerswith language at “i + 10” (alludingto Krashen’s i + 1).

l Under Activities, Charles Adamsonand Steven Schuchart contrastedmodels and drills in theAudiolingual Method (“ordered”)


On JALT98

with impossible demands in which,for instance, students are askedsimply to use model sentences inan open-ended conversation(“chaotic”). A “complex”compromise might be to havelearners create examples from agiven model, and have otherlearners ask that student questions.A similar contrast was noted withpracticing, on the one hand, amodel conversation (“ordered”) or,on the other, telling learnerssimply, “Have a conversation!”(“chaotic”). The former maygive learners no scope for genuinepractice, while the latter offersthem no guidelines and easilydegenerates into a chaotic mix ofLl and L2. Again, the“complex” compromise might beto have learners use a model as atemplate from which they canimprovise.

ConclusionOur discussion suggested strongly thatthinking about order, complexity, and chaoscould be a fruitful approach to classroompractice. Given that our field is noted forintense methodological pendulum swings, itwas noteworthy that participants at ourworkshop often identified extremes of thependulum (e.g., drill vs. communicative,controlled vs. free) with “order” and “chaos”respectively, and generally sought a“complex” compromise that tried to adoptthe best from either extreme. Complexityscience may thus offer a workableframework for evaluating disparateapproaches and applying them productivelyin the classroom.

ReferencesKauffman, S. (1995). At home in the

universe: The search for the laws ofself-organization and complexity.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Levy, S. (1992). Artificial life: The questfor a new creation. London: Penguin.

Schuchart, S. (1998). Complexity theory:C@LL at the edge of chaos. C@LLingJapan Online [Online serial 7/2].Available at:http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/c@ll/7-2/shucart5_98.htm (January 10, 1999).

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Related reading 6:Interaction between learning anddevelopment. In P. A. Richard-Amato(Ed.), Making it happen: Interaction inthe second language classroom, fromtheory to practice (pp. 342-353).London: Longman.

Further readingCasti, J. L. (1994). Complexifcation:

Explaining a paradoxical world throughthe science of surprise. New York:HarperCollins.

Coveney, P. & Highfield, R. (1995).Frontiers of complexity: The search fororder in a chaotic world. New York:Fawcett Columbine.

Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The quark and thejaguar: Adventures in the simple andthe complex. London: W. H. Freeman.

Gleik, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a newscience. New York: Viking.

Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence: Fromchaos to order. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Kauffman, S. (1993). The origins of order:Self-organization and selection inevolution. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Kelso, J. A. S. (1997). Dynamic patterns:Self-organization of brain and behavior.Bradford: MIT Press.

Langton, C. G. (1992). Life at the edge ofchaos. In C. G. Langton, C. Taylor, J. D.Farmer, & S. Rasmussen (Eds.), Artificiallife II. Studies in the sciences ofcomplexity, Vol. X, (pp. 41-91).Reading: Addison- Wesley.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997).Chaos/Complexity science and secondlanguage acquisition. AppliedLinguistics 18 (2), 141-165.

Lewin, R. (1992). Complexity: Life atthe edge of chaos. New York:



Macmillan.Pagels, H. (1988). The dreams of reason:

The computer and the rise of the sciencesof complexity. New York: Simon andSchuster.

Prigogine, I. & Nicolis, G. (1989).Exploring complexity: An introduction.London: W. H. Freeman.

Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. (1984). Orderout of chaos: Man’s new dialogue withnature. New York: Bantam.

Schroeder, M. (1992). Chaos, fractals,

Appendix 1

Bifurcation,..................,.......--- _ ,. . . . .

Diagram:,:i:p I. I,,,_ .:.,,, _ “.‘,._,

Time Series

power laws: Minutes from an infiniteparadise. London: W. H. Freeman.

Stewart, I. (1990). Does God play dice?:The mathematics of chaos. Oxford:Blackwell.

The Studies in the Science of Complexityseries. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: Theemerging science at the edge of order andchaos. New York: Simon andSchuster.


On JALT98

Phonological Awareness in EFLReading Acquisition

Brett Reynolds, Sakuragaoka Girls’ Junior & Senior High School, Tokyo

Phonological awareness generally, and phonemic awareness in particular, are central to LlEnglish reading acquisition. There is also reason to believe that low phonemic awareness isa central cause of poor EFL reading acquisition among Japanese learners. After defining andexplaining what phonemic awareness is, I make a number of suggestions for pedagogicalinterventions early in students’ English learning careers. The use of a modified Japanese kanachart with phonemes represented by colours, as well as phoneme blending and segmentingactivities are suggested. Explicit instruction in some letter-sound relationships is alsorecommended. Finally, I discuss some tentative findings of low phonemic awareness amongJapanese high school students from a small study (N = 20).

I first became aware of the idea ofphonological awareness a number of yearsago after reading a book by Marilyn Adamscalled Beginning to read: Thinking andlearning about print (Adams, 1990). I hadbeen interested in reading for a long time,particularly in the reading problems faced bymy junior high first year students, and thoseI, myself, faced in learning to read Japanese.Unfortunately, I’m still looking for reasons(excuses) for my poor progress in Japanese,but in phonological awareness, I think I’vefound a central reason for the difficulties mystudents experience in their struggle withwritten English.

What is phonological awareness?Phonological awareness, as researchers andteachers view it, is the metalinguisticknowledge that languages are composed of,and decomposable into, smaller units ofsound (see Table 1). Starting at thephrase level and going down, these unitsinclude words, syllables, onsets and rimes,

and phonemes. (A rhyme for cat is bat butits rime is /æt/.)

Different levels of phonologicalawareness correspond to these phonologicaldivisions. Thus, phonemic awarenessimplies phonological awareness at thephonemic level. In general, the smaller thephonological unit, the more difficult it is tobecome aware of it. Phonemes areuniquely difficult in that most researchersnow believe that it is actually impossible tobecome phonemically aware without theeffort of learning to read an alphabetic script,or other analogous training (Morais &Kolinsky, 1995).

Unfortunately, students’ phonemicawareness, like many psycholinguisticphenomena, is not directly accessible to usas teachers or researchers. Instead, weneed to look at phonemic abilities asevidence of phonemic awareness.Phonemic abilities are “the abilities to usethe conscious representations of phonemesin particular situations” (Morais & Kolinsky,



1995, p. 321). They include the ability to(1) count the number of phonemes in a word(e.g., feast has four phonemes); (2) segmentthe phonemes in a word (e.g., feast = [f] [i][s] [t]); (3) blend phonemes to make a word(e.g., [f] [i] [s] [t] = feast); (4) deletephonemes (e.g., feast - [s] = feat or feet);and (5) rearrange phonemes (e.g., feastbackwards = [tsif]). Because phonemicabilities are very good at reflectingphonemic awareness in normal children(Morais & Kolinsky, 1995) and because thevalidity and reliability of tests employingthese are quite high (Gough, Larson, &Yopp, 1996; Stanovich, Cunningham, &Cramer, 1984; Yopp, 1988), researchers andteachers can use them to evaluate phonemicawareness.

Phonemic awareness and readingIt is widely recognized that a major cause ofLl reading difficulties in phonologicalprocessing (Hu & Catts, 1998; Stanovich,1986; Vellutino, & Denckla, 1996).Phonemic awareness seems to be a centralfactor in phonological processing, and iswidely recognized as being crucial forlearning to read an alphabetic script likeEnglish. It is rare for students to learn toread English words beyond the initial stageswithout phonemic awareness (Adams, 1990;Bryant, 1995; Ehri, 1994; Gough, Juel, &Griffith, 1992; Scarborough, Ehri, Olson, &Fowler, 1998; Stanovich, 1986).Alphabetic reading requires theunderstanding that individual sounds(phonemes) are represented by letters(graphemes). Hence, reading will notprogress without the understanding thatwords can be broken into their componentphonemes-without phonemic awareness.Many studies have found that the strongestknown relationship between encodingprocesses and early reading success is theability to translate graphemes into phonemes(Adams, 1990; Carr & Levy, 1990; Perfetti,1985; Stanovich, 1986, 1991; Vellutino,1991). Furthermore, Calfee, Lindamood,and Lindamood found that the ability tomanipulate phonemes shows a strong

correlation with reading ability even up tograde 12 (as cited in Adams, 1990).

Though reading, as discussed here, is theinitial ability to read words, “It has beenamply documented that skill at recognizingwords is strongly related to speed of initialreading acquisition” (Stanovich, 1991, p.418); Moreover, the ability to recognizewords appears to be causally related to laterreading comprehension ability (Stanovich,1991). Teaching of such initial readingskills is crucial, but very much undervaluedin EFL contexts.

Japanese students and phonemicawarenessUnlike English, the three Japaneseorthographies (hiragana, katakana, andkanji) represent language at the syllabic ormulti-syllabic level, not at the phonemiclevel. Consequently, Japanese children donot gain phonemic awareness like theirEnglish-speaking peers do. Mann (1986)looked at the phonological awareness ofJapanese children and found that thesechildren were able to segment at the syllabiclevel, but had only 10% success at thephoneme level. However, as Mann did notcontrol for the fact that the phonemes in hertests were also either onsets or rimes(personal communication, Nov. 5, 1998),this may overestimate the students’ truephonemic awareness.

One reason for the difficulties involved inacquiring phonemic awareness, even whenJapanese students start learning English,could be that logographic reading strategiesare a universal default reading strategy (Ehri,1994). Japanese students in particular maybe transferring the logographic strategiesthey use to read kanji (Koda, 1987, 1990,1998). Furthermore, the teaching ofEnglish reading in Japanese schools mayreinforce this idea. Typically, students lookat a word and the teacher tells them how tosay it. An analytic approach is almostnever applied, and there is rarely anyinstruction in grapheme-phonemerelationships.


On JALT98

Classroom activitiesBecause Japanese high school students canbe expected to have low levels ofphonological awareness, classroom timemay be well spent trying to improve it. A sstudents will experience more difficulty asphonological units become smaller, teachersmay want to begin with syllabic awarenessactivities, then include onset and rimeactivities, and finally phonemic activities.Of course, the ultimate aim of promotingphonological awareness is not simplyknowing about letters and sounds, butimproving reading comprehension.Despite their potential value, these activitiesare useless if they are not taught in thecontext of well rounded, message-focusedreading instruction. Because most of theactivities are short, they can be introduced asthe opportunity presents itself. The wordsthat are focused on should be taken from theregular lesson. Teachers could change thefocus to the phonological awareness activityfor a few minutes, then bring it back theoriginal lesson.

SyllablesSyllables are typically very easy to identify.Even very young children usually have fewproblems in their Ll (Adams, 1990). In anL2, there are likely to be more difficulties.Although the number of syllables in a wordis debatable in only a few cases (e.g., fire =1 or 2), the syllable boundaries are muchmore open to interpretation. Indeed,different dictionaries often indicate differentboundary locations. The followingactivities are designed to improve syllabicawareness.

1 .

2 .

3 .

Use percussion (clapping, banging,stomping) to highlight the rhythmof English words.Produce words with exaggeratedpauses between syllables and havestudents guess what the wholeword is.Produce words with extra syllablesand have students guess what theintended word is

.

(Novemstaber→November).4 . Count the number of syllables in

words.

Onset and rimeI have found that it takes very littleinstruction to get students to notice rhymingand alliteration. A basic explanation of theconcept and a number of well-chosenexamples get them started. The followingactivities are fun ways to strengthen theideas.

5 .

6 .

7 .

8 .

9 .

After listening to a song or a poem,students draw lines connectingrhyming words.In teams, students make up asmany nonsense words as possiblethat rhyme with a seed (up→kup,tup...).In teams, students make upsentences that have as manyalliterating words as possible(Seven super snakes say somethingslowly).Students make their own rhymingpoetry. Initially this can be doneby filling in slots in “pre-made”poems, and later with morefreedom.Given a word, students find asmaller word by removing theonset (grape→ape).

Phonemic awarenessPhonemic awareness can be improvedthrough both segmenting and blendingactivities. The following are divided intosegmenting activities, blending activities,and those that require both segmenting andblending.

Segmenting activities.10. Use a kana chart with individual

kana written in two colours torepresent their componentphonemes (see Figure 1).

11. Count the number of sounds(phonemes) in words (a =l, the = 2,speak = 4).



12. Say each of the sounds in words inisolation (split = [s] [p] [l] [I] [t],through = [T ] [r] [U])

13. Circle the letters in words thatmake individual sounds (that = tha t, foot = f 00 t).

14. Remove the first (second, third,etc.) sound from words to make anew word (speak = peak, speak =seek).

Blending activities.15. Make a word by putting sounds

together ([s] [p] [l] [I] [t] = split,[T] [r] [U] = through).

Segmenting and blending activities.16. Make a new word using the first

sound of other words (kite + apple+ tie = cat).

17. Say words backwards (meet =team, late = tail).

18. Speak in Pig Latin, a “codelanguage” used by English-speaking children which involvesmoving the initial consonants (ifany) to the end of the word andadding [ei] as in the followingexample: This is in pig Latin =issthey izey iney igpey atinley.

19. Using the rebus principle, create ascript based on the first sounds ofwords represented by pictures thenuse this script to write words orsentences (see Figure 2).

ExperimentBecause of the importance of phonemicawareness in learning to read English, andmy feelings that Japanese students arelacking in phonemic awareness, I decided tostudy the level of phonemic awareness ofmy students. I was also interested inexamining the effectiveness of phonemicawareness training that had been used infirst and second year junior high classes inmy school.

DesignThe study consisted of a set of one-time,individual oral interview tests. Studentnumber 17 in every class was asked to comevoluntarily to my office and schedule a timefor the test. From 28 classes in the school,20 students arranged interviews. All ofthese students participated in the interview(see Table 2).

I expected that students in each gradewould perform better than their youngerpeers. Such results were found by Boweyand Francis (1991) with English

Ll children and Allen (1997) in Japanesechildren learning English. However, wehad taught phonemic segmentation andblending, and grapheme-phonemecorrespondences to the junior high classes.Because of this, I wanted to see if there wasany effect for training. Although the smallN-size precluded statistically significantresults, the study’s purpose was mainlyexploratory in nature. Discussions withstudents and other English teacherssuggested that senior high school studentshad received no such training.

MethodI gave the students instructions written inJapanese and asked them to read these. Iencouraged them to ask for clarification orrepetition any time they were unsure. Moststudents asked a number of times. Eachtime I would give examples and attempt toclarify until they indicated that theyunderstood. It is unlikely that the processof repetition and giving examples could trainsubjects to perform the task as no trainingstudies have reported such abruptimprovement in phonological awareness. Ifelt that the possibility of students notunderstanding the directions would posegreater problems for the study than anypossible training effect that directions couldhave. Furthermore, as I expected lowresults, I felt it best to give the studentsevery chance to answer correctly.

The interview had eight sections designed

V o i c e s of In terpreta t ion 155

On JALT98

to test phonological abilities relating tosyllables, onsets and rimes, and phonemes(see Table 3). Each section had from fourto eight questions consisting of familiarEnglish words. Questions and answerswere all given orally. During the test, Irepeated the questions as often as requested,but gave no indication as to the accuracy ofstudents’ answers.

Results and DiscussionOverall, the students performed very poorlyon the tests except on the Identify Non-rhyme section. In this section, the averagescore was 4.85 out of 5 with a standarddeviation of 0.4 (see Table 3). Thisindicated that the test was too easy. Thissame facility on rhyming tasks was alsofound by Lundberg, Frost, and Peterson(1988) in Danish pre-school children in theirDutch Ll. Stanovich and his co-researchers (1984) also found that rhymingseemed to be an easier skill and did notcorrelate strongly with othermetaphonological tasks. Because of this,the results of this section were dropped fromfurther analysis. After this adjustment, theoverall score on the test was 13.1 or 35%(see Table 4).

There was a general effect for age andexposure to English reading. In both juniorhigh and senior high, each grade scoredsignificantly higher than the grade below it.However, the junior high students who hadreceived instruction outscored some seniorhigh school students (see Table 4).Unfortunately, the sample size is too smallto draw any conclusions from this.

Despite being given multiple examplesand clarification, most students provedunable to analyze words at the phonemiclevel. Instead, their responses showedsyllabic analysis. For example, when thetask involved the elimination of the firstsound (a single consonant in every case),students would eliminate the first consonantand the first vowel. Thus, when presentedwith the word chicken, the correct responsewould have been [Iken]. However,students unanimously responded [kIn], again

indicating that they had not analyzed thefirst syllable into its component phonemes.

Suggestions for future researchI believe that despite some problemswith the study, the results suggest that mystudents have poor phonemic awareness.Better test design is crucial for furtherresearch. Future studies need to beconducted with larger N sizes, and morequestions. Using non-words may allow thestudents to focus more on the sounds,reducing any possible distraction thatmeaning might introduce. In testingphonemic awareness, one phoneme in aconsonant blend should be the target ofanalysis to avoid confounding onsets withphonemes. Finally, studies that shed lighton the question of whether or not readers areusing logographic reading strategies wouldalso be helpful. This could be done bygiving the students a word reading test, anda non-word reading test (e.g., Woodcock,1987). If students can read cat and no, butnot nat, then they are likely using alogographic strategy (Ehri, 1994).Identifying any correlation betweenJapanese students’ phonological awarenessand their reading ability should be a majorgoal. If such a correlation exists, causalitythen becomes an issue. Research shouldthen undertake to discover if instruction ofphonological awareness improves thereading ability of Japanese students. Otherquestions for study might includecorrelations with pronunciation and withgeneral English ability.

ConclusionThe importance of phonological awarenessfor Japanese high school students has longbeen overlooked. In the absence of anycontrary evidence, it should be assumed thattheir relatively low levels of phonologicalawareness will likely hamper their ability tolearn to read English effectively. While agreat deal of research supports thisconclusion in English Ll reading, there is apressing need for more research relevant toEFL reading. I hope that more attention



will be paid to this overlooked area of EFLboth in research and in the classroom.

ReferencesAdams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read:

Thinking and learning about print.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Allen, M. .(1997). Phonological awarenessof young EFL learners: Can MotherGoose teach sounds? TUJ WorkingPapers in Applied Linguistics, 10, 91-103.

Bowey, J. A, & Francis, J. (1991).Phonological analysis as a function ofage and exposure to reading instruction.Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 91-121.

Bryant, P. (1995). Linguistic skills andlearning to read. In B. De Gelder & J.Morais (Eds.), Speech and reading: Acomparative approach (pp. 249-266).Hove: Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis.

Carr, T. H., & Levy, B. A. (Eds.) (1990).Reading and its development: Componentskills approaches. Orlando, FL:Academic Press.

Carr, T. H., & Posner, M. I. (1995). Theimpact of learning to read on thefunctional anatomy of languageprocessing. In B. De Gelder & J.Morais (Eds.), Speech and reading: Acomparative approach (pp. 267-301).Hove: Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis.

Ehri, L. C. (1994). Development of theability to read words: Update. In R.Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer(Eds.), Theoretical models and processesof reading (pp. 323-58). Newark, DE:International Reading Association.

Gough, P., Juel, C., & Griffith, P. (1992).Reading, spelling, and the orthographiccipher. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R.Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gough, P., Larson, K., & Yopp, H. K. (1996).The structure of phonemic awareness.[On-line] Available URL:http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psyiklarson/recife.html

Hu, C-F, & Catts, H. W. (1998). The Roleof phonological processing in early

reading ability: What we can learn fromChinese? Scientific Studies of Reading,2, 55-80.

Koda, K. (1987). Cognitive strategytransfer in second language reading. I nJ. Devine, P. Carrell, & D. Eskey, (Eds.),Research in reading English as a secondlanguage (pp. 127-144). Washington,DC: TESOL.

Koda, K. (1990). The use of Ll readingstrategies in L2 reading: Effects of Llorthographic structures on L2phonological recoding strategies.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,12, 393-410.

Koda, K. (1998). The role of phonemicawareness in second language reading.Second Language Research, 14, 194-215.

Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O-P(1988). Effects of an extensive programfor stimulating phonological awareness inpreschool children. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 23, 264-284.

Mann, V. A. (1986). Phonologicalawareness: The role of readingexperience. Cognition, 24, 5-92.

Morais, J., & Kolinsky, R. (1995). Theconsequences of phonetic awareness. I nB. De Gelder & J. Morais (Eds.), Speechand reading: A comparative approach(pp. 317-337). Hove: Erlbaum (UK)Taylor & Francis.

Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability.New York: Oxford University Press.

Scarborough, H. S., Ehri, L. C., Olson, R. K.,& Fowler, A. E. (1998). The fate ofphonemic awareness beyond theelementary school years. ScientificStudies of Reading, 2, 115-142.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effectsin reading: Some consequences ofindividual differences in the acquisitionof literacy. Reading Research Quarterly,21, 360-407.

Stanovich, K. E. (1991). WordRecognition: Changing perspectives.In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook ofreading research: Volume II (pp. 418-452). New York: Longman.

Stanovich, K E., Cunningham, A., &


On JALT98

Cramer, B. (1984). Assessingphonological awareness in kindergartenchildren: Issues of task comparability.Journal of Experimental ChildPsychology, 38, 175- 190.

Vellutino, F. R. (1991). Has basic researchin reading increased our understanding ofdevelopmental reading and how to teachreading? Psychological Science, 70, 81-8 3 .

Vellutino, F. R., & Denckla, M. B. (1996).Cognitive and neuropsychologicalfoundations of word identification in poor

and normally developing readers. In R.Barr et al. (Eds.), Handbook of readingresearch: Volume II (pp. 571-608).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcockreading mastery tests-Revised:Examiner’s manual. Circle Pines, MN:American Guidance Service.

Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity andreliability of phonemic awareness tests.Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 159-176.

Tab le 1Examples of phonological divisions

~~/ð, al /f, ist/ /w @z/ If, æn/ / t æs/ It, Ik/

Table 2Study participants

Grade Classes n=Jr. 2 2 1Jr. 3 0* 0S r . 1 8 6Sr . 2 8 6Sr. 3 8 5Total 28 20

Note. *As the junior high program was only two years old, therewere no third grade students when the study was conducted.

Table 3Results by test type


Focus on the C lassroom

Table 4Average score by grade

Note. * Scores do not include results of Identify non-rhyme section.** n=l

Figure 1.Kana chart representingphonemes with coloursNote: For example, ka is half in red (for [k]) and half in black (for [a]). Charts forclassroom use should use actual colours instead of colour words to represent the phonemes.

red green

3


On JALT98

Japanese Students’ Academic Literacy in English

Mayumi Fujioka, Indiana University

Focusing on graduate students, this study examined areas of difficulty for native Japanesewriters composing research papers in English. I also sought to investigate the writers’processes in learning to write research papers in English. Data included interviews andwriting samples collected from six participants who were education majors at an Americanuniversity. I found that participants perceived difficulties in the following three areas: (1)rhetorical differences between English and Japanese which include (a) the type of informationto be presented in the introduction and the conclusion and tight connections between thesecomponents and (b) redundancy problems; (2) audience awareness; and (3) organizinginformation from source materials. The study also found that participants learn to deal withthese primarily through task engagement and interaction with others (e.g., professors, tutors,friends). Finally, I discuss the pedagogical implications for university English education inJapan.

IntroductionWith the increase of Japanese studentsstudying in graduate schools in English-speaking countries, more needs to be knownabout their acquisition of advancedacademic literacy in English. I focused ongraduate students, and looked at areas ofdifficulty for native Japanese writerscomposing academic papers in English-especially difficulties associated withwriting instruction in Japan and differencesof rhetorical conventions between Japaneseand English. I also examined howJapanese writers acquire the rhetoricalconventions of academic writing in Englishand necessary skills to write research papersin English. In this study, I interpretexamples of students’ commentaries in lightof the relevant literature.

MethodParticipantsSix Japanese students, one male and fivefemales, at an American universityvolunteered as participants in the study.They were all graduate students ineducation: four in comparative education,one in language education, and one inelementary education. Their ages rangedfrom early twenties to early thirties. Allhad completed their undergraduate degreesat Japanese universities and had obtainedscores of 550 or above on TOEFL.

Participants’ majors in Japan were asfollows: two in English language andliterature, one in German, one in politicalscience, one in law, and one in specialeducation. In Japan, the two Englishmajors took English writing courses wherethey reported they had mainly learned to



write personal essays. They also wrotetheir graduation theses (sotsuron) in English,although they reported that the feedbackthey received from their thesis advisorsmainly concerned content. The remainingfour non-English majors in Japan took onlygeneral English courses (ippan kyouyo)where they mostly did readings.

Data sources and analysisData sources were open-ended interviewsand writing samples (i.e., drafts, finalsubmissions) of research papers whichparticipants were currently producing fortheir graduate courses in education.Participants described what they had done towrite their papers (e.g., reading sources,making outlines, writing drafts, consultingwith their professors, tutors, friends, etc.)and reflected on their processes of learningto write research papers in English in Japanand in the U.S. All the interviews, whichwere conducted in Japanese, were audio-taped with the participants’ permission.Selected transcriptions of the interviews inJapanese and their English translations werechecked by the participants for accuracy andadditional comments. Recurring themeswere identified across interviews,particularly the parts which illustratedparticipants’ processes of learning to writeresearch papers in English, as well asdifficulties they perceived in their learningprocesses.

FindingsParticipants perceived difficulties in thefollowing three areas: (1) rhetoricaldifferences between English and Japanesewhich include (a) the type of information tobe presented in the introduction and theconclusion or tight connections betweenthese components and (b) problems withredundancy; (2) audience awareness; and (3)organizing information from sourcematerials.

1. Rhetorical differences betweenEnglish and Japanese(a)Information included in andconnections between the introductionand the conclusionThis theme is related to contrastive

rhetoric. Although Kubota (1997) hascautioned against stereotyping culturalconventions of writing, herecharacterizations of English and Japanesediscourse practices are introduced due totheir relevancy to the participants’comments.

Based on previous studies, Kobayashiand Rinnert (1996) contrasted some ofthe essential features of general discourseconventions in English and Japanese.They characterized overall movements ofAmerican discourse as “deductive” andJapanese discourse as “inductive.”According to Kobayashi and Rinnert,connections between an introduction anda conclusion are tighter in Americandiscourse than Japanese discourse. I nAmerican discourse, a thesis or summary,which is stated in the introduction, isrestated in the conclusion without newideas. In Japanese discourse, theintroduction includes a topic but theconclusion includes an indication of anending point or expansion of ideas.

One participant, Hiromi’ characterizedJapanese and English discourseconventions similar to Kobayashi andRinnert.

Hiromi (first-year master’sstudent)[In Japanese writing], you don’tunderstand what the author is tryingto say without reading theconclusion. Also, the conclusionin Japanese is supposed to be ageneration of new ideas or new


On JALT98

implications out of what youdiscuss. The introduction, “ki" [inki-she-ten-ketsu] is more likedrawing people’s attention. It isnot necessarily relevant to yourmain topic. The introduction inEnglish is an outline of what youare going to discuss, and theconclusion is to paraphrase whatyou have discussed, not go beyondthat . . . At first, I didn’t know howto structure a research paper inEnglish. While reading lots ofjournal articles in English, I cameto realize the expected structures.

Masayo, a second-year master’sstudent, also characterized the overallstructure of English research papers asbuilding discussions outlined in theintroduction and summarizing thediscussions in the conclusion. LikeHiromi, at first Masayo struggled withthe expected structures of Englishresearch papers, particularly theintroduction. However, she was nowable to articulate the type of informationto be presented in the introduction, suchas a problem statement, literature review,and structure of the main argument.Masayo first learned these structures in awriting course she took in her firstsemester in the U.S. However, sheconsidered this training basic and felt thatshe learned the expected structuresthrough “reading journal articles andbooks” for graduate courses, a pointwhich Hiromi also made.

In contrast to Masayo, Jun perceivedinitial difficulty in writing appropriateconclusions. He had learned thatEnglish conclusions were basicallysummaries, whereas Japaneseconclusions added new ideas. He alsolearned to tighten connections betweenthe introduction and the conclusion inEnglish research papers:

Jun (second-year master’sstudent)I used to write the introduction first,which is a Japanese way of writing;in Japanese, you can startdiscussing something and graduallymake what is being discussedunderstood. However, since theintroduction and the conclusion areclosely connected in English, Ilearned that it would be better towrite the introduction last afterfinishing the rest of the paper.

The strategy of writing theintroduction last, which Jun learned byhimself through experience, worked wellfor the research paper that he was writingduring this study. He outlined and wrotethe introduction based on the informationwhich he presented in the rest of thepaper. His feeling that his introductionwas an effective overview of his paperwas confirmed by his professor’scomment that his introduction was“excellent.”

(a) Problems with redundancyMiki characterized her problems with

English writing more globally. In Japan,Miki’s professors commented that herEnglish writing was “wordy.” In theU.S., her tendency toward redundancywas also noted by native-English-speaking friends who read her researchpapers. By redundancy, she did notmean simple repetition of words andphrases. Rather, she referred torepetition of the same idea and/oradditions of ideas irrelevant to the mainpoint. She related her problems toJapanese students in general:

Miki (second-year doctoralstudent)Japanese writing style ischaracterized by such phrases as

162 Voices of lnterpretation


beating around the bush, notconcise, the point cominglast . ..When Japanese speakerswrite in English according to theJapanese writing styles, theirwriting looks redundant to nativeEnglish speakers . . . In Japan,Japanese students generally do notlearn to organize their ideas at theparagraph level but simply translatesentences in Japanese into English.So those characteristics wouldcontribute to redundancy in Englishwriting by Japanese speakers...Miki felt that her characterization of

Japanese discourse as “beating around thebush” was confirmed when she readKaplan’s work (1966) in which hecharacterized Oriental languages’rhetorical patterns as “circular.”

Miki believed that Japanese students’problems with redundancy could beovercome by writing many researchpapers and receiving feedback fromreaders. In fact, she felt that she hadbeen receiving fewer comments onredundancy from native English speakersas she gained experience writing researchpapers in English.

2. Audience AwarenessThe second area of difficulty which

participants perceived is audienceawareness. The conception of audiencein writing is a relevant topic forcontrastive rhetoric. Hinds (1987)classified Japanese as a “reader-responsible language” and English as a“writer-responsible language.”According to Hinds, in Japanese, it is thereader’s responsibility to makeconnections between arguments and whatthe writer intends to say, whereas inEnglish, the writer is responsible forproviding the propositional structure andpresenting his/her views clearly. In arelated discussion, Carson (1992)reported that “Japanese students,socialized to value the ability of thelistener/reader to understand, have

developed the ability to read between thelines” (p. 54).

The difference between reader/writerresponsibilities seems to be illustrated inYumiko’s response to her Americanprofessor’s comments on her paper. Heunderlined and questioned some of herwords and sentences, and told her toclarify them. When she saw herprofessor’s comments and markings,Yumiko felt that he had read her papersuperficially and that a Japanese readerwould make more effort to understandwhat she intended to say. She madecultural observations about roles of writerand reader:

Yumiko (first-year master’sstudent)In Japanese writing, the strategy ishow you can make your writinglook difficult or how you can makethe reader read between the lines . . .However, in English, if the writerdoes not make himself or herselfclear, readers do not try tounderstand.

Recognizing possible differences inroles of writer and reader betweenEnglish and Japanese, Yumiko felt thatshe had to learn to clarify her ideas in herEnglish writing.

Similar to Yumiko, Hiromi madecultural observations based on commentsher professor had made on a previousresearch paper, requesting that she clarify,explain or elaborate points.

H i r o m iThe reason I get a comment fromDr. Miller like “you need todevelop this point further” isprobably I assume that everyoneshares the same assumption, that’sa Japanese way ofthinking...Japanese people tend tothink that “my assumption is thesame as your assumption.” So ifnative English speakers read our


On JALT96

writing, we may sound like we skipor miss something in our flow oflogic.

Hiromi’s observations illustrate thepoint which Mok (1993) made about thehigh level of shared knowledge betweenthe writer and the reader in Japanese texts.After realizing the need to raise heraudience awareness, on her second paperfor Professor Miller, Hiromi carefullychecked whether she made herself clearenough and included all steps in the flowof ideas.

Tomoko also perceived an initial lackof audience awareness, but attributed it toher lack of training in conceiving anaudience in Japan.

Tomoko (first-year master’sstudent)At Japanese schools, I mostly wrote“sakubun” (essays) in which Iexpressed my personal thoughtsand feelings freely and had neverthought about a reader ... So in myfirst semester in the U.S., I haddifficulty thinking about anaudience for my research papers.My tutors [Americans] told me thatI needed to explain and be specificso that the reader who did not havea background in my topic wouldunderstand. When I read mydrafts again after I got their advice,I felt as if I were writing for myself,like I verbalized only three out often of my thoughts . . . I reallyappreciated my tutors’ commentsand advice. They made medevelop a sense of audience for thefirst time.

3. Organizing information fromsourcesTomoko also pointed out lack of

training in writing from academic sourcesin Japan. She felt that Japanese studentsgenerally do not receive training inwriting research papers based on multiple

sources (e.g., books, journal articles), askill necessary in U.S. study. S h ereported that her experience of writing agraduation thesis in Japan was notenough to learn to organize informationfrom sources.

TomokoI feel I am not good at pullingtogether information from a widesource, and that may be a generaltendency that Japanese have whenthey do research. Last semester[in my first semester in the U.S.], Ihad difficulty organizinginformation from the sourcematerials to write research papers.I tried to write down what I got outof the sources in my notebook, butit was really inconvenient becauseyou can’t change orders of ideas inthe notebook. So this time I triedusing index cards. With the indexcards, it was easier for me to findinformation that I was going to usefor my paper.

Implications for university EnglishEducation in Japan’This study found three areas of difficultyJapanese students perceive in learning towrite research papers in English: (1)rhetorical differences between English andJapanese which include (a) information to beincluded in and connections between theintroduction and the conclusion; (b)redundancy problems; (2) audienceawareness; and (3) organizing informationfrom sources. The study also found thatparticipants learn to deal with theseprimarily through task engagement andinteractions with others. They usedpublished articles as “models” (see Leki,1995 for a similar finding) to learn theexpected structures of research papers;reflected on the feedback from professors,tutors and friends on their papers and tried toovercome their problems (e.g., redundancy,lack of audience awareness); and developedeffective strategies (e.g., writing the


Focus on the C lassroom

introduction last, using index cards).These findings have the following

implications for university Englisheducation in Japan. First, in order to betterprepare Japanese students who plan to studyin English-speaking countries, moreopportunities should be provided forstudents to read and write academic texts inEnglish. Since Japanese students from avariety of academic majors are expected tostudy in English-speaking countries, suchopportunities should be provided for non-English majors as well as English majors.Second, specific training should be providedon possible differences in rhetoricalstructures between Japanese and English(see Mok, 1993; Kimball, 1996), theexpected structures of research papers inEnglish, awareness of the reader’s needs,strategies to better approach academicreading and writing tasks in English, andother techniques to succeed in academicEnglish.

Notes1. All names are pseudonyms.2. As the data show, participants’

observations of English and Japanesediscourse conventions raise variousissues beyond the focus of this paper,such as comparison of different levels ofgenres (research papers in English andgeneral writing in Japanese), as well asthe possibility of oversimplification ofdiscourse practices of both languages.These issues will be discussed in a later

paper.

ReferencesCarson, J.G. (1992). Becoming biliterate:

First language influences. Journal ofSecond Language Writing, 1 (l), 37-60.

Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writerresponsibility: A new typology. In U.Connor, & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writingacross languages: Analysis of L2 text(pp. 141-152). Reading, MA:Addison- Wesley.

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thoughtpatterns in inter-cultural education.Language Learning, 16, 1-20.

Kimball, J. (1996). Writing on academictopics: Externalizing rhetoricalprocesses in an intercultural context.JALT Journal, 18 (1) 55-66.

Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1996).Factors affecting composition evaluationin an EEL context: Cultural rhetoricalpattern and readers’ background.Language Learning, 46 (3), 397-437.

Kubota, R. (1997). A reevaluation of theuniqueness of Japanese written discourse:Implications for contrastive rhetoric.Written Communication, 14 (4), 460-480.

Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESLstudents in writing tasks across thecurriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (2),235-260.

Mok, W. E. (1993). Contrastive rhetoricand the Japanese writer of EFL. JALTJournal, 15 (2), 151-161.

Empowerment and Unionization: Reason, Application andEffect

Michael H. Fox, Hyogo CollegeBill Holden, Hokuriku University

Farrell Cleary, Prefectural University of KumamotoJohn McLaughlin, Kanagawa Prefectural College of Foreign Studies

In this paper, we look at the changing conditions of employment security during the economicrecession in Japan. We argue that teachers in higher education need to protect themselvesthrough unionization. Although Japan offers an extensive range of public services to the


O n JALT98

IntroductionThe Japan which will soon enter a newcentury is considerably different from thecountry of 20 years ago. In 1980, it wasconsidered the masterpiece of industrialdevelopment, a miracle of political economy.For the next 15 years, it continued to growrich and welcome new people and ideas.This all ended with the burst of the over-inflated bubble economy: The collapse ofthe banking and financial sectors and thetremendous loss of investments in the Asiancrisis have since fueled a conservativebacklash driven by economic considerations.

This slump has also influenced theeducational sector. Corporations areattempting to co-opt and commercializehigher education; national and publicuniversities have been shedding foreign staff.Many experts believe that the economy hasnot yet bottomed out, and that the socio-cultural effects of the recession will becomemore severe for educators. It is for thisreason that “empowerment,” long a centralconcern of the United Nations and humanrights circles, has become an importanttheme in tertiary education. In this paper,we examine empowerment from the politicalperspective of unionization whereindividuals can join together to protect theircommon interests and rights. More


specifically, we consider the reasons,application and effects of empowerment interms of unionization for those employed inhigher education.

Why unionization: Where law is notenough.What can be done when conflicts occur inthe workplace? In a country whereovertime is normal time and death fromkaroushi (overwork) is less than alarming,are there any organs charged with regulatingthe workplace? Though appearances mayindicate otherwise, Japan offers an extensivearray of public services to the individualworker. McLaughlin (1998) gives adetailed report of these offices. Theyinclude the Labor Administration Offices(rousei jimusho), and the Prefectural LaborStandards Office (roudou kijun kantokusho).Yet, they remain difficult to navigate.McLaughlin concludes that a labor union isthe best way to negotiate conflicts in highereducation and to seek redress for Japaneseor foreigner alike. This is because the lawalone is often not enough to win a case; inJapan, political backing is frequentlyindispensable.

Japan has a detailed and accessible bodyof labor laws (Sugeno, 1992). It also has ajudiciary with ample experience in labor


cases. Judicial process, though, takesmuch time and, at best, should be considereda last chance option (Haley, 1994). At thesame time, unions deal with conflict andcomplaint on a daily basis. No matter whatconceptions of human rights, workers’ rightsor due process of the law one holds, anylabor dispute is ultimately a political one-astruggle for power-between worker andemployer. From a union perspective,political power is gained, for the most part,by organizing into larger groups whichempower the individual. The mostimportant action a union takes is negotiateon behalf of its members. An employermay refuse to negotiate with the union, butin the face of strong backing, this is oftenunwise. It is vital to remember, however,that in the world of “politics” compromisesare inevitable. To a union, a settlement isbetter than holding out for all or nothingbecause one’s principles have been violated.

Who is eligible to join a union? Unionmembership is accessible to all regardless ofcategory, gender, or nationality. Mostunion organizers would prefer that teachersform a branch at their workplace no matterhow small. NUGW (National Union ofGeneral Workers) Tokyo South, for instance,requires a minimum of three people to forma branch. Forming a branch makes it easierto get support from other branches forcampaigns and demonstrations; it alsomakes it less difficult for the union to makeappeals and present demands to themanagement.

The most important way a union can helpteachers in higher education is throughactivating its network for political tactics by,for example, attending demonstrations infront of workplaces; sponsoring protestpostcard campaigns or collecting signatureson petitions to present to employers; and,gathering letters of support from the leadersof other teachers unions affiliated in thesame labor federation, or even in differentfederations. There are several largeumbrella federations: NUGW is affiliatedwith Zenrokyo, perhaps the most progressivefederation, and the only one that actively

organizes foreign workers. Many unionsjoin in coalitions to lobby the Diet andgovernment Ministries for the rights offoreign workers, limited-term contractworkers, women and part-time workers andagainst current proposals by the LDP(Liberal Democratic Party) to weaken theLabor Standards Act. Considering thatforeign residents have almost norepresentation at the various levels ofgovernment in Japan, with the exception of afew municipal advisory councils, joining aunion and supporting the progressive strandsof the labor movement are two of the bestways to become politically active, forforeigner or Japanese alike. Whateverone’s view of law or politics, it must beremembered that human rights are neitherendowed nor enforced by heaven, but existonly insofar as they are actively exercised.

Unionization at universities: Private vs.publicThe benefits of faculty unionization atprivate universities have been wellresearched. Olinger (1996) and Holden(1997) provide a detailed case study of howa newly created college attempted to rideroughshod over its faculty in total disregardof labor law and human decency.Unionization not only led to empowerment;it also attracted governmental attention andstern warnings from Monbusho. In thatcase, the final result was employmentstability and peace of mind for both staff andstudents.

No such studies exist for publicuniversities. The difference betweenpublic and private is quite acute: Privateuniversities may be owned by an individual,a family, or a partnership, but public andnational institutions are owned and managedby the state. Faculty at these publicinstitutions are employed as civil servants(kokka komuin) and subject to the Lawregarding Public Officials, which servesmany purposes. One of these is to curtailinvolvement in political action at odds withthe status quo; this law includes strictguidelines on the permissible degree of

Voices of In terpreta t ion 167

On JALT98

unionization in public institutions.What does this mean for the foreign

national employed at a public university?In order to become a civil servant, one mustbe a Japanese citizen. Until 1982, non-Japanese could not be employed under equalstatus with their colleagues. 1982 saw thepassing of the Special Provisory Law forEmployment of Foreign Faculty at Nationaland Public Institutions permitting non-Japanese to be employed under the similiarstatus of full time lecturer (sennin koushi),associate professor (jokyouju) and professor(kyouju) rather than in marginal categoriessuch as “foreign lecturer.” However, manyuniversities ignore these legal provisionsand continue to classify foreign facultyunder other nomenclature.

“Academic apartheid”In the last few years many nationalinstitutions have obeyed Monbushoinitiative and sacked existing foreign faculty,replacing them with younger (and thereforecheaper) foreign staff or domestic long-termfaculty. Labeled as “academic apartheid”by Hall (1997), this policy has beenelucidated by Freeman (1996) and Shiina(1995). Foreign staff at national andpublic universities who are employed underseparate arbitrary categories are isolatedwith no chance of union support. For thosethreatened with dismissal, legal remedy ispossible, though unadvisable, since suchuniversities are an appendage of thegovernment. Suing a public university isthus akin to suing the state, and over 90% ofsuch cases end in defeat. In the face ofsuch overwhelming odds, several foreignfaculty, encouraged by one instructor’sbattle and defeat in Okinawa (Aldwinckle,1998), recently formed a union to strengthentheir positions when their employerthreatened their job security. Their storyfollows.

The Kumamoto Prefectural Universitycase: BackgroundThe Prefectural University of Kumamoto(PUK), formerly Kumamoto Prefectural

Women’s College, assumed its present statusin 1992. It employs 11 foreign faculty outof a total staff of around 90. On October 21998, six of the 11 foreign faculty receivedletters stating that their contracts would notbe renewed for the following year. ThePresident, Takashi Teshima, announced thetermination of employing foreign faculty as“special, irregular, part-time lecturers.”These six irregular, foreign lecturers wouldbe replaced by a regular and mixed part-timepositions. Showing twisted logic, thePresident claimed that he was assuagingexisting claims by abolishing the “irregular”way of employing full-time foreignfaculty-who had always asked for“regular” (joukin) posts-adding that theywould be free to apply for the newly createdposts.

What lead to one of the largest purges offoreign faculty in post-war history? I n1993, the Kumamoto Women’s University,in accordance with prefectural directive,asked its nine foreign faculty to sign Lettersof Acceptance of Appointment as senninkyouin (“full-time faculty members” in thetranslation supplied by the employer) in thenew university (PUK). The letters wereaddressed to the Governor of KumamotoPrefecture. However, upon arriving forwork on April 1, 1994, four of these staffwere presented with documents declaringtheir status as “part-time, special irregular,Foreign Teachers”. For three years thesepeople (joined by some of those who werehired in 1995 and 1996) refused to sign the“part-time” contracts and repeatedly askedfor contracts which matched previouspromises and reflected the weight of a full-time occupation.

One day, a sense of alarm struck theadministration when documents relating tothe case were released by the KumamotoPrefectural Administration. Thesedocuments show clearly that the universityreported to the Ministry of Education that itwas employing all its foreign teachers asfull-time faculty members with the ranks ofprofessor (kyouju), associate professor(jokyouju), or lecturer (koushi). The four



“special irregular Foreign Teachers” werereported as lecturers. Prefectural officialsand senior staff at the university havecontinually emphasized the differencesbetween those foreign teachers with“regular” ranks (professor and lecturer) andthose who were mere “foreign teachers.”Needless to say, the exposure of thesedocuments confirms a different story.

This Lewis Carroll-like tendency of theuniversity to bend words and peopleaccording to whim led the foreign faculty totake the unusual step of actively protestingdiscrimination within the university. I nresponse to institutional resistance, theforeign faculty sought legal advice andformed a union in 1997. As the universityadamantly refused to negotiate, threemembers of the new union held a one-daystrike on June 24, 1998. Several monthslater, on November 19, 1998, the KumamotoGeneral Union, affiliated with the NationalUnion of General Workers (NationalWorkers Council), submitted a “claim”(moshitate) to the Kumamoto LabourCommission in which they accused thePrefecture and the University of unfairlabour practices: specifically, “union-busting, refusal to negotiate, and theworsening of labour conditions”-all ofwhich are in breach of labour laws.

Forming a union brought an immediateeffect. Most importantly, it instituted arecognized legal framework which wasimmediately taken more seriously by theuniversity and the prefecture than at anytimeduring the previous years. Until then,foreign staff had consisted, during theprevious three and a half years, of anamorphous group that engaged theadministration in endless buck passing andblaming. With the formation of the union,the university suddenly stepped forward andaccepted responsibility. Theadministration’s scapegoats of the previousthree years, the Ministry of Education andthe Prefecture, suddenly disappeared, andthe President admitted that key decisionshad been made at the university level.Now, rather than regretting these decisions,

he defended them as “appropriate.”

A measure of successThe union formed at PUK had a clearobjective: the achievement of paritybetween foreign and Japanese staff. Butwhat is the ultimate measure of success orfailure in such a venture, when the weakstand against the strong? Even withoutachieving its goal, the unionized facultyhave reaped several rewards in a longstruggle. First among these has been toincrease awareness of the situation offoreign faculty among Japanese inKumamoto and throughout the country. Ithas become increasingly difficult forJapanese staff and colleagues at the PUK toplead ignorance of the situation in responseto calls for help. Secondly, the events inKumamoto have served notice on publicuniversities throughout Japan that theirforeign staff will not acquiesce indiscriminatory treatment. Many Japaneseprofessors, with impeccable liberalcredentials, appear honestly to believe theforeign staff are happy with their contractsbecause they never hear any complaints.As a result of unionization efforts, PUKfaculty have come to realize that the silenceis often motivated by fear rather thansatisfaction.

In a broader sense, the psychologicalrewards have been priceless. In response tothe question “Has it been worth it?“, theforeign staff answer with a resounding“yes.” The camaraderie, the help garneredfrom the union, from the support group, thepublicity received in the newspapers-allthese have made the long hard work into arewarding life experience. Even without aclear victory, if other faculty learn from thisexperience it is clearly an achievement.The foreign lecturers all concur thatspeaking openly and without fear about theirsituation for five years has been the greatestreward.

Faculty empowerment: Looking to thefutureThe Kumamoto case and the dismissal of


On JALT98

foreign faculty at many other universitieshave taken quite a spotlight in thesetumultuous 1990s. The financial boom ofthe 198Os, which made Japan appeargenerous and intent on“Internationalization”, is clearly over. Theinstitution of Ninkisei contracts and theiranticipated effects, for better or worse, willonly further marginalize non-Japanesenationals. As the political and economicenvironment increasingly shifts to the right,the Ministry of Education and critics of theeducational system will continue to co-optand commercialize universities, historicallyperceived as a threat or challenge to the state(Horio, 1988). Those who seek alivelihood as professional educators atprivate, but especially at public, universitiesmay be subject to termination upon somewhim and without legal recourse.

Over the last two years, several mattershave become increasingly clear about thestructure of national and public universities.The first is that the Japanese governmentand the Ministry of Education are not goingto respond unless pushed much harder thanthey have been so far. The degree ofcontrol over the media which thegovernment indirectly exercises and thenatural tendency toward obedience toauthority and self-censorship suggest thatcases like PUK or the Gallagher case shouldbe also taken overseas where they may beexposed freely and opened to gaiatsu.From such a perspective, the following aresome possible measures to rectify thesituation:

l Sources of employment informationoverseas (e.g., The Chronicle ofHigher Education, TESOL PlacementServices) and on the web whichaccept advertising from universitiespracticing discrimination in hiringand/or tenuring should be made awareof the current situation andencouraged not to accept furtheradvertising from these institutions.

l Home governments of individualsaffected adversely by institutionalized.


discrimination should be notified andurged to make this practice publicknowledge in the hope that foreigngovernments will take a firm line onthe issue.Individuals employed on limited-termcontracts or under conditions whichdiffer significantly from theirJapanese colleagues and who have norealistic hope of obtaining the sameworking conditions should censuretheir institutions so that potentialemployees are made aware of thesituation. For more information, see[http://www.voicenet.co.jp/-davald/blacklist.html].University TESOL programs world-wide should be apprised of theracially-motivated denial of equalemployment opportunities at Japaneseinstitutions and urged to make theirgraduates aware that should theychoose to seek employment in Japanthey will be almost certain to facediscrimination on the basis of theirnationality.Instructors should seek to findcommon cause and ally themselveswith Korean, Chinese and otherminorities in fighting institutionalizeddiscrimination by the Japanesegovernment. A major reason fordenied equal opportunity is thegovernment’s disdain of minoritiesentering into careers in public service.This will contribute to a morepluralistic society, and the muchvaunted "kokusaika.”

The role of JALTThe purpose of any academic association isto advance society through research andeducation. JALT, the largest association ofits kind in Asia, and a member of the JapanScience Council, has a vested interest inadvancing language education in Japan andthroughout the world. One purpose oflanguage education is to expand the bordersof the mind through word and thought.When institutionalized power attempts to


constrain or curtail this purpose, and thelivelihood of its members, we argue thatJALT should make an unequivocal andpublic statement of its position on the issueof foreign faculty at public universities. Itshould gather signatures in support of aresolution, and present it to the Ministry ofEducation, as well as to all national andprivate universities and colleges. Theresponsibility of JALT extends beyond thewalls of the classroom. We assert that, asan academic association, JALT has the rightand the responsibility to speak out activelyfor the welfare of its members in the field.

ReferencesAldwinckle, D. (1998). Academics in

Japan: Academic apartheid update.Journal of Professional Issues 4 (2), 4-11.

Freeman, J. (1995). Monbusho vitiatesgaikokujin kyoshi. The LanguageTeacher 19, 35-36.

Haley, J. O. (1994). Authority withoutpower. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Hall, I. (1997). Cartels of the mind:

Japan’s intellectual closed shop.Norton: New York.

Holden, B. (1997). Curbing the excessesof private university administrators:Implications for job security. Journal ofProfessional Issues, 3, 3-6.

Horio, T. (1988). Educational thought andideology in modern Japan. Tokyo:University of Tokyo Press.

Mitchell, R. (1976). Thought control inprewar Japan. Ithaca, New York:Cornell University Press.

Olinger, S. (1996). A case of wrongfuldismissal: Some reflections. TheLanguage Teacher, 20, 46-47.

McGlaughlin, J. (1998, December). Whyteachers need a union. The NewObserver, 10-16.

Shiina, S (1995, May). Zainichi e nosabetsu ni tsujiru gaikokujin kyoshimondai no honshitsu. Ronza, 76-79.

Sugeno, K. (1992). Japanese labor law.Seattle: University of WashingtonPress.

The Function of Logical Modals in Scientific WritingAtsuko K. Yamazaki and Motoko Shimizu, Nippon Institute of Technology

We conducted a study to identify how much certainty scientists contribute to modal verbs inscientific papers. Scientists who were native and non-native speakers of English were askedto indicate how much certainty they attribute to modals and non-modal verbs in Englishchemistry reports. The certainties obtained for might and may from the native speakers wereclose, and a t-test between them concluded no significant difference (t = 1.105, df = 70, p =0.27). However, the same analysis of data from non-native subjects has clearly shown thatthe non-native scientists regarded might as conveying less certainty than may (t = 4.466, df =52, p < 0.001). This difference may be attributed to English grammar books which state thatmight express certainty. The results suggest that ESL/EFL teachers should be aware of theimportance of teaching modal verbs associated with their socio-pragmatic functions.


IntroductionLanguage used in science is required toreflect the precise and objective nature ofscience, and scientists need to pay attentionto the function of words when expressingtheir logic. When using such modal verbsas must, may, could, might and should inresearch papers, the epistemic modalityexpressed with these auxiliary verbs canplay an important role in expressingcertainty or possibility toward findings andhypotheses. The scientist, therefore, needsto carefully select an appropriate modal verbin order to convey precisely his/her idea tothe reader. English grammar books forscientists often advise that the use of suchmodal verbs as may, might and could shouldbe avoided in scientific writing (Harada1994; Yamamoto & Fukutake 1995).However, many scientists feel that it isnecessary to use these modals to expressinference in their papers, since nothing is100% certain in science and inference is animportant part of scientific research. I nsummarizing empirical studies on hedgingin scientific discourse, Hyland (1994) pointsout the frequent occurrence of modal verbsin academic writing. Harada’s survey(1994) also shows that scientists often usemodal verbs to express conjecture in theirresearch papers. In her study of medicalEnglish abstracts, Salager-Meyer (1992)provides evidence that modal verbs arefrequently used in the data synthesis,conclusion and recommendation sections.

The use of modal verbs in generalEnglish has been studied by many linguists(Jesperson 1964; Palmer 1968; Quirk,Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik, 1985).Halliday (1985) gives a diagram showingprobabilities expressed with propositions.This diagram rates must as carrying thehighest probability among modal verbs. I nthe use of modals to express certainty or

172 Voices o f In te rp re ta t ion

probability, Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1983) have established a hierarchywhich rates will as having the highest degreeof certainty, followed by must, should, may,with could and might as having the lowestcertainty. They also note that the degreesof probability expressed by these modals arenot necessarily equidistant: There is asmaller gap between may (also could) andmight than between may and should in theirprobability scale. This applies when themodals are used affirmatively (Celce-Murcia& Larsen-Freeman, 1983). In comparingmay and might in terms of their functions,Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik(1985) also note that might is used toexpress less certainty.

The use of these modals in scientificwriting has been examined by Huddleston(1971). He concludes that may is oftenused to express uncertainty or possibility;might is an “unreal” counterpart to mayregarding certainty/possibility; and mustexpresses something necessarily true(Huddleston, 1971). The use of modalverbs as hedging devices in scientificwriting has been discussed by manyresearchers (Adams 1984, Hyland 1994).Hyland (1994) claims that modals appear tobe typical devices for expressing hedging inscientific writing. Although the epistemicmodality for the modals has beenqualitatively measured in scientific writing(Salager-Meyer, 1992), how muchcertainty/possibility each modal verb carrieshas rarely been quantified according to theirempirical uses in scientific writing. It istherefore important to establish a set ofquantitative criteria for the epistemic uses ofmodal verbs in scientific writing.

In this study, we conducted a survey toexamine the epistemic uses of modal verbssuch as must, may and might in scientificwriting. The study focused on the degree


of certainty attributed to each modal verb byscientists who were either native or non-native speakers of English. We willpresent the statistically analyzed results ofthe survey, along with the interpretation ofthe results from pragmatic aspects of modalverbs. Finally, we will considerimplications for teaching.

MethodSubjectsWe divided the subjects into two groupsaccording to whether the individual was anative or non-native speaker of English.The group of native speakers consisted of 71natural scientists involved in chemical,physical, biological or meteorologicalresearch at universities or companies inCalifornia, Minnesota and New York State.They ranged from 27 to 65 years of age, andhad presented their own research papers atleast once within the last three years.Fifty-nine of them (84.3%) were male.The subject group comprising non-nativespeakers consisted of 53 male scientistsinvolved in chemical, physical, medical,meteorological or oceanographic research atuniversities. The subjects’ first languagewas Japanese, and their ages ranged from 30to 58. All of the subjects had published atleast one research paper of their own inEnglish within the last three years.

ProcedureThe subjects were given a questionnairewhich contained six different brief passagesfrom chemical research reports. They wereasked to show how much certainty theythought the author of each paragraph hadtoward his/her findings stated in the finalsentence of the paragraph. The certaintywas indicated by placing an “X” on apercentage scale ranging from 0 to 100 %.

The questionnaires were presented in fourformats (Format I through IV) of sixparagraphs each. The six paragraphs weretaken from the concluding parts of abstractsin “Chemical Abstracts,” 1980, andmodified to consist of three to five sentencesfor this study. The first and the sixth

paragraphs were exactly the same in all fourformats, and were added to thequestionnaires as distracter paragraphs.The second, third, fourth and fifthparagraphs were the same in all formats,except for the last sentence. The lastsentence of each paragraph had a differentmodal or non-modal verb in each format.From the second to the fifth paragraph, thesentences did not contain any wordsindicating certainty except for the modalverbs.

Data analysisData sets obtained from the native and non-native subjects were treated using the samestatistical analysis from The NumberCruncher Statistical System v. 5.6 (Hintze,1990). In order to examine whether thedegree of certainty given to each modal ornon-modal verb differed according to thecontents of the four paragraphs (paragraphs2 through 5), a one-way analysis of variance(ANOVA) was computed among theparagraphs for each modal verb and the non-modal verbs for both data sets. In addition,t-tests were performed between the non-modal verbs and each of the modals;between must and may, between must andmight; and, between may and might. Thepurpose was to see if a significant differenceexisted between any of these pairs in termsof the degree of certainty attributed to themby both the native and non-native subjects.

ResultsFor both data sets obtained from the nativeand non-native subjects, the results ofANOVA showed no significant differencesamong the four paragraphs for each modaland non-modal verb. Since the onlytreatment for each paragraph was the use ofmodal verbs and the non-existence ofmodals in the final sentences, the degree ofcertainty rated in the paragraphs can thus beregarded as the degree of certainty given toeach modal or non-modal verb.

The averages for certainties attributed tothe verbs by the native and non-nativesubjects showed the same hierarchical order


On JALT98

for the modals and the non-modals. Thenon-modals obtained the highest degree ofcertainty (native: M = 82.3%, non-native: M= 89.2%), and must was rated as the secondmost certain (native: M = 75.4%, non-native:M = 85%). Next was may (native: M =44%, non-native: M = 57.2%), with mighthaving the lowest degree of certainty(native: M = 41.7%, non-native: M = 50.3%)given by the native and non-native subjects.In addition, a very significant difference wasobtained between the non-modal verbs andeach modal, between must and may, andbetween must and might in t-tests conductedbetween these pairs, for both the native andnon-native subjects. However, the result ofthe t-tests between may and might showedno significant difference (t = 1.105 , df = 70,p = 0.27) forthe native speakers; 49.3% ofthe native subjects attributed highercertainty to might than to may. On theother hand, the same test performed for thenon-native subjects exhibited a significantdifference between may and might (t = 4.466,df = 52, p < 0.001).

DiscussionAccording to the results expressed inpercentages, the non-modal verbs, must, mayand might can be ordered from highestdegree of certainty to lowest for both thenative and non-native scientists. Althoughstatistical analysis for the native speakerscientists shows that the certainties carriedby may and might were not clearlydistinguishable, the non-native subjectsclearly differentiated between may andmight in terms of the certainties the modalscarry. The non-native subjects alsoattributed much higher certainties to mustthan did the native subjects.

The significance of this study can befound in the results which show there is nostatistical difference between may and mightin terms of certainties attributed by thenative subjects; nearly 50% of the nativesubjects attributed higher certainty to mightthan to may. On the other hand, the non-native subjects felt that may expressedsignificantly higher certainty than might.

Many English grammar books, includingthose for non-native speakers of English,suggest that might express certainty thanmay. In particular, many books for non-native speakers (Hyodo 1993; The JACETCommittee on Teaching Materials, 1996;Yamamoto & Fukutake, 1995) mention thatmight expresses weaker conjecture incomparison with may. Also, such textsoften note that must is used to expressinevitability or strong certainty, withoutgiving any clear comparison of must withnon-modals (Harada 1994; The JACETCommittee on Teaching Materials, 1996).This kind of description of must tends togive the impression that a sentence withmust expresses higher certainty than onewithout any modals; this may in part be thereason why the non-native subjects lenthigher certainty to must. However, theresults in this study suggest that scientistswho are native speakers of English attributemore certainty to a sentence without modalverbs than to one containing must, asdescribed in Halliday (1985). If a non-native scientist uses a modal verb to expresshis/her inference in the way that he/she haslearned from the non-sociopragmatic aspectsdescribed in the above books, a discrepancycould exist between the certainty that he/shewanted to show and the certainty that thereader infers from the modal verb.

Hinkel(l995) mentions theimportance of teaching modal verbs bytheir pragmatic functions, rather thanby their grammatical contexts only.Many studies, including Hinkel’s, notethat modal verbs can reflect non-nativespeakers’ cultural and languagebackgrounds to the degree that theytend to use modals in contexts differentfrom ones in which native Englishspeakers use them (Cook, 1978;DeGarrico, 1986; Gibbs, 1990). For anon-native learner, acquiring thepragmatic meaning of a modal verbtakes time since it often depends on theconnotations held by a society orcommunity where the language isspoken. The acquiring process can be



more difficult when the non-nativespeaker is learning English in his/herfirst language environment.

ConclusionThe results of this study suggest thatESL/EFL teachers should also note thesociolinguistic norm of the communitywhere the learner intends to use English.We believe that the comparison of resultsbetween native and non-native subjects willhelp quantitatively identify problems thatlearners tend to experience in the pragmaticuse of modal verbs. Also, the comparisonshould give more opportunities for teachersto be aware of how students use the modalverbs in their pragmatic contexts.

ReferencesAdams Smith, D. (1984). Medical

discourse: Aspects of author’s comment.English for Speci’c Purposes, 3, 25-36.

Chemical Abstracts. (1980). 92.Cook, W. (1978). Semantic structure of

English modals. TESOL Quarterly, 12,5-16.

Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D.(1983). The grammar book: An ESLteachers’ course. Rowley, MA:Newbury House.

DeGarrico, J. (1986). Tense, aspect, andtime in the English modality system.TESOL Quarterly, 20, 665-682

Gibbs, D. A. (1990). Second languageacquisition of the English modalauxiliaries can, could, may and might.Applied Linguistics, 11, 297-313.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introductiontofunctional grammar. London:Edward Arnold.

Harada, T. (1994). Kagakugijyutsu eigo nokakikata nyumon (Introduction to writing

English in science and technology).Tokyo: Agune Technology Center.

Hinkel, E. (1995). The use of modal verbsas a reflection of cultural values.TESOL Quarterly, 29 (2), 325-343.

Hintze J. L. (1990). Number cruncherstatistical system version 5.03 5/90.Salt Lake City: Academic ComputingSpecialists.

Huddleston, R. D. (1971). The sentence inwriting English. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academicwriting and EAP textbooks. English forSpecific Purposes, 13, 239-256.

Hyodo, S. (1993). The art of scientificwriting in English. Tokyo: TokyoUniversity Press.

Jesperson, O. (1964). Essentials of Englishgrammar. Alabama: University ofAlabama Press.

Palmer, F. R. (1968). A linguistic study ofthe English verbs. Coral Gables:University of Miami Press.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., &Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensivegrammar of the English language. NewYork: Longman.

Salager-Meyer, F. (1992). A text-type andmove analysis study of verb tense andmodality distribution in medical Englishabstracts. English for Specific Purposes,11, 93-113.

The JACET Committee on TeachingMaterials (1996). English workshop(3rd ed.). Tokyo: Sansyusya.

Yamamoto, T. & Fukutake, T. (1995).Kagakusya no tameno eigohoubun nokakikata. [How to write English papersfor chemists] (2nd ed.). Tokyo:Kagakudoujin.


On JALT98

Translating Questionnaires from Englishinto Japanese: Is It Valid?Dale Griffee, Seigakuin University

Currently questionnaire instruments account for a large proportion of educational research.This widespread use of questionnaire instruments makes questionnaire validity an importantissue. The purpose of this paper is to argue and give evidence for the thesis that if teachersengaging in questionnaire research translate questionnaire items from one language (in thiscase, English) into another language (in this case, Japanese), they cannot assume that thetranslated items are valid simply by having been translated. Even if the originalquestionnaire items were validated, this does not change the situation because validity iscontext specific and is not an abstract notion that transfers from one instrument to another. Iwant to argue against the assumption that a questionnaire written in English and thentranslated into Japanese results in an equivalent instrument. My point is not only must theoriginal questionnaire items be validated, but the translated questionnaire items must also bevalidated.

IntroductionSome researchers (Shimizu, 1995; Widdows& Voller, 1991) have made statisticalinferences based on questionnaire itemswhich were written originally in English,and then translated into Japanese. Neitherof these studies gave reasons for thetranslation, although we can suppose thatthey did so to ensure item comprehension bythe Japanese participants in their studies.The idea that translation of items from Ll toL2 enables comprehension by L2 nativespeakers is probably a widely held belief.For example, one colleague who read anearlier draft of this article pointed out that itseemed intuitively obvious that translationwould be beneficial for some students. I nboth papers cited above, the translatedinstruments were aimed at making

inferences about students’ needs or attitudes.Widdows and Voller wanted to know if theirJapanese students’ needs were being met bytraditional teaching methods, and Shimizuwanted to know if her students had differentattitudes toward Japanese teachers ofEnglish as opposed to foreign teachers ofEnglish.

Research such as that cited above raisesthe question of what it means for aninstrument to have been validated. Putsimply, to validate an instrument such as anachievement test or a questionnaire at leastthree things have to be done (for a morecomplete description see Griffee, 1997).First, the construct underlying thequestionnaire items has to be defined, whichis to say “before developing a test of anyconstruct, one should clearly and explicitly



express what one wants to test” (Most &Zeidner, 1995, p. 482). Second, thequestionnaire must be piloted to show howthe items perform. This requires dataanalysis including evidence to what extentthe instrument has reliability (Griffee, 1996).Third, after the administration, the testmaker has to provide evidence showing howwell the test is measuring the statedconstruct (Brown, 1988, p.101). In thispaper, I wish to raise two questions, presentevidence from the literature regarding theproblems of translation, and finally offer apractical alternative solution.

Two questionsThe first question has to do with thevalidation of the original test instrumentitems, and the second question has to dowith the validation of the translateddocument. I will refer to the originalEnglish instrument as the E-doc and theresulting Japanese translation instrument asthe J-doc. I will use the terms “test,”“instrument,” and “questionnaire”interchangeably.

The first question is, was the E-docvalidated? In the two studies previouslycited, the constructs underlying thequestionnaire were not defined, no reliabilityinformation was provided, and no evidencewas provided to show that the instrumentswere measuring the constructs. This is notunusual in the field of TESOL in general,and in Japan in particular. As far as I know,no article reporting questionnaire data in TheLanguage Teacher has ever reportedadequate validation information. In thetwo studies cited above, the translationcould not be valid since the original Englishlanguage instrument on which it was basedwas not validated. The answer to the firstquestion is, therefore, no.

The second question is, was the J-docvalidated? I want to argue that thetranslated J-doc becomes a new instrumentin itself and has to be revalidated as aseparate instrument. Even if the E-doc hadbeen validated, the validation does notautomatically carry over to the J-doc. We

have to have additional evidence that the J-doc is measuring what it purports to bemeasuring. The mere fact that the studentsspeak the Japanese language (ignoring theissue of foreign students in Japan) as theirLl and that the J-dot has been translatedinto the Japanese language is not enough toensure validation. For example, if you area native English speaker, you can askyourself two questions. The first questionis: Have you ever read an English sentencewhich was translated from Japanese (oranother language) into English and been leftwondering what it was trying to say? Thesecond question is: Have you ever read anEnglish sentence written originally inEnglish by a writer you knew to be anEnglish Ll writer and still been leftwondering what it meant? Most Englishnative speakers can answer yes to bothquestions. That this is the case is exactlywhy validation information is required in thefirst place. Even if the J-doc had beenwritten originally in Japanese by a JapaneseLl writer, it would still require validationevidence.

Evidence from the literatureIs it possible for test items to be validlytranslated? Many societies acknowledge,and in some cases, revere certain translateddocuments. Without translation, Christianswould not have access to their scriptures,and the world would be without theunderstandings and wisdom supplied byclassical thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle.In the modern era, bookstores regularly selltranslated documents such as philosophicalessays, novels, and poetry. While it is notmy intention to call this practice intoquestion, even here, things are not asobvious as they might first appear. Miller(1992) considers translation in the sensementioned above, and mentions fourproblems encountered by virtually alltranslators: (a) the syntax of one languagehas no equivalent in another language; (b)words in one language do not have exactmeanings in another language; (c) a word inone language has a spread of meanings that


On JALT98

does not cover the spread of meanings inanother language; and (d) words that can beused figuratively in one language cannot beused figuratively in another language.Miller concludes:

Anyone who has translated will knowthe odd experience of being able toread and understand the originalperfectly, as well as having nativemastery of the target language, but ofrunning constantly into unexpectedand perhaps even insuperabledifficulties in trying to turn the sourcetext into the target language. Thearrow keeps going awry and missingthe target. (1992, p. 124)

It is, however, one thing to read a translatednovel and another thing to read a translatedquestionnaire item.

Supposing that the E-doc were validated,what then? Widdows and Voller conducteda needs analysis in which they had translateda questionnaire asking students about theirteaching and learning preferences. Theywanted to know the extent to which studentswere satisfied with the teaching style theywere exposed to in their classrooms.Widdows and Voller themselves suggest thedifficulty, if not impossibility, of a validtranslation. They state, “It is interesting tonote that certain concepts quite fundamentalto current EFL methodology provedimpossible to render into straightforwardJapanese” (1991, p. 128). They add thatanother difficulty arose from Japanesecultural understanding of learning styles.One item wanted to know if the studentlearned better when the teacher took aninterest in them as a person. The problemwas with the word “interest” because theyfound “it was impossible to eradicateentirely the connotation of sexual interest inthe Japanese version” (Widdows & Voller,1991, p. 128).

In addition to the problems of translation,I turn to the results of two empirical studieswhich suggest that questionnaire itemswritten in different languages carry different

meanings, which raises serious problemswith translation as a way of ensuringmeaning. Yoshida (1990) conducted anexperiment with second language learners(Japanese returnees who had lived in the U.S.for at least two years and had attendedAmerican schools). Thirty-five Japanesereturnees were the experimental group, agroup of 32 monolingual Japanese studentsin Japan were one control group, and agroup of 21 monolingual American studentsin America were another control group.All three groups were given a wordassociation task consisting of words fromnature, daily life, society and ideas, andculture. The control groups answered intheir own language. The experimentalgroup was asked to respond in Japanese tothe Japanese words and in English to theEnglish words. The two lists of wordswere given in different order and a weekapart. Yoshida compared the responses foreach word, grouped the responses intosemantic categories, and calculated thedegree of agreement between theexperimental group and each of the controlgroups. His analysis showed that for thesociety and ideas as well as the culturecategories, “the bilingual group respondedquite differently depending on whichlanguage they were using” (Yoshida, 1990, p.22). For example, in giving wordassociations with the word “freedom” theexperimental group gave responses such asresponsibility, myself, human beings, andindependence, words which did not appearat all with the Japanese translation.

In another empirical study, Sakamoto(1996) investigated Hyland’s (1994) use oftranslated questionnaire items adapted fromReid’s (1987) learning style preferencesquestionnaire. Sakamoto’s students weretwo groups of Japanese women aged 20 to22 years of age at Bunka Woman’sUniversity in Tokyo. Hyland had Reid’sitems translated from English to Japanese,and Sakamoto used these translated itemsexcept that she retranslated four of the itemsshe thought misleading. Sakamotoadministered both the English items and the



translated items to her students allowingtime between administrations to reduce thepossibility of students simply rememberinganswers. She then compared the answerson the two questionnaires to see if thestudents answered the Japanese versiondifferently than the English version andfound that “about half of the 65 participantsanswered the same questionnaire statementsdifferently in English and Japanese”(Sakamoto, 1996, p. 83). Sakamotoconcludes:

Clearly, then, there were differencesbetween the questionnaire results inEnglish and Japanese. The highdiscrepancy in this study warns us thatthe researcher should not simplyconsider translation as the answer tohelp the respondent understand thequestionnaire better. (1996, p. 87)

An alternative solutionIf the translation of questionnaire itemscreates a second document which must itselfbe validated, and even then raises doubtsthat the items in Ll will be understood andanswered in the same way as the items in L2,what can be done to create questionnaireitems in which we can have someconfidence with regard tocomprehensibility? After a questionnairehas been created and looked at by a numberof competent teachers who make ajudgement on content, I would suggestshowing the questionnaire to a studentpanel; that is, a group of students similar tothose for whom the questionnaire wasdeveloped. Be sure that you include lowerlevel students on your panel. By studentpanel, I do not mean that students must meetat the same time in the same place. Let megive an example of how this can operate inreal life. In validating a questionnairepurporting to measure the construct“confidence” in speaking EFL, I went to theschool cafeteria and hung around drinkingcoffee until I found some students Irecognized as having low Englishproficiency (former students). I showed

them the questionnaire and asked them notto answer the questions, but to look at theitems and circle any word they could notunderstand. Most of the items were notchecked, but one item, “I am willing to talkto English native speakers” was checked bymore than one student. The word that wascircled was “willing.” I was baffledbecause I was sure that the word “will” wasknown to even those students. I nsubsequent interviews with other students onthis item, I found that indeed the word“will” was known to them, but the word inthe form of “willing” was not. The phrase“I will” was understood, but the phrase “Iam willing” was not. I changed the item to“I will talk to English native speakers,” andit passed a second student panel.Questionnaire validation involves more thana student panel, but showing items to astudent panel is, I believe, a step whichmakes translation unnecessary. In addition,presenting the results from your studentpanel constitutes one kind of validationevidence.

ConclusionI would like to conclude with two points. Iam not trying to find fault with the twostudies cited. I support Widdows andVoller as well as Shimizu in their research.Nevertheless, and this is my second point,we are now more informed as to what isinvolved in the issues of reliability andvalidity. Among the things that we arecurrently aware of is that validation must bebuilt into the design of the questionnairefrom the very beginning. We also alsoknow that piloting and analyzing data fromthe pilot must precede primary datacollection. And we know that dataresulting from questionnaires must also beanalyzed and reported. To this list, I wouldlike to add that we know that translation isnot a short-cut solution. Translation resultsin a new document which itself must bepiloted and analyzed.


On JALT98

ReferencesBrown, J. D. (1988). Understanding

research in second language learning.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Griffee, D. T. (1996). Reliability and alearner style questionnaire. In G. vanTroyer, S. Cornwell & H. Morikawa(Eds.), On JALT 95: Curriculum andevaluation (pp.283-292). Proceedingsof the JALT International Conference onLanguage Teaching/Learning. Tokyo:The Japan Association for LanguageTeaching.

Griffee, D. T. (1997). Validating aquestionnaire on confidence in speakingEnglish as a foreign language. JALTJournal, 19 (2), 177-197.

Hyland, K. (1994). The learning style ofJapanese students. JALT Journal, 16 (1),55-74.

Miller, J. H. (1992). Translation as thedouble production of texts. In C.Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.),Text and context: Cross-disciplinaryperspectives on language study (pp. 124-134). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Most, R., & Zeidner, M. (1995).Constructing personality and intelligenceinstruments. In D. H. Saklofske & M.Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook ofpersonality and intelligence (pp. 417-446). New York: Plenum Press.

Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning stylepreferences of ESL students. TESOLQuarterly, 21, 87-109.

Sakamoto, M. (1996). The effect oftranslating survey questions. TUJWorking Papers in Applied Linguistics,82-88.

Shimizu, K. (1995). Japanese collegestudent attitudes towards Englishteachers: A survey. The LanguageTeacher, 19 (10), 5-8.

Widdows, S., & Voller, P. (1991). PANSI:A survey of the ELT needs of Japaneseuniversity students. Cross Currents, 18(2) 127-141.

Yoshida, K. (1990). Knowing vs behavingv s feeling. In L. A. Arena (Ed.),Language proficiency: Defining,teaching, and testing (pp. 19-40). NewYork: Plenum Press.

Demystifying the STEP TestLaura MacGregor, Sophia University

While nearly three million people take the STEP test each year, information about testdevelopment and evaluation criteria is not readily available. Further, apart from the monthlySTEP newsletter and annual research bulletin (both written in Japanese), there is almost noopportunity for the people involved-test-makers, test-givers, test-takers, and teachers-tointeract. This is of particular importance to the second-stage STEP test, in which theexaminee is evaluated in a private interview. The need for feedback from examiners andexaminees on their knowledge and impressions about the test is obvious. This paper reportsthe results of questionnaires and interviews conducted among a group of examiners andexaminees who participated in the STEP interview tests in July, 1998. It explores threeareas: (a) test preparation; (b) test contents; and (c) test evaluation. Feedback fromexaminers and examinees are summarized and a set of recommendations is presented.

$* 300 fiAMka2@%&B*bE%$&z (mR) id;, TX bM%+%la68*ats$EiolAFw&LL~o G! r;tt, H $=& 4: JC 5 H +I cr) STEP newsletter 2 annualresearch bulletin OI 2 SWW-CLkk7~ \ C~l%l~~BA4’-YFbfi~, %&G!?, S%%%%,* t-r+yGw--~~~~%~~~i~td:C~o t3 LRERa9asi3, mzIJE%fi3tTRtiP-FS~SE~&~~~@T~ !I~kV%Bi5T;&,6. i%d%?~&~V~@%&5R~~lA


IntroductionSince its inception in 1964, STEP (TheSociety for Testing English Proficiency), theorganization responsible for producing theSTEP test, has operated largely in secrecy.The test itself is no secret: Nearly threemillion people take the STEP test each year.However, information about testdevelopment and evaluation criteria is notreadily available.

Apart from the bi-monthly STEPmagazine (STEP’98 Eigo Joho) and annualresearch bulletin (STEP Bulletin) sent toexaminers, and the monthly newsletteravailable by subscription (The Eiken Times),there is almost no opportunity for the peopleinvolved-test-makers, test-givers, test-takers, and teachers-to interact. This is ofparticular importance to the second-stageinterview test, which has received littleattention. Therefore, the need for feedbackfrom examiners and examinees on theirknowledge and impressions about the test isall the more important.

This paper reports the results ofquestionnaires and interviews conductedamong a group of examiners and examineeswho participated in the 3rd, pre-2nd and 2ndgrade STEP interview tests on July 19, 1998.It explores three areas: (a) test preparation,(b) test contents, and (c) test evaluation.Responses are summarized, and a set ofrecommendations for STEP is presented.

OverviewParticipants

Forty-eight examiners (40 male and 8female) at three test sites in Sapporoparticipated in this study. Their averageage was 45, and their testing experienceranged from 2-20 years.

A total of 138 examinees were randomlyselected from over 1,500 3rd, pre-2nd, and2nd grade examinees at the same three test

sites. Of this number, 130 completed awritten survey in Japanese and from thisgroup, 15 participated in a follow-upinterview, also in Japanese. Their averageage was 18.7 years. The majority werefirst-time test takers for the grade that day(22% and 7% were taking the 2nd grade testfor the second and third times, respectively;30% were taking the pre-2nd grade for thesecond time; and 3% were taking the 3rdgrade for the second time). More than halfof the examinees for all three grades saidthat they took the test in order to evaluatetheir English ability. Nearly one-third ofthe pre-2nd grade examinees took the testfor university entrance exam exemption orentrance exam preparation practice. One-third of the 2nd grade examinees took thetest to enhance their resumes for job huntingpurposes.

Test procedure and evaluationThe 2nd, pre-2nd, and 3rd grades follow

the same format for the 6-8 minuteinterviews:

1. The examinee enters the test room,greets the examiner, gives theexaminer the evaluation card, andsits down.

2. The examiner asks two or threewarm-up questions.

3. The examiner hands the test card tothe examinee, who has 20 secondsto study the short text andaccompanying illustration.

4. The examinee reads the text aloudand answers five oral test questionsrelated the text and illustration.

5. The examinee returns the test cardto the examiner and leaves theroom.


On JALT98

Examiners use a five-point scale (1 = poor; 5= excellent) to evaluate the oral reading, thefive questions, and the examinee’s attitude,for a total of 35 points (STEP converts theattitude score to a three-point scale so thatthe final score is out of 33).

Test preparationExaminers

Two weeks prior to the test, examinersreceived a leaflet in Japanese in the-mailfrom STEP, entitled, “A Good Interviewer Is. ..” (Nihon Eigo Kentei Kyokai, 1998,

July). The main points are summarized asfollows [this and all translations whichfollow are mine]:

1. During the test warm-up, theexaminer makes the examinee feelrelaxed and welcome by askingeasy questions in a friendly manner.

2. During the test, the examinermaintains eye contact with theexaminee when asking questionsand listening to the answers.Appropriate responses to questionsare: filler (“Wow,” “I see,”“Hmm”), facial expressions, andeye contact. However, theseresponses should not reveal theexaminer’s evaluation.

3. The examiner should end the test ina positive way, with “I’ve enjoyedtalking with you” or “Have a goodday.”

On the morning of the test, a 30-minutepreparation meeting is held at the test site.Examiners receive their evaluation manuals,which contain the test items, sample answers,and information about how to grade the test(in Japanese). The examiners listen to acassette tape which contains one examplefor each grade of a perfectly renderedinterview test.

While most were satisfied with thecontent and length of the preparationmeeting, and the content of the evaluationmanual, four examiners thought the meetingwas too short, and three examiners felt that a

more detailed written description of how toevaluate answers was needed. Specifically,instructions for how many points to deductfor certain kinds of mistakes, and samples ofevaluations of the reading and attitudesections, in addition to more specificexamples of answers to the five mainquestions were requested.

ExamineesOf this group of examinees, 16%

prepared for the test with the help of theirJapanese teachers at high school oruniversity; 21% prepared alone; and 23%used a STEP test preparation text (BenesseCorporation, 1997; ECC, 1998; Obunsha,1997, 1998). Twenty percent said theydidn’t prepare for the test. The remaining20% used other methods, such as practicingwith a friend or with a native speaker ofEnglish.

Test contents1. Warm-up

Examiners.According to Benesse Corporation

(1997), the purpose of the freeconversation warm-up is twofold: (a)to confirm the examinee’s name andtest grade; and (b) to help theexaminee relax and get used tospeaking English before the test begins.Sample questions include: Do youlike music?/What kind of music do youlike?; What time did you get up thismorning?; and How did you get heretoday?

The examiners surveyed reported anumber of different warm-up questiontopics they used in addition to theabove: hobbies, favorite subject,summer vacation plans, age, andfuture plans, When asked theiropinions on the effectiveness of thewarm-up questions, the examiners’responses were varied. Half thoughtthe warm-up had a positive effect. I naddition to fulfilling the two goalsstated above, several commented thatthe warm-up helped create a natural



communicative setting in English.The other half of the examiners felt

that the warm-up was ineffective or atleast problematic for the followingreasons:

1. It depends on the examinee. Thosewho are not used to speakingEnglish or who are already nervouswill become more nervous.

2. It depends on the examiner’sspeaking speed, pronunciation,choice of questions, and generaldemeanor.

3. It doesn’t help examinees relax, butit does help them get accustomed tothe examiner’s way of speakingEnglish.

4. It is most suitable for pre-2nd and2nd grade examinees, but since most3rd grade examinees have little orno speaking experience, they cannotspeak well and therefore becomemore nervous.

5. Free conversation should beconducted at the end of the testinstead, when students are morerelaxed.

6. The warm-up should be abolishedsince examinees think they arebeing evaluated on their answers inthis section.

Examinees.Three-quarters of the examinees

felt the warm-up was generallyeffective in helping them relax and getused to hearing and speaking English.However, they noted that it had norelationship to their performance onthe test: Even if they were relaxedand spoke well during the warm-up,they still became tense and mademistakes during the test. All of theexaminees who felt that the warm-upwas ineffective said it made themmore nervous.

FeedbackExaminers.

STEP specifically states thatexaminers should not give examineesany indication, either verbally orthrough gestures, of the result of theirperformance (Nihon Eigo KenteiKyokai, 1998, July). In this group,24% responded that they did, in fact,give some form of feedback toexaminees, and commented asfollows:

1. It is impossible not to give somekind of feedback in the course ofcommunication.

2. No response makes the examineenervous.

3. Feedback and evaluation are notthe same; when giving feedback,examiners are not necessarilycommunicating their evaluations.

Problems with giving feedback notedwere:

1. It may mislead examinees intothinking they answered correctlywhen” they did not (or vice versa),so it’s better to be impartial andnot give feedback.

2. It may distract examinees if theymisunderstand the meaning ofthe feedback.

3. If the feedback is negative,examinees will become morenervous.

Examinees.Over 90% of pre-2nd and 2nd grade

examinees were in favor of examinerfeedback during the test. Thenumber was lower among 3rd gradeexaminees (79%). Comments fromall three groups included thefollowing:

1. I could confirm that Icommunicated my answer.

2. Feedback keeps the conversation


On JALT98

moving, and is essential to createa natural exchange.

3. I can tell whether my answer isright or wrong.

4. If the feedback is positive, I’ll beencouraged, but if it is negative...

Test itemsExaminers.The examiners had several

suggestions for changes to the currenttest questions and testing procedure:

1. The 20-second readingpreparation time should beincreased to 30 seconds.

2. The warm-up should beformalized: The questionsshould be standardized and theresponses should be scored.

3. The “Tell me as much as you canabout . . .” question about theillustration on the pre-2nd gradetest is misleading as it does notspecify the amount ofinformation required, eventhough the score is based on theamount of information provided.This question should be morespecific and reworded as, “Saythree sentences about . . .“.

4. The 3rd grade test, questions thatbegin, “Please look at thepassage” should be changedbecause examinees at this leveldo not know the word “passage.”

ExamineesMost examinees were satisfied withthe current test format. Somesuggestions were:

1. The 20-second readingpreparation time should beextended to 30 seconds.

2. The warm-up should be scored.3. There should be time for free

conversation at the end of the testin addition to the current warm-up.

Test EvaluationExaminersSome examiners were dissatisfied with theinformation provided in their evaluationmanuals. More detailed, clearerdescriptions were requested. Two specificquestions were about the reading section:

1. Can five points be given only to theexaminee who is able to read like anative speaker?

2. How should subjective terms like“satisfactory” be interpreted?

Similar questions were raised about othersections of the test. The attitude sectionwas criticized as having the least clearcriteria since the differences between “verysatisfactorily” (5 points), “somewhatsatisfactorily” (4 points), “unsatisfactorily”(3 points), and “quite unsatisfactorily” (2points) could not be understood. Alsonoted was the difficulty in understanding thedifference between “natural manner” [shizenna taido] (5 points) and “almost naturalmanner” [hobo shizen na taido] (4 points).

Scoring the answers to the five questionswas noted by some as problematic sincesample answers were not always given forall scores (l-5). For example, a typicalquestion about a picture on the 3rd-gradetest, such as, “Where are the apples?” mighthave only two sample answers provided:

They are on the table. (5 points)In the basket. (4 points)

There are no guidelines for what kinds ofanswers would generate scores of 1, 2, or 3points. Further, both of these sampleanswers are correct. However, since thesecond response is not a complete sentence,only 4 points can be given. According tothe sample answers found in test preparationbooks by Obunsha (1997; 1998), onlycomplete sentence answers can be given fivepoints on the 3rd grade test. However, forthe pre-2nd or 2nd grade, if the content ofthe answer is correct, the subject orpredicate may be omitted without the scorebeing lowered.



ExamineesThe 15 examinees who participated in the

follow-up interview were asked about theevaluation system. More than half did notknow that the warm-up questions were notpart of the test evaluation per se. Only oneexaminee was aware of the attitudeevaluation category. Most knew nothingabout the evaluation criteria because theyare generally not available to the public.One exception is the STEP testcorrespondence training program producedby Benesse Corporation (1997). Theirvideo presents a demonstration test andgives information and hints about aspects ofthe test that are found only in the officialSTEP test evaluation manual, a confidentialdocument. The video explains that thewarm-up conversation is not scored. Itgives a detailed explanation of what theattitude category means and advice on howto meet the criteria for this section. It alsoexplains that the evaluation of attitudebegins from the moment the examinee entersthe room. This last point is published inObunsha’s texts (1998) as well, but does notseem to be well known, at least among theexaminees interviewed.

RecommendationsBased on the above information from theexaminers and examinees who participatedin this study, the followingrecommendations will be made to STEP:

1. STEP should give more informationabout the test contents andevaluation to both examiners andexaminees. For examiners, thisshould take the form of moredetailed instructions and moreclearly worded criteria in theevaluation manual, and examples(both audio and written) of lessthan perfect answers and how toscore them.

For examinees, details should beincluded with the application formfor the test, similar to that of theTOEFL application (EducationalTesting Service, 1998) to ensurethat all applicants have correct

information about the test. Ifsome of the criteria were madepublicly known, it would helpreduce the inconsistencies andmisunderstandings about the testthat currently exist.

2. STEP should provide regularopportunities to communicate withexaminers and examinees about thetests. This could take the form ofoccasional STEP seminars forexaminers and examinees, writtenquestionnaires eliciting feedbacksuch as the one used in this study,or an e-mail discussion bulletinboard.

3. Based on the concern expressedabout the need for careful selectionof warm-up questions, STEPshould consider standardizingquestions for each grade andpublish sample lists for use by bothexaminers and examinees.Further, the effectiveness of thewarm-up for the 3rd grade shouldbe reviewed to determine whether itactually serves its intended purposeat this level.

ReferencesBenesse Corporation. (1997). Jun 2-kyu

Eiken zemi: Mensetsu shiken koryakuvideo. Tokyo: Author.

ECC. (1998). Nanoka-kan kansei Eikenjun 2-kyu ni-ji shiken taisaku. Tokyo:Nan’undo.

Educational Testing Service. (1998).TOEFL bulletin. Princeton, NJ: Author.

Nihon Eigo Kentei Kyokai. (1998, July). AGood Interviewer Is.... (Available fromSTEP, 1 Yarai-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo162-0055).

Obunsha. (1997). Toka-kan kansei Eiken3-kyu ni-ji shiken taisaku yoso mondai.Tokyo: Obunsha.

Obunsha. (1998). Toka-kan kansei Eikenjun 2-kyu ni-ji shiken taisaku yosomondai. Tokyo: Obunsha.

Obunsha. (1998a). Toka-kan kansei Eiken2-kyu ni-ji shiken taisaku yoso mondai.Tokyo: Obunsha


Register 4 students on any Find out more:

Pilgrims Children & Teenagers Home-Stay Complete and fax the form below:

Course or Kent Language & ActivityFax No: + 44 1227 459027

Easter Course in 2000 and receive

a 2 week Pilgrims™ TeacherTraining course completely

Pilgrims Sales: Tel: +44 1227 7621 11 l EMail: [email protected] l www.pilgrims.co.ukPilgrims House, Orchard Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 8BF, England h

JALT - Pilgrims 2000 Offer to TeachersPlease send me details of The Pilgrims 2000 Offer to Teachers and the following brochures:(write the amount you require in the boxes)

Pilgrims Teacher Training q Pilgrims Children & Teenagers c l Kent Language & Activity Easter Courses c lHome Stay-Summer Courses

First Name 1’ I I I I I 111 1’ 1 ““““““” 1

Family Name I I I 11 11 1 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ’ ” 1

Sex 1 , , , , , I Profession: I , , , , , , , , , , I I I I I l I I I 1

Address I I I I I I I 11 11 11 11 ““““““” I

Postcode I I I I I I I l 1 l I I I Country L I I I I l I 1 I I I I 1 I

Telephone: Area CodeI Number I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Fax: Area Code d Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I


Practicing Action Research

Lois Scott-Conley, School for International Training at Tokyo Jogakkan Jr. CollegeNeil Cowie, Saitama University

Janina Tubby, International Business Communication KansaiRichard Hodge, Ritsumeikan UniversityShinichi Yokomizo, Nanzan University

Action Research (AR) is seen as a small-scale, situational form of classroom researchfocusing on a particular problem in an individual teacher’s classroom. The intention of theresearch is to gain understanding of the problem and to possibly solve it (LoCastro, 1994).Each of the speakers in this colloquium offered the story of their experience with AR, sharingboth product and process. One explored the impact of various styles of feedback on studentwriting. Another used AR to create concrete guidelines for his use of affirmative feedbackon student production. A third investigated ways of incorporating effective pronunciationwork in her classes. The other examined the usefulness of mind-mapping in content-basedglobal issues discussion courses. This paper first illustrates the steps of AR with examplesfrom each speaker’s work. Following the introduction, each speaker relates the process andproduct of their research.

79 9 3 >- ‘I -v---f (MT AR) ta, ~B~rz~CS~L~‘il:~~itjti~~ z.l3d%i~%~~~~rcr~J\~~~~~~~~~~3~/L--.‘1)~-~f-~~, ?Ht!mw$atrB&‘8~C~~,c\~~~~Q~~,~~~ht~~h~~~R‘if~~z.~~’f~:td:~~~~B((LoCastro1994, p. 5) o $1 D +F-P~%&3!$&+dz?h, $%‘a, AR QX%@~tz3L~~:~ 0, AR @7’u-f?z~~~~s8~a~~~~LL~~~~~~~~~a (1) 2%!?~7-l’~.l’>!f”tr$~L-iT~~k~g~-f~a,7~--~/ZY3Q~/ri~~~~~~~, (2) ~4c7l~~ic~~$~8WSP!J7~---P~~YPIZMBbti~ ~j~-~~~~~~~a,~~~~~~~~, (3) gezm-ccJxwF%l~%,;~~~~&~iE, (4) i3zlmM%czTL\TmY4 7th Y 9 3 >?i?*c?ll4g2F-b content-based a>?/j;iTQI-3-f > F*YYY>~&@~L~~@$~?OI&~ETt%-Jko 4G&wtAaf, A R ol7”U-k;;Ta)~EF~~~~L~T~~, Ifo.lllT, $%&$f

Action Research (AR) is one way forteachers, as professionals, to enhance theirprofessional development through structuredaction and reflection. The exactprocedures followed in AR can vary, butthere is general agreement that they includethe following steps in some form: (a)Noticing a problem, (b) Investigation, (c)Formation of a question, (d) Intervention, oraction that offers solutions, (e) Datacollection and analysis. Making thefindings known is not always included in thesteps, but was mentioned by the speakers inthis colloquium as a factor motivating themto complete the AR. Public sharing mayinspire more discipline in carrying out theprocess, as well as deeper reflectivity during

what can sometimes become a privateprofessional pursuit.

Noticing a problemAR allows the teacher to begin workingimmediately on improving their teachingpractices after identifying areas that could bebetter. To identify what is personallyuseful, the teacher-researcher might considerwhere a gap exists between what they wouldlike student performance to be and what it is.Three of the speakers in this colloquiumidentified problems of this type: in studentwriting, pronunciation, and oral expression.The other speaker noticed a gap between hisactual teaching practice and how he wantedto perform. He recognized that he did not

Voices o f Exper imenta t ion 187

On JALT98

have a set of criteria for giving feedback thatwas based on his specific student needs.

InvestigationDuring the investigation stage, the teacher-researcher learns more about the topic thatthey have chosen to research. Each of ourfour speakers did background reading as away of investigating their topic. I naddition, Janina researched the lessonplanning records of her students’ previousclasses. Neil also reflected with otherteachers, while Shin videotaped andobserved his own teaching.

Forming a questionAt this stage the teacher narrows the focusof the investigation by posing a question thatfurther action will attempt to answer. Theteacher-researcher may want to know if aparticular practice, such as mind-mapping,can solve the initial problem. The teacher-researcher may, on the other hand, wonderwhich technique, among a variety oftechniques, can effectively improve aproblem situation. Neil, for example,asked what kind of feedback on studentwriting resulted in the longest papers andmost revisions.

Intervention or actionHere the teacher-researcher introduces oneor more different techniques, activities ortypes of material that offer solutions to theproblem and attempt to answer the researchquestion. Neil’s question, looking for atype of feedback that would help studentswrite and revise, made it necessary for himto introduce a range of feedback types. Heused three classes for his research. I ncontrast, Richard asked if mind-mapping(one particular activity) might help studentsin expressing themselves in more detail.He intervened in his class by introducingand collecting data on that one activity.Shin surveyed his students to find out whatkinds of affirmative feedback they preferred;he then altered his behavior to meet thosestudent-generated guidelines.

Data collection and analysisIt is useful to first consider what kind of datawill best answer the research question beforeexamining what techniques might best servethe collection of data. A variety oftechniques can be used in data collectionand analysis: interviews, think-alouds, field-notes, observations, journals, and evaluation,for example. The speakers in thecolloquium showed a wide range of choices.Neil compared the number of revisions andlength of students’ papers with the kind offeedback he had given them. Janina usedaudio recordings of before and after theintervention to evaluate improvement instudent performance. Both Neil and Janinacollected student comments. Shin usedsurveys, while Richard kept a daily log injournal format.

In the following sections, more detailedAR accounts are provided by the individualspeakers.

Feedback in process writing (Neil Cowie)I teach an undergraduate university writingclass of 20-30 students in which two inter-related issues seem to surface regularly:

l How can I get my students to rewritemore often given the constraints ofthe class?

l What kind of feedback works best?

As a result of reading and reflecting withcolleagues, I decided to take four actions:

1 .

2 .

3.

4.

Try a variety of feedback methods andsee how students responded.Give written teacher comments thatfocus on giving supportive globalcomments and fewer local ones.Emphasize in lessons that rewriting isvery important to improvementGive students more class time to write.

Intervention and resultsI tried a number of different feedbackmethods spread over three groups ofstudents. Group one (written teachercomments only) and group two (peer

188 Voices of Experimentation


response, reformulation and written teachercomments) produced similar results in theoverall number of reports written, while thenumber of students who did any rewriting atall was very small. I cannot say that anyone of the methods was more effective thanthe others-the net effect, at least in terms ofnumbers of reports written, was similar fromone to two.

For the third group, however, I usedaudio-taped feedback. This led to differentresults, which may mean that this method offeedback does have an impact on both theamount that students write initially and thenumber of times that they rewrite. From asimilar number of students, I receiveddouble the number of reports compared togroup one and two, and double the numberof students took to rewriting.

I believe students gain a lot from theaudio-tapes (e.g., extra listening practice,longer teacher comments) compared towritten feedback. More importantly,however, I think the students felt theirteacher cared about them; as a result, theywere more motivated to write. I canillustrate this by quoting some studentevaluation comments.

1. The tape that you gave me made meastonished because your comment formy homework in the tape was very longand very polite.

2 . I was truly surprised at it (the tape)because you may have taken much timeto give all of us.

ImplicationsIt seems important to continue to givefeedback in a variety of ways as differentmethods may appeal to different students.I have tried to emphasize comments that aresupportive and that address global concerns.My initial instincts are that if students aregoing to rewrite their drafts, then globalfeedback early in the process will be helpful.However, if students are not going to rewriteat all, it might be better to focus feedback onsurface mechanics, particularly if thestudents are at a low level.

I have found my approach to research tohave been somewhat organic in that onething has lead to another but not necessarilyin the most logical way. I view this as allpart of the learning process. What I havelearned is to try to anticipate more what kindof data I will need, and to back that up withother views. For example, I had all thestudent reports, evaluations and courserecords, but I did not have other possibletriangulation data.

Teachers develop in different ways. Forme, the action research cycle, involvingreading, data collection, reflection on thedata and cooperation with colleagues, hasbeen stimulating in many ways. It hasmade me fundamentally fascinated inlearning far more about teaching writing.

Making progress with pronunciation(Janina Tubby)I work as on-site instructor assigned to theR&D department of a major U.S.multinational company in Kobe. Themajority of employees are Japanese, butthere are also many Chinese, and peoplefrom other countries including Indians,Americans and Koreans. English is usedfor the majority of meetings and writtencommunication.

At department meetings, I noticed thatalthough employees were generally able todiscuss and present in English,pronunciation stood out as an area ofconcern. In particular, Japanese andChinese employees were sometimesincomprehensible to each other. This alsoproved to be the case in one class whereJapanese and Chinese students mixedtogether, Moreover, in early interviewsessions, the five students in this classexpressed dissatisfaction about having towork together and not being able tounderstand each other properly.

I looked at previous class records andfound that past teachers’ pronunciation workhad generally tended to focus on Japaneselearners’ problems at a minimal pair level.More often, however, discoursepronunciation had received little focus. I


On JALT98

decided I needed a new approach that couldwork for both the Japanese and Chineseclass members.

I decided to tie pronunciation to thepresentation section of classes under theheading of “effective delivery.” I felt thatpreparing presentations gave students moreof a chance to plan what they wanted to say;they could therefore focus on issues ofpronunciation better. First, I introducedBrazil’s (1997) concept of the “tone unit.”Brazil illustrates how we tend to divide ourspeech into tone units or chunks (I used theterm “chunks” and adopted the technique ofchunking when I introduced it to students).Chunking refers to the tendency we have,particularly when presenting, to speak insections of language with pauses betweenthe chunks, rather than pausing equallybetween individual words. Effectivespeakers chunk naturally, in other words.

In the beginning, students listened totaped presentations and marked on a copy ofthe tapescript where the speaker paused andlater which words were stressed. Theythen tried to read along in time to the tape(shadow read). Finally, students wrotetheir own short presentations, divided themup into chunks, and read them to the class oronto tapes for homework.

My second intervention involved a lookat intonation patterns focusing onproclaiming and referring patterns asidentified by Brazil (1997). In thebeginning, I simplified Brazil’s concept, sothat we worked simply on keeping the voiceup when sentences were unfinished and thendropping at the end of sentences. Studentsquickly grasped this concept, but onestudent pointed out that this technique reliedon an over-simplification. This led to adeeper look at patterns of rising and fallingintonation, as well as adoption of the ideathat we tend to raise our voices whenexpressing new information (proclaiming)and drop our voices when expressing knownor shared information (referring). Withvarying degrees of success, studentsattempted to incorporate this insight intofurther presentations. The practice of

shadow reading to tapes continued to beassigned.

To evaluate the effectiveness of theactivities, I asked students to do a number ofthings. They kept diaries and reflected ontheir progress. They were also required totape themselves, to reflect on theirperformance in meeting and presentationsimulations and to analyze those tapes. Itook “before” and “after” tapes, which,according to both students and theirsupervisors, showed improvement incomprehensibility. Students also reportedan increase in confidence and motivation ingiving presentations. All expressed interestin continuing this work in the next term,with some responding very enthusiastically.As one student put it, I think chunking is akey for me.

Teacher affirmative feedback towardlearners’ oral production (ShinichiYokomizo)There exist two types of affirmativefeedback in a language classroom:“acknowledging a correct answer” and“praise” (Nunan 1991). While bothteachers and researchers agree with theformer’s significance and necessity of use,opinions are divided about the latter. I naddition, teachers tend to use affimativefeedback unsystematically according to theirown intuition and miss investigating thevalidity of their preferred practice. All thismade me believe that it was necessary toclarify my own behavior as a teacher and toestablish concrete guidelines for the use ofaffirmative feedback.

By analyzing my own behavior basedupon videotaped classroom activities, itbecame clear that I never delivered any“praise” and solely employed several typesof “acknowledging a correct answer” suchas saying nothing but nodding; saying Un(yeah), or Un soo desu ne (yeah, that’s right,isn’t it?); uttering Un (yeah) followed by amodel sentence. I compared my routinepractice with the results from aquestionnaire about my learners’ preferenceswith nine types of affirmative feedback.



This comparison suggested that it wasnecessary to modify my behavior in severalways. It also helped me draw up thefollowing guidelines for using affirmativefeedback:

1 . Avoid giving only a silent nod.2 . Use Un (Yeah) and Hai (Yes) when a

learner correctly repeats what theteacher said in one-exchange dialogues.

3 . Use Un (Yeah) followed by modelsentence when a learner correctlyanswers the teacher’s question in one-exchange dialogues.

4. Use Un, soo desu ne (Yeah, that’s right,isn’t it?) and Yoku dekimashita (You didwell) when learners correctly questionand answer each other in dialogues oftwo or more exchanges.

The next step for me was to investigatethe validity of this altered practice by askingfor learners’ reactions after three weeks ofexperiencing the change. This finalprocess suggested the necessity of twominor changes in the guideline: (a)Change Un (yeah) to Hai (Yes); (b) Un(Yeah) followed by model sentence shouldbe employed with other types of feedbacksuch as Un (Yeah), Hai (Yes)’ and Un, soodesu ne (Yeah, that’s right, isn’t it?) when alearner correctly answers the teacher’squestion even in one exchange dialogue.

This procedure not only enabled me toestablish my own practical guidelines foraffirmative feedback, but also suggested thenecessity of further investigation: (a) Thisaction research concentrated on affirmativefeedback in a specific classroom activitycalled “Practice in Context” in whichcontexts are provided by visual aids, andlearners are able to use in meaningfulcommunication the mechanical pattern theyhave previously practiced. This AR cycledid not concern affirmative feedback inother classroom activities, which makes itnecessary to establish guidelines for otheractivities. (b) Before this AR cycle, I hadheld that Yoku dekimashita (You did well)should not be used toward adult learners,

since it includes the connotation that asuperior looks down on an inferior. Itwould be interesting to investigate whetherthe learners also hold to such a view or didnot know about it; and if not, to investigatepossible reasons for divergence between myown perception and that of my learners.(c) This action research treated the learnersas an homogenous group; it did not addressany possible differences between learners.It is therefore necessary to investigate howfactors such as learners’ languagecompetence, learning style and personalitymight influence their reactions towardaffective feedback.

My action research clarifies the fact thatteachers’ intuitive beliefs regarding “whatshould be done” in a language classroom donot necessarily match learners’ preferences.It is important, in my view, for teachers toattempt to objectify their behavior throughAR-type investigations.

Using mind-mapping in content-basedcourses (Richard Hodge)This Action Research project focused on theuse of mind-mapping in content-basedEnglish language courses for first-yearuniversity students. Mind-mapping is anorganizational technique of charting topicsand details in a tree-like form. In thecenter of the map is a main theme fromwhich essential ideas radiate and expand in abranch-like manner. Finally, the branchesform a connected nodal structure.

I set up an experimental cycle that wasadjusted in successive lessons according tomy class observations. First, I introducedlesson content via reading, or short videoclips. Next, I had students make mind-maps to note their grasp of the input, andtheir thoughts. My goal was to see if mind-mapping would provide a successfulframework for students to disclose more oftheir thoughts. After this, the mind mapswere viewed and discussed in pairs andsmall groups. At the end of topic units, Ihad students make another mind-map to seeif these “before” and “after” samplingswould indicate a richer schema building

Voices of Experimentation 191

On JALT98

progress and show a greater understandingof a topic area. Throughout, I kept ajournal describing class preparations, lessonobservations, and post lesson reflections onwhat transpired, a summary of whichfollows.

In the first experimental cycle, studentsmade mind-maps about a reading on junkfood in school cafeterias. While somestudents exhibited a clear understanding ofthe material, which was evidenced by theorder of ideas and supporting details shownon their papers, many of the mind-mapswere stilted or revealed confusion. Theyalso provided inadequate description.

Students’ difficulties with giving cleardescription prompted me to modify themind-mapping activities in the subsequentlessons by providing more structure, i.e.,partially completed mind-maps with severalentries provided as models indicating theirline of reasoning. In addition, as a pre-reading exercise, I elicited from the wholeclass a mind-map about what they alreadyknew regarding a topic.

In one case, when doing this class-generated mind-map, students first spoke inthrees about the topic. In one group, therewas a student who knew a lot about thesubject but lacked relevant vocabulary inEnglish. By first sharing his ideas in hisgroup, partners were able to collaborate andprovide translations of essential terms. Themind-map subsequently generated on theboard allowed the whole class to share, andbe acknowledged for their collectiveknowledge. This collaborative workprovided a way of focusing the class on thetopic, and building a stronger base ofunderstanding on which to approach thereadings and video content. As students’output grew, I felt less tempted to dominatediscussion with my thoughts. I felt I couldact more as a guide and supporter forstudents to develop their language andunderstanding of the topics.

A week after students gave individualpresentations on health topics in smallgroups, they generated new mind-maps frommemory. These papers helped meimmensely in differentiating betweenstudents who were under-prepared for theirpresentation, from those who were merelys h y . The quiz allowed students to conveytheir knowledge and opinions in a form thatwas both quick to generate and easy toevaluate.

By formalizing my experiments in theclassroom as Action Research, the weight oflesson planning was transformed from alaborious endeavor into an engagingproblem-solving process. By sharing thismind-mapping research with the teachingcommunity, I have received valuablefeedback including useful variations andextensions that I can now use in myteaching.

ReferencesBrazil, D. (1997). Discourse intonation.

Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacherresearch. Boston, MA: Heinle andHeinle.

Griffee, D. T. & Nunan, D. (Eds.) (1997).Classroom teachers and classroomresearch. Tokyo: The JapanAssociation for Language Teaching.

Hodge, R. &Johnson, W. K. (1994).Using mind-maps in the conversationclass. Kyoto University, Studies inEnglish Linguistics & Literature, 11, 111-123.

LoCastro, V. (1994). Teachers helpingthemselves: Classroom research andaction research. The Language Teacher18 (2), 4-7.

Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research forlanguage teachers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.



Creativity in High SchoolOral Communication B Classes

Renée Gauthier Sawazaki, Niijima Gakuen High School

Learning comes from within the student. That is the basis of my approach to teaching.However, without supportive external factors, stimuli and a safe environment to fosterlearning, students remain in a passive, and often non-receptive, state. Through years offormal training, classroom research and a lot of trial and error, I have discovered various waysthat help bring out the students’ creativity and eagerness to learn that which is oftensuppressed in the secondary school environment. I would like to share with the readersprojects and activities that are based upon my approach to teaching languages. My approachis a combination of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle, Cooperative Learning and my ownphilosophy. I will also detail the steps involved in student-centered projects based on bothoriginal material and material from published texts.

IntroductionTell me and I forget, teach me and Iremember, involve me and I learn is anancient proverb I heard years ago that guidesmy teaching practices. I believe thatstudents need to be fully engagedcognitively and affectively to enjoy andsucceed in learning a foreign language.Many EFL secondary school teachers askquestions such as: “How can I motivatemy students, especially those who arehaving difficulties at school?“; “I havetrouble bringing the textbook to life. Doyou have any suggestions?“; and “What is agood system to link lessons in a progressiveway when we only meet once a week?“.Some answers to these inquiries can befound in the implementation of theprinciples of Experiential Learning andCooperative Learning. Several ways inwhich I have structured units based on thesetheories will be shared with you in this

article and some hints will be offered forstructuring and evaluating student projects.These ideas are the results from myexperience teaching high school OralCommunication B classes.

Oral Communication B (OC-B) is one ofthe three English communication coursescreated by the Ministry of Education (OralCommunication A, B and C) for which thespecified objective is “to cultivate an abilityto understand spoken English and to developan eager willingness to attemptcommunication in English” (Course of Studyfor Senior High Schools, 1990). Thecurriculum of my high school allots onehour per week for the first two years for OC-B studies. Given an average of 30 teachinghours per year, I try to concentrate onprojects that motivate and engage studentsas well as use our time efficiently.


On JALT98

Cooperative learning (CL)The Japanese education system sets studentsup against each other so competitively thatstudents often do not even share class noteswith each other. This environment is not atall conducive for creating a friendly, openatmosphere where feelings and ideas can beshared through a foreign language. Byorganizing students in groups according tothe CL model and giving each studentresponsibility for the success of his/hergroup, it is possible to achieve full studentparticipation and encourage a situationwhere they are helping each other to achievea clearly defined goal. When first tryingCL, I followed the principle of groupinghigher ability students with students oflower skills. However, I found the groupsto be more cohesive and collaborative whenstudents were free to choose their owngroups. In the four years I have allowedstudents this freedom, there have been onlytwo incidents when an individual was leftout and had to be placed in a group.

In incorporating the philosophy of CL, Iuse both short core activities and the groupstructure for projects. Two of the mostsuccessful activities have been Jigsaw andNumbered Heads (see Kagan, 1994, andSlavin, 1995) which aid in creating acollaborative environment. In this article, Iwill focus on how I combined the groupstructure of CL with the principles ofExperiential Learning (EL) to createsuccessful projects.

Experiential learningIn the 1980’s Kolb created a model (Kolb,1984) for teaching which divides learninginto stages that follow a cycle in thefollowing way:

Concrete ExperienceActive Experimentation

Reflective ObservationAbstract Conceptualization

This cycle allows the teacher to helpguide students from (a) observing andthinking about the new language points or

skills to (b) practicing in a controlled setting,and finally (c) trying out the language in afreer context. The philosophy behind thisapproach to teaching is that the students aregiven the opportunity to engage in thelearning process and gradually build skillsfor using the target language independently.By visualizing the learning process as acontinual cycle, the teacher observes thestudents’ progress and is free to alter thelesson plan and go back and forth along thecycle when students are having difficultiesor are learning faster than anticipated.

The following is a description of eachpart of the cycle along with basic teachingideas:

1. Concrete experience: The teachercreates a fairly natural situation forusing the target language or skills andprovides the students with a commonexperience of observing its usage. Atthe very beginning of the unit, withoutovertly introducing its goals, the teacheruses the goals in a meaningful way andhas the students observe and later reflecton the experience. For example, if thetarget language is “borrow/lend,” theteacher can come into the classroom andpretend to need certain common items.He/she can proceed by going to variousstudents and requesting to borrowobjects. In the second step, studentswill recall how the teacher asked for theitems.

2. Ideas: Story, conversation (taped oracted out by two teachers if teamteaching), song or chant, questions tothe students based on the theme, a videoclip.

3. Reflective observation: Teacher asksquestions which direct the students tothink about the experience and thetarget points. This is commonly doneby students brainstorming as a wholeclass to recall the main points of anactivity. The teacher then writes themon the board or OHT and students copythem into their notebook. Thus, theyhave a chance to mentally absorb the



information and, in some cases, createpatterns if it is a grammar point.

4. Ideas: Brainstorming or recalling withthe whole class, individuals or pairs. Itis preferable to use the whole class sono one student is put on the spot and tohelp foster a cooperative atmosphere.For a quiet class, students canbrainstorm in pairs and offer their ideaswhen they return to the whole class.

5. Abstract conceptualization: Studentspractice the target points in a controlledsetting. This is the area where mostlanguage teachers and text bookactivities focus.

6 . Ideas: Pair work, drills, information gap,questionnaires, listening practice,worksheets, Cooperative Learning coreactivities.

7. Active experimentation: Students tryusing their new language skills on theirown as well as bringing in priorknowledge. This is where students’creativity can shine. The majority ofthe time for my classes is spent in thisarea and often involves groups creatingand presenting projects.

8. Ideas: Exchange journals, plays,interviews, role plays, skits, speeches.

This cycle can be kept in mind whenplanning any unit, whether a teacher is usinga textbook or his/her own materials. Often,the activities in textbooks focus on languageinput and structured practice. In suchtextbook activities where students aresupposed to try to use the recently practicedlanguage on their own, there is usually just asmall space with instructions like “Whatabout you?” or “Ask three classmates abouttheir experience.” When asking a class of40 adolescents to do this kind of practice,half the students usually do unrelatedactivities they consider more amusing suchas exchanging Print Club pictures. I findmyself walking around making sure thestudents are on task. I have come to theconclusion that the more clearly defined thestructure and goals for each step of theproject/unit, the more focused, cooperative

and successful the students are in theprocess and completion of it. Whenstudents are provided with concrete goals forthe lesson and must complete a certain step,I have found that student motivation andcreativity is high.

I would like to share with you an image Ihave thought of to foster student creativity.Imagine a squash court with the ball flyingand bouncing off the walls. The ball is thestudents’ energy and creativity. The roomitself is the teacher’s guidance, language andskills input, and support which helpspromote a trusting environment. Let’sexamine how a group of my students faredin one of their “matches”.

Creating a play: The Bremen townmusiciansIn as few as four classes, a group of highschool students experienced two versions ofa story, altered it to create their own versionand performed their own plays. Thisprocedure will be outlined below in terms ofthe Experiential Learning Cycle:

1. Concrete experience: Tell the studentsa kamishibai (picture card) version ofthe story, giving it a different endingthan the one in the written version theywill later receive. Only three A3 sizedcards are used to keep it simple. As Iam not much of an artist, I wasfortunate to use cards drawn by students.Photocopied pictures from a storybookwould work as well. Make the storyinteresting by changing your voice,giving the animals names and addinganimal sounds. My students especiallyliked the “Hee haw!” of the donkey.

2. Reflective observation: I elicit themain points of the story from thestudents and draw pictures of theanimals, robbers and places as they telleach part. I draw dotted lines to mapout the animals’ journey to Bremen.To reinforce their input, I rephrase whatthe students say.

3. Abstract conceptualization: Studentsare given copies of a poem/song version


On JALT98

of the story and played the audiotape forthem. I used Scholastic’s 28 Folk andFairy Tale Poems and Songs, (Goldish,1995) but you could also make yourown. We listened, chanted and sang.Students negotiated meaning in pairsand I helped clarify difficult phrases.This allowed learners to experienceanother version of the story and at thesame time reinforced the basicvocabulary and structures, The rhythmalso helps students with listening andspeaking skills.

4. Active experimentation: Studentsmake groups of five and receive anotherversion of the story that I made in theform of a script. The story has blanksfor them to create their own lines, andthey are especially encouraged tocreate an original ending. Thestudents are free to change any of theestablished lines they wish. Somegroups even change the characters.This stage overlaps with the previouspractice stage in that the students arealso given a list of phrases that could beused in the various scenes in the play.This additional input allows students todevelop a broader range of vocabularyand sentence structure.

The students use simple props and enjoyperforming for each other. Writtenfeedback from the students conveyed thatthey were challenged by the project, but feltmuch success in using English andexpressing themselves in a dramatic way.The most important message was thatunanimously, they commented on havinghad fun working together. Several formerstudents have told me that this project wastheir favorite in OC-B and asked me if itwas still being used in my classes. In myopinion, that is the best possible feedback.

Building projects from textbook materialMost teachers, including myself, must usecommercially published texts in their classes.Fortunately, most communicative textbookauthors choose to organize their units

thematically, thus giving the teacher a solidspringboard from which they can create thestructure of a project for their students. I nglancing through a few textbooks from bothJapanese and foreign publishers, I foundthemes such as airport announcements,school activities and taking a trip throughEngland, all viable for expanding intoprojects. Of course, it takes a little timeand ingenuity on the part of the teacher, butseeing the students enthusiastically engagedis worth every effort.

My first year high school students studieda chapter from Oxford University Press’Passport Plus (Buckingham, 1997) entitled“Would you like to see my pictures?”Since the goal of my unit was to havestudents talk about trips they had taken, thissection was begun just prior to summervacation. For homework, students wererequired to draw or paste a picture from oneexperience they had during vacation andwrite a passage underneath. Whenreturning to school, students used theirhomework to mingle and tell three class-mates about their experience. I call thisactivity Fluency Steps. Three steps on theboard are drawn on the board and each steplabeled “l”, “2”, and “3”with a smiley faceat the end. Next to each step, directions arewritten as follows:

Step 1. Read to your partner.Step 2. Read and look up. Look at your

partner’s eyes!Step 3. Cover the writing. Show your

partner your picture and tellhim/her about your experience.Be natural! Students areencouraged to practice each of thesteps as many times as they findnecessary.

Next, the text book activities arepracticed and further help students developlistening, reading, writing and speakingskills for this topic. This gives studentsmore knowledge to use in the final freepractice which emphasizes the fifth skill,creativity.



The next stage in this unit incorporatesrhythm. We practiced a chant that has oneverse of questions and two verses about myown summer vacation. The students werethen required to replace the last two verseswith information about a trip they had taken.Some chanted about cycling or campingtrips, others said they did nothing but stay athome and sleep all afternoon. What-ever thetopic, students worked hard to create theirown chant. They had to focus on stress,intonation and stress reduction, essential forbuilding good speaking and listening skills.Although the writing part was done forhomework, they were encouraged to work insmall groups in class to help each other withediting and rhythm practice. During thistime I could work with students whorequested assistance.

Lastly, students performed a role playbased on a model conversation in their text.They could choose to talk about theirhomework or chant the topic. The rules toobserve were as follows: Practice the roleplay orally, do not write it out. Just writenew vocabulary or phrases you want to tryout. Ask at least three questions aboutyour partner’s experience and react to whatthey say (i.e., “Oh, that sounds wonderful!”or “That’s too bad.“) before asking the nextquestion. After performing their role plays,students said their chants. In groups offour, they evaluated each other using asystem that will be explained in the lastsection.

While working with this unit, I found asmooth transition existed between activitiesas each had a clear and specific goal in mindand flowed into the next. In working withthe textbook activities, the students werefocused and engaged, primarily, I assume,because they knew there was a purpose forpracticing and that they would beresponsible for actively using the languageintroduced in the activities.

Points to keep in mind1 . Whatever work you have the students

do, make certain it is recycled later.Ensure that the students understand the

2 .

3 .

purpose of their work. Show respectfor their efforts.Give clear directions and set strict timelimits. Students will inevitablycomplain about not having enough time,but knowing the limits, they will notwaste time and will work productivelyin class.Give points for steps in the project (i.e.,homework and class work), not just thefinal presentation. This helps to keepthe students on target and gives studentscredit for the preparation, not just theend product.

Peer evaluationMany teachers shy away from such projectsbecause it requires breaking away from theirusual ways of teaching and evaluating.Quite honestly, many Japanese assistantteachers may feel nervous about my systemof peer evaluation. Such teachers may bereassured that students are very honest andare actually stricter in their grading than theinstructor. The presentation process isclosely monitored and students are told thatgrades will be challenged if not on target.

When I first started teaching at juniorhigh/high school, I would have groups orpairs perform in front of the whole class.Not only is this time consuming, but it alsobecomes tedious and boring. Thisevaluation process has been graduallyaltered to include students assessing theirpeers. Besides relieving the previousproblems, it also gave students responsibilityand a chance to think about what isimportant in good communication andpresentations.

When groups perform, the students aredivided into eight groups. They put theirdesks together to form a single table. Withfour groups in the front of the room and fourin the back, the structure is perfect forpairing groups and for leaving space in themiddle for the presentations. This structureis used for performing the Bremen TownMusicians. The four groups in front getready in the middle and simultaneouslyperform their plays for their respective


On JALT98

partner group, and vice versa. I stand inthe front, cue for time and make mental andwritten notes about the plays. Within a 50-minute class, students had a chance to do afinal practice, perform, evaluate each otherand prepare feedback on the unit.

For presentations involving pairs orindividuals, the students organize them-selves into groups of four. Those whoperform stand while the others sit quietly,observe and grade. Students are notallowed to talk while giving points and mustsign the paper and turn it in before the otherhalf do their presentations. The ones whoreceive perfect or near perfect scores areoften selected to perform for the class at theend of the lesson. This provides studentswith examples of good presentations,recognizes the students who worked hard,and gives me a final chance to check theirgrading.

ConclusionStudents thrive in a supportive atmospherewhere they can exercise their creativity andknowledge. More and more, students aregoing abroad or meeting students from othercountries here in Japan. This increasedcontact with foreigners results in highermotivation among learners to use Englishmore actively. Given the opportunity, moststudents who have become discouraged bytraditional lecture style classes will make agreater effort to participate when becomingmore involved in creating projects of theirown, something they can be proud of.

ReferencesBuckingham, Angela and Norman Whitney

(1997). Passport plus: English forinternational communication. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.Fantini, A. (Ed) (1997). New ways in

teaching culture. Alexandria, VA:TESOL.

Foreign Languages English Course of StudyFor Senior High Schools (1990).Tokyo: Tokyo Shoseki.

Fried-Booth, D. (1986). Project work.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goldish, M. (1995). 28 Folk and fairy talepoems and songs. New YorkScholastic Professional Books. (Can beordered through Tuttle ELT Shuppan Fax:044-822-0413.)

Graham, C. (1993). Grammar chants.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Graham, C. (1986). Small talk. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning.San Diego, CA: Kagan CooperativeLearning. (Can be ordered by calling 1-800-933-2667.)

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning:Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Maley, A. & Duff, A. (1982). Dramatechniques in language learning.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Murphey, T. (1992). Music & song.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nunan, D. (1992). Collaborative languagelearning and teaching. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning:Theory, research and practice.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Wessels, C. (1987). Drama. Oxford:Oxford University Press.



Questioning Creativity: The CUE Forum on HigherEducation

Jack Kimball, Miyazaki Medical CollegeDavid McMurray, F’ukui Prefectural University

Brian McVeigh, Toyo Gakuen University

(Presenters: Jack Kimball, moderator; David McMurray; Brian McVeigh; CheironMcMahill)

This article debates definitions and applications of the term “creativity” with respect tocollege and university language teaching. The term proves volatile not only because itembraces a wide range of potential classroom interventions, but also because it iscontentiously linked with larger social questions, including gender identity and gender equity.The first author gives an overview of the debate, framing the controversy within feministcritique of Japanese schooling. The second author separates creativity from its disputablesocial implications and uses the common-sense meaning of the term to suggest that languageteachers pay more attention to students’ individual goals. The third author problematizes theterm, suggesting that creativity belongs to a category of buzzwords that are used to deflectattention from systematic reform of higher education.

IntroductionThe College and University Educators(CUE) Forum conducted an extendeddialogue-cum-debate on whether the term“creativity” can be usefully employed inteaching and learning without submitting itsmeanings and applications to closeexamination and taking into account, forexample, substantial historical and culturalcontexts that influence classroom practice.In “Forum Overview” Kimball outlines thebackground to the debate, noting that thearguments advanced can be measured interms of adherence and resistance to

feminist critique of Japanese highereducation. In emphasizing students’ needsrather than social criticism, McMurray in“Embracing Creativity” suggests thatguidelines for reform from the Ministry ofEducation can be productively translatedinto innovations in praxis. McVeighargues in “Challenging Creativity” thateducators’ primary responsibility is toconfront and correct obfuscations broughtabout by the overuse of vacuous terms, andto help reshape both the visible and hiddencurriculum to better affect learnerdevelopment and the teaching profession.


On JALT98

Forum Overview by Jack KimballWhatever our sympathies regardingcriticism from non-Japanese of currenteducational practices in Japan, we do well toremember that questioning abstractconstructs like creativity and gender identityare not recent trends nor exclusively“foreign” matters either for Japanese societyas a whole or, more pertinent, for Japaneseeducators. The founding of women’scolleges-institutions whose current missionMcVeigh (1997) in particular regards as onethat fosters and reinforces restrictive,“ladylike” roles-was predicated on 19th-century feminist ideals, self-sufficiency andeconomic emancipation (Furuki, Ueda &Althaus, 1984; Takahashi, 1989). Japan-based observers Hara (1995), Fujimura-Fanselow (1995, 1996) and Kanamaru(1998), moreover, evaluate the present-dayteaching of college women by surveyinghistorical and cultural contexts unique toJapan. Additionally, McMahill and Reekie(1996) and McMahill (l997, 1998)document how, at least in urban Japan,homegrown feminist impulses toward equityand broader visions for women are pervasive,and how these impulses can be disposedtoward acts of creativity and learnerempowerment inside and outside theclassroom.

The confluence of creativity and genderidentity characterizes a central theme of theCUE Forum. The Forum operated, insummary, within a mainstream continuum ofcritical, feminist dialogue and debate aboutwhat strategies best equip teachers andlearners for the challenges of a morecompetitive social environment. In thisregard, the dialogue ranged betweeninstructional dilemmas (such as whether andhow to address oppressive, often-subliminalaffects resulting from gender-markedlanguage in conventional textbooks, and all-male vs. all-female student groupings inlanguage classes) to more encompassingprofessional concerns from gender-segregated course offerings, tomarginalization of female, foreign and,especially, foreign female instructors.

While the creativity/gender-identitynexus proved to be a running theme in theForum, this linkage was not unanimouslyendorsed. Resistance to any connectioninvolved two bases of argument. First,there was (and is) the view thatnotwithstanding feminist critique fromnative Japanese, links between genderidentity and creativity largely derive fromWestern pop psychology; that such linkageis the byproduct of “ethnocentricassumptions about the source and meaningof creativity” (McMurray, 1998, p. 21;citing White, 1987). A second and moreradical line of argument engages competingconceptions of the term “creativity.” A swill be argued, recent calls on the part of theMinistry of Education for “creativity” inhigher education can be viewed as (a)separate from matters of gender, yet awelcome development that can lead topedagogical and even entrepreneurialinnovations; or (b) a bureaucratic, defensivere-run of abstract rhetoric to obscure morecritical inquiry into gender inequities andeducational reforms.

The heart of the Forum dialogue, then,debates what is meant by “creativity.”When deployed by administrators, shouldsuch a term necessarily evoke suspicion andin fact skepticism on the part of languageteachers? McMurray and McVeighprovide ample if contradictory responses tothis question. While the controversysurrounding creativity remains open-ended,both sides here seem to converge withregard to the point of the debate, that is, theincreasing and urgent need many collegelanguage teachers sense to introducealternative goals and methods for thepurpose of improving the quality ofeducational outcomes for both men andwomen.

Embracing Creativity by David McMurrayThe search for creativity in higher educationin Japan and the rest of Asia is in full gear.Employers and educators agree on the needto encourage creativity amongundergraduates before they enter the



workforce or move higher in academia.But what is creativity? How can it betaught in the English classroom?

Criticism of Japanese education and itslack of creativity focuses on the suppressionof individualism. For instance, a commoncomplaint is that there is little provision fortracking the bright. Another criticism isthat only recently have Japanese observerslooked to American university models tolearn how to provide rich opportunities forcreative talent to bloom. Popular criticismof the university system continues tounderscore how students spend four years atleisure.

In 1947, two years after World War II,Japan’s educational system was reformedfrom the outside, by American advisors, as anecessary first step toward promotingdemocracy. The curriculum establishedunified institutions of higher education inthe form of four-year colleges anduniversities. The postwar era focus was onrebuilding and catching up. The desiredaim was for generalist student graduates.Japan’s corporations preferred to hire groupsof malleable young recruits each spring whocould be molded into each company’s idealemployee. Women usually lost out.While China and Russia depended ontraining women to be effective in theworkplace in order to help rebuild after thewar, Japan chose to direct its young womentoward staying at home as the ideal.

The current economic crisis and demandsfor reform in education could be the turningpoint for college women. Challengingprevailing notions of creativity and genderroles continues to depend on political andbusiness support for education. In 1999,there are opportunities for college educatorsto promote creativity with the reformmeasures announced by the Ministry ofEducation. The Ministry has drafted a new“vision” for universities in the 21st centuryand suggests several reform measures. Thefocus of their report is to promote distinctiveuniversities in the current competitiveenvironment. According to the Ministry’sreport, education and research at Japanese

universities must lead to the cultivation ofstudents who have the ability to pursue theirown goals, and who are motivated to studyindependently.

The new focus on students’ individualgoals means teachers must assess and caterto the preferred learning styles and strategiesof their students. Comparisons of TOEFLscores and other indicators of how wellstudents in Japan measure up to EFLstudents internationally will take on newmeaning. This new focus also affordsopportunities to challenge traditional genderroles and to encourage creativity. Yetteachers must look beyond whether studentsare male or female before judging how bestto guide them to learn and to readythemselves for graduation.

Can foreign language educators followthe Ministry’s guidelines and help to changethe education system? The short answer isthat each educator on his or her own cannotmake the education system more creative,but we can make students more creative.Dr. Robert Tobin, for example, an Americanprofessor of organizational behavior anddevelopment offers a “Creativity andChange” course at Keio University. Hefeels creativity cannot be taught, but peoplecan be encouraged to be more creative.Motivation is a focus of many of the courseactivities. Students are encouraged to takerisks and even to fail in order not to beafraid to go out and try again. They takephotos of creativity in action, write poetry,do ten new things a day.

Here is another example. InternationalUniversity of Japan encourages their MBAstudents to gain on-site experience incompanies. Much of the work is done inEnglish. Teams of IUJ students study theoperations of small industries by observingand interviewing employees in finance,manufacturing and sales. They then applythe concepts learned from textbooks andcase studies to their findings. Studentsdiscuss the strong and weak points of thecompanies and how improvements can bemade. The course integrates knowledgefrom different disciplines. University


On JALT98

educators are not alone in their efforts, ofcourse, Fumie Otsuka teaches asecondary-level class called “Creativity andCommunication” in Ibaraki Prefecture.She introduced the new course, which hasbeen adopted by other teachers in Ibaraki,because she found there was no room forcreativity in previous courses. Studentshad little chance to work on their own ideas;instead they were instructed to repeat newwords and sentence patterns until they hadmemorized them. Her students lackedanalytical and reasoning skills because theyonly knew how to absorb knowledgethrough memorization. She nowemphasizes group learning and teampresentations.

From these few examples, I wouldsuggest there is opportunity for both foreignand native Japanese language teachers withexperience in the education system inJapan- and who also have the skills andunderstanding of how to encouragecreativity-to take the lead in facilitating theadoption of the teaching methods andmanagement styles currently sought by theMinistry of Education, business anduniversities.

Challenging “Creativity” by BrianMcVeighThe very structures of Japanese schoolingand socialization can be described asmechanisms of a dogmatic national identity(“Japaneseness”) which configureseducational practices (e.g., Englisheducation). This national identity ornationalism is culturally determined:“Japanese must act a certain way becausethey are Japanese.” (The descriptors arevarious but quite familiar: “shy,”“dominated by the group,” “consensus-seeking,” “living in a vertical society,” etc.)Cultural determinism sometimes goesfurther, legitimating biological determinism,or what may be called racialism:“Japanese must act a certain way becausethey were born Japanese.” More specificto questions of creativity and gender identity,Japanese women must act a certain way

.

because they were born Japanese. In lightof such rationalizations, I conclude that untilJapanese and non-Japanese recognizediversity within Japan, diversity outsideJapan will continue to be viewed instereotypes, thereby supporting the racialistJapanese / non-Japanese distinction, because,after all, domestic and overseas stereotypingreinforce each other.

Furthermore, problems in Japaneseeducation cannot be rectified until we dropbuzzwords that becloud understanding ofdefects. One of the most insidiousbuzzwords is “creativity.” In contrast toofficialese “visions,” genuine creativity vis avis education can arise only when we striveto avoid superficial analyses, takegovernment reports and media-hype withlarge doses of skepticism, and allowdiversity into the educational experience.With these points in mind, I shall examinecreativity from three angles.

(1) Gender segregationEven the most cursory look at statistics onwomen in Japanese education demonstrateshigh degrees of gender segregation.Students who attend junior colleges are90.7% female, while full-time femalefaculty at such schools is 40.5%. Womenat junior colleges account for 28.3% of fullprofessors and 11% of presidents. I ncontrast, at universities, only 33.3% ofstudents are female, while women constituteonly 11.2% of full-time faculty, 6.3% of fullprofessors and 5.3% of presidents (Gakkokihon chosa hokokusho-koto kyoiku kikan,1997; Monbusho tokei yoran, 1997).Junior college students who study insegregated institutional settings, surroundedand socialized by a “traditional” socialmilieu, have little chance to questionseriously socially-assigned roles, such asrequirements that female students be“ladylike.” I do not mean to suggest thatthere is something inherently wrong withnatural expressions of femininity. Rather,my contention is that being “ladylike” is notinnate. It is a social and politicalconstruction, reproduced by way of



schooling practices and encouraged byeconomic and political structures (McVeigh1997). Ideally, femininity (or masculinity,for that matter) should be a question ofpersonal preference and individual style, notpolitical prescription and economic demand.

(2) Tyranny of buzzwordsAny analysis of educational reform in Japanmust adopt a historical perspective todiscern that the terms “individuality,”“liberalization,” “diversification,”“internationalization,” “cross-culturalunderstanding” and, especially, “creativity”are not new. These terms are merelyrecycled; to rely on the rhetoric generated bythese words is to support the status quo.Using more genuine, down-to-earth,concrete terms and ways of expressionwould go a long way in setting thegroundwork for a real discussion ofproblems in Japanese education. A relatedissue concerns the confusion between“individualism” (kojinshugi) with“individuality” (kosei). Japan has plenty ofthe latter, but “individualism” is a politicalphilosophy rooted in the West and is notnecessary for creativity. Thus, to discussthe need for more “individualism” inJapanese schooling is a red herring.

Many of the problems we witness inJapanese education are caused by corporateculture. It may be true in a sense that in“America, academia and business areclosely linked” (McMurray, 1998, p. 22)but in other ways, they are clearly not linkedsince many American universities possesspolicy mechanisms designed to guard theirinstitutional autonomy from corporatemonopolization. In Japan, on the otherhand, universities have been essentiallyconverted into selecting devices andemployment agencies for companies. Thishas devastated Japan’s higher education.The business community repeatedly requeststhat the educational system produce moredisciplined (and obedient) workers instilledwith the proper attitude toward labor. Thestate has more than happily answered theserequests. The purpose of education in

Japan has been so thoroughly monopolizedby business interests that colleges anduniversities have become not educationcenters as we know them in North Americaor Europe, but rather prep schools for futureemployment. Business leaders and stateofficials are probably happiest when theyhear teachers droning on about the need formore “creativity,” since this has very little todo with challenging actual problems at hand.Though it may be said that change in highereducation requires political and businesssupport, improvement in higher educationcan only occur when the domineeringpressures of the state and corporate worldare removed from higher education.

(3) Professional marginalizationIn spite of progress made at a fewuniversities and colleges, this generalizationholds true: non-Japanese instructors areeither denigrated, not regarded as full-timeprofessionals (leading to some very stickylegal problems), or they are overidealized asexotic “cultural ambassadors” who typifywhat is “foreign,” tokens of the Other, inpossession of the magical power of English.The roles of non-Japanese instructors, ofcourse, should be viewed morepragmatically; opportunities beyondlanguage teaching should be opened to non-Japanese instructors, and they should beregarded as instructors, not “foreign”instructors. Treating non-Japanese asequals means a genuine acceptance ofdiversity and encourages a more “creative”worldview. But currently, despite muchballyhooing of “internationalization,” thenumber of non-Japanese instructors remainssmall: Non-Japanese account for 2.97% offull-time faculty at universities and 3.49% atjunior colleges, and for 5.82% of part-timefaculty at universities and 5.24% at juniorcolleges (Gakko kihon chosa hokokusho—koto kyoiku kikan, 1997; Monbusho tokeiyoran, 1997).

I suggest that we hold the Japaneseeducational system and its values up tointernational standards (i.e., the samestandards that a cross-section of people


On JALT98

would use to assess the educational practicesof their own societies). For example, somequestion whether Japanese women need tobe “liberated” since the feminist movementis essentially Western. Such a view,however, misses two points: First, thewomen’s rights movement has a long historyin Japan, and second, any discussion ofwomen’s rights is ultimately (regardless oflocal inflections and cultural particularities)a matter of universal concern (as arequestions of race and nationality). Therigid bifurcation of roles based on gender, insum, limits creativity of both males andfemales and undoubtedly hinders self-development.

It is interesting (though disappointing)that some observers are in the habit ofmaking exceptions for Japanese, and yetthey speak in a contradictory manner aboutthe need to “internationalize” Japan. Anexample of this would be those who labeloutside critique as “cultural imperialism”:“Are non-Japanese imposing their ownculturally-biased views on the Japanese?”Imagine, in contrast, Europeans or NorthAmericans explaining to a Japanese that intheir own societies sexual inequality ordiscrimination against Asians is justified onthe grounds of “cultural differences.”Carried to extremes, such thinking results inmisinterpreting the nature of problems inJapanese education. Consider Susser’sreview of the ESL/EFL literature, whichbecause of its reputed reductive tendency toview the East as inferior, that is, because ofits Orientalism, “presents a distorted accountof Japanese learners and classrooms” (1998,p. 49). There is no question thatOrientalism has led to misunderstandingsabout Japanese society; nonetheless, blanketaccusations of Orientalism (cf. Susser’sextensive bibliography) are not only ofquestionable value, but draw our attentionaway from the realities that plague languagelearning in Japan. Moreover, in myestimation, ESL/EFL suffers as much fromOccidentalism (refer, above, to how foreigninstructors are treated at some universities)as it does from Orientalism.

To conclude, I suggest that in addition tofulfilling our roles in the classroom, we stepout of the classroom and learn more aboutthe larger, deeply structural forces that shapeeducational practices in Japan. You cannotfix a problem unless you know its nature.Many individuals who are passionatelycommitted to understanding and improvingwhat goes on in the classroom only rely onliterature about English language instructionand official reports that serve up buzzwords.It is, though, not enough to know what goeson in the classroom and to repeat slogans.We need to expand our reading lists andacquaint ourselves with the historical,political and economic forces that shapeboth the visible and hidden curriculum ofthe Japanese classroom at all levels. Thisway, we can avoid the tyranny of buzzwords,such as “creativity,” and acknowledge thatmany of the issues under consideration arepolitical, not pedagogical. Preciselybecause certain patterns of thought aredifficult to discern, we should confront,dissect, and rectify them.

ReferencesFujimura-Fanselow, K. (1995). College

women today: Options and dilemmas. InK. Fujimura-Fanselow & A. Kameda(Eds.), Japanese women: New feministperspectives on the past, present, andfuture (pp. 125-154). New York: TheFeminist Press at the City University ofNew York.

Fujimura-Fanselow, K. (1996).Transforming teaching: Strategies forengaging female leaders. In C.Casanave & A. Yamashiro (Eds.),Gender issues in language education (pp.31-46). Fujisawa: Keio University.

Furuki, Y., Ueda, A., & Althaus, M. (Eds.)(1984). The writings of Tsuda Umeko.Tokyo: Tsuda College.

Gakko kihon chosa hokokusho - koto kyoikukikan [Basic survey of schools—institutions of higher education]. (1997).Tokyo: Ministry of Education.

Hara, K. (1995). Challenges to educationfor girls and women in modern Japan:



Past and present. In K. Fujimura-Fanselow & A. Kameda (Eds.), Japanesewomen: New feminist perspectives onthe past, present, and future (pp. 93-106).New York: The Feminist Press at the CityUniversity of New York.

Kanmaru, F. (1998, May). Sexism to nihonno eigo kyokasho [Sexism in Englishtextbooks published in Japan]. TheLanguage Teacher, 22 (5), 11-13.

McMahill, C., & Reekie, K. (1996).Forging alliances: Grassroots feministlanguage education in the Tokyo area.In C. Casanave & A. Yamashiro (Eds.),Gender issues in language education (pp.15-30). Fujisawa: Keio University.

McMahill, C. (1997). Communities ofresistance: A case study of two feministEnglish classes in Japan. TESOLQuarterly, 31 (3), 612-622.

McMahill, C. (1998, May). A look atwomen in education and languagelearning (WELL). The LanguageTeacher, 22 (5), 40-43.

McMurray, D. (1998, November). Japan’ssearch for creativity. On CUE: Collegeand University Educators Newsletter 6(3), 21-24.

McVeigh, B. (1997). Life in a Japanesewomen’s college: Learning to beladylike. London: Routledge.

McVeigh, B. (1998, November). Gender,higher education, and reform. On CUE:College and University EducatorsNewsletter 6 (3), 25-27.

Monbusho tokei yoran [Statistical abstract ofeducation, science, sports and culture].(1997). Tokyo: Ministry ofEducation.

Susser, B. (1998, May). EEL’s othering ofJapan. JALT Journal, 20 (l), 49-82.

Takahashi, Y. (1989). Umeko Tsuda:International networker for the reform ofwomen’s education. Obirin Review ofInternational Studies, 1, 137-148.

White, M. (1998). The Japaneseeducational challenge. Tokyo:Kodansha

Teacher Beliefs and Teacher Development

Kazuyoshi Sato, University of QueenslandTim Murphey, Nanzan University

The recent TESOL Quarterly (Autumn, 1988) on ESOL teacher education advocates areconceptualization of the knowledge-base for English language teacher education. Theeditors propose that research on teacher education should more directly account for theteacher (experiences, knowledge, and beliefs); however, the school context and practicesremain underestimated. Using multiple data sources including interviews, observations, andsurveys, we try to clarify the difficulties inherent in continual professional development whilejuxtaposing the realities the Japanese English language teachers in this study confront in theirworking environments. We conclude that teacher development entails institutionaldevelopment that ensures continuous learning opportunities in the learning context.


Theoretical backgroundTeacher development aims at teacherlearning in school. In essence, teacherdevelopment requires teachers to developtheir beliefs and practices (Pajares, 1992;Richardson, 1994; 1996). While generaleducational research has called for the needof comprehensive investigation withconsideration of contextual influences (Lee& Yarger, 1996), the significance of thecontexts was recognized in ESOL teachereducation only recently (Freeman &Johnson, 1998). In particular, how schoolcontexts influence what teachers think anddo, and how they learn to teach is anunstudied problem except the research ontechnical cultures by Kleinsasser (1993) andFreeman (1996).

Kleinsasser (1993) applied Rosenholtz’s(1989) work with high school foreignlanguage teachers. Data was collectedfrom 37 teachers in 11 schools throughinterviews, observations, and surveys. Theresults indicated two distinctive technicalcultures. One was routine/uncertaincultures, where teachers were uncertainabout their instructional practice, but wereengaged in day-to-day routine. They hadfew conversations about instruction, andrelied on traditional approaches. The otherwas nonroutine/certain cultures, whereteachers were confident about theirinstruction, and their daily practices werenot predictable. Teachers collaboratedacross the departments, and incorporatedmore communicative activities. In short,Kleinsasser (1993) revealed the strongrelationship between school contexts andteachers’ practices.

The studyThis study sought to reveal the relationshipsamong the context, beliefs, and practices, ingeneral, and how EFL teachers learn toteach in the school context, in particular.Although Monbusho introduced a new


syllabus with emphasis on communication-oriented English in 1994, little is knownabout what teachers understand by Englishlanguage teaching and how they actuallyteach. A few studies such as Pacek (1996)and Murphey and Sato (in progress) reportedthat teachers were confused with how toteach according to the new syllabus.

Our one-year study, conducted in aprivate high school, employed multiple datasources (see Sato & Kleinsasser,forthcoming) including surveys, interviews,observations, and documents in order toreveal the relationships among the context,beliefs, and practices of 15 EFL teachers(including two native English speakingteachers). The school culture surveys,consisting of 104 items with a Likert-typescale, were adapted from Kleinsasser (1993).Data collection started in September, 1997,including interviews, classroomobservations, and documents. Datacollection was repeated in each term. I nthe main, qualitative, inductive approacheswere used to analyze the data. Thefollowing were results from the first datacollection. Pseudonyms are used to keepidentities anonymous.

ResultsInstitutional beliefsOverall, the data analysis indicatedadherence to the institutionalized beliefabout English language teaching that it wasimportant to teach according to theestablished grammar-translation method forthe common tests and classroommanagement. Moreover, the resultsshowed that institutional beliefs included notonly the belief about the subject matter, butalso other beliefs about the workplace,students, teachers themselves, and learningopportunities.

First, teachers revealed an institutionalbelief about English language teaching whenthey worked together. They felt strongly


that the university entrance examinationswere one strong source of this pressure.For example, Hatano commented.

Hatano: It is necessary and isan ideal to be able to speak andlisten. But, we cannot ignoreuniversity entrance examinations.That’s another problem. Ifentrance exams were removed, itwould be time that we started tothink about alternatives.

Moreover, most teachers, like Imai below,said they relied on the textbook too muchand for this reason could not produceenjoyable classes.

Imai: I don’t think I have anysuccessful classes. I didn’t trythat. Well, we used thetextbook of basic grammar in theFirst term. For each lesson ithas five key sentences and I dida quiz to memorize them at thebeginning of the class. Afterthat, I briefly explainedgrammatical points, and hadstudents try exercises. Ifnecessary, I added otherexercises or had them makesimple sentences. I had thiskind of pattern. I don’t think itis good, but other teachersfollowed it, too, because wetalked about how to go about ourlessons.

In addition, teachers assessed studentsbased on mechanically scored tests whichhelped them in terms of classroommanagement but had doubtful learningeffect.

Saito: Students worked hardfor quizzes, because we assessedthe results. Also, I checkedtheir preparation every time bywalking around theclassroom . . . Anyway, we just

made handouts in order to havethem know what to do. I nterms of behavioral managementand classroom order, the resultswere good. But in terms ofactual learning, I am not sure ofthe results.

In sum, although none of them favoredexam-oriented English, as a group in theirinstitution, they could not ignore it.Moreover, teaching the same way for thecommon tests seemed to be a priority whenthey worked together.

Second, there seemed to be school normsand values for managing students that tookprecedence over teaching. For example,Mike, with three years’ teaching experiencein this school, noticed that those whoattended to extra curricular activities and alot of meetings were considered goodteachers.

Third, many teachers related thatchanging students’ negative attitude towardEnglish and motivating them was the mostdifficult problem.

Sudo: First of all, manystudents are allergic to English.I think this is due to the Englishteaching in junior high schools.It is not easy for students to getrid of this allergy. Also manystudents finish three years at thishigh school without changingtheir attitudes toward English.We often feel the dilemmabetween having fun in classesand teaching the basics.

Fourth, several teachers confessed thatthey were uncertain about teachingapproaches, and a couple of teachersmentioned lack of proficiency. Forinstance, Imai started to teach oralcommunication classes this year.

Imai: I am 52 years old andlearned English with traditionalapproaches. Age might not be


On JALT98

related, but I have difficultyteaching oral communicationclasses in some ways. W e ,Japanese, are in charge oflistening and grammar. So Imanaged the classes by usingtapes, because I cannot speakEnglish fluently. Well, I think 1have to learn more aboutteaching approaches, but it ishard for me.

Finally, teacher learning seemed to belimited mainly to occasional peer-observations, with the majority of teachersavoiding workshops due to a perceived lackof the possibility to implement new ideas.

Tanaka: It is a shame, but Ihave not attended anyworkshops since last June . . . Ihave encountered manyinteresting ideas so far, but infact, I found most of them nothelpful. If I can change thepattern of the class of my ownwill, I can try out many things.However, I have to follow thetextbook as other teachers do.

Individual BeliefsContrarily, 13 out of 15 teachers stillexpressed desires toward implementingcommunication-oriented language teaching.They were; (a) using the target language; (b)focus on listening; (c) using activities; (d)integrating four skills; and, (e) usingauthentic materials. However, manyteachers confessed that they were uncertainhow to teach, showing that these weremostly just “espoused” beliefs. Forexample, Kito commented:

Kito: I have a feeling that Iwant to help students improvetheir English proficiency byusing activities such as games,dictation, and self-expression...We used to have ateacher who studied abroad for a

couple of years and used gamesin classrooms. She reallymotivated students. I think Ihave to study more aboutteaching approaches to motivatestudents.

It was true that teachers had to complywith the existing practices and theinstitutional beliefs. However, in smallcourses such as music, nursing, andcommerce, several teachers related that theyhad tried out new ideas, because there wereno common tests and they had freedom tochoose materials. For example, Kobayashiused pairwork in an elective conversationclass, and enjoyed teaching last year, whilehe was ashamed of having no successfulclasses this year.

Kobayashi: I can’t think of anyclasses where I felt successful.Well, last year when I was incharge of English conversationclasses with another teacher, Isucceeded in some activities.We divided the class into twogroups. I used a toy of thetelephone to introduce atelephone conversation, and theyreally liked it. I myself had fun.I used the textbook butincorporated several activitiessuch as pair-work. Studentscould develop a model dialoguein pairs by creating somesentences. Well, it wasinteresting. As for reading andgrammar lessons, I have noparticular ones I think I did well.What a shame, I suppose.

Nonetheless, there is some evidence thatwhen structures allow and encouragecollaboration interesting development canhappen. Sudo taught oral communica-tionclasses for commercial students for the firsttime this year. Since there were only twocommercial classes in Year Three, whichSudo and Mike were in charge of, he seemed

208 Vo ices o f Exper imenta t ion


to have freedom to try out many things.Though he expressed his anxiety about howto teach the new subject, he collaboratedwith Mike and came up with ideas for afuture activity that excited him.

Sudo: Well, I am in charge ofthe third-year students, inparticular, oral communi-cationin commercial classes. But Iam at a loss how to teach thisnew subject. I am teachingthrough trial and error. Onething worth mentioning is theassignment for which studentsrecord their voices either bythemselves or groups. I triedthis assignment with Mike. Forexample, we gave them a titlesuch as “My family,” and theymade up a script . . . If possible, Iam planning to let them trydrama in groups of five to six.We can videotape them. It’sgoing to be a memorable work.

Classroom observationsSurprisingly, almost all the EFL teachers ingeneral English classes conformed to thepattern of traditional practices. Classeswere teacher-fronted, and instructions weredelivered in Japanese. There seemed noroom for communication-oriented English tobe incorporated into general English classes,although oral communication classes startedin this school five years ago. Mostteachers began with word pronunciation,model reading, chorus reading, or listeningto a tape, and spent most of the time havingstudents translate each sentence intoJapanese and ex-plaining grammatical points.Even in oral communication classes, JETSwere in charge of listening and grammar,and there were no interactions amongstudents in English. The two JETS also haddifficulty having students interact andcommunicate in English. In contrast, onlya couple of teachers developed materials andtried out their new ideas in special classes insmall courses. Overall, the survey data

analysis corresponded to the interview data.

ConclusionAlthough teachers express their individualbeliefs or knowledge about communication-oriented English, they rely heavily onroutine practices in their classrooms. H o wcould this discre-panty be explained?Individual beliefs seem secondary to schoolnorms and institutional beliefs whendetermining specific actions in theclassroom. Most research on teacherbeliefs has focused mainly on individualbeliefs about the subject matter, and failed toinvestigate the interactions with other sets ofbeliefs, values, and behaviors, which aredeeply rooted in institutional settings andform the school culture. Although it iseasy to conclude that these teachers rely ontraditional practices in a routine/uncertainculture, a few teachers did attempt toimplement innovative practices in specialclasses. The question becomes, “How canteacher freedom, creativity, time forpreparation, risk-taking, and learningopportunities be protected?” Perhaps aclue as to how this might be done comesfrom Lieberman and Miller (1990) whodefined teacher development as “not onlythe renewal of teaching, but it is also therenewal of schools-in effect, culturebuilding” (p. 107). In other words, teacherdevelopment entails both class-room andinstitutional development, i.e., developing aschool culture where teachers collaborate,talk about instruction, share planning andpreparation, try out new ideas, and promotecontinuous learning. For these teachers todevelop their individual beliefs through trialand error experiences, which is teacherdevelopment, it is crucial that the institutionof schooling in general, and each schoolindividually, create structures that inviteteachers to do so.

AcknowledgementThe authors wish to thank Dr. Kleinsasserfor his insightful comment on the previousdraft.


On JALT98

ReferencesFreeman, D. (1996). The “unstudied

problem”: Research on teacher learningin language teaching. In D. Freeman &J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning inlanguage teaching (pp. 351-378). N e wYork: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, D. &Johnson, K. E. (Eds.)(1998). Special-topic issue: Researchand practice in English language teachereducation. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (3),397-622.

Kleinsasser, R. C. (1993). A tale of twotechnical cultures: Foreign languageteaching. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 9 (4), 373-383.

Lee, O., & Yarger, S. J. (1996). Modes ofinquiry in research on teacher education.In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of researchon teacher education, (2nd ed., pp. 14-37).New York: Simon & SchusterMacmillan.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1990).Teacher development in professionalpractice schools. Teacher CollegeRecord, 92 (1) 105-122.

Murphey, T., & Sato, K. (in progress).Reality testing.

Pacek, D. (1996). Lessons to be learntfrom negative evaluation. ELT Journal,50, 335-343.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefsand educational research: Cleaning up amessy construct. Review of EducationalResearch, 62 (3), 307-332.

Richardson, V. (1994). Conductingresearch on practice. EducationalResearcher, 23 (5), 5-9.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role ofattitudes and beliefs in learning to teach.In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of researchon teacher education, (2nd ed., pp. 102-119). New York: Simon & SchusterMacmillan.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’workplace. New York: Longman.

Sato, K. & Kleinsasser, R.C. (forthcoming).Multiple data sources: Converging anddiverging conceptualizations of LOTEteaching. The Australian Journal ofTeacher Education, 24 (l), 166-171.

Global Education and Language Teacher TrainingKip A. Cates, Tottori University

Jim Kahny, Language Institute of JapanDaniel Kirk, Prefectural University of Kumamoto

Lynda-ann Blanchard, Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney

How does one become a “global teacher?” What training do language teachers need toeffectively integrate global awareness, world citizenship, and the study of world problemsinto their classroom teaching? In this colloquium, a panel of teacher trainers and globaleducators discussed global education approaches to teacher development and innovativeteacher training programs which promote international understanding through languageteaching.


IntroductionFor classroom practitioners to effectivelyteach a foreign language, good training isrequired. An entire field of languageteacher training has arisen to provide suchpreparation. Among languageprofessionals dealing with global concerns,however, there has been little discussion ofthe training needed to help teachers integrateglobal issues, world citizenship, andinternational understanding into theirlanguage teaching. To address this topic,this colloquium, organized by JALT’sGlobal Issues Special Interest Group,brought together four experts to discussglobal education approaches to teacherdevelopment and language teacher training.

Training global teachers is often adifficult job, due to teacher knowledge,attitudes or (lack of) support. Typicalconcerns faced by global education teachertrainers are cited in an American survey(Merryfield, 1991) which found that:

1 .

2 .

3 .

4 .

Pre- and in-service teachers have littleor no knowledge of global perspectivesor the information on which thesedepend.Many teachers aren’t interested inteaching global concerns because theyperceive such issues to be irrelevant orthreatening, or because they are lockedinto a “nationalistic mind set.”Many teachers do not perceive globalperspectives as essential for qualityeducation.A lack of leadership and support forglobal perspectives in schools meansthat, even when teachers acquire thenecessary knowledge and motivation toteach with a global perspective, theirefforts may be stalled by existingcurricula and bureaucratic procedures.

Another typical problem is the mistakenimage teachers often have of the globaleducator’s role. For many, a “globalteacher” means a “super-teacher” withinexhaustible energy and a completeknowledge of global issues who is a tireless


champion of all good causes and is able toleap over tall buildings in a single bound.A more realistic image is that of the “globalstriver” who has an open mind and caringheart, who tries to counter injustice andinequality, who recognizes gaps in his or herknowledge of global issues (but iscommitted to learning more), and whoworks to build a global perspective intoclassroom teaching (but often needsstamina).

The concept of the “global languageteacher” and ways of developing suchteachers are addressed in the papers below.These begin with an essay on the concept of“education for global citizenship,” followedby case studies of global education teachertraining programs for language teachers inJapan.

Freedom from fear of freedom: Globalcitizens in the classroom and beyondLynda-ann BlanchardAs world citizens and as teachers oflanguage and culture, we are involved in thebusiness of global education. If weconsider citizenship as a central theme inglobal education, we can discern three sitesfor our teaching and learning: We arecitizens in our classrooms, of our cultures,and of the world. The promotion ofcitizenship ideals is therefore a key role forthe global teacher.

Language teachers and citizenshipeducation: Asking the questionsCampaigner for democracy and peaceactivist Aung San Suu Kyi has said thatcitizenship is about freedom from fear. Forthe language teacher interested in globalissues, this could translate as freedom fromfear of freedom. This fear can be foundamong teachers who, while interested indealing with global issues, feel bound to thelanguage textbook, the linguistic syllabus orthe conversation manual, and are afraid toapproach language teaching through globalcontent.

Volces of Experimentation 211

O n JALT98

1 .

2 .

3 .

In curriculum development Theinterdisciplinary nature of the “qualityof life” or “security for all” curriculumaddresses cultural, social,environmental, and economic issues.The “global issues” kaleidoscope isoverwhelming. Where does thelanguage teacher begin?In classroom activity The capacity forreflective dialogue and debate is centralto language acquisition, to cross-cultural understanding, and tocitizenship education. It involvestaking risks with language learning anddeveloping assessment measures whichare flexible and meaningful. For someteachers, taking any risk at all is afrightening step. Yet, is this process asfrightening as it sounds?In acquiring knowledge The practiceof analytical and communicativeskills-essential tools for languagelearning and citizenship education—may be presented in a one-dimensionalparadigm; “right or wrong,” “good orbad.” On the other hand, if werecognise that a singular focus ofspecific substantive knowledge mayinhibit learning, we can createsupportive alternatives. We can do thisby taking risks with ideas, sharing them,and realising that conclusions, such as“right or wrong,” are unhelpful.

Training for global teachers: Providingthe cuesCitizenship education involves fosteringparticipation (in the classroom and in publiclife) and promoting reciprocity (individualrights and communal responsibilities).JALT98 exemplified these ideals ascolleagues provided the cues for findingfreedom from fear of freedom for the globallanguage teacher.

Denise Drake (Kitakyushu University)taught us how to tame the unwieldy globalissues curriculum with careful syllabusdevelopment of a specific issue. Tappinginto a personal interest in gender issues, shedeveloped exciting course materials. One

.


textbook activity proved ineffective for thestudents, she recalled, “so we talked abouthow difficult it was for students to role playsexual harassment in the workplace. Everystudent had a personal story to tell but notabout the workplace.” Language skillsdevelopment, as well as the meaning ofcitizenship, were enhanced by this process.

Richard Smith (Tokyo University ofForeign Studies) took us on a wonderfuljourney towards learner autonomy. Awarethat his “listening class” was not engaged inproductive learning, he was faced with theneed for change from “my tape recorder-centred teaching. That was scary.” Byinviting students, as citizens of the class, totake some responsibility for their learningand help plot a new direction for the course,they were given the respect and motivationthey needed to actively listen and learn.

Leni Dam (Royal Danish Institute) andDavid Little (Trinity College) providedexcellent teacher training in citizenshipeducation with their plenary discussionabout systems of knowledge and languageacquisition: “school knowledge” and“action knowledge.” Extensive cross-cultural research has suggested that alearner’s self-esteem is affected by theprocess of knowledge acquisition. Formaltext experiences or unauthentic activitiesinhibit language learning and personalgrowth.

Global citizens in the classroom and beyondEducational philosophers have promotedcritical questioning in educating fordemocratic values and citizenship. It isinclusive, not exclusive. Resources areboth personal and international. Mostimportant are two essential ingredients: afascination with cultural difference and thevalue of linguistic pluralism. If we are tounmask conditions for equitable coexistencein sharing responsibility for the globalenvironment, we must speak with each otherabout our similarities and differences. Anunderstanding of citizenship ideals depends,in large part, on the abilities of our teachersto encourage a capacity for language


learning.Training language teachers to effectively

use global education materials, modes andmethods is not just a good idea, an abstractconcept, a distant possibility or mere wishfulthinking. A number of global educationteacher training programs for foreignlanguage instructors already exist indifferent parts of the world and areproducing some exciting results. Here, welook at three such programs in Japan assample case studies of ways in whichlanguage teachers can be introduced toglobal education.

Educating global language teachers: Acase studyKip CatesMA-level language teacher trainingprograms generally lack a componentdealing with global education. A uniquegraduate course entitled “Trends--NewDirections in ESOL: Global Issues andCooperative Learning,” which I teach as partof the MA-in-TESOL program of TeachersCollege Columbia University at its Tokyocampus, aims to introduce language teachersto ideas, techniques, and materials from thefields of global education, peace education,human rights education, and environmentaleducation. The following is a briefdescription of the course.

Course outlineThis one-semester “New Directions inESOL: Global Issues” MA-in-TESOLcourse was founded in 1991 and has beentaught annually since then. Courseparticipants are English language teachers(Japanese and non-Japanese) who work atvarious levels (beginner, intermediate,advanced), in various institutions (highschool, college, commercial languageschools), and with various learners (children,school pupils, college students, adultlearners). The Global Issues MA courseconsists of 60 hours of instruction and isdivided into two parts: a methodologyworkshop and a practicum.

The methodology component introduces.

students to the fields of global education,cooperative learning, and the teaching ofglobal issues in language classes. In thepracticum, students explore specific areas ofglobal education and experiment with thedesign and teaching of global issue languagelessons. As a working definition, globaleducation is described as an approach tolanguage teaching which aims at enablingstudents to effectively acquire a foreignlanguage while empowering them with theknowledge, skills, and commitment requiredfor the solution of world problems. Globalknowledge involves learning about thenature of world problems, their causes andpossible solutions. Global skills includecommunication skills, critical and creativethinking skills, problem solving skills,conflict resolution skills, and the ability tosee problems from multiple perspectives.The commitment to work towards solvingworld problems comes from attitudes andvalues involving global awareness, curiosity,altruism and social concern.

The course content covers key aspects ofglobal education such as definitions andhistory of the field, objectives and rationale,as well as global education approaches tocurriculum design, classroom methodology,and evaluation. Course participants studyand discuss teaching ideas, techniques, andmaterials from global education and itscomponent fields of peace education, humanrights education, environmental education,and development education. During thecourse, students examine global educationteaching materials, experience globaleducation learning activities, and experimentwith designing and teaching foreignlanguage lessons which promote globalawareness and international understanding.

Course readings and assignmentsCourse readings comprise: (a) a 200-pagepre-course reading pack consisting of keyarticles on global education, and (b) an in-class lending library of global educationbooks from the instructor’s privatecollection. A special feature of thepracticum is that students are required to


On JALT98

design, teach, and evaluate a model globaleducation language lesson in their ownschools. These lessons are video-taped andobserved by a mentor, then analyzed anddiscussed in the MA classroom.

Course assignments include: (a) areaction paper to the pre-course readingpacket; (b) oral and written book reports onglobal education books and global issue EFLtexts; (c) a class presentation of a groupdesigned language lesson on a global issuestheme; (d) a fieldwork assignment requiringstudents to visit and write a profile of aglobal education or global issue organization(e.g., Amnesty International, UNICEF); and(e) two major global education papers orprojects on a topic of the students’ choice.

Student projects have ranged frommaterials writing and curriculum design totextbook analysis and educational research.Sample student projects include: “ASurvey of Students’ Global Awareness andGeographic Literacy,” “A Survey of EFLTeacher Beliefs about Global Education,”“A Global Issue Content Analysis of HighSchool English Textbooks,” “A One-yearGlobal Education Course for Senior HighSchool EFL,” “A Study on GlobalEducation and Language Acquisition,” “AChildren’s EFL Lesson on EnvironmentalIssues, ” “A College EFL Lesson Design onTropical Rainforests,” “An EFL Lesson Planfor Preventing Bullying,” “An EFL LessonPlan on Sex Role Stereotyping,” and“Teaching about World Regions in EFL.”

The course has been popular andparticipants have been enthusiastic. Iwould urge teacher training institutions tointroduce similar courses in their ownprograms to help language teachers add aglobal perspective to their work.

Global education and language teachertraining at LIOJJim KahnyHow does one become a “global teacher”?At the Language Institute of Japan (LIOJ),the global education training approachemphasizes contact between individuals.LIOJ programs and activities are geared

toward giving teachers the opportunity todevelop international awareness throughexchanging ideas with colleagues from othercountries. Below is an overview of teachertraining activities that the school has beeninvolved with in recent years.

International summer workshopThe International Summer Workshop forTeachers of English has been an annualevent at LIOJ since 1969, making it one ofthe oldest ongoing teacher trainingconferences in Japan. The programfeatures guests and activities which add aglobal perspective to language teachers’professional development. Fifteencountries were represented among the 130participants and guests at the 1998 workshop,including teachers of English from variouscountries in Asia.

The workshop program is planned withsecondary school teachers in mind; however,the variety of topics covered in classes andpresentations are relevant to the larger groupof language educators. During theworkshop, participants attend a morningclass that meets throughout the week.Morning course choices range from Englishlanguage classes in which teachers can“brush up” on their English, to special-focusclasses in which teachers can explore aparticular aspect of English languageeducation. With regard to global issuestraining, the 1998 workshop featured a classentitled “Internationalizing Your EnglishClass” conducted by Kip Cates (TottoriUniversity). In this class, participantsexplored a variety of classroom methods andmaterials using games, music, role play, andvideo with the goal of bringing aninternational perspective to their languageteaching.

In the afternoons, participants selectfrom a variety of presentations.Participants learn about various issues inlanguage education in other countries.Titles with a global perspective from amongthe 47 presentations at the 1998 workshopincluded “The Recent Reform of EnglishEducation in Thailand: Effects on



Teachers” by Narapom Chan-ocha(Chulalongkom University), “EnglishEducation in Post-1997 Hong Kong” byBecky Kwan (City University of HongKong), “English Education in Laos” bySengdeuane Lachanthaboun (Lao Ministryof Education), “Activities for RaisingCultural Awareness” by Susan Stempleski(Columbia University), “How EnglishGrammar is Taught at Secondary Schools inVietnam” by Tran Van Phuoc (Hue NationalUniversity), and “English Education inKorea” by Yeom Ji-sook (Korea TESOL).

“International Night” is the name of theannual social and cultural event which isheld during the workshop. Country displaybooths and cultural performances courtesyof our guests and teachers are the mainfeature. The goal of this event is to giveeveryone a chance to meet and to learnabout various aspects each other’s countries,including music, food, culture, and arts andcrafts.

Thailand/Japan team teaching exchangeIn cooperation with the Department ofLinguistics at Srinakharinwirot University(SWU) in Bangkok, LIOJ established thisteacher exchange program in 1993 to giveJapanese secondary school teachers ofEnglish the opportunity to travel to Thailandand team up with a Thai counterpart, and toexperience team teaching from a valuablenew perspective: that of the visitingteacher. The exchange, which alsoinvolves a visit by the Thai teacher to Japanto team teach in the Japanese teacher’sschool, runs for approximately two weeks inmid-August (in Thailand) and approximatelytwo weeks in mid-October (in Japan). Theprogram affords participating teachers, theircolleagues, and their students theopportunity to develop greater awareness ona variety of levels. Students’ responses insurveys indicate that, as a result of theprogram, they feel that (a) they need tostudy English more, and (b) their image ofthe country and people of the visitingteacher has become more positive (Kahny,1998).

ELT publicationIn commemoration of its 30th anniversary,LIOJ published Perspectives on SecondarySchool EFL Education (Kahny & James,1998), a collection of 39 articles byeducators from 14 different countries.POSSEE features several articles onintercultural training and English as aninternational language. A special “Focuson Asia” section features a discussion onEFL education by teachers in countriesaround the Asia-Pacific region, includingKorea, China, Hong Kong, the Philippines,Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand,and India.

JALT Asian scholarsThe JALT 4Corners Asian educatorscholarship program has given manyteachers in Japan the opportunity to meetcolleagues from other Asian countries andlearn firsthand about English education inother contexts. LIOJ has been pleased toassist with visa sponsorship of the JALTscholars over the past four years fromMalaysia (1998), the Philippines (1997),Laos (1996), and China (1995).

Global Issues in the English teachers’seminar at the Prefectural University ofKumamotoDaniel KirkThe English Teachers’ Seminar at thePrefectural University of Kumamoto,established in 1991, has been offeredprimarily to Japanese secondary schoolteachers of English. The scheduling of theseminar has varied over the eight years of itsexistence, but is now a three-phase programcovering a six-month period. One of themain aims of the seminar is to involveteachers as much as possible in theorganization and execution of the program.The inclusion of Global Issues in LanguageEducation (GILE) as a focus is notguaranteed because teachers have the optionof choosing to focus on other topics.However, teachers have chosen to includeglobal issues in the program for severalyears.


On JALT98

During the seminar, participantsexperience various aspects related to globalissues. First, global issues are brought tothe attention of the teachers. A frameworkfor understanding these issues is thenprovided. At the same time, participantsalso receive help in developing theirlanguage abilities in order to communicatetheir ideas on global issues. In addition,participants explore methods forincorporating global issues ideas into theirclassrooms in ways that will be beneficial totheir students.

Over the seminar’s eight-year history,participants’ responsibilities have changedfrom participating in a program that thecoordinators created, to determining forthemselves the content and length of time tobe spent on each topic. Global issues hasbeen offered as one of the options forseveral years under the title “Planethood:Global Issues in Language Education.”For the past two years, teachers have chosento focus on other themes (e.g., “ReflectiveDevelopment,” “ Learner Strategies,”“Culture”). Even when the teachers dochoose other content, global activities areoften a part of the other seminars.Activities such as confidence- and trust-building are often used in periods dedicatedto warm-up and getting-to-know-you events.There is such a great overlap between globalissues and intercultural understanding.Therefore, in the culture workshop,activities that the teachers enjoyparticipating in and can incorporate intotheir own classrooms, such as units onfostering global citizenship, are oftenincluded.

The greatest challenge facing teacherswho would like to incorporate global issuesin their classrooms is presenting thesethemes in language that is beneficial to theirstudents. Vocabulary and grammar oftenblock teachers’ progress in developinguseful classroom materials. Variousoptions are presented that make it possiblefor teachers, even at a junior high schoollevel, to incorporate global issues. I ndoing a simple language activity, for

example, when a student asks another,“What’s his name?” the leap from “Hisname is Michael” to “His name is MartinLuther King” just is not that far. Teachersprovide photos and explanations of famoushuman rights leaders, real people with reallives.

Unfortunately, the seminar will not beoffered through the Prefectural University ofKumamoto in 1999; however, thecoordinators have decided to continue theseminar on a personal and voluntary basis,working with the teachers of Kumamotoprefecture in order to foster the growth ofglobal issues as language educational tools.Public universities can and should play animportant role in training teachers to becomeglobal educators.

ConclusionWhile much has been written about globalissues and language teaching, this JALTcolloquium was the first official forum toaddress the topic of global education andlanguage teacher training. We hope theideas presented here encourage classroompractitioners to begin seeing themselves as“global language teachers.” We also hopethe case studies cited encourage certificate,undergraduate and MA-level teachertraining programs to include a globaleducation component so as to better preparethe language teachers of the future to add aglobal perspective to their work.

ReferencesDam, L. & Little, D. (1998, November).

Autonomy in foreign language learning:From classroom practice to generalizabletheory. Plenary given at the JALT98Conference.

Drake, D. (1998, November). Teachinggender issues in the EFL classroom.Demonstration given at the JALTeachingConference.

Kahny, J. (1998). Reflections of Japaneseand Thai teachers and students on a non-native team teaching partnership. In J.Kahny & M. James (Eds.), Perspectiveson secondary school EFL education.



Odawara: Language Institute of Japan.Kahny, J. & James, M. (Eds.) (1998).

Perspectives on secondary school EFLeducation. Odawara: LanguageInstitute of Japan.

Merryfield. M. (1991). Preparing teachersto teach with a global perspective.Journal of Teacher Education, 42 (l), ll-20.

Smith, R. (1998, November). Negotiatingautonomy in a large class context. Paper

presented at JALT98 Conference.

Recommended readingMerryfield, M. (Ed.) (1997). Preparing

teachers to teach global perspectives.Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (1996). Teachereducation and human rights. London:David Fulton.

Steiner, M. (Ed.) (1996). Developing theglobal teacher. Stoke-on-Trent:Trentham Books.

English Language Needs Analysis for EST StudentsRobyn L. Najar, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

Guy Kellogg, Kanazawa Institute of Technology, Kanazawa, JapanL. Scott Rogstad, Kanazawa Institute of Technology, Kanazawa, Japan

Lorraine Sakka, Toyama Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Toyama, JapanJohn Thurman, Kochi Women’s University, Kochi, Japan

In this paper, we report on the findings of a two-year study assessing the English languageneeds of students at a private technical university in Japan. A needs analysis was conductedto ascertain which English-specific tasks were required of Kanazawa Institute of Technology(KIT) students in non-English classes and after graduation upon entering the work force.After establishing “task” as the theoretically based unit of analysis, five members of theNeeds Analysis Committee then systematically investigated English language requirements inboth class work at the university and in the workplace. This was done through the use ofinterviews and questionnaires which targeted four main groups: professors, students,employers of graduates, and graduates in the work force. A descriptive statistical analysisindicated that there are meaningful real world tasks which can be implemented and adaptedfor learning purposes in the classroom.


On JALT98

In 1995, Kanazawa Institute of Technology(KIT) implemented broad changes to itscurriculum. In order to specify coursecontent better for the new curriculum, theBasic Language Education ResearchLaboratory of the General EducationDepartment organized the Needs ProjectTeam (NPT) to conduct a language needsanalysis of the types of tasks that studentswere required to do in English, both in theirstudies at KIT, and in the workplace aftergraduation.

The role of needs analyses in languagecurriculum design has gained increasedattention in recent years. This has partiallyresulted from evolving views of languageand teaching over the past two decades.One such example is Canale’s (1983)analysis of “communicative competence.”In an earlier reference to the communicativesyllabus, Munby (1978) advocates thecreation of profiles reflecting students’communicative needs to identify specificlinguistic forms to teach. Brown (1995)offers a more comprehensive view of needsanalysis in the language classroom. Heargues for “the systematic collection andanalysis of all subjective and objectiveinformation” (p. 36) necessary forspecifying and validating the curriculum,and appropriate for meeting the students’learning needs.

One of the essential proponents of task asa unit of analysis is Nunan (1989). Hedistinguishes between “real world” and“pedagogical” tasks, which are differentiatedsimply by the task’s purpose. Sincestudents at KIT are being prepared for jobswhere they maybe required to use English,the identification of relevant real world tasksby means of a needs analysis is seen as anessential part of the new curriculumdevelopment process.

For this needs project, the unit of analysisused to reflect the students’ language needswas “task,” i.e., an English language taskrequired of the students. Two researchquestions motivated this project. Firstly,what tasks were the students required tocomplete using English at school, and

secondly, what tasks were the studentsrequired to complete using English once inthe workplace? It was hoped that thefindings of this project would not onlyenhance curriculum development at KIT, butalso provide an indicator of current trends inEnglish use at the Japanese workplace.

MethodsParticipantsThirty-nine faculty members, including theheads of the Engineering and GeneralEducation Cores at KIT, participated inpreliminary “on-campus” interviews. Atotal of 250 faculty members atinstructor/lecturer level or higher, as well as4,500 students who had enrolled at KIT inApril 1995 and April 1996 received “on-campus” questionnaires. “Off-campus”questionnaires were sent to managers of1,200 companies that employed at least fourKIT graduates, and to 3,000 KIT alumnirandomly selected from the graduatingclasses of 1988, 1990, and 1994.

MaterialsFor the on-campus interviews, a draft of 10questions was prepared by the NPT prior tothe approval of the. KIT administration.Revised interview questions with a bilingualcover letter were distributed to the heads ofthe Engineering and General EducationCores. Two on-campus questionnairesdealt with tasks performed in English withina classroom or laboratory setting, along withperceived usage of English in the workplaceby the students after they had graduated.Except for audience-related grammaticaldifferences, the questions asked on thequestionnaires were the same for faculty andstudents. The bilingual questionnaires forthe faculty derived originally from theEnglish version were elaborated by the NPT.The students’ questionnaire was providedonly in Japanese to increase the likelihoodof students responding openly and honestlywith minimal misunderstanding. Two off-campus questionnaires dealing with tasksperformed in English within a job settingwere also developed by the NPT. For all



questionnaires, grammatical differencesdepending on the target audience, revisions,translations, and English/Japaneseformatting were consistent. In summary,questions focused on tasks performed at theworkplace. Bilingual cover letters,explaining the needs project and time frames,accompanied the on- and off- campusquestionnaires. Machine-readable answersheets and computer software were designedby the KIT computer department.

ProcedureInterviews were arranged and conductedwith 33 Core Heads or a designated Corefaculty member. The language used for theinterview was either English or Japanese,depending on the preference of theinterviewee. Student questionnaires wereadministered during orientation; facultyversions were distributed via campus mail;and company managers and KIT alumniwere mailed theirs along with prepaid-postage return envelopes for the completedanswer sheets. The KIT Job PlacementOffice provided a list of company managers,and Microsoft Excel was used to randomlyselect alumni from the designated years whowould be sent questionnaires. The returnedanswer sheets were put through the readingmachine and the data file was imported intothe statistics program ready to be analyzed.

ResultsFor the on-campus questionnaires, 114faculty responded with 9% from MechanicalEngineering, 8% from Mechanical SystemsEngineering, Materials Science &Engineering, Environmental Systems, andCivil Engineering respectively, and lowerpercentages from the rest of the fields. Thefaculty reported that primarily they teachfirst-, second-, and third- year students.In addition, 3,515 second-year and third-year students responded with 14% fromInformation & Computer Engineering andArchitecture respectively, 10% fromMechanical Engineering, MechanicalSystems Engineering, and Electronicsrespectively, and lower percentages from the

rest of the fields.Off campus, 338 company managers

responded, with 30% in the field ofConstruction (road, architecture, andhousing), 17% in Manufacturing(electronics), 13% in Manufacturing(general machinery), and lower percentagesfrom the rest of the fields. In the case ofthe KIT alumni, 447 responded, with 24% inManufacturing (electronics), 19% inConstruction (road, architecture, andhousing), 13% in Manufacturing (generalmachinery), and lower percentages from therest of the fields.

DiscussionDiscussion of the resultsThe purpose of the needs analysis conductedin this study was to gain information inorder to specify course content better for thenew curriculum at KIT. The needs analysisfocused on the types of English languagetasks students were required to do, both intheir studies at KIT and in the workplaceafter graduation. The results of the needsanalysis indicate that there are indeedspecific types of reading, writing, listeningand speaking tasks that the students arerequired to complete at different timesduring their study and work.

Reading tasks for KIT students includeviewing material such as overheadtransparencies, computer-mediatedpresentations such as those made withMicrosoft PowerPoint, blackboard material,and video. Interestingly, they are eithernever required, or not required very often, tofollow written instructions in English, evenin handouts. With regard to the future,68% of both students and professorsindicated that when they used English, up toone quarter of the time would be spentreading. An additional 23% of them thinkthat reading would take up to half of thetime they would be using English at work.

In the workplace, 57% of the graduatedstudents indicated that when they areworking in English; up to one quarter oftheir time is spent reading; 13% said fromone quarter to half of the time; another 13%


On JALT98

said from half to three quarters of the time;and 17% said from three quarters to all oftheir time using English would be forreading tasks. These tasks range fromreading basic printed material to computer-mediated forms such as Internet documentsand e-mail. For example, 23% of thealumni reported that while at work they haveto read Internet documents, 22%instructional manuals, 20% professionaljournals, 17% e-mail, 16% research papers,13% books and 12% said they have to readbusiness letters, all in English.

Writing tasks for KIT students are verysimilar to reading tasks, in that the studentsare not often required to complete thosetasks in English. However, students andprofessors said that written English isrequired in order to gather information fromthe Internet and to write bibliographies. I nreference to articles written in English forpublication, and e-mail, English is almostnever required. When asked about futureusage of English in the workplace forwriting tasks, 73% of the students andfaculty indicated that writing tasks wouldtake up to one quarter of their time, and 19%said it would take from one quarter to half oftheir time spent working in English.

In fact, 82% of the alumni indicated thatup to one quarter of the time while workingin English is spent writing, and lowpercentages reported that it took up more oftheir time. There was a narrower range oftasks than for reading in English; of 15 listedtasks, the most common were writingassembly and usage instructions, composingmessages in e-mail, and writing businessletters. Interestingly, employers believethat their employees are writing in Englishmuch more than the employees indicated.Employers’ and employees’ responses werevastly different for such tasks as the writingof contracts, business letters, research papers,equipment assembly and usage instructions,and e-mail messages.

In terms of speaking, KIT students arehardly ever required to complete tasks inwhich they use English words and phrases.Despite that, 70% of the professors and

students indicated that up to one quarter ofthe time would be spent speaking whenusing English at work, and another 21% feltthat speaking would occupy about onequarter to half of their time using English.

In the workplace, 84% of the alumniclaim that speaking tasks, primarily forbusiness trips, telephone conversations, andparticipation in meetings, take up to onequarter of their time when using English.This is fairly consistent with professors’ andstudents’ expectations of English use in theworkplace.

According to professors and students atKIT, required listening tasks are at aminimum. However, 64% of the studentsand professors indicated that up to onequarter of their English usage time in theworkplace would be spent in listening tasks,and another 24% felt listening would takeabout one quarter to half of their time.

Listening tasks in the workplaceparalleled the speaking tasks reported by thealumni. Eighty-one per cent indicated thatthey are spending up to one quarter of thetime listening while using English for work,most often for business trips, telephoneconversations, and participation at meetings.Other listening tasks included presentations,entertainment of visitors, andconferences/symposia.

Although viewing tasks often requirelistening, KIT professors and students saidthat the regular KIT coursework spentminimal time viewing materials such asvideos and computer-mediated forms.

As stated earlier, the main focus of thisneeds analysis was language tasks, butanother area investigated was the role ofEnglish in general as a tool for jobplacement. Here it was found thatcompanies do not appear to value this role ashighly as the professors and students do.Fifty-six per cent of the on-campusresponses showed that English ability isconsidered “somewhat important” when acompany hires a worker, and 25% indicatedit to be “very important.” In contrast, theoff-campus responses indicated that 52%regard English ability for hiring purposes as

220 Vo ice3 o f Experimentation


“not very important”; 24% as “not importantat all”; 22% as “somewhat important”; andonly 2% regarding it as “very important”.However, when asked about the future useof English in the workplace, only 39% of thecompany managers and alumni stated thatthe work-related activities they do in Englishwould stay the same or decrease. Thirty-three per cent said that those activitieswould increase a little, and another 28% saidthat such activities would increase a lot inthe future. Implied here is an increasedneed for English ability in the Japaneseworkplace, which is consistent with currenteducational and international policy reformsin Japan.

RecommendationsSyllabus design reflects both the changingviews of language learning and teaching aswell as the inherent language needs of thestudents. This study of the language needsof present KIT students and alumni in thework force indicates that a range of taskswhich involve reading, writing, listening,and speaking tasks would be beneficial topreparing KIT students for the use ofEnglish in the work place.

Based on the information compiledduring this study, tasks for developingreading competencies in English shouldinclude reading professional journals,reading equipment assembly and usageinstructions, and reading various Internetdocuments/articles which are relevant tostudents’ fields of study. Similarly, writingtasks should include writing instructions forequipment assembly and usage, draftingbusiness letters, and composing e-mailmessages. Furthermore, the developmentof listening and speaking competenciescould be facilitated by including specificlistening /speaking tasks, including but notlimited to, telephone conversations and bothparticipation at meetings and on business

trips. The types of tasks specific toparticipation at meetings and on businesstrips merit further investigation.

ConclusionThis needs analysis indicates that there aremeaningful real world tasks which can beimplemented and adapted for learningpurposes in the classroom. It is hoped thatby directing our students’ learning towardmore relevant, real world contexts, they willbe better equipped to apply what they havelearned in the classroom to the types of tasksthey will be assigned in the work place. Inaddition, it is hoped that exposure to, andpractice with these tasks in the classroomwill translate into functionality andconfidence for those confronted withEnglish in the workplace.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank KanazawaInstitute of Technology for funding thisresearch project, and Associate ProfessorHiroko Fudano and Assistant ProfessorYuko Hoshino for their help in translatingmaterials.

ReferencesBrown, J. D. (1995). The elements of

language curriculum: A systematicapproach to program development.Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Canale, M. (1983). Program evaluation:Where do we go from here? Plenaryaddress at the TESOL Summer Meeting,Toronto.

Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabusdesign. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for thecommunicative classroom. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.


On JALT98

CALL: Classroom Interactions

David Brooks, Kitasato University (Moderator)William Bradley, Ryukoku University

Paul Daniels, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of TechnologyJoseph Dias, Kitasato University

James Wada, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Technology

CALL transforms both the perception and the reality of classroom interactions, overturningthe usual centrality of the teacher. These presentations show ways classroom interactionsare affected by computer-assisted language learning and information technology.Representing a cross-section of instructional settings, we discuss CALL’s effects on teacherand student interactions, note its influence on teacher knowledge as a mediator ofinstructional practice, and offer a variety of CALL activities that meet both curricular and realworld goals. Drawing from his interviews of teachers using CALL, the first presenterillustrates how teachers’ beliefs about the nature and role of computers in learning languageshape their classroom instruction. Secondly, a team of university instructors engaged in acollaborative action research project discuss how they integrated CALL activities to promoteinteraction in large classes. The final presenters explain how to go about selectingmeaningful, student-centered CALL activities.

IntroductionThe purpose of this colloquium is to providea shared insight into how teachers areattempting to bridge the gap between beliefsabout CALL--or, more broadly, aboutoptimal ways of teaching/learninglanguages-and actual classroom practice.The effect that computers can have oninteractions between students and teachers,among the students themselves, betweenteachers, and on teacher knowledge is anarea of growing interest. What ties thecontributions to this colloquium together isthe idea running through them that teachers’

knowledge and beliefs, as primary mediatorsof instructional practice, guide any effort tointegrate CALL software, the Internet,interactive multimedia, and other forms ofinformation technology into a curriculum.

Bill Bradley discusses the increased focusin educational computing on teachers’beliefs, the way they are put into practiceand to what ends. His presentation is basedon interviews with language teachers whoare both novice and more experienced usersof CALL. These interviews highlightchanges which occur in beliefs aboutteaching and learning as teachers gain



experience in CALL.Next, David Brooks and Joseph Dias

discuss their cooperative effort to act ontheir belief in CALL’s motivating potentialby bringing it into classes of universityhealth science majors despite a lack ofadequate computer facilities and computersupport staff. They describe the process ofnegotiating how computers would be used,the actual implementation (includingproblems), and the repercussions.

Finally, Paul Daniels and James Wadaexemplify users of CALL who havedeveloped skill in integrating computers intotheir classrooms to support the collaborativeand communicative learning environmentthey believe in. They present a variety ofstudent-generated projects built upon realworld tasks and introduce questions that canbe used to assess the meaningfulness ofCALL activities and the degree to whichthey support course goals.

Teacher knowledge and computersBill BradleyRecent studies focusing on teacherknowledge show the efficacy of inquiringinto teachers’ belief systems as a way ofunderstanding how these beliefs framepractice. Teachers develop theoreticalknowledge that supports the way they utilizecomputers in their teaching. As theybecome more experienced, their ideas aboutcollaboration evolve and they may gainfinesse in using computers to create tasksand a desired learning environment. In thecourse of my interviews with teachers, someshowed a shift from viewing activities ascomputer-centered to seeing them asfocused on ways to learn. Others describedhow their definition of “constructivelearning” changed from the making of aproduct to students’ involvement with theirlearning processes. While the findings donot indicate a uniform evolution oftheoretical knowledge, they suggest thatteachers more experienced in usingcomputers are interested in moving beyonddiscussion of “what works” to discussions of“integrating new skills in their unique

learning environments.”A lack of focus on theories of instruction

and learning, an educational perspective inshort, has been a major impediment tosustained critical reflection or evaluation ofCALL (Galloway and O’Brien, 1998).However, this situation is changing.Research in the U.S. by the Office ofTechnology Assessment (1995), the Panelon Educational Technology (1997),Armstrong and Yetter-Vassot (1994),Murrison-Bowie (1993) and Bruce andRubin’s (1993) emphasis on situatedevaluation all point to the growing view thatin the next stage of computer-mediatedteaching and learning there will be anincreased focus on what teachers do, howthey do it, how it fits with their goals andbeliefs, how it is integrated in a curriculum,and most of all, what outcomes may bemeasured or interpreted.

Why are these questions so important?In the absence of sustained reflection,normative practices embedded in a “union ofinformation technologies and cognitivepsychology,” as Popkewitz and Shutkin(1993, p. 27) call it, are dominant. In thisview, “student and teacher competencebecome defined through the discourses oftechnologies originally designed to augmentclassroom practices.” The language ofrationality and reason borrowed fromscience and the mechanistic language of thecomputer are made into a language ofthinking and learning.

I have already noted there has been anincreased focus in educational computing onwhat it is teachers do and how they do it.One of the longer term studies that has beenconducted by researchers of the AppleClassrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) project(see Dwyer, Ringstaff and Sandholtz, 1991;Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1992,1997) chronicles how teachers progressthrough stages of entry, adoption, adaptation,appropriation, and impact. Schofield(1995), in another long range study,concluded that a focus on teachers and theirknowledge was imperative if the potential ofcomputers in classrooms were to be realized.

Voices o f Exper imentat ion 223

On JALT98

This perspective also fits well with agrowing body of work in TESOL, asexemplified in recent articles by Freemanand Johnson (1998), which suggests thatteacher education, and the teacherknowledge-base more generally, have notreceived the emphasis they deserve, incontrast to the situation in general education.Thus, in reality, what I have identified as aproblem of CALL may be part of the largerpicture of how TESOL has beentraditionally defined.

In an article that raises importantquestions for evaluation of languageteaching, Peterson (1997) hypothesizes onthe possible positive and negative effects ofboth synchronous and asynchronousconferencing, learner and teacher roles, andcollaboration, among others. However, theimplication that they constitute competinghypotheses, parts of which may be validatedor invalidated, misses the point that themediational capacities of computers allowsfor multiple definitions and constructions ateach stage of activity. Thus, just as weshould hope to avoid technologicaldeterminism we must also avoid humanisticdeterminism. We need to see what is notneutral in the socio-technical systems just aswe need to avoid premature foreclosurewhich may prevent us from finding newways of teaching and learning.

Promoting interaction in large classeswith CALLDavid Brooks and Joseph DiasIn attempting to address the perennialproblems of low motivation and large classsize, changes were introduced in the Englishclasses jointly conducted by the presentersfor 400 university health science students.This presentation summarizes how changesin classroom organization, in the types andrange of learner-centered activities, and inthe level of student self-direction arefacilitated with the integration of computersand information technology.

Why collaborate and why CALL?The reasons for collaborating on a project

integrating CALL into a course focusing onEnglish communication were to: (a)experiment with curricular change in an oralEnglish program that we felt had littleconsistency among teachers or integration ofcontent, methods and goals; (b) exploitstudents’ relatively good command ofreading and writing and show them howthose strengths could support thedevelopment of English speaking andlistening skills; (c) break the shackles ofJapanese classroom culture which implicitlydictates that initiating moves are made bythe teacher; (d) better serve the needs ofparticularly keen students by providing agreater menu of activities that can beaccomplished at an accelerated pace; (e)share limited computer facilities amicably;(f) prove to others in our department thatdespite obstacles to change and cooperationamong teachers toward common goals, it ispossible and worth pursuing; (g) act on ourbelief that CALL holds promise forincreasing learner autonomy (Tudor, 1996);and (h) provide a springboard forcollaborative teacher development (Bailey,1996).

The measure of successWe felt that if our efforts to integrate CALLinto our classes were successful there wouldbe:

(1) an increase in meaningful opportunitiesfor speaking/listening, as most studentswere computer neophytes and wouldneed to ask teachers and classmates forassistance. It can be argued that inInternet discourse itself the distinctionbetween spoken and written languagebecomes blurred (Garner and Gillingham,1996) in a way that can be beneficial tothe development of oral communicationskills (Chun, 1994).

(2) higher motivation, which we measuredby administering before and aftersurveys that included items about overallorientation towards learning English andlearning English through CALL.Lieberman (1998) offers details of a



study in which students overwhelminglyopted for an English course that includedthe use of e-mail, the Internet, andspecialized computer software forEnglish language practice.

(3) the formation of basic computer skillsand a familiarity with how the computercan be used to facilitate Englishlanguage learning, which we hopedwould allow students to carry on theirstudy and use of English even afterrequired English courses werecompleted.

(4) a boost in the level of confidence amongstudents that they could initiate and carryon “conversations” in English (both inperson and through e-mail) with nativespeakers and other EFL learners.

The changes and how they wereimplementedIn addition to using a commercial coursetext that presents basic functions andtopics-greetings, introductions, directions,invitations, etc.-computer lessons wereconducted that, after the fundamentals werecovered, provided practical opportunities toput to use what was studied in the text.Students were required to follow rathercomplicated directions, written in English,to register for their own Web-based e-mailaccounts. They were then taught how tonavigate the WWW and locate Dave’s ESLCafe, where they submitted self-introductions to a student e-mail page and“shopped” for an e-mail partner from aforeign country. After students gainedfamiliarity with e-mail, they were asked tosubscribe to a class mailing list set up by theinstructors. At this point many studentshad difficulty and turned to the teachers andclassmates for help. After the majority ofstudents had successfully “subscribed,”tasks were set up that revisited themes andfunctions from the course text. One suchtask involved using the WWW to find outabout an event happening in the Tokyo areaand then, using the class mailing list,inviting classmates to the event. In anotheractivity students wrote messages to the list

describing their part-time work or idealfuture job and “discussed” their experiencesand dreams by responding/reacting to themessages sent by others. In more advancedclasses, students were taught how to use theauthoring program HyperStudio to createtheir own program introducing themselvesand an aspect of their major they consideredto be especially fascinating. TheseHyperStudio “stacks” will ultimately belinked to a Web site so that classmates andstudents abroad can view and appreciatethem.

The results of the changesThe practical “information gap” that existedbetween the knowledge and skills needed todo the CALL activities (register for the freee-mail account, subscribe to the classmailing list, read, write, and reply to e-mail)was an important motivator in gettingstudents to communicate in English morethan we had ever observed before. Theaccompanying “resource gap”, althoughleading to frustration at times, had thepositive effect of increasing student-teachercommunication and collaborative problem-solving (e.g., working together to find waysto complete assignments on time despitecomputer breakdowns and a poorstudent/computer ratio).

In a follow-up reflective assignment, themajority of students reported that the e-mail,Internet and software authoring projectswere interesting and useful, not only forlearning English but also for their presentacademic lives and future careers in thehealth and medical professions. Theresults of our before and after attitudinalsurvey, which was also administered tostudents in oral English classes who did notreceive CALL instruction (about 1700students in all), will provide a fuller pictureof the effects of the changes. Finally, thiscollaborative action research project openedup a positive, on-going dialogue between thetwo teacher-researchers about teacher beliefs,instructional goals, classroom practice, anduseful resources.


On JALT98

Evaluating collaborative activities in theCALL classroomPaul Daniels and James WadaWith the manifold increase of networkedcomputers, Internet access, and newcapabilities of educational software, we haveseen a dramatic change in the role of thecomputer as a medium for enhancinglanguage learning. Computer-assistedlanguage learning (CALL) activities haveshifted from “students learning fromcomputers” to “students learning withcomputers”. CALL has become a tool thatfacilitates collaboration and interactionamong students and teachers alike as theytap into resources of networked computersby creating online exchanges with distantclasses or publishing on web sites for both alocal and global audience. Learningenviron-ments that combine computers andcollaborative learning encourage learners toengage in a learning process that leads to thecreation of a product for which they areresponsible (Bruffee, 1993).

How does one select or create projectsand activities when faced with the myriadsoftware, Web sites, mailing lists, etc. thatare available? We would like to proposesome guidelines for evaluating CALLactivities that support a collabora-tive andcommunicative learning environ-ment.

Guidelines for evaluating CALL activities(1) Are the activities meaningful to the

learner? Are they intended to fulfillreal world goals ? Meaningful andcontextualized problems are retained inthe learners’ memory longer and arebetter adapted to real world problemsstudents will face outside the classroom.Authentic problems serve as a stimulusfor learning (Barrows, 1994). Project-based activities allow students to useself-generated knowledge or knowledgethey have brought with them to theclassroom. Activities that allow forinput and decision-making can assiststudents in beginning to construct higherorder thinking skills (Jacobson, 1995).Activities could include the sharing of

expert knowledge- whether it isJapanese popular music or kendo-andthe collection and presentation of dataderived from surveys or interviews.

(2) Are the activities communicative? Anideal CALL environment does notrestrict group work and collaboration.The layout of the lab or classroom canplay an important role in shaping thecommunicative learning space. Croupwork supports a modeling and observingtype of learning that’s typical of howlearning occurs in the real world (Farrar,1995). The trend in CALL today is totreat the networked lab as acommunication tool. Although stand-alone self-learning programs where thelearner interacts with the computer havesome advantages, the computer as aninteractive tool has more potential formotivating target language use. Thecomputer takes a backseat while thelanguage or information beingexchanged comes to the foreground.

(3) Are CALL activities created with thesyllabus in mind.? CALL activitiesshould stem from the course syllabus,not squeezed in as an afterthought.Only by first sitting down and examiningthe syllabus can one determine whatsoftware or CALL activities mesh withregular classroom work. For someclasses, this may mean using thecomputer only two or three times asemester. With classroom exchangeprojects, for example, students cangenerate ideas for exchange orally inclass, send and receive e-mail on theirown outside of class, and later bringprintouts of their exchanges to class fordiscussion or to incorporate into writingassignments.

Examples of meaningful and communicativeCALL projects“Classroom connect” projects facilitateauthentic language use and increase studentmotivation. A goal-directed project caninvolve two or more distant classes selectingtasks and solving problems collaboratively.



Information collected over a term can beused to compare two or more cultures.Comparisons might be made, for example,of holidays, educational systems or evenprices of everyday consumer goods.

Student-produced databases are anothertype of collaborative activity that involveauthentic language and a purpose:providing useful information to others.They can lead to the transfer of informationon local travel sites, restaurants, oreducational statistics. Students may besent out into the community to collectimages, answers to interview questions, orstories of personal experiences. A finalproduct might take the form of a multimediapresentation using a web page editor orPowerPoint.

Communication with learners from othercultures brings new and abundant ideas intothe classroom, motivates the learner, andprovides a non-threatening, self-pacedenvironment in which to communicate in thetarget language. Following theseguidelines for evaluating CALL tasks andactivities will support a learningenvironment that is collaborative andcommunicative. However, tasks involvingCALL are only as successful as the rationaleand planning that go into them.

Concluding thoughtsParalleling the increasing sophistication ofboth specialized CALL software andsoftware appropriated by language teachersfor use in CALL settings has been a steadyevolution in the ability and willingness ofthese teachers to harness its power for endsconsistent with their beliefs. Discussionhas progressed beyond the simplisticquestion of “what works” and now confrontsmore thorny, but important, issues such aslearner autonomy, the value of collaborationand how it can be fostered, and whatconstitutes meaningful tasks. As teacherand student perceptions about thepossibilities of classroom interaction change,so too do the participants themselves.Teachers become action researchers, lookinginto ways in which changes in classroom

organization and in expectations for learnerself-direction can be facilitated withcomputers and information technology.Students gain greater autonomy. It isbecoming increasingly recognized thatESL/EFL techniques and tasks forcommunicative, student-centered classroomslend themselves well to CALL, but it isessential that teachers continue to questionhow this new instructional media caninterlace with their beliefs and goals. It isthrough this questioning process that growthis possible.

ReferencesArmstrong, K. M. and Yetter-Vassot, C.

(1994). Transforming teaching throughtechnology. Foreign Language Annals,27 (4), 475-86.

Bailey, F. (1996). The role of collaborativedialogue in teacher education. In D.Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacherlearning in language teaching.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press(pp. 260-280).

Bruce, B. C., and Rubin, A. (1993).Electronic quills. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborativelearning: Higher education,interdependence, and the authority ofknowledge. Baltimore: The JohnsHopkins University Press.

Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computernetworking to facilitate the acquisition ofinteractive competence. System, 22 (l),17-31.

Dwyer, D.C., Ringstaff, C., and Sandholtz,J.H. (1991). Changes in teachers’beliefs and practices in technology-richclassrooms. Educational Leadership,48 (8), 45-52.

Farrar, A. L. (1995). When Students Learnin Groups. The Pennsylvania StateUniversity Center for Excellence inLearning and Teaching. [On-line]Available URL: http://www.psu.edu/celt;retrieved May 1998.

Freeman, D. & Johnson, K. E. (1998).Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of


O n JALT98

language teacher education. TESOLQuarterly, 32 (3), 397-417.

Galloway, I. & O’Brien, D. (1998).Learning online: Choosing the bestcomputer-mediated communicationactivities. The Language Teacher, 2 (2),7-9 & 21.

Garner, R. & Gillingham, M. G. (1996).Internet communication in sixclassrooms: Conversations across time,space, and culture. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jacobson, T. E. & Mark, B. L. (1995).Teaching in the information age: Activelearning techniques to empower students.Reference Librarian; No. 51-52, 105-20.

Koschmann, T., Myers, A., Feltovich, P., &Barrows, H. (1994). Using technologyto assist in realizing effective learningand instruction: A principled approachto the use of computers in collaborativelearning. Journal of the LearningSciences, 3, 227-264.

Lieberman, J. (1998). Computer aptitudeand comfort level as precursors tocomputer-based instruction. In P. Lewis(Ed.), Teachers, Learners, andComputers: Exploring Relationships inCALL (pp. 103-112). Nagoya: TheJapan Association for Language TeachingComputer-Assisted Language Learning

National Special Interest Group.Murison-Bowie, S. (1993). TESOL

technology: Imposition or opportunity?TESOL Journal, 3 (l), 6-8.

Office of Technology Assessment. (1995).Teachers and technology: Making theconnection. OTA-EHR-616 Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Panel on Educational Technology. (1997).Report to the President on the Use ofTechnology to Strengthen K-12 Educationin the United States. Washington, DC:Executive Office of the President of theus.

Peterson, M. (1997). Language teachingand networking. System, 25 (1), 29-37.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1992). Teaching in high-techenvironments: Classroom managementrevisited. Journal of EducationalComputing Research, 8 (4), 479-505.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1997). Teaching with technology:Creating student-centered classrooms.NY Teachers College Press.

Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers andclassroom culture. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centredness aslanguage education. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Developing a Self-Access Center

John E. Ingulsrud, Kate Allen, Miriam Black, Andrew Shaffer, and Patrick Benke,Kyushu Lutheran College

In this paper, we describe the development of a self-access center that provides opportunitiesfor students to acquire autonomous learning skills in a Japanese university. The institutionalissues of setting up and administering a center are explained, as is the development of audio-visual, reading, and language arts content materials. We also present how students areinvolved in the growth of the center.



Developing a self-access centerFaced with a shrinking Japanese college-aged population, together with shifts in thekind of demands for higher education amongthis decreasing population, our institution,Kyushu Jogakuin, embarked on creating afour-year college out of an existing two-yearcollege. In doing so, we inherited a facilitythat we did not need: a languagelaboratory still in good working order. A sthe laboratory was one of the few examplesof educational technology that our smallinstitution possessed, we were stronglyadvised in our curriculum design to makeuse of it.

We decided to convert the languagelaboratory into a self-access center. Wewere attracted to the idea because it wouldallow us to use the laboratory in a mannerconsonant with our communicative Englishlanguage curriculum. It would also enableus to provide other educational options forstudents: A self-access center would offera flexible learning center that couldaccommodate a wide range of learningstrategies (Sheerin, 1989). By facilitatingstudents in self-accessing materials, teacherscould help students to learn on their own andbecome autonomous learners. Our effortswere not simply aimed at letting studentsmake the most use out of a particular self-access center. Rather, we worked from theassumption that students need autonomouslearning strategies in order to support theirself-study through their academic careersand future lives. Furthermore, becomingan autonomous learner did not need to beentirely limited to learning to work insolitude, A self-access center could alsoprovide a venue for students to worktogether, where they could access materialscollaboratively and learn both with and fromeach other.

StaffingThere are three levels of staffingrequirements in a self-access center. Theseare for materials development, studentorientation and facilitation, and care-takingneeds. If self-access materials are part of

course requirements, then the faculty of theparticular course must be involved inmaterials development. This is especiallynecessary in the early stages of starting up acenter; it also remains important in laterstages so that a degree of relevance can bemaintained between sessions in theclassroom and the self-access center. I nour situation, individual teaching facultymembers have taken responsibility forcertain kinds of learning material. Eachteacher is responsible for creating materials,adapting published materials, and makingrecommendations for procuring newmaterials. Since the self-access centerserves a variety of students, another staffingoption involves assigning a trained staffperson to organize the continual acquisitionsof popular kinds of materials, just as alibrarian does in a library.

To orient students and to foster their self-access learning, an ELT-trained staff personis needed. If an untrained staff person runsthe center, qualified faculty members mustcarry out student orientations and takecharge of working directly with students.For courses that require self-access learning,it is useful for faculty to come occasionallyto the center to assist and be available forthe students.

It is also advantageous to have supportstaff to watch over the center. In ourexperience, having a staff member present atall open times has reduced the number ofthefts. Putting the materials in order andseeing that the equipment is in a good stateof repair are also important staffresponsibilities. An untrained person, suchas a student working part-time, can performsome of these tasks.

FundingThe funding of a self-access center relates tothree areas: the physical development,staffing, and acquisition of materials andequipment. One big attraction to self-access centers is the low cost, particularly ifa facility like a language laboratory isalready in existence. Currently, the Self-Access Center at Kyushu Lutheran College


On JALT98

covers three rooms: the languagelaboratory, a smaller listening room, and a60-seat classroom.

Staffing costs can be minimal, dependingon the degree of teaching facultyinvolvement. If an ELT-trained staffperson is present, all orientation andfacilitation, as well as materials acquisition,can be managed by one person. To helpthe facility remain open, during universitylibrary hours, student part-timers can behired. A self-access center staffed in sucha fashion can become attractive toadministrators because extra course hourscan be added without the cost of additionalteaching faculty.

Another attraction in developing a self-access center is that existing audio-visualmaterial in a language laboratory or studymaterial from a departmental resource roomcan be adapted so that students can self-access the materials. The administrativeattraction here is that materials for a self-access center need not begin from zero.

ContentApart from facilitating students in self-access learning, creating and adaptingmaterials for a self-access format constitutethe pivotal task in self-access development.Certain general principles apply in preparingsuch materials. First, answer keys must bemade available to students so that they canself-correct. Second, materials need to begraded according to skill level. Third,copyright laws must be respected despite thetemptation to copy materials.

Audio-tapesThe Self-Access Center at Kyushu LutheranCollege is currently equipped withnumerous standardized audio-tapes andaccompanying textbooks organized in boxes.Each box contains between two and fourcopies of each listening text. A text, withan accompanying tape and answer key, isplaced in a clear plastic zip-lock bag foreasy access and storage. All materials arecolor-coded for level of difficulty.

In addition to the standardized textbook

exercises, there is currently a small sectionof classroom dialogues used in our IntensiveEnglish program. These dialogues areoriginal materials written and recorded byteachers, and packaged like the standardizedtexts. Students can use these materials toreview or to catch up on classes they mayhave missed. Since these classroom tapesare generally easier than the commercialones in the Center, they can be used tointroduce students, especially those withlower skills levels, to working in a self-access environment. This helps build theconfidence they need to move on to themore advanced materials.

Responses from students indicate thatmany are enthusiastic about knowing thatwhat they have studied in class is includedin the Self-Access Center for further practice.These findings strongly suggest a need forintegration of classroom and self-accessmaterials. Although the availibility oftapes and videos in the self-access centermay be popular, the results also indicate thatproviding self-access materials alone is notenough. Self-access material without someexplicit personal or academic relevance ordirect link to their own lives is of limitedvalue to the learners (Gardiner & Miller,1994).

In the future, students themselves couldcontribute to the materials development.The process can be initiated in the classroomby introducing projects that wouldencourage students to save and repackagetheir work and create new texts to be used inthe self-access center. This would form akind of archive, a record of what studentshave done both in and out the classroom.

VideosThe videos are arranged in clearly marked,color-coded boxes, generally with betweentwo and four cassettes and an accompanyingtextbook in each box. In addition to thesevideos, there is also a growing moviecollection. The current movie inventoryhas been largely selected by teachers withthe interests of students in mind. Mostmovies do not have any subtitles and are

230 Voices of Experimentat ion


therefore considered to be more advancedmaterial. To help students interact with themovies, a standardized worksheet withgeneral questions and space for reflectivewriting has been designed and madeavailable.

All self-access videos and movies havestrong potential for direct classroomapplication; they thus provide a valuablelink between the classroom and the center.A further benefit is that some of the self-access videos have an accompanying text,often with several additional copies; thisincreases the potential for students to workin groups. In this way, study options at theSelf-Access Center have been expanded toinclude both group collaboration andindividual study.

ReadingIn a radical departure from a typicallanguage laboratory, reading has been addedto the range of materials in the Self-AccessCenter. This is because reading practicelends itself to the self-access format. T ohelp students develop their reading skills,reading has been divided into Intensive andExtensive Reading, and reading materials inthe Self-Access Center have been color-coded.

Intensive reading.The core of the intensive reading program isthe Scientific Research Associates (SRA)Reading Laboratory. Although thesematerials are intended for Ll readers, wedecided to use them because the passagesare graded and focus on a variety of readingskills such as those of comprehension andvocabulary building. The SRA materialsallow students to check their own work andnote their progress, which fits in with ourdesire to encourage students to become moreresponsible for their own learning.

At the beginning of the year, all studentsare given a reading placement test. On thebasis of these test results, students aredivided into five reading levels, which arealso color-coded. Students are expected tomove up to higher levels so that their

reading skills are constantly challenged anddeveloped. However, since some of thepassages are difficult, students are reluctantto do so. Another problem lies inpersuading students to pace their reading sothat they develop the habit of readingregularly and avoid completing their readingjust before a deadline.

For many students, reading, especiallydoing the SRA exercises, does not prove tobe popular initially (Allen, 1997).However, as they have become moreaccustomed to the work, some students haverealized that such work is useful, althoughthey may not necessarily like it. This wasparticularly illustrated by the decision ofmany second-year students to include SRAexercises when they were given theopportunity to set their own work and targetlevels for the Self-Access Center.

Extensive reading.Graded readersFor Extensive Reading, graded readers werepurchased from a variety of publishers.Assuming that students graduate from highschool with an English vocabulary level of1500 words, we concentrated on the lower tomiddle levels from 400 to 1000 headwords.Students are free to sign out these books,which are color-coded for difficulty.Similar to the video worksheets, readingreport worksheets are available in the Centerfor students to complete, so as to encouragethem to reflect on their reading.

As a result of student comments aboutreading difficulties, more graded readersbetween the 200 and 400 word levels havebeen purchased. However, the number ofbooks available for young adults at theselevels is limited and this is an area where wehope publishers will expand their lists.

MagazinesTo promote reading and to expose studentsto new ideas about English-speakingcountries, there are subscriptions to a varietyof English magazines, including ones fromBritain, the United States, South Africa, andother countries. Although the reading level


On JALT98

of these magazines is much more difficultthan that of the graded readers, the topicalnature of many of the articles as well asfeatures such as headlines, bold print, andphotographs, assist students to understandthe content. The magazines have proved tobe very popular with the students. Inaddition, there is no word limit for what isconsidered an article, so that in the worktarget levels that students need to complete,an article has an equivalent value to a gradedreader. The reading report worksheet canbe used for both magazine articles andgraded readers.

Language arts materialsAn area currently being explored is that oflanguage arts materials development.These activities include grammar,vocabulary building, and word associationtasks, as well as those tasks that helpstudents learn metalanguage used todescribe the English language and itsfunctional uses. Through these reading andwriting exercises, students review and refinetheir knowledge of grammar, practice errorcorrection, and use problem-solvingstrategies. The need for such activities wasexpressed by both teachers and students.There is limited time in class to addressindividual students’ mistakes. Furthermore,students have indicated in interviews thatthey would like to spend more time ongrammar.

The series Grammar Dimensions waschosen as the basis for the grammarexercises because it emphasizes thecommunicative aspect of grammar and usesgrammar explanations, diagrams andillustrations that are consistently labeled.Although the students were at a higher level,the lowest level book in the series(Badalamenti & Henner-Stanchina, 1993)was used so that the explanations anddirections would not intimidate the students.Based on teachers’ assessments of studentweaknesses, sets of exercises containing oneor two grammar explanations and relatedtasks were prepared. Each set of exercisesis laminated and kept in its own separate

plastic ziplock bag for easy access. Ananswer key is provided in a separate bookletfor every unit.

Other language arts exercises are those ofproblem solving, word derivation, andvocabulary building taken from theHeinemann Games Series Word Games withEnglish (Howard-Williams & Herd, 1994)and English Puzzles (Case, 1994). Thesebooks contain one-page photocopiableexercises that offer an alternative format forpractising English. Selected exercises weremade into worksheets, and answer keyswere provided. The overall reaction toboth types of worksheets was that they wereinteresting and fun. Many students alsosaid these exercises were easy, which mayhave lead directly to their popularity.

Based on the feedback received fromstudents, the first priority is to expand thebasic set of exercises and try to make themmore level-specific. Student and teacherperceptions of needs will be evaluatedfurther and incorporated into the next roundof materials development.

Adjusting to self-access learningFrom the beginning of the school year, ittakes approximately three weeks tocomplete an orientation in the five broadcategories of materials that the Self-AccessCenter at Kyushu Lutheran College provides.It takes approximately six weeks, accordingto teacher journals, into the semester forstudents to feel comfortable using the Center.In responses to a survey about theorientation, most students indicated that theywere satisfied. Only a very small minorityasked for detailed instructions in Japanese.Initially, at the beginning of the year,requests for teacher assistance are frequent,but these lessen as the students adjust toworking in the Center.

Twice a semester, teachers meet witheach student to make any necessaryrecommendations about their progress.Most of the recommendations involveencouraging students to use morechallenging material. During the secondsemester, there is less consultation with the



teacher. By the third semester, littleteacher involvement is needed. On thesurface, therefore, it seems that learnerautonomy has taken root.

When asked how they perceived self-access learning, most students respondedfavorably. However, this was a negativereaction from the second-year students whodid not have a special class period for self-access work. Unlike the first-year students,they were expected to fulfill the minimumtargets for self-access work in their own freetime. To overcome this burden, during thefourth semester, the sophomores were free tofollow teacher-set minimum targets or createtheir own, provided they gave a reason fortheir choice. Most of these students wentalong with the original teacher-initiatedtargets as they felt these provided a balanceof skills. So far, the results have been veryencouraging.

The other personally designed targetsrevealed more of the students’ weaknessesthan their likes. It seems that students areseriously reflecting on their needs, and inmost cases increasing their targets. Thisappears to match what MacIntyre and Noels(1996) have found regarding therelationships between attitude motivationand learning strategy choice. They contendthat a strategy is not adopted unless it is seenas useful and easy to use. This seems to bethe case with the sophomore students.Many of these students reacted negatively torequired self-access work in their free time,but when they were asked to suggest theirown targets, they did so in a positive manner.This may be a sign of growing learnerautonomy.

ConclusionWhen describing learning autonomy,Littlewood (1996) asserts that learners needto have the motivation and the confidence tobe willing to make and carry out learningchoices. At the same time, learners mustalso have the necessary knowledge andskills for such decision-making and action.We believe that a self-access center providesthe context for students to develop this kindof learner autonomy. Although ourfindings are preliminary, they do suggestthat taking part in a self-access center doespromote learner autonomy.

ReferencesAllen, K. (1997). What do they read? A

preliminary survey of college students’reading habits. Visio, 24, 137-146.

Badalamenti, V., & Henner-Stanchina, C.(1993). Grammar dimensions (1st ed.).Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Case, D. (1994). English puzzles.Oxford: Heinemann.

Gardiner, D., & Miller, L. (1994). Self-access language learning. Hong Kong:Hong Kong University Press.

Howard-Williams, D. & Herd, C. (1994).Word games with English. Oxford:Heinemann.

Littlewood, W. (1996). “Autonomy”: Ananatomy and a framework. System, 24(4), 427-435.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Noels, K. A. (1996).Using social-psychological variables topredict the use of language learningstrategies. Foreign Language Annals,29 (3), 373-386.

Sheerin, S. (1989). Self-access. Oxford:Oxford University Press.


On JALT98

East Meets West-Approaches to Learner Autonomy

Jill Ann Robbins, Kwansei Gakuin University

I report on a survey of Japanese and Western English teachers in Japan. The teachers wereasked about their views and beliefs on language teacher and student roles and on theirencouragement of learner autonomy. They were also asked to evaluate the use of specificlanguage learning strategies by Japanese learners. Results indicated that the Japaneseteachers expressed more concern for the development of a comfortable interpersonalrelationship between students and teachers, while Western teachers focussed on the academicaspects of their teaching. Both groups reported teaching some language learning strategies,with Japanese teachers reporting a lower number of strategies taught, and less explicitmethods of teaching strategies. Neither group wholeheartedly promoted self-monitoring orself-evaluation. Thanks to their experience in an immersion language learning situation,Western teachers seemed to have more confidence in applying and explicitly encouragingstudents to use a wide variety of strategies.

This paper is a report on a survey of teachersin Japan on the ways that Japanese andWestern teachers foster learner autonomy.I address the role of language learningstrategies (LLS) as tools for independentlearning in an environment where suchlearning is necessary for a satisfactory levelof progress. Anna Uhl Chamot and Iplanned and conducted the survey as ameans of clarifying issues related to ourwork in teacher development within Japan.We had both led seminars on LLSinstruction and wanted to know more aboutthe beliefs and practices of teachers who hadstudied in that field.

The frequency of using LLS has beenshown to be positively related to learners’self-efficacy, a construct used to measure theconfidence that a learner has in approaching

language learning tasks (Chamot, Robbins,& El-Dinary, 1993). Instruction in LLSleads to more frequent strategy use and to amore structured approach to language tasks(Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary, Carbonaro,& Robbins, 1993). This survey was begunwith the intent of describing and comparingthe beliefs of teachers from two educationaland cultural systems, Japanese and Western,about learner autonomy and practices relatedto instruction in LLS.

ProceduresThe survey (see Appendix A) consisted of14 structured interviews, conducted during1997 and 1998. The questions weredivided into four areas, which will bereported in brief below.



Part A: Background informationThe teachers interviewed were sevenJapanese and seven Western EFL, teacherswho work in Japan. The teachers taught atall levels from pre-school to adult. Theirteaching experience ranged from 4 years to22 years and on the average they had taughtfor 14 years.

Part B: The teacher’s roleThe answers to item 12, “Describe somethings a good language teacher should do”revealed that Japanese teachers (JTs)focused more on the interpersonal aspects ofteaching. They valued having a goodrelationship with their students and throughthat activating the students to learn. Theyalso wanted to promote a strong motivation.They said teachers should have a friendlycharacter, and that they should encouragestudents to study on their own. In theacademic area, JTs felt that continuing tostudy a language after becoming a teacher isimportant for staying in touch with theproblems of their students.

JT-A: “We should be very sensitive towhat students think when we stimulate.It’s very important to keep theirmotivations.”JT-B: [A good language teachershould] “Motivate students so theywill want to study more; have goodEnglish proficiency & a very friendlycharacter and attitude towardstudents.”

Western teachers (WTs), in compari-son,focused on academic aspects of therelationship between themselves and theirstudents. They said it was important toprovide students with comprehensible inputand opportunities for interaction in the targetlanguage. WTs believe that teachersshould keep up with the latest developmentsin the field and know the students’ needsand the course’s place in the curriculum.

WT: “They [good teachers] know theirstudents’ level and objectives and so

.

on. They have to know the practicalliterature...1 continue to learn from thepractical literature, and I think ateacher should be aware of that andconstantly be going to conferences,you know, getting new ideas. Tounderstand the curriculum. We don’tjust teach a course, we’re teaching alanguage within an institution, andwhat we do has to fit in, if onlybecause we might be wasting thestudents’ time if we’re doingsomething they might be gettingsomewhere else. Knowing the subjectfor the content-type courses.”

In the interpersonal area, Western teacherssaid that it is important for teachers tounderstand the students and how they wantto learn, and to encourage students,

WT: “Understand what studentswant to learn and how they want tolearn. Even if you don’t agree with it,I think it’s important to find some kindof middle ground rather than imposewhat you think about languageteaching. It’s important for teachersto be very clear about their goals andwhat kind of activity they’re doing.To be clear about instructions foranything that they do.”

Part C: Student role (describe some of thethings a good language student should do)When asked to describe things a goodlanguage student should do, WTs respondedwith a larger number of personally orientedbehaviors than did JTs. Both JTs and WTsdefined a good student as one who seeks outand takes advantage of practiceopportunities outside the classroom. Table1 shows the specific behaviors described bythe teachers.

Part D: Language learning strategies(LLS)Teachers looked at a list of strategies withdefinitions (see Appendix B) to aid in theirrecall of language learning strategies.


On JALT98

When answering items in this part of thesurvey, some teachers mentioned strategiesthat were not on the list, such as Patternpractice, Shadowing (Expanding Repetition),Keeping learner diaries, Increasing practiceopportunities, and Using the internet as acommunica-tion motivator.

Do your students use any of these LLS?The lists below include only LLS that morethan two teachers mentioned in answeringthis item. JTs, who named ten LLS in all,believed that their students used

Cooperation and Using resources, Imagery,Note-taking, and Prediction.

WTs, who named 16 LLS, believed thatstudents use Cooperation, Planning,Using/Making rules, Using resources,Monitoring, Note-taking, Summarizing,Self-assessment, and Questioning forClarification. There seems to be a differingperception of the LLS used by students,which may also be a factor of the levels andage groups taught, or in experience inidentifying LLS used for particularactivities.

T a b l e 1Description of things a good language student should do

Western Teachers Japanese TeachersPersonal

Reduce pressurefrom outside

forces

Try to findthings that

motivate them

Recognize theneed to put in

time

Be willing totry somethingnew and take

risks

Do things theycan enjoy

Have a hightolerance for

ambiguity, haveindependence

AcademicListen as often

as possible

Devote time tostudying

Make a basiceffort to

communicate

Readextensively

Take advantageof opportunitiesto read, write,

hear, and speakthe L2

Have a highvariety of input,connect it, andstudy on their

own

PersonalKeep theirmotivation

Try to enjoythemselves

Think of purposefor studying L2

AcademicWork hard,

study longerthan otherstudents

Exposethemselves to alot of English

Seek outpractice

opportunities(2x)

Keep studying,both inside and

outside theclassroom

Exposethemselves to alot of English

and confidence

Do you teach your students to use any ofthese LLS ?Table 2 details the LLS taught by theinterviewees. Most of them taught someLLS; for example, four WTs and three JTs

said they teach Prediction. Some LLSwere taught exclusively by the WTs:notably, Questioning for Clarification, andSubstitution. These may be skills thatcome easier to native speakers of a language.



JTs expressed the need to have had personalexperience in using a LLS before teachingit:

Interviewer: “So you feel that youcan’t teach a strategy if you wouldn ‘tuse it yourself? ”JT: “Actually, it’s impossible, I think.Students look at the teacher’s face, andif I don’t use that strategy or I don’t

like a certain strategy, I cannot havethe confidence to teach or recommendto use such kind of strategy. As forthe Imagery, I’m not personally usingthe strategy so I cannot recommend itto students. I can’t realize what’s thegood point of using Imagery. Even ifI look at the documentation I cannotexplain in my words.”

Table 2Language learning strategies taught

LLS taught by Western Teachers4 Predicting

3 Making Inferences3 Note-taking

3 Questioning for Clarification3 Summarizing

3 Activating Prior Knowledge2 Using Resources

1 Classification1 Cooperation

1 Imagery1 Planning

1 Selective Attention1 Substitution

(13)

LLS taught by Japanese Teachers3 Predicting

2 Activating Prior Knowledge2 Make Inferences2 Using Resources

1 Classification1 Cooperation

1 Imagery1 Increase their opportunities to use

English1 Learning from Context.

(Contextualization)1 Selective attention

1 Spiral Learning - reviewing1 Summarizing

(12)n= 7 WTs; 7 JTs

How long have you been teachingLLS/learner autonomy?In answer to item 18, regarding the length oftime the teacher had taught about LLS orencouraged learner autonomy, the WTsaveraged 5 years of teaching the topic, andJTs averaged 2 years. The answers givento items 19-24 on the introduction of thistopic, evaluation and monitoring ofstrategies use, revealed that about half ofeach group of teachers explicitly discusslearner autonomy. Those who do mayintroduce the topic through use of astrategies questionnaire, or an expression,such as “Give a man a fish, and you feedhim for a day. Teach a man to fish, andyou’ll feed him for a lifetime.” Someteachers tell stories of successful students orof their own language learning experiences

to serve as positive role models for theirstudents. Five of seven in each group ofteachers said they encourage students tobecome strategic learners throughstructuring tasks that require LLS; by askingstudents for feedback on how theycompleted a task; pointing out successfulstrategy use by classmates, and by modelingsolutions to problems.

JT: “I didn’t teach [autonomy]explicitly, just let the students lookback on what kind of strategies theyare using, using the questionnaires,...But unfor-tunately, their strategies are verysimple, just repeat, so we did not findso many very interesting


O n JALT98

strategies. . .so I just introduced thenew strategies for them. . .”A difference appeared between the two

groups when asked how they encouragestudents to monitor their progress orevaluate their own work. On the whole,JTs did not report any efforts to encouragemonitoring or self-assessment amongstudents. Although they subscribed to theprinciple of self-assessment, WTs expresseddifficulty with implementing this concept.Corn-pletion of the task is seen by studentsas the endpoint of their involvement; fromthen on it is assumed that the teacher willevaluate the quality of the work, not thestudents. This may reflect on thetraditional educational pattern of a teacher-fronted classroom in Japan, and theexpectations of students that they do nothave the ability to judge their own efforts.

Overall evaluation of strategiesThe answers to items 17, LLS taught and 26,LLS deemed useful, were combined to findout the teacher’s overall evaluation of LLS.Using these combined scores, threestrategies were evaluated in the same wayby both groups of teachers: Predicting(mentioned five times by each group),Making Inferences (mentioned five times),and Monitoring (mentioned twice). Thismay be because the first two LLS are oftenfound in textbook activities, and they help incompleting listening tasks, which, in theauthor’s experience, is a difficult area forJapanese students.

What LLS do you think are most useful toyour students?Table 3 shows how WTs and JTs evaluatedthe usefulness of LLS. Only those LLSwhich were mentioned by two or moreteachers are included. As was also evidentin Table 2, a higher number of LLS werementioned by WTs. In Table 3, several

more LLS were exclusively named by WTs:Cooperation, Planning, Questioning forClarification, Self-Assessment, Substitution,and Using Resources.

The most surprising comments in wereevaluations of two LLS: Imagery andCooperation. There was a distinctdifference in perceptions on the part of thetwo groups when Cooperation wasdiscussed; WTs were more positive thanJTs:

WT-A: “Cooperation-Yes,students are very good at it andthink it’s a good thing to do.”WT-B: “And cooperation, too,because if you’re in a foreign cultureyou’re usually not alone, mostJapanese travel in a group, so they canlook at the route map and ask theirquestions, and if one doesn’tunderstand they can clarify in Ll. Ithink cooperation is veryimportant.”WT-C: “Cooperation is somethingwe use in class all the time.”JT-A: “As for cooperation, manyJapanese male students do not likethis strategy. But female studentsseem to like to help each other. Butmale students do not like suchsituations.”JT-B: “One more thing,cooperation-most of my studentsHATE to cooperate with otherstudents. Just to do cooperativework with their favorite students, isokay, but if I make the pair or groupvery mechanically, they hate and theycannot do this kind of cooperativegroup work. So for that I have tomake some kind of party or activitiesto make the students know eachother.”



Table 3Most and least useful language learning strategies

Most Useful Language Learning StrategiesWestern Teachers Japanese Teachers

4 Planning 3 Activating prior knowledge4 Using resources 3 Making inferences3 Cooperation 2 Imagery3 Making inferences 2 Monitoring2 Activating Prior Knowledge 2 Predicting2 Monitoring 2 Selective Attention2 Questioning for Clarification2 Self-assessment2 Substitution

Least Useful Language Learning StrategiesWestern Teachers Japanese Teachers

2 Note-Taking 2 Self-Assessment2 Using/Making Rules 2 Imagery

n= 7 WTs, 7 JTs

What LLS are not useful to your students?Most teachers responded that they felt allLLS were useful at one time or another, so arelatively small number were selected inanswer to this item, as seen at the bottom ofTable 3. My preconceptions about the useof Imagery, however, were shattered when Iheard these comments:

JT: “Imagery. Not good forJapanese students especially. I oftenthink that (various) taxonomies—all ofthem have this kind of Imagerystrategy. I do not understand whythey include Imagery . . . as a Japanese Istudy English for about 15 years, Ihave never used Imagery strategy.And many students I talked with donot understand why they use thisstrategy here in the list...And also, wehave not been instructed to use imagein learning, in junior high school.”Interviewer: “How about Kanji?” [Ithought Imagery was useful forlearning Kanji.]JT: “Well, many people fromoverseas think that Kanji is an image,but we do not think so. We just think,‘this is a character.’ Just aletter . . . It’s just a letter, it’s not an

.

image. Many scholars believe it’sprocessed in the right hemisphere ofthe brain-who cares?”

How are LLS taught?There are basically two ways in which LLScan be taught: explicit and embedded(Chamot & O’Malley, 1994). The explicitmethod is one in which LLS are identifiedand discussed openly; students are told whenand why to use them; and, reflection on theireffectiveness is encouraged. Theembedded method is one in which LLS areencouraged indirectly; built into activitiesbut not identified, nor is reflection on theireffectiveness encouraged. Explicitinstruction in LLS leads to greater controlby the student over the use of LLS andmakes it easier to transfer LLS learned for aparticular task to another, similar task(Chamot & O’Malley, 1994).

WTs preferred the explicit method, withfive of the seven teachers reporting that theytalked openly about LLS. The problemsthey reported with teaching LLS included:the language barrier, meta-talk on task(taking up too much time to talk about howto do the task) and making students realizethey use similar strategies in Ll.

JTs also reported using the explicit


On JALT98

method with four of seven using it. Theyreported problems connected with a changein the teacher’s style:

JT: “When I began to teach strategies,my teaching style changed . . . . Andmany of them responded positively,but some students wereconfused . . . . Since I started strategytraining, some students said, there aremore interactions between teacherand the students. The studentsnoticed it.”

Commenting on the choice of anembedded method of LLS instruction, oneJT revealed that he purposefully conceals hisintent :

JT: [I use] ‘kind of a blind teachingmethod. I do not say strategies arevery important or effective, try tocamouflage everything. Tasks or ina small talk If I say, ‘this strategy isan important strategy or so on, try toremember,’ students do not like suchkind of approach.”Interviewer: “Is that too direct ? ”JT: “I tried to make them study thesestrategies intentionally, but the resultswere very dismal.”Interviewer: “Are you talking aboutthe research you did [a few yearsbefore] ? ”JT: “Urn-hum. They did not likesuch approach, so I tried tocamouflage some of the strategies inthe tasks, and tried to drop somestrategies in my casualconversations with students.”

DiscussionOne of the differences that defines the pastexperience of most Western teachers livingin Japan is that they have lived in animmersion language learning environment;they have faced the daily struggle to makesense of a foreign language being spoken bynative speakers and to decode writing in atotally new alphabet. This has provided a

strategic learning experience that may affordWTs with more confidence in teaching avariety of LLS and to be more explicit intheir teaching.

From the answers given, it seems thatJapanese teachers and students share adeeper understanding of the challengesEnglish learners face in Japan, and thesupport necessary from teachers. Studentreactions to strategies use and training seemsto be perceived very differently by JTs andWTs; better communication between themmay help in resolving misunderstandingsfrom both sides. In an ideal situation, bothJapanese and Western teachers will worktogether with Japanese students to create anautonomous learning environment based onmutual understanding, responsibility, andtrust.

ReferencesChamot, A. & O’Malley, J.M. (1994). The

CALLA Handbook: The cognitiveacademic language learning approach.White Plains, New York: AddisonWesley.

Chamot, A. U., Robbins, J. & El-Dinary, P.B. (1993). Learning strategies inJapanese foreign language instruction:Final report. U. S. Department ofEducation, International Research andStudies Program, PO 17AOOOll-92,September 1993. Available as an ERICdocument.

Chamot, A U., Bamhardt, S., El-Dinary,P.B. Carbonaro, G. & Robbins, J. (1993).Methods of teaching learning strategiesin foreign language classrooms.National Foreign Language ResourceCenter, Georgetown University/Centerfor Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.Available as an ERIC document. Briefversion in Oxford, R. (Ed.) (1996).Language learning strategies around theworld: Cross-cultural perspectives.Manoa: University of Hawaii SecondLanguage Teaching and Learning Center,Technical Report #13. [On-line]Available URL:http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/nflrc/TechReports.html

240 Voices of Exqerimentation


Append ix ASurvey questions

Part A -BackgroundInformation

Part B -Teacher Role

Part C - 12.Student Role 13.

Part D -LanguageLearningStrategies(LLS)

Participants wereshown the list ofLLS seen inAppendix B andasked thesequestions:

1. Name2. Native Language3. Language Taught4. Grade/age level5. Type of class6 .7 .8 .

9 .

1 0 .

1 1 .

14.

15.

1 6 .

1 7 .

1 8 .19.

20.21.

22.

23.24.25.

26.27.28.29.

Length of Teaching CareerDescribe some things a good language teacher should doCan a teacher do anything for students who are not motivated tolearn?What can/should a teacher do if a student is trying very hard butis still doing poorly in class?Can a teacher do anything for students who believe that they havelittle ability to learn a language?Do you believe that all students can learn another language?Why/why not?Describe some of the things a good language student should do.If a student is not very motivated is there anything he/she can doto improve motivation?If a student is trying very hard, but is still doing poorly in class, isthere anything that he/she can do to improve?If a student believes that he/she has little ability to learn alanguage is there anything he/she can do to change this belief?Do you know if any of your students use any of these LLS (orothers) on their own? Explain.Do you teach your students to use any of these LLS (or others)?How?How long have you been teaching LLS/learner autonomy?When you have a new class, at what point do you introduce theconcept of LLS/learner autonomy?How you introduce the topic of LLS/learner autonomy?How do you encourage your students to practice strategiclearning?While your students are doing a language task, how do youencourage them to monitor their progress?When students complete a task, how do they evaluate their work?How do your students evaluate their use of LLS?How do you or your students evaluate their development ofindependent learning?What LLS do you think are most useful to your students?What LLS do you think are NOT useful for your students?What has been the most difficult aspect of teaching LLS for you?If you had the power to make any change you wanted to, howwould you improve the language learning process at your school?


On JALT98

Appendix BList of language learning strategies used for the survey

Strategy name DescriptionPlanning

Monitoring

Self-assessment

Selectiveattention

ActivatingPriorKnowledgePredicting

MakingInferences

Imagery

Classification

Summarizing

Note-taking

Substitution

Using/MakingRules

UsingResources

Cooperation

Questioning for

Setting a learning goal, planning how to carry our an activity such asa project or a dramatization; planning how to write a story or solve aproblem; previewing a reading text to get the main idea.Being aware of how well a task is going, how well you areunderstanding while listening or reading, how well you are beingunderstood when speaking, or how well you are expressing yourideas when speaking or writing.After completing a task, judging how well you did, whether youreached your goal, and how effective your learning strategies orproblem-solving procedures were.Focusing on specific aspects of a task, such as locating patterns in astory, identifying key words or ideas, listening or scanning a text forparticular informationUsing your background knowledge to understand and learnsomething new, brainstorming relevant words and ideas, makingassociations and analogies; writing or telling what you know.Using parts of a text (such as illustrations, titles, headings,organization) or a real life situation and your own backgroundknowledge to anticipate what information or event is likely to occurnext.Using the context of an oral or written text and your ownbackground knowledge to guess at meanings of unfamiliar words orideas.Using mental or real pictures or other visual cues to understand orremember information, or to solve a problem.Grouping words, concepts, physical objects, numbers, or quantitiesaccording to their attributes; constructing graphic organizers to showa classification.Making a mental, oral, or written summary of something youlistened to or read; retelling a story or other text in your own wordsWriting down key information in verbal, graphic, or numerical form,often as concept maps, spider maps, T-lists, time lines, or other typesof graphic organizersUsing a synonym, paraphrase, or circumlocution when you want toexpress an idea and have difficulty in finding the exact word(s) youneed.Applying a rule (phonics, decoding, grammar, other linguistic,mathematical, scientific, or other) to understand a text or complete atask; figuring out rules or patterns from examples.Using reference materials (books, dictionaries, encyclopedias,videos, exhibitions, performances, computer programs anddatabases, the Internet) to find information or complete a task.Working with classmates to complete a task or project, demonstratea process or product, share knowledge, solve problems, give andreceive feedback, and develop social skills.Negotiating meaning by asking for clarification, explanation,

Clarification confirmation, rephrasing, or examples.Adapted from: Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990)



Measuring Writing Apprehension in JapanSteve Cornwell & Tonia McKay, Osaka Jogakuin Junior College

Writing Apprehension has been given considerable attention in Ll research, but remains to beexamined extensively in L2 writing research. Daly and Miller (1975) have created andvalidated a questionnaire measuring writing apprehension in Ll, but such a measure does notyet exist in L2. A validated measure of writing apprehension for L2 would benefit studentsand teachers alike by identifying hindrances to academic success, and providing a basis bywhich to develop teaching methodologies which would lower apprehension. In this paper,we describe a process to validate a translated Daly-Miller questionnaire for Japanese studentsof English. We found four factors and significant correlations between WritingApprehension and the TOEFL Test of Written English scores, and between WritingApprehension and High School Writing Experience. Finally, we present our future researchplans using the questionnaire.

IntroductionThere is an emphasis placed on writing atour junior college in Osaka. In their first-year English composition classes, studentslearn to write paragraphs and short essaysusing six rhetorical patterns; then in theirsecond year they write 7-10 pagedocumented research papers in content-based “Topic Studies” classes. Second-year students write a total of four papersover the year and must receive a passingscore on each paper in order to graduate.However, students sometimes have troublemaking the transition from short essays tolonger, documented research papers.(Cornwell & McKay, 1998) As liaisons ofone of the content-based courses and thecomposition course, respectively, we arestrongly interested in the affective variableswhich may help or hinder studentssuccessful transition to academic papers.Our interest in the topic of this paper,measuring writing apprehension, first arose

out of research we were conducting on howto make a bridge between first-yearcomposition classes and the second-yearacademic paper classes.

In a review of literature, writingapprehension appeared as an area ofconsiderable research in Ll (Beatty & Payne,1985; Book, 1976; Buley-Meissner, 1989;Daly, 1985; Daly, & Miller, 1975;Frankinburger, 1991; Hollandsworth, 1988)but one of little research in L2 and virtuallynone in EFL settings. One Ll study thatoften appears as a source for other studies onwriting apprehension is Daly and Miller’s,“The empirical development of aninstrument to measure writingapprehension” (1975). Some languageeducators feel that teachers intuitively knowthat writing apprehension exists and thatthere is no need to measure it empirically(Blanton, 1987); however, we feel that avalid measurement of writing apprehensionin L2 may be of help to teachers and

Voices o f Exper imentat ion 243

On JALT98

researchers. A valid measurement ofwriting apprehension could identify “at risk”writers, predict academic success, andpresent benchmarks to measure treatmentsdesigned to lower writing apprehension.

We describe the first steps in replicatingthe Daly-Miller study in an attempt tovalidate the Daly-Miller questionnaire forJapanese students of English. It consists offour parts. First, the original Daly-Millerstudy is briefly described. Next, theprocess of developing and administering thetranslated questionnaire is presented alongwith descriptive statistics. Then, the fourfactors which were found, and thecorrelations between Writing Apprehensionand TOEFL Test of Written English scores,and Writing Apprehension and High SchoolWriting Experience, are discussed. Finally,we will list future research that can be doneusing the questionnaire.

Original Daly and Miller questionnaireDaly and Miller (1975) designed a 26-itemquestionnaire to measure writingapprehension, taking the following steps toshow that it was both a valid and reliableinstrument. After looking at then currentmeasurements of communicationapprehension/speakingapprehension/receiver apprehension (Heston& Paterline, 1974; McCroskey, 1970;Wheeles, 1974), Daly and Miller developeda 63-item, Likert-type scale (five possibleresponses) questionnaire and administered itto 164 undergraduate composition andinterpersonal communication students.The results were submitted to principlecomponents factor analysis with orthogonalrotation. A one-factor solution wasgenerated and after dropping items that didnot load above .57 and rerunning the factoranalysis, they selected 26 items, all of whichloaded above .60, and accounted for .46 ofthe variance. Next, the reliability of theinstrument was tested by both split half andtest-retest methods. The split halfreliability was reported at .940, while the

test-retest reliability over a week wasreported at .923. Scores can range from alow of 26 to a high of 130. Daly andMiller’s sample had a mean score of 79.28with a standard deviation of 18.86.

Replicating the studyThere have only been a few attempts tomeasure writing apprehension in L2, all ofwhich have used modified versions of theDaly-Miller instrument (Gungle & Taylor,1989; Masny & Foxall, 1992; Phillips, 1989).However, none of them has translated theinstrument into the students’ Ll, nor havethey reported on attempts to validate theinstrument with their subjects-L2 students.

As a first step in replicating the DalyMiller study, we had a Japanese colleaguetranslate the questionnaire and instructionsinto Japanese (see Appendix 1). In doingso we had to change some questions. Forexample, question number two, “I have nofear of my writing being evaluated,” iftranslated directly into Japanese wouldconsistently cause students to answer“incorrectly.” We also added the phrase“in English” to make it clear that we weretalking about writing in English, notJapanese. Finally, we added threequestions about students’ writing experienceat the sentence, paragraph, and essay levelwhile in high school. We also asked if anystudents studied abroad and if so for howlong.

After compiling the questionnaire, weadministered it to 736 students at the schoolincluding all composition students(primarily first year) and all Topic Studies Istudents (second year and above). Forty-nine students did not complete the entirequestionnaire and are not included in thetotal count in Table 1. We asked teachersto administer the questionnaire as close tothe beginning of the semester as possible aswe did not want students to become moreapprehensive after learning what the writingrequirements of their respective classeswere.



Table IDescriptive Statistics

All1st yr2nd yr

Mean Std. Dev.80.221 13.00880.816 12.13879.786 13.996

Std. Err.496.646.779

ResultsTable 1 shows the descriptive statistics forall students who completed thequestionnaire. The statistics are brokendown by all students, first-year students, andsecond-year students. The distribution forboth years was a normal bell curve. Elevenstudents did not indicate whether they werefirst-year or second-year students; thisaccounts for the discrepancy between all (N= 687) first-year (n = 353), and second-year(n = 323).

In addition to these statistics, over 75%of the first-year students reported little or nowriting experience beyond the sentencelevel while in high school. Fifty of thestudents studied abroad for at least one year.

Brown (1988) reports three commonmethods to report reliability: test-retest,equivalent forms, and internal consistencyreliabilities. Because of the large numberof students, we initially didn’t want toadminister the test twice (test-retest); insteadwe intended to show the questionnaire’sinternal consistency through a split halfreliability test. “Internal consistencyreliability can be estimated in a number ofways, but the easiest method to understandconceptually is the split half method...[ithas] the distinct advantage of beingestimable from a single form of a testadministered only once...” (Brown, 1988, p.99). Therefore, to determine the internalconsistency of the questionnaire the split-half method was used following thedescription in Hatch and Lazaraton (1991).A correlation of .78 was obtained for thehalf test and using Spearman-Brownprophecy formula, the reliability of the fillquestionnaire was found to be .8876 (N=701,M = 80.08, and SD = 12.81). In Daly andMiller’s study the mean score was 79.28with a standard deviation of 18.86.

Count Min. Max.687 38 121353 40 118323 38 121

Factors and correlationsSince this study was concerned withvalidating an existing Ll questionnaire inJapanese, we were primarily interested inconstruct validity, which we examinedthrough factor analysis. We found fourfactors. Ten items loaded on the first factor,labeled Negative Perceptions about WritingAbility. This factor appears to tapstudents’ perception of their ability whenwriting and to successfully complete work ina writing class. The second factor includedsix items and was labeled Enjoyment ofWriting. The third factor consisted of fouritems and was labeled Fear of Evaluation.There were six items included in factor four,which was labeled Showing My Writing toOthers. Appendix 2 shows thequestionnaire items sorted by factors.

High school writing experience wasexamined by dividing students into twogroups: those deemed to have little highschool writing experience (n = 91) and thosedeemed to have a lot of high school writingexperience (n = 102). Group membershipwas determined by those falling onestandard deviation above or below the mean.An ANOVA showed significant differencesbetween the groups: F (1,191) = 33.65, p< .000.

The relationship between WritingApprehension and the TWE was comparedby dividing second year students into groupsaccording to Writing Apprehension. Onceagain, group membership was determined bythose falling one standard deviation aboveand below the mean. An ANOVA showedthat the TWE scores for High Apprehensivesand Low Apprehensives were significantlydifferent F (1, 63) = 8.6678 p < .0045.

Two significant correlations that are ofinterest to this study are those between highschool writing experience and Writing


On JALT98

Apprehension, and the Test of English as aForeign Language’s (TOEFL) Test ofWritten English (TWE). High SchoolWriting Experience and WritingApprehension were negatively correlated at-.2578, indicating that students with lessexperience in writing in high school aremore apprehensive. The TWE and low andhigh Writing Apprehension also werenegatively correlated. Their correlationwas -.3478.

ConclusionThis study has taken the first steps invalidating a measurement for Japanesestudents of English, and it has done so in thestudents’ Ll, Japanese. The following arefuture questions that could be examinedusing the questionnaire.

1 . Is there any correlation between theirperformance on an in-houseplacement test and writingapprehension?

2 . Do students who take electivecourses that require large amounts ofwriting have higher or lower levelsof apprehension?

3 . Is it possible to create a treatment tohelp high apprehensive studentslower their apprehension level?

Studies in Ll have shown that writingapprehension is negatively correlated withsuccess in writing (Frankinburger, 1991), sowe hope that this measurement will be ableto identify students that may be at risk ofdoing poorly in writing. By designing andadministering a treatment to lower students’apprehension, we may be able to help thembecome more successful than they would bewithout any help. This instrument willhelp us measure any effect of such atreatment.

AcknowledgementThe authors would like to thank Eiko Katofor translating the questionnaire and lkulnada for translating the abstract intoJapanese.

ReferencesBeatty, M. J. & Payne, S. (1985). I s

construct differentiation loquacity? Amotivational perspective. HumanCommunication Research Journal. 1 1(4), 605-612.

Blanton, L., (1987). Reshaping ESLstudents perceptions of writing. E L TJournal, 41 (2), 112-118.

Book, V. (1976). Some effects ofapprehension on writing performance.Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Business CommunicationAssociation, San Diego, CA (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED132 595)

Brown, J.D. (1988). Understandingresearch in second language learning:A teacher’s guide to statistics andresearch design. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Buley-Meissner, M. L. (1989). Am I reallythat bad? Writing apprehension andbasic writers. Journal of Basic Writing,8 (2), 3-20.

Cornwell, S. & McKay, T. (1998). Makingthe transition from writing short essays tolong research papers. The LanguageTeacher, 22 (4), 15-20.

Daly, J. A. (1985). Writing apprehension.In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can’twrite (pp. 43-82). New York:Guildford.

Daly, J. A. & Miller, M. D. (1975). Theempirical development of an instrumentto measure writing apprehension.Research in the teaching of English, 9,242-249.

Frankinburger, P. (1991). An annotatedbibliography of the literature dealingwith the effects of student attitude andteacher behaviors on writingapprehension and composition, quality.Exit Project, Indiana University at SouthBend. (ERIC Document ReproductionServices No. ED 333 482)

Gungle, B. W. & Taylor, V. (1989).Writing apprehension and secondlanguage writers. In D. Johnson & D.Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing:



Empowering ESL students. New York:Longman.

Hatch, E. & Lazaraton, A. (1991). Theresearch manual: Design and statisticsfor applied linguistics. New York:Heinle & Heinle.

Heston, J.K. & Paterline, E.J. (1974, April).Unwillingness to communicate:Explication and scale development.Paper presented at the AnnualConvention of the InternationalCommunication Association.

Hollandsworth, L.P. (1988). Howpersonality and background affectwriting attitudes. A survey sponsoredby the Continuing Education Office atIndiana University of Pennsylvania.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service

Appendix 1

No. ED 296 336)Masny, D. & Foxall, J. (1992). Writing

apprehension in L2. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 352 844)

McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measurement ofcommunication bound anxiety. SpeechMonographs, 37, 269-277.

Phillips, E.M. (1989). Anxiety andspeaking in the foreign languageclassroom. Texas Papers in ForeignLanguage Education, I (3), 191-206.

Wheeles, L.R. (1974, April). Aninvestigation of receiver-apprehensionand social context dimensions ofcommunication apprehension. Paperpresented at the Annual Convention ofthe International CommunicationAssociation.

Writing apprehension questionnaire in Japanese

Note: SA=Strongly Agree; A=Agree; U=Uncertain; D=Disagree; SD=Strongly Disagree

Questions arranged according to factors with percentages of answers

SA A U D S D

Factor One: Negative Perceptions about Writing Ability26. I’m no good at writing.

21.0 42.0 19.5 16.0 1.624. I don’t think I write as well as most other people.

18.3 45.3 24.1 11.1 1.31 1 . I feel confident in my ability to clearly express my ideas in writing.

.6 5.0 25.8 42.3 26.122. When I hand in a composition I know I’m going to do poorly.

7.0 20.0 38.1 30.5 4.41 6 . I never seem to be able to clearly write down my ideas.

15.0 37.5 20.3 24.0 3.321. I have a terrible time organizing my ideas in a composition course.

19.5 46.1 18.5 14.8 1.07 . My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on a composition.

4.6 19.3 14.7 49.8 11.723. It’s easy for my to write good compositions.

.3 2.9 8.4 52.5 35.91 8 . I expect to do poorly in composition classes even before I enter them.

7.7 25.2 40.6 21.3 5.113. I’m nervous about writing.

11.8 35.1 19.6 27.4 6.1


On JALT98

Factor Two: Enjoyment of Writing15. I enjoy writing.

8.1 41.9 31.1 15.81 7 . Writing is a lot of fun.

7.0 32.4 32.1 25.83 . I look forward to writing down my ideas.

7.7 26.1 29.5 30.71 0 . I like to write my ideas down.

5.7 25.7 34.7 30.71 . I avoid writing.

2.6 22.3 15.7 48.88 . Expressing ideas through writing seems to be a waste of time.

.4 .9 4.1 40.2Factor Three: Fear of Evaluation4 . I am afraid of writing essays when I know they will be evaluated.

11.1 27.2 13.9 36.425. I don’t like my compositions to be evaluated.

8.3 17.8 18.1 43.52 . I have no fear of my writing being evaluated.

10.3 27.0 10.7 37.75 . Taking a composition course is a very frightening experience.

2.0 6.1 11.6 46.9Factor Four: Showing My Writing to Others1 2 . I like to have my friends read what I have written.

2.6 14.6 24.4 45.020. Discussing my writing with others is an enjoyable experience.

6.1 30.0 35.8 24.11 9 . I like seeing my thoughts on paper.

6.4 32.2 40.4 17.71 4 . People seem to enjoy what I write.

.6 3.4 49.6 31.6

3.0

2.7

6.0

3.3

10.7

54.4

11.4

12.3

14.4

33.4

13.6

4.0

3.3

15.19 .

6 .

I would enjoy submitting my writing to magazines for evaluation and publication.1.0 7.6 35.9 37.8 17.7

Handing in a composition makes me feel good.5.8 24.3 29.8 34.4 5.7

I N T E R N A T I O N A LE-mail: [email protected]

Tel(02)797-9400,790-7112 Fax(02)797-8209, 790-5285Mail: Manchester Tailor 58-5 Itaewon, Seoul

J.-Y4 e selection of fabric, more than 1,000 kinds.

Special tailoring method perpect in one stop.

ouse or office call available, even for a single suit



The 3D Effect: Combining Course and Self-AssessmentAlan Mackenzie, Waseda University

Nanci Graves, Toyo Women’s College

Traditionally, teacher and course evaluations designed by administrations and even byteachers themselves have followed the form of a checklist, questionnaire, or Likert-scalewhich focuses student attention on one part of the course at a time. This non-integratedatomization of the course can be seen as a denial of our awareness that a course is, in fact, anorganic whole rather than a finely tuned machine, and that it relies more on the effects of theinteraction between its parts than on any one part itself. In this article, we look at results ofan experiment to design a course evaluation form that would give a more rounded view of thecourse and acknowledge its interactive nature.

IntroductionTraditionally, teacher and course evaluationsdesigned by administrations and even byteachers themselves have followed the formof a checklist, questionnaire, or Likert-scalewhich focuses student attention on one partof the course at a time. This non-integratedatomization of the course can be seen as adenial of our awareness that a course is, infact, an organic whole rather than a finely-tuned machine, and that it relies more on theeffects of the interaction between its partsthan on any one part alone.

Here, we look at results of an experimentto design a course evaluation form thatwould give a more rounded view of thecourse and acknowledge its interactivenature. The process through which theform was developed is more fully describedin Graves and Mackenzie (1997).

What is a three-dimensional course?We defined a course as comprising threemain interconnected parts, the students, theteacher and the materials that are used tostimulate learning. While an argument canbe made for including the classroom or

institutional environment as an additionalfactor, for most teachers this factor is fairlyimmutable and consequently is notconsidered here. These three factors, then,were seen to interact with each other in aclassroom in complex ways over longperiods of time to create a course.

We also started from the assumption thatthe more accurately students can monitortheir language development and production,the better able they will be to determine andunderstand their learning needs and to tailorthe learning situation to meet those needs(Blanche & Merino, 1989). Similarly, inorder to accurately evaluate a course,students need to know what their abilitiesare, how much progress they are making,and what they can (or cannot yet) do withthe skills they have acquired (Fradd, McGee,and Wilen, 1994). Furthermore, forevaluations to provide beneficial feedback,students should know what impact the otherfactors in the course are having on them andhow they might manipulate them to theirbest advantage.

The form in Appendix 1 was designed toenable students to reflect first on themselves


On JALT98

within the context of the course and then toreflect on the course within the context ofthemselves. Essentially, the instrumentrepresents a bi-polar mirror image, with thestudent on the left-hand side and the courseon the right. While the instrument istherefore seemingly two-dimensional, in factthe total image that will be built of thecourse as a whole will be a three-dimensional one that recognizes the learneras the center of the course, with the teacher,the materials and the students’ classmatesintegral to it.

Because students are being asked toconsider all the factors that make up thecourse, they are able to create a more solidrepresentation of their feelings as learnerswithin the course as well as their perceptionsof the course itself. The “3-D effect” isthus achieved through the inclusion of aninitial student self-assessment that explicitlylinks the aims of the students with the aimsof the teacher and the materials. Theresulting visual representation of the explicitlogical links between these differentcomponents of the course has the effect ofguiding and solidifying student perceptions,and makes it more difficult for the studentsto treat any one part of the course inisolation.

