1

第６４号 ２０１６年４月１日

Association of Sophian Teachers of English

上 智 大 学 英 語 教 員 研 究

会

CONTENTS

ご挨拶

2

Change in declarative and procedural knowledge over a year in 2

speaking English among Japanese college students

Akiko Okamura

Intercultural communicative competence for the workplace: 4

Problems faced by Japanese business professionals and suggestions

for teaching English-as-an-international-language

Hiroko Aikawa

Designing a CLIL curriculum for Japanese EFL learners 15

Jason McEvoy

スピーチの聞き取りやすさ向上を目指した発音教育とは？ 19

音声面に焦点をあてたプレゼンテーション授業の実践報告

齋藤 雪絵

動画配信授業でできること、できないこと 29

大谷浩

Learners' beliefs, learning styles and sense of achievements in 38

an EAP and CLIL course

Keiko Imura & Ahmadi Mohammad Hadi

2

Potentials and issues of JTEs -based own data from a large 49

scale survey-

Kiyotaka Suga

上智大学他の言語教育関係のホームページ 55

2016 年度春期ＡＳＴＥ例会スケジュール 59

ご挨拶

この度、ASTEの執行部の交代が行われましたので、お知らせいたします。25年以上に

わたり会長をつとめていた石川和弘氏（清泉女子中高等学校）とASTE設立当初から事務

局長をつとめていた吉田研作氏（上智大学）がそれぞれその役職を辞し、その交代として、

2016年度から、吉田研作氏が会長に、そして、事務局長に和泉伸一氏（上智大学）が新た

につくことになりました。

ASTEは、英語教育の最新情報や研究の発表の場として、これまで日本の英語教育を牽

引する役割を果たしてきましたが、今後もその精神を引き継ぎ、これからも日本の英語教

育の改革・改善に尽くして行きます。

今後とも皆さまのより一層のご支援、ご協力をお願いいたします。

ASTE 第194回例会

Change in declarative and procedural knowledge over a year in speaking

English among Japanese college students

Akiko Okamura Takasaki City University of Economics Summary Learning a second language can be observed in a change in two types of knowledge, declarative and procedural, that a learner possesses (Paradis 2009). The former type of knowledge is about what learners know, while the latter type refers to how they present their knowledge. Among the criteria for speaking skills, grammar and vocabulary are treated as declarative, while pronunciation and fluency are categorized as procedural. In learning to speaking English, it can be said that declarative knowledge needs to be prceduralized through practice

3

(Paradis 2009). Thus, it can be hypothesized that learning grammar and vocabulary precedes that of pronunciation of fluency in learning speech production. This study investigates the development of these two types of knowledge over one academic year among 361 economics major Japanese college students with different proficiency. They were those (out of a total of 521) who took the same task-based English language course and achieved more than 20 points on the pre-course and post-course administration of a computer-operated speaking test (Versant). Versant is a 17 minute-internet based speaking test to evaluate learners’ speaking skills by setting six tasks of increasing difficulty: 1. reading sentences, 2. repeating sentences, 3.answering questions, 4.building sentences, 5. reporting a story, 6.answering open-ended questions. Scores are given according to four criteria: sentence grammar, vocabulary, fluency and pronunciation with overall scores in a range of 20 to 80 with less than 20 being classed as not-measurable. According to the Versant developers, 3 point increase is considered to be an improvement and the four criteria are adopted to investigate the above two types of knowledge. Additionally after the end of the course, interviews were conducted about their learning experience with eight students who improved pronunciation more than eight points. The results show that first the most difficult criterion to improve was pronunciation among all the students in particular low-scoring ones. Second, the highest-scoring students with scores more than 40 tended to improve in pronunciