Shizuka Kandori

Background at “The College”Catholic girls’ school in VictoriaNotebook computer program was introduced

in Years 10-12 in 1996.All students possessed a notebook computer

in 2004.In Year 7, Japanese and Indonesian were

taught for 1 semester each and French was taught for a year.

From Year 8, Japanese was one of the elective subjects.

Visit to a French class…Year 7 French class

Students started their computer at the start of the lesson.Students were told to keep the lid of the computer closed.Students started copying notes from the board directly to

their laptop computer.

French and English => alphabetic scriptJapanese =>Hiragana, Katakana and KanjiJapanese scripts are unknown to the students who start

learning Japanese.

Would ICT have any impact on the students’ retention of the Japanese scripts?

Other issuesPressure on handwriting

o Students need to handwrite for any written assessment, particularly in assessments of VCE.

o Students must be able to handwrite competently in school assessed coursework and a two hour examination.

The use of Romaji is discouraged because Romaji often hinders students from acquiring the Japanese scripts and correct pronunciation.

Romaji is used for word processing in Japanese.

Previous Studies on Influence of ICT in Language Study

Phinney (1989), Rodrigues and Rodrigues (1986), Pennington and Brock (1992) ICT facilitates students’ language learning by

motivating students learning European languages (L2) and ESL.

Positive changes on students’ attitudes towards writing because it reduces their fear of making mistakes.

Barrera, Rule and Diemart (2001)Focused on the writing skills of first grade

students.The research was carried out for six months.Students wrote their compositions using either

word processing or handwriting.Findings:

o Students wrote more words and sentences on the computer and the overall progress was better in writing competence.

o They enjoyed reading their texts on the screen and revised their work more often than writing by hand.

o The effect of “newness” and the influence on students’ motivation was short-term.

Previous Studies on Influence of ICT in Japanese

There have been few studies conducted on the use of ICT in Japanese classes (Chikamatsu, 2003), especially in the beginners’ level with secondary school students.

Kubota (1999) and Chikamatsu (2003) focused on the positive effects of using ICT in the Japanese classes where university students studied Japanese as a foreign language.

Kubota (1999) Researched in a web based language project that

also required word processing in Japanese, in a third year college language course.

Findings:o The participating students enjoyed their learning

and felt that their language skills had improved and that utilising a word processor made their writing easier and faster.

o However, some students were unsure about which was the correct Kanji to choose from the list displayed when converting Hiragana to Kanji.

o Students also found it challenging to read Japanese websites, which use a large amount of Kanji, many of which they have never learnt before. Consequently students could not read the websites. Some students were anxious about using unfamiliar software and hardware.

Chikamatsu (2003)Researched on students’ writing skills in Japanese

when using ICT. Two types of written tests (word tests and essay tests)

to 20 college learners of Japanese who had completed second or third year Japanese courses at a university

The students had a prior knowledge of Japanese word processing as they had been exchanging emails with Japanese college students in Japan.

Findings:o ICT enhanced students’ Kanji ability and students’

learning at word level in Japanese studyo However, it did not help speed or length of students’

written work. o There was a relationship between the students’

performances and their proficiency in the language. o Students were able to edit their work

independently and subsequently it may enhance students’ editing skills.

Focus of this studyPrevious studies focused on the writing development of

university students whose language ability in Japanese was higher and the researchers analysed the use of Kanji characters.

In this study, the focus is on the development of secondary students who are learning basic Japanese mainly using Hiragana characters.

In order to analyse the students’ achievements, this study implemented the methods that Chikamatsu (2003) applied to find out the effectiveness of the use of ICT by measuring the time and the correctness of their answers in the vocabulary tests. The students’ mistakes in their handwriting were categorised to see the development of students’ writing skills in Hiragana characters.

Research QuestionsThis study aimed to identify positive and

negative effects of the use of ICT in Japanese.

1. Do students at the junior level learn to write Hiragana characters more quickly and accurately by handwriting or by using ICT?

2. Does ICT use have any effect on students’ retention of vocabulary?

3. Does ICT motivate the junior level students to learn Japanese?

Project - SettingParticipants: Australian Year 8 students in

2 classes of Japanese where the researcher was the teacher.

10 students (5 students from each class) returned the consent forms for data collection.

Three lessons of 75 minutes in a fortnightDuration: 6 weeks in Term 4Topic: Sports and Leisure in Unit 7&8 in

Part 3 of Mirai 1

Project - SettingLaptop program at school. Wireless

connection throughout the school. “Moodle” was introduced as the school intranet.

Students have their own laptop computer and they are expected to use them in class. However, students had not used word-processor in Japanese.

Students have already learnt Hiragana and some Kanji characters.

MethodologyQuasi-experiment (Cohen, Manion and

Morrison, 2000)Experimental Group and Control Group

Experimental Group – Using the computer all the time

Control Group – Not using the computer at all

Mixed methodsThe Static Group Pretest-Posttest Design

(Fraenkel and Wallen, 2003)

O: Observation (measurement)

X: Exposure of the group to the treatment

Group interviews

O X1 O

O X2 O

ProjectPre-Test

Before commencing the teaching program of 5 weeks, students in both groups took a Pre-Test.

Students in both groups wrote their answers by hand.

The test has 2 sections and each section had 10 vocabulary from topics that they had studied previously.

Section One: Translate English words into Japanese with Romaji clues. (Checking students’ ability to write the Hiragana characters.)

Section Two: Translate English words into Japanese without Romaji clues. (normal vocabulary test in class.)

Data collection in the Pre-TestAwarded points: 2 points for correct translation,

1 point for partially correct translation and zero point for a wrong translation or no answer. (%)

Number of characters that the students wrote correctly. (%)

Time that students spent to complete the test.Students were allowed to take an unlimited

amount of time.Students put their hand up when they had

completed the test and the time taken was recorded on a stop watch by the teacher.

Lessons ***Same program of work was taught in both groups.

Topicso Time (how to say time, Kanji numbers were

used.)o Verbs (incorporating with “Time” to express

the daily routines)o Places (incorporating with いきます (to go)o Use of particles ( に (at, to) 、を）

Lessons ***Same program of work was taught in both groups.

Control GroupComputers were not used at all in class.Students copied the class notes in Hiragana and

Kanji numbers into their notebook by hand.New items were introduced by using flashcards

and handwritten on the board by the teacher.Games were played using flashcards.Assessment tasks were completed by

handwriting.Students created a booklet on “Daily Routine ( 私

の一日 )”.

LessonsExperimental Group

Followed the same lesson plan as the Control Group.

Computers were used all the time in class.

Students needed to install the Japanese word processing program (Global-IME) and learn how to type Hiragana and Kanji.

Register on QUIA (www.quia.com)

Data projector was used to display the lesson notes on the board. (IWB were not yet available in the rooms where these lessons took place.)

Lessons in the Experimental GroupThe teacher typed all the lesson notes on the computer

and this was displayed on the board through data projector.

Students copied the class notes in Hiragana and Kanji numbers onto their laptop computer.

New items were introduced by using flashcards that were used in the Control Group and “Java Flashcards” on QUIA.

Games were played using “Java Flashcards”, “Jumbled Words” and “Challenge Board” on QUIA.

Assessment tasks were completed on the computer. Vocabulary tests – submitted by emailPowerPoint presentation on “Daily routine ( 私の一日 )”.

Students wrote their first draft on Microsoft Word.

Post-TestsAt the end of the teaching program, students took

2 sets of Post-Tests (Post-Test 1 and Post-Test 2).The Control Group wrote their answers by hand

in both Post-Test 1 and 2.The Experimental Group wrote their answers in

Post-Test 1 by hand and they typed their answers in Post-Test 2. Students submitted their tests by email.

Post-TestsSame as the Pre-Test, each Post-Test has two

sections and each section had ten vocabulary from the topics of Time, Verbs and places.

Section One: Translate English words into Japanese with Romaji clues. (Checking students’ ability to write the Hiragana characters.)

Section Two: Translate English words into Japanese without Romaji clues. (normal vocabulary test in class.)

Data collection in the Post-TestsAwarded points: 2 points for correct translation,

1 point for partially correct translation and zero point for a wrong translation or no answer. (%)

Number of characters that the students wrote correctly. (%)

Time that students spent to complete the test.Students were allowed to take an unlimited

amount of time.Students put their hand up when they had

completed the tests and the time taken was recorded on a stop watch by the teacher.

Group InterviewConducted in each Experimental and Control group.Digitally recorded and later transcribed.Semi-structured interview with questions prepared but

informal style at lunchtime.Comfortable environment for students to contribute their

ideas.All students were encouraged to take turns to answer each

question and they readily took part in the discussions with the Experimental Group lasting for 40 minutes and the Control Group for 25 minutes.

Questions were prepared based on Kubota’s study (1999) on preconceptions regarding ICT use and they were modified in the interviews to be appropriate to the Year 8 students.

Questions for the Group Interviews1. What are your experiences of using the computer in class in

the past? How have you used your computer in Japanese or other language classes before?

2. How did you feel about using the computer to learn Japanese? Did you feel comfortable using ICT?

3. Did you become more confident with writing in Japanese? Why?4. Do you think using a computer in Japanese helped your study?

Do you think your Japanese became better?5. Comparing the lessons using the computer and the ones

without the computer, what do you think were the positive aspects of using the computer in Japanese lessons?

6. What do you think the negative aspects were when using the computer in Japanese lessons?

7. Compare the usual lessons to the lessons in which ICT was used. Which one did you prefer? Why?

Data AnalysisQuantitative Data

(Data from the Pre-Test is the benchmark starting point.)

Group averageResults of individual students

Time taken to complete the testsCorrect translationCorrectly written Hiragana

Qualitative DataResponses from the Group Interview

Group averageFigure 1: Group average time in Section One

Figure 2: Group average time in Section Two

Figure 3: Group average results of correct translations in Section One

Figure 4: Group average results of correct translations in Section Two

Figure 5: Group average results of accuracy of Hiragana in Section One

Figure 6: Group average results of accuracy of Hiragana in Section Two

Individual students

Findings – on averageWhen the tests were completed by handwriting

The Experimental Group achieved lower results than the Control Group in translation and accuracy

Speed of handwriting and knowledge in Hiragana remained the same.

When the tests were completed on the computerThe Experimental Group achieved higher results

than the control group in accuracy of the characters as well as in their translations.

The Experimental Group completed the test faster than the Control Group.

Findings – individual studentsTimeThe spread of the time difference was reduced in the

Experimental Group in both Post-Tests, while it was increased in the Control Group in Section 1 of the Post-Tests.

In Section One of Post-Test 1, the fastest students in the Pre-Test increased the time to complete the test, while slower students decreased the time in the Experimental Group.

In Section Two of Post-Test 1, only the middle student in the Pre-Test increased the time in the Experimental Group.

In the Post-Test 2, the spread of the time difference was reduced all students in both groups completed both sections faster compared to the Pre-Test.

Translations<Post-Test 1>The spread of the results was reduced in Section

One, but increased in Section Two in the Experimental Group, while it was increased in both sections in the Control Group.

In Section One, the top students and the lowest student in the Pre-Test improved their results, while middle student achieved lower result.

In Section Two, everyone except for the 4th student in the Pre-Test achieved lower results in the Experimental Group, while 3 middle students in the Control Group improved their results.

<Post-Test 2>The spread of results in the Experimental Group

was reduced in Section One and remained the same in Section Two compared to the Pre-Test.

In Section One, most of the students in the Experimental Group maintained or improved their results.

In Section Two, the top 3 students in the Pre-Test achieved lower result in the Experimental Group. 4th student in the Pre-Test achieved better result and the lowest student maintained her result. In the Control Group, 2nd student in the Pre-Test lower her result, while others maintained or improved their results.

Mostly same results were observed in the Accuracy.

Group Interview with the Experimental Group<Positive comments>WritingEasier and faster to type in Japanese rather than

handwriting and this enabled them to do more things.

Easier to keep up with other classmates. Easier to type because they only needed to know

Romaji“Drawing Pad” on Global-IME helped to display

the characters even if they were unsure of the reading.

Preferred the neatly displayed characters to their own handwriting (considered messy)

ExperienceUsing a computer was interesting and students

enjoyed the experience.Exciting to see the English alphabets changing

to Japanese characters.Using the computer in Japanese was

convenient and assisted their independent revision.

Good to have a variety of activities.

2 of 5 students preferred to continue the use of computer in class and others said “half-half”

<Negative comments>4 out of 5 students said it was more difficult

to learn Japanese because they were used to memorising vocabulary through handwriting. (“Look-Say-Cover-Write-Check”)

Typing did not help them learn Japanese characters.