When students meet the instrument, theyare asked to complete the left-hand side first,which immediately puts the focus on them,their aims, and their performance in thecourse. It also gives them a chance to thinkabout the future. Secondly, they are askedto complete the right-hand side: thesections that ask about the other componentsof the course. Because they have alreadyfocused on themselves and their actualperformance during the course, theircomments cannot be isolated from thecourse as a whole. Likewise, theperformance of the teacher, the text, and thematerials cannot be isolated from thestudents’ own performance or goals.

Seeing the 3-D effectAlthough the student is producing a 3-Dview of the course for him or herself, the

teacher, in order to fully experience theeffect, then needs to carefully examine thepicture that the student creates. This doestake a certain amount of time, but no morethan the number-crunching or error checkingnormally associated with course evaluations.The illustrations below show the kind of 3-Dimage created when a teacher interprets thecompleted synthesis forms. These twoexamples were selected from sheetscompleted by students in a class of first-yeareconomics majors in Sophia University inthe middle of the 1998 academic year.

To see the 3-D effect properly, teachersshould relate all the different parts of theevaluation to one another. Reading fromleft to right across the page allowsinstructors to first examine how well theirstudents understand the aims of the course,and how well those course aims meet theirstudents’ aims. It also permits instructorsto see how students are trying to achievetheir goals. This explicit statement oflearner strategies may not be comprehensive,but it may help give insight into what thestudents see as valid and useful languagelearning strategies.

In Figure 1, Kazufumi has two basicgoals: to understand more when listeningand to speak more fluently. He is unclearabout whether he is actually concentratingon listening or making an effort to speakmore, but he recognizes the need to do bothof these activities in order to improve. Heseems satisfied that the text, the teacher andhis classmates are helping him to speak andlisten more in English, but he would preferan easier text. He also recognizes that he isspeaking too much Japanese to hisclassmates and that the teacher, through lackof attention to handwriting is creating abarrier to his learning. Kazufumi seemsvery committed to study outside class. Hisaim of going to the US for study purposesappears to be the motivation. He alsorelates course changes to his aims by askingfor more listening material in the form ofmovies and colloquial expressions to helphis speaking ability. Indirectly, he suggeststhat the course needs to be more fun.



Shuji, in Figure 2, also has fairly globalgoals although he specifically wants todiscuss and exchange opinions in class. Healso has the additional goal of improving hiswriting, a goal that is outside the remit of thespeaking/listening course in which he isenrolled. Shuji appears to be making aneffort to work on those goals but is doingnothing specific about his writing ability,possibly from lack of opportunity. He hasno criticisms of the text or teacher, in fact hefinds them very useful for achieving hisgoals. He also finds his classmates veryhelpful and interesting but notes that“chatting” in Japanese is a problem and thatthis prevents him from learning. Shujidevelops for himself a very clear set of rulesfor future study including direct applicationof skills introduced in class andincorporation of teacher and peer feedback.At the same time, he outlines global goalsfor the teacher and other students. EchoingKazufumi’s comments for the class to bemore fun, he wants the teacher to “make theair lively” but at the same time recognizesthat for this to happen, his classmates needto make an effort to contribute to buildingthat liveliness.

On the right-hand side, the teacher canthen see how well the chosen coursematerials met the students’ learning needsand how well the students thought that theteacher facilitated the conditions necessaryfor their learning, as well as the role thateach student perceives other learners to haveplayed in their performance.

Kazufumi and Shuji both recognize thevalue of their text and feel that their teacheris helping them and giving enoughindividual attention. However, they bothhave suggestions as to how that teachercould improve their learning experience andwhat additional material might help themlearn more or make the class more enjoyable.Both also highlight the negative impact oftheir classmates speaking in Japanese orgoing off task.

Finally, reading from top to bottom, theteacher can see how students evaluate theirown learning behavior and strategies, and

the behavior and strategies of the othercourse elements. In order to do this,students need to compare their progress withthe last assessment, evaluate whether thisprogress is sufficient or not, and planchanges to their behavior or suggest coursechanges. It is important for them toexamine their motivation and theirresponsibility as learners, as well as re-evaluate the implicit rationale in theprogram and in their own learning.

The teacher, in turn, should examine thisreflection within the context of the otherelements in the course. When the teacher’sawareness of the inter-connectedness ofthese elements is raised, his or herperception of the students’ awareness oftheir place in the course will also jump out.It is at this point, then, that the teacher willalso be provided with the more rounded,three-dimensional effect to be gained from aself-assessment approach to courseevaluation.

This instrument appears to help studentsexplicitly make the connections between thethree components of the course. It furtherallows them to express their motivationaland experiential insights as well as to assesstheir own progress. All students who havecompleted this form so far in differentteaching contexts have made comments thatshowed they understood the interconnectednature of the course and that learning is thecentral responsibility of the learner.

From an administrative point of view, theform acknowledges the large part that thestudent plays in the creation anddevelopment of a course, without abrogatingthe role that the teacher plays in motivatingstudents and structuring the course in anoptimal manner for student success.Further, there is general consensus in theliterature that language learning is enhancedif the learner takes initiative in the languagelearning and assessment process and ifresponsibility is shared by both the languageteacher and the language learner (Pierce,Swain, and Hart, 1993, p. 25).

The evaluative instrument describedabove has been designed so that it can be

Voices of Exper imentat ion 251

On JALT98

used at any point during the term. Overusewould probably be deleterious to its effects,but we would recommend using it at least atmid- and end of term. Our experience hasshown that once every four to five weekshelps both teachers and students maintaintheir focus on the course and its aims.

Goal-setting should be highlighted at thebeginning of term by having studentsconstruct their own aims and by reflectingon the course aims. These two shouldoverlap to some extent but need not beidentical, since all course design andexecution is a negotiated compromise.Instructors should understand that some ofthe aims they have for their courses may berejected by students, and that that is a matterof learner choice. In turn, students shouldunderstand that some of their aims are notgoing to be met by the course, since nocourse can take all student aims intoaccount.

If this is brought to the surface at thebeginning and is further supported byteachers regularly asking students tocommunicate their personal experiences oflearning to them throughout the course, it isfar less likely that any final courseevaluation forms will contain unanticipatedstudent perspectives. When studentsrealize that they are an integral part of thecourse, their teacher evaluations will reflectthe awareness that the student’s position andthe teacher’s position is a partnership thatresults in learning. The evaluation itselfthus takes on more meaning, since theinstructor evaluation becomes a reflection ofthe learners’ efforts. If the learner is notinterested in learning, the teacher cannotteach and, as Kazufumi noted in Figure 1, ifteachers do not make themselves understoodwell, students cannot learn.

ConclusionFrom all sides, then, consistent student self-and course evaluation would appear to be apotentially helpful way to increase thevalidity of all the information teachers andcourse designers need to collect fromstudents. Focusing on a self-reflective

view of the course over the long term shouldgive the individual student a more balancedand objective perspective, in thatpsychologically-influenced highs and lowswould have more time to be observed duringthe course. This accords well with adevelopmental learning process such aslanguage learning and, further, is animportant strategy to help develop withineach particular learner a greater self-understanding of what is involved in thelearning process on an individualized basis.

By using the 3-D instrument, students are,in effect, explicitly encouraged to take overthe more powerful role of judgingthemselves all during the term and to sharethat judgement regularly with theirinstructors. These instructors would then,in turn, be able to judge and if necessaryalter their materials, their classroomactivities, and their own instructional stylein light of this information. In both cases,an increase in levels of confidence,autonomy, self-awareness and self-validation could be expected to result fromthis consistent input of information, since athree-dimensional, interactive view of thecourse would be more readily available toall participants as they experience their dailylearning context.

ReferencesBlanche, P. & Merino, B. (1989). Self-

assessment of foreign language skills:Implications for teachers and researchers.Language Learning, 39 (3), 313-340.

Fradd, S., McGee, P., & Wilen, D. (1994).Instructional assessment: Anintegrative approach to evaluatingstudent performance. Reading,England: Addison- Wesley.

Graves, N. & Mackenzie, A. (1997).Seeing the classroom in three dimensions.ICU Language Research Bulletin, 12, 75-95.

Pierce, B., Swain, M., & Hart, D. (1993).Self-assessment, French immersion, andlocus of control. Applied Linguistics, 14(l), 25-42.



Communication, Context, and Constraint: Workingthrough the Riddles

Mark A. Clarke1

University of Colorado at Denver

For most of this century the language teaching profession has been focused on “method” inone way or another. The focus has served us well, but I argue here that we need to developan understanding of teaching that moves us beyond the mere procedural aspects of teachingimplied in much of the methods discussion. The systemic complexities of education todayrequire us to acknowledge that teaching is an institutional accomplishment, rather than anindividual tour de force. In the classroom, effective teachers develop authentic relationshipswith students, and they negotiate meanings that permit students to learn. This isaccomplished over time, in the minute particulars of routine events, as teachers create afamiliar environment for learning activity. Learning is seen as a function of communication,in which an understanding of context and constraint become essential. I elaborate on theseideas and I explore implications for educators.

On riddles, teaching and learning 1963; Brown, 1994; Richards & Rodgers,For most of this century, method has framed 1986; Stevick, 1978; Stevick, 1996). Thereour understanding of what we do as was a time when much of the debate seemedlanguage teachers, teacher educators, focused on establishing the superiority ofadministrators, and researchers (Anthony, one method over another (Asher, 1977;

1 These ideas were developed during my 2 weeks of JALT-sponsored workshops in November, 1998. Many thanks to JALTofficers and volunteers-in particular, Andrew Barfield, Lisa Hodginkinson, and Caroline Latham-for a wonderful autumnsojourn; it was a rich interpersonal, intercultural, and intellectual experience. I would also like to thank my UCD studentsand colleagues-participants in the HACMS dcctoral laboratory, LLC 7410, and ITE 5080—for providing an environment ofcollegial critique in which these ideas were developed. I thank them for their support and encouragement, and I absolvethem of all responsibility for errors of interpretation or excesses of enthusiasm. Earl W. Stevick continues to provideeditorial comment and collegial encouragement.


On JALT98

Curran, 1972; Gattegno, 1976; Lozanov,1979). More recently, we have seen avariety of critiques of the construct itself andattempts at developing alternativeapproaches to understanding teaching(Clarke, 1983; Clarke, 1984; Clarke, 1994;Freeman, 1993; Kumaravadivelu, 1994;Lozanov, 1979; Pennycook, 1989; Prabhu,1990).

This focus has helped us clarify issuesand organize our work as individuals and asa profession, although consensus appears tobe beyond reach. Perhaps the issue is notso much “Which method or whether or notmethod?” but rather, “How does the idea ofmethod contribute to our understanding ofteaching and learning?”

The idea of method is reasonable.Teaching is conventionally understood asprocedural behavior-goal-oriented activitywith culturally appropriate materials, thesequenced mastery of progressively complexlanguage-and so it is natural that theadministrators, policy makers, and thepublic would conceive of teaching as theeffective implementation of method.Teachers themselves, whether novice orexperienced, seek ways to improve theirteaching, so they are naturally interested inthe newest ideas which are customarilyframed and presented as matters of method.Scholarly speculation about the importanceof method is also reasonable; the individualswriting articles about teaching methods are,by and large, the ones who are charged withthe responsibility of preparing new teachersand providing professional developmentactivities for veteran teachers. Method is aconvenient way of organizing informationand exploring concepts.

But we have always known that teachingis more complex than the view captured by amethods perspective. Stevick posed theproblem in the form of a riddle:

In the field of language teaching,Method A is the logical contradictionof Method B: If the assumptionsfrom which A claims to be derived arecorrect, then B cannot work, and vice

versa. Yet one colleague is gettingexcellent results with A and another isgetting comparable results with B.How is this possible? (Stevick, 1978,p.104; Stevick, 1996, p.193)

In recent investigations of literacyinstruction in urban classrooms, mycolleagues and I had to confront this riddlehead on (Clarke, Davis, Rhodes, & Baker,1996; Clarke, Davis, Rhodes, & Baker,forthcoming). We spent 2 years in theclassrooms of three fine teachers whosemethods were strikingly different. Maryepitomized whole language, literature-baaedinstruction. Her students read and wrotefor long stretches every day, and theyworked on projects of their own choosing.Jackie was a bilingual teacher whoemphasized making good choices in schooland in life. She used technologyextensively and her students learned toorganize themselves into project-focusedlearning. Barbara espoused what might beconsidered to be traditional ideas of teachingand learning-individual accomplishment,hard work, and accountability. She usedspelling bees, grammar drill, and leveledreading groups to get students to seethemselves as academic achievers. It ishard to imagine how three teachers could bemore different in their philosophies andmethods. The fact that we had a widevariety of empirical evidence that they wereeffective-i.e., that their students werepositively engaged and learning-onlyexacerbated our sense of confusion. H o wcould such divergent approaches yield sosimilar outcomes?

But if that wasn’t enough, weencountered 2 variations on the riddle in thecourse of our research. One surfaced in thefirst phase of the study (Davis, A. et al.,1992), as we worked in 40 classroomsobserving and collecting data andinterviewing teachers. We found that wecould not predict, based on teachers’descriptions of their theoretical andmethodological commitments, the materialsand techniques we would see in a classroom.



We experienced the entire range ofvariations on this apparent contradiction—teachers with similar philosophies yet wildlydifferent practices, teachers with similarpractices but emphatically differenttheoretical positions, and teachers for whomwe could find no clear connection betweenwhat we understood to be their theory andtheir practice of teaching’.

The second variation on the riddleconcerned disquieting glimpses ofimperfection on the part of our threeeffective teachers. It is important toremember that we had abundant evidencefrom two years of study in their classroomsthat they were, in fact, very good teachers(Clarke et al., 1996). Yet we observedwhat we believed to be instances of, at best,questionable decision-making, and at worst,bad teaching: What were we to make of ateacher’s prolonged inattention to strugglinglearners? How to explain the time wewatched in amazement as the studentslaboriously copied the wrong answers ontotheir practice sheets.? And what about theextended drill session in which we wereconfident that a number of students weremerely parroting answers without thefaintest understanding what they weresaying?

We gradually came to realize that thesewere problems for us, not for the teachers.We were faced with undeniable evidencethat they were good teachers; their studentswere enthusiastically engaged in learningand they scored high on a variety ofoutcome measures. If there werecontradictions between what we thoughtthey should be doing and what they thoughtthey should be doing, it was up to us tofigure out how to reconcile theinconsistencies. Too narrow a focus ondetails prevented us from seeing the largerpatterns of learning.

2 I recognize that this statement raises serious questions ofrepresentation -that is, who are we to say whether ateacher’s theory and practice are congruent. We werevery aware of this problem, and took care to avoid makingor appearing to make judgments about the value ofparticular practices. The confusions lingered, however,and this paper represents my efforts at expurgating them.

We also came to see that teaching is afunction of communication, and while thismay seem obvious, we realized that we hadnot attended closely to what such a viewwould entail. I explore this assertion indetail in the following section, but first it isnecessary to elaborate further on the insightswe acquired as we attempted to untanglethese riddles.

Mindful of Occam’s admonition ofparsimony, I define learning simply aschange over time3. There may bedisciplines that require more delicatedistinctions, but as a teacher and researcherworking with the usual assortment ofindicators--tests, assignments, classroombehavior-I am primarily focused onchanges I can see. This means, for onething, that I treat all evidence of sustainedchange as learning, and I do not bother withthe usual distinctions between learning,acquisition, and development.

A second insight concerns the fact that itis the nature of all living organisms to beconstantly changing-I therefore concludethat humans are always learning. Ofcourse, in the case of my students, I cannotbe certain that they are learning what I wantthem to learn. But the fact that they cannotnot learn seems reassuring-if I can just gettheir attention, I tell myself, then this naturalpropensity to learn will take charge and Iwill be able to nudge them closer to mygoals.

And finally, teaching is best understoodas an institutional accomplishment, ratherthan a personal tour de force. Teachershave a lot to do with creating anenvironment conducive to learning, but iforder does not exist on a higher level, and ifthe school does not provide resources andsupport for teachers, the likelihood ofsuccess is greatly diminished. My view ofteaching/learning is, therefore, more

3 Stevick reminded me, in an e-mail reaction to a draft ofthe paper, that he would not say that the change in the colorof his hair over the years constitutes learning. He offeredthe following, which seems consistent with what I amarguing: “change in the internal resources (mostly) of mybrain, that enable, influence, and limit but do not fullydetermine how I react to what comes in from the outside.”


On JALT98

systemic than what the conventional focuson method permits.

CommunicationCommunication is both a mundane andarcane topic-both the lay person and thespecialist have firm opinions about it4. Theapproach I will take is to say thatcommunication occurs when a “fact”becomes “information.” A scribble on theblackboard, the teacher holding up her hand,the bell ringing in the hallway-these aremerely facts until individual studentsrecognize them as messages withcommunicative value and respond.Communication does not occur until anindividual attaches meaning to the scribble,the hand in the air, or the bell ringing, and Icannot be certain what has beencommunicated until I have some visibleevidence from the student.

The message might be intentionally orunintentionally sent by someone, and it maybe explicit or implicit. And, even when amessage is intentional and explicit, themessage received may not be the oneintended I scribble notes in the margins ofmy students’ papers. The explicitmessages have to do with the content andmechanics of their papers, but the implicitmessages will be a function of the students’experience with such annotations. For onestudent, they are welcome evidence of myinterest in their ideas and their use oflanguage. For another, they areintimidating symbols of authoritarianinstruction, omens of a low grade. Anotherexample:

4 I draw on a number of traditions in this conceptualizationof communication -information theory, cybernetics, socialpsychology-but there is neither space nor need to go into adetailed examination of the history of the construct.Suffice to say that the work of Gregory Bateson andscholars influenced by him figures prominently in mythinking (Bateson, 1972; Bowers & Flinders, 1990;Harries-Jones, 1995; Ruesch & Bateson, 1968; Watzlawick,Be.avin, &Jackson, 1967; Wilden, 1980; Wilden, 1987). asdoes the thinking of interpretive anthropologist CliffordGeertz (Geertz, 1973; Geertz, 1983; Geertz, 1995). Inaddition, as a result of work in the HACMS doctoral lab, Ihave begun to incorporate ideas from scholars working inactivity theory (Cole, 1996, Leontiev 1981; Vygotsky,1962; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1998). .

A teacher strides into the classroom onthe first day of the term and declaresemphatically, “In my classroom,creative language use is required everysingle day. I want you to speak upenergetically and often. Anyquestions? Please raise your handsbefore you speak.”

This event contains many messages, but wewould have to observe and interviewstudents to guess what was, in fact,communicated. One student mightunderstand the teacher to have said preciselywhat the teacher intended- “Be active;participate.” Another student may havenoticed the contradiction between theadmonition to “speak up energetically andoften” and the requirement that studentsraise their hands before speaking; for thisstudent the communication might be,“Mixed messages! I had better keep myhead down until I discover what the teacherreally wants.” A third student might havebeen so intimidated by the bold demeanor ofthe teacher that s/he did not really processany of the spoken language; for this student,the main communication might besomething like, “better keep quiet in thisclass because this teacher is a tyrant.” Afourth student might have been so distractedby the physical attractiveness and self-confidence of the teacher that s/he did nothear a word of the speech; thecommunication for this student might besimple happiness at being in the class.

The communication effected depends onthe interaction of the myriad messages,verbal and non-verbal, being sent by theteacher, on the one hand, and the attentionand unique history of each student, on theother. “Seems obvious,” you say. “Howdoes this contribute to the attempt tounderstand teaching and learning?” Verysimply-if I am to be an effective teacher, Imust attend to what the students areunderstanding by my teaching. This mayappear to be hair-splitting, because of course,all teachers monitor what students are



learning, but I think it encourages animportant shift of attention from teacherbehavior to the student behavior. Taken toits logical conclusion, this approach wouldlead teachers to forsake their commitmentsto particular methods and to adopt a radicaleclecticism—one in which all methods areconsidered equal depending on studentachievement.

There is another point to be attended to:Understanding does not always result inlearning. Understanding occurs in themoment . Learning is change over time.Patterns of communication over time shapethe understanding of individuals, andchanges in behavior provide evidence of thischange. We cannot say learning hasoccurred until we notice a sustained changein behavior. I have often had theexperience of completing a lesson confidentthat students had mastered a particular point,only to encounter errors in theircompositions or speech that demonstrateotherwise. They understood the material atthe time we covered it in the lesson, but theyhad not learned it sufficiently well for it tobecome part of their unconscious repertoire.

‘Iwo final points: I assume thateveryone is always learning, so thisperspective applies with equal force toteachers as well as students. In a veryimportant sense, I believe that classrooms inwhich teachers are not actively andenthusiastically learning present poorprospects for student learning. Also, I amfocused on visible evidence of learning; Iconcede that important changes in attitudemay be occurring that would need to betaken into account in a complete expositionof learning. But for the moment,behavioral change will suffice for the pointsI am trying to make.

This approach requires us to broaden ourunderstanding of student learning. Inaddition to the content of the course,students learn about themselves; theyacquire a sense of identity as they interactwith teachers and fellow students.

An organism can learn only that which

is taught by the circumstances ofliving and the experiences ofexchanging messages with thosearound him (sic). He cannot learn atrandom, but only to be like or unlikethose around him. (Bateson, 1972, p.234)

They learn about their teachers and aboutthe nature of school and society as portrayedin our classes. The most enduring of thelessons they learn from us are probably theunconscious ones, the apperceptivelearnings that come from participating inschool. These are important lessons;perhaps even more important than thecontent of the curriculum. But what,precisely, individuals learn depends on whatthey attend to in the course of a lesson, andthis point requires an understanding ofcontext.

ContextThe argument I am developing rests on theassertion that each individual constructs aunique understanding of what is going on.I recognize that in most situations themajority of people involved in an activityhave enough of a common understanding ofwhat is going on that satisfactorycommunication occurs, but even if this istrue, this perspective poses significantchallenges for teachers. The assertion is,essentially, that what matters is not themethods or materials themselves, but theirmeaning, and this will vary from individualto individual (Bateson, 1972; Watzlawick etal., 1967; Wilden, 1987). Context,therefore, is defined as the information theindividual uses to make his or her next move(Bateson, 1972, p. 289). This deceptivelysimple definition carries with it at least twoimplications. First, it acknowledges therelativity of the construct; everyone bringshis or her unique history to bear on asituation, and thereby constructs a uniqueunder-standing of what is going on. Andsecond, it reminds us that context is not athing; it is not a container, nor a place noreven a particular time. Context is a highly


On JALT98

abstract matter-it exists in the mind of theperceiver.

This leads to a logical but challengingconclusion-that, as we attempt tounderstand lessons, we need to focus, not onwhat the teacher is doing, but on what thestudents appear to be noticing. Learningrequires a minimal level of attention, and itrequires that the individual register theimportance of what s/he is attending to.S/he must see how the situation or eventsmake a difference to him or her, register thisdifference, and incorporate it intoestablished repertoires of thinking andacting.

This notice of a difference between theevents of the moment and hithertounquestioned understanding of the itemunder scrutiny is a difference that makes adifference (Bateson, 1972, pp. 448-466),roughly equivalent to what Vygotsky(Vygotsky, 1978, pp. 84-91) referred to aslearning that occurs within the zone ofproximal development, and what Krashenhas called i + 1 (Krashen, 1981, p. 100).This approach to understanding teaching andlearning has been taken by a number ofscholars. What may not always be fullyappreciated is that everyone involved in thediscussion is operating by the same rules—not just the language learners. Whenresearchers observe teachers, they attempt toalign the observed activities with theoreticaland philosophical principles. Teachersmonitor events according to the goals for thelesson. Students focus on a wide variety ofpersonal concerns. Everyone is noticingsomething, but it is unlikely that thatsomething is the same for everyone.

So, we have arrived at a point of almostincalculable complexity. People arespontaneous and creative, and they may ormay not be paying attention to what we wantthem to notice; we cannot make them learn.Teaching is not merely a matter of followinga prescribed set of procedures; it requires usto monitor all the messages we are sendingand to calculate the effect they are having onthe students. How, then, do we organizeourselves so that we enter the classroom on

Monday morning with a reasonable chanceof success? This is where anunderstanding of constraints comes inhandy.

ConstraintWe cannot control students and we cannotmake them learn what we want them to learn.The best we can do is manipulate constraintsso as to increase the probability that theywill notice the points we want them to notice,adjust their thinking and behavioraccordingly, and acquire the knowledge,attitudes and skills that we are interested inhaving them acquire. Constraint is anyfactor that renders an outcome less thanrandom. I am using the term in the senseBateson uses restraint; “... the course ofevents is said to be subject to restraints, andit is assumed that, apart from such restraints,the pathways of change would be governedonly by equality of probability.” (Bateson,1972, p. 399)

I once videotaped two gifted teachers andthen sat with them and viewed the tapeswhile discussing the constraints on theirdecision making. They came up witheleven general considerations thatinfluenced their decision-making: personalpreferences, physical space, time, resources,interpersonal factors, institutional factors,community, professional philosophy, routine,assessment considerations, curriculum(Clarke, 1992). The particular items on thelist are not particularly important; eachteacher will have a slightly different listdepending on particular circumstances.What matters is that we recognize that theseare areas over which we have some degreeof control, and that it is our responsibility toassure coherence in the messages we sendout in each area. How does theconfiguration of furniture reflect myconviction that students should talk to eachother as much as possible? Do I permitclass discussion to “run over” theestablished time limits, to give students achance to express themselves? Have Imade contact with parents and do I includecommunity representatives in my learning



activities? How do I grade students andwhat are my classroom managementtechniques--do these reflect my corevalues? Do my assessment proceduresreflect my instructional goals? Do mystudents know what I believe to beimportant?

Teaching, therefore, becomes less amatter of following established proceduresand more a function of attending to what isgoing on around me, and of adjusting mybehavior to increase the likelihood ofstudent learning.

Summary and implicationsLet me summarize the main points of theargument I have made. Learning is changeover time. Teaching is communicationthrough many modes, the orchestration ofevents so that students acquire the content ofthe curriculum. It is far more than that,however, because students are learning allmanner of attitudes and skills merely byparticipating in activities that I haveorganized. I must, therefore, attend to allthe potential messages I send out merely bybeing who I am and by organizing myteaching the way I do.

So, how does this view of languagelearning and teaching illuminate the riddleswe were struggling with above, and howdoes the idea of method contribute tolanguage teaching and learning? As withmost riddles, the confusion comes from theassumptions with which we addressed thesituation we were interested in.

Unwittingly, we had adopted a causalview of teaching and learning, and we wereassuming that there was a linear relationshipbetween teaching methods and learnerachievement-if one adopted these methods,particular learnings would occur. We werealso assuming that teaching was, in somesense, merely a matter of going through theprocedures prescribed by a method; whyelse would we assume that we could learnabout a teacher’s teaching merely bylearning the names s/he gave for particularactivities? As we observed Mary, Jackie,and Barbara, we assumed that we knew what

merited our attention. We were narrowlyfocused on particular curricular outcomesand we thought we knew how they shouldbe achieved. We were being narrowlypurposive (Bateson, 1972, pp. 426-439)attending only to traditional academicoutcomes and assuming a linear relationshipbetween the particulars of the moment andthe larger patterns of learning that wouldplay out over the course of the school term.The teachers, meanwhile, were attending toother purposes, knowing that the detailswould fall into place over time. Andfinally, we assumed that there was a magicallink between the verbal messages they use todescribe their teaching philosophy andmethod, and the messages they send non-verbally; we did not allow for thecomplexity of communicational phenomenain the language classroom.

Mary, Jackie, and Barbara were notsimilar in their classroom behaviors, nor inthe ways that they framed their teaching on aphilosophical level, but they were verymuch the same in one important regard—they were clear on their core values and theyunderstood how their teaching decisionsrelated to those values. The implications ofthis approach to language education aremany. I explore these in detail elsewhere(Clarke, 1999); I will mention a few here toconclude.

As a teacher I must continue to remindmyself that the map is not the territory-thename of the method is but a label that refers,imperfectly, to a wide variety of experience.My best efforts at creating a communicativeclassroom, for example, may strike somelearners as an intimidating environmentwhere the familiar roles of teacher andlearner have been lost.

I must not be distracted by the debateover the labels and jargon used in theprofession. I will continue to use themethods debates as a source of new ideas forteaching, taking what I can use and leavingthe rest. I need to focus instead on theparticulars of experience and on howstudents are responding to the classroomactivities I have devised. I will continue to


On JALT98

focus on the importance of relationship andcommunication in my classrooms. Stevickhas said this for many years: “Whatmatters is what goes on inside and betweenpeople.” (Stevick, 1980; Stevick, 1996) Atthe same time, I need to remember that Icannot make this happen; the best I can do isto create structures, procedures, andmaterials that increase their probability.

My current effort is a struggle tounderstand classroom phenomena asrecursive loops of experience and to payattention to the effect that minute changeshave on the learning of students. Mycolleagues and I have settled somewhattentatively on episode, activity, practice as away of articulating the level of scale weattend to as researchers or teachers.Episodes are the fleeting interactions wehave with students in the normal course ofevents-they may last a few seconds toseveral minutes. By activities we mean theconventionally understood instructionalploys; this is a somewhat slippery concept-teaching stratagems with a recognizablebeginning, middle, and end. They may lastanywhere from a few minutes to severalweeks. Practice is used to refer to thelarger patterns of the school year, thecharacteristic structures and procedures thatidentify a teacher as unique. We havecome to realize that what matters is not theideological symmetry of episode, activity,and practice, but the efficacy of particularbehaviors in moving students toward aparticular goal, and that we must keep aneye on student learning as primary goal.

Above all, I will continue to work torefine my understanding of my core values.What are the rules I live by? What do Ivalue in people, in education, in myself?How do these show up in my teaching?Would my students, if queried, attribute thesame values to my actions that I do? Imust guard against ideological andtheoretical myopia; I must strive forflexibility in the ways I work and I muststruggle to see the unintended effects of mywork.

As I work with teachers, I try to pass

along these insights and to create activitieswithin which prospective and veteranteachers can experience values-basedteaching through participation in a widevariety of teaching situations. I want tooffer my own experience and understandingto others, but I must constantly remindmyself that the way I see the world is afunction of my own experiences and biases.I want to help prospective teachers identifyelements of the canon they can believe in,and encourage them to develop their owntheoretical framework based on both booklearning and classroom experience.

I am working to develop partnershipsbetween school, university, and communitythat permit individuals to step out of roleand experience language teaching from awide variety of perspectives (Clarke, Davis,Rhodes, & Baker, 1998). I seek diversityand variety at all levels of education, bothfor myself and for my students. Above all,I want to avoid prescriptions. People learnby doing, and they learn best if they areexperimenting with their own ideas. I wantto give them opportunities to fail and tolearn from their failures.

Perhaps the most challenging admonitionto myself is to beware of mistaking point forpattern in my observations of teaching andlearning. My inclination is to want to actimmediately to remedy a situation, to correctan error. But I must learn to be patient, touse multiple indicators of learning, to trustpeople and processes.

Editorial noteWilliam of Ockham, born in the village ofOckham in Surrey (England) about 1285,was a philosopher and theologian of the 14thcentury. The medieval rule of parsimony,or principle of economy, frequently used byOckham came to be known as Ockham’srazor. The rule states that plurality shouldnot be assumed without necessity.

ReferencesAnthony, E. M. (1963). Approach, method,

and technique. English LanguageTeaching Journal, I7, 63-67.



Asher, J. (1977). Learning anotherlanguage through actions: Thecomplete teacher’s guidebook. LosGatos, CA: Sky Oaks Publications.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology ofmind. New York: Ballentine Books.

Bowers, C. A., & Flinders, D. J. (1990).Responsive teaching: An ecologicalapproach to classroom patterns oflanguage, culture, and thought. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles oflanguage learning and teaching. (3rded.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall Regents.

Clarke, M. A. (1983). The scope ofapproach, the importance of method, andthe nature of technique. In J. E. Alatis,H. Stem, & P. Strevens (Eds.),Georgetown university round table onlanguages and linguistics 1983: Appliedlinguistics and the preparation of secondlanguage teachers. Washington, D.C.:Georgetown University Press.

Clarke, M. A. (1984). On the nature oftechnique: What do we owe the gurus?TESOL Quarterly, 18 (4), 577-594.

Clarke, M. A. (1992, December).Teachers’ narratives as theory. SPEAQout, 15-17.

Clarke, M. A. (1994). The dysfunctions ofthe theory-practice discourse, TESOLQuarterly, 28 (1), 9-26.

Clarke, M. A. (1999). Communication andcontext: An ecological perspective oflanguage teaching. In D. J. Mendelsohn(Ed.), Expanding our vision: Insights

for language teachers (pp. 155-172).Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Clarke, M. A, Davis, A., Rhodes, L., &Baker, E. D. (1998). Principles ofcollaboration in school-universitypartnerships. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (3),592-600.

Clarke, M. A, Davis, A., Rhodes, L. K., &Baker, E. D. (1996). Creatingcoherence: High achieving classroomsfor minority students (Final report ofresearch conducted under U.S.Department of Education, OERI Field

Initiated Studies Program, GrantR117E30244 ). Denver, CO: Universityof Colorado at Denver.

Clarke, M. A., Davis, A., Rhodes, L. K., &Baker, E. D. (forthcoming). Thecoherence of practice in effectiveteaching. In B. Kumaravadivelu (Ed.),Beyond method: New perspectives insecond and foreign language teaching.New York: Cambridge University Press,

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: Aonce and future discipline. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Curran, C. A. (1972). Counseling-Learning: A whole person model foreducation. Apple River, Illinois:Apple River Press,

Davis, A., Clarke, M. A., Rhodes, L. K.,Shanklin, N., Nathenson-Mejia, S.,Selkirk, M., Commins, N., Galindo, R.,Shannon, S., Bookman, M., & Sanders, N.(1992). Colorado literacy study:Using multiple indicators to identifyeffective classroom practices for minoritystudents in reading and writing. Denver,CO: University of Colorado at Denver.

Freeman, D. (1993). Renamingexperience/reconstructing practice:Developing new understandings ofteaching. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 9 (5/6), 485-497.

Gattegno, C. (1976). The common sense ofteaching foreign languages. New York:Educational Solutions.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation ofcultures. New York: Basic Books,

Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge:Further essays in interpretiveanthropology. New York: BasicBooks.

Geertz, C. (1995). After the fact: Twocountries, four decades, oneanthropologist. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Harries-Jones, P. (1995). A recursivevision: Ecological understanding andGregory Bateson. Toronto: Universityof Toronto Press.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second languageacquisition and second language


On JALT98

learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The

postmethod condition: (E)mergingstrategies for second/foreign languageteaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (l), 27-48.

Leontiev, A. N. (1981). The problem ofactivity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch(Ed.), The concept of activity in Sovietpsychology (pp. 37-71). Armonk, N.Y.:M.E. Sharpe.

Lozanov, G. (1979). Suggestology andoutlines of suggestopedy. New York:Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.

Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept ofmethod, interested knowledge, and thepolitics of language teaching. TESOLQuarterly, 23 (4), 589-618.

Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no bestmethod-why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986).Approaches and methods in languageteaching. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Ruesch, J., & Bateson, G. (1968).Communication: The social matrix ofpsychiatry. New York W.W. Norton&co.

Stevick, E. W. (1978). Memory, meaning,

and method. Rowley, MA.: NewburyHouse.

Stevick, E. W. (1980). Teachinglanguages: A way and ways. Rowley,MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Stevick, E. W. (1996). Memory, meaning,and method (2nd ed.). New York:Heinle and Heinle.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought andlanguage. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T.Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society:The development of higher psychologicalprocesses. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics of humancommunication: A study ofinteractional patterns, pathologies, andparadoxes. New York: W.W. Norton&co.

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action.New York: Oxford University Press.

Wilden, A. (1980). System and structure:Essays in communication and exchange.London: Tavistock.

Wilden, A. (1987). The rules are no game:The strategy of communication. NewYork: Routledge & Kegan Paul.


1 DISCOUNT BOOKS

•fast service•• excellent prices l

l total ELT support•Contact Peter and T o m i o b y e-mail:

[email protected]. jpTo place orders:

[email protected]

Visit our homepage:w w w . nellies. co.jp

ISBN: 4-9900370-6-5 ¥2,500

On JALT98: Focus on the Classroom:

Interpretations

The Japan Association for Language Teaching Is honored tooffer this volume of conference papers to the wider languageteaching community. These proceedings includecontributions by Lynda-ann Bianchard, Mark Clarke, Leni Dam,David Little, Tim Murphey, Hannah Pillay and Jane Willis—alllnvlted speakers at the 1998 international conference held inOmiya, Saltama-ken, Japan. Also included In thls collection isa quality selection of papers by language school, junior highand senior high, and college language educators. Thiscreates an exciting blend of classroom experience, classroomresearch and crltical reflective practice, bringing alive thevoices of teachers and learners Into a unique recording ofshared discovery and development.

A special supplement to The Language Teacher, JALT’smonthly magazine for language teachers both in Japan and

abroad. For more details on how to join JALT, contact JALTCentral Office, Tokyo: 03-3837-1630 (TEL) or e-mail

<[email protected]>.

Documents

The Proceedings of the JALTThe Proceedings of the JALT ...jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/previous/jalt98.pdf · Kip Cates, James Kahny, Daniel Kirk & Lynda-ann Blanchard