Only 1 student used the computer to revise to prepare for the quizzes but she also practised by handwriting.

Some combined sounds (e.g. しょ ) were still confusing for students to type and it was quicker to handwrite the characters.

<Other negative comments>Nuisance to swap Eng-Jpn on Global-IME.Computer problem and network problem

discouraged the use of computer.Computers had been a distraction from their

study. (at home, while receiving and sending the tests)

Group Interview with the Control Group***what they thought might happen if they were to

use a computer all the time in Japanese class***<Positive comments>It would be faster to write down and their

writing would be neater.It would be easier to write Katakana.Possible to have better access to revision tools

on the internet.The game that the Experimental Group had used

during the project was fun and students felt that they paid more attention to class. (The Control Group had a chance to play the games later)

<Negative comments>Games on the computer can be distracting.They may forget how to write Japanese characters

and become slower at writing them by hand.Burden of carrying more things and problem of compatibility

between computers, the internet and the wireless system around the school.

<Student who has used Japanese typing due to her injury>

Changing Eng-Jpn was frustrating and she disliked being behind the rest of the class who were copying the notes more quickly by hand.

She had forgotten how to write some Hiragana and she couldn’t remember vocabulary as well as she usually did. =>extra revision time

Individual studentsMost of the Experimental Group achieved lower results

than the Control Group.Weaker student in the Experimental Group felt less

burden and became more comfortable with writing Japanese but the results were lower in the test taken by handwriting.

Weaker students improved the speed of writing and the spread of the speed in the group was reduced.

***Some positive effect on the slowest student and some negative effect on the fastest student.

Students in both groups were aware that the use of computer can be detracting to their handwriting skills.

They also said the use of computer weaken their memory skills for learning the vocabulary and spelling.

SummaryICT influenced students both positively and

negatively.Students became more interested in learning

Japanese.The use of ICT helped weaker students with writing

Japanese more easily.The gap between students became less in most cases.

The use of ICT took away the opportunities of handwriting from students who had already established good handwriting skills and they were negatively influenced.

Weaker students struggled to learn the spelling of Japanese or even forgot some of Hiragana.

LimitationChoice of the character

e.g. Kanji – students need to type the sound of the character in Hiragana first, then convert them to Kanji

Level of the learnersElective vs. CompulsoryPrivate girls school – boy’s school/co-ed

school, students, resources

ConclusionThe use of ICT interested and motivated students

to learn Japanese.The constant use of ICT negatively influenced

students’ handwriting skills.Taking notes by hand in class is a very important

opportunity for students to practise handwriting skills in the classroom.

The use of ICT in all aspects of language learning in schools will be a crucial problem if students are to complete their answers by hand in VCE assessments.

The use of ICT is effective when it is used as a supplementary material.

Future researchNumber of participants (results)Timing of the project (beginning/end of the

year)Length of the project (e.g. Barrera, Rule and

Diemart, 2001)

ReferencesBarrera, M. T., A. C. Rule and A. Diemart. (2001). The Effect of Writing with

Comptuers versus Handwriting on the Writing Achievement of First-graders. Information Technology in Childhood Education.

Chikamatsu, N. (2003). The Effects of Computer Use on L2 Japanese Writing. Foreign Language Annals, 36(1), 114-127

Cohen, L., Lawrence Manion and Keith Morrison. (2000). Research methods in Education. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Fraenkel, J. R., and Norman E. Wallen. (2003). How To Design and Evaluate Research in Education. Boston : McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Kubota, R. (1999). Word Processing and WWW Projects in a College Japanese Language Class. Foreign Language Annals, 32(2), 203-218

Pennington, Martha C. and Mark N. Brock. (1992). ‘Process and Product Approaches to Computer Assisted Composition’. In M. Pennington and V. Stevens (Eds.), Computers in Applied Linguistics: An International Perspective, South Australia: Multilingual Matterspp.79-109

 Phinney, Marianne. (1989). ‘Computers, Composition, and Second Language Teaching’. Teaching Languages With Computers: The State Of The Art. CA: Athelstan Publications :pp.81-96

Rodrigues, Dawn, and Raymond J. Rodrigues. (1986). Teaching Writing with a Word Processor, Grades 7-13. Illinois: The ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Council of Teachers of English. : pp.5-13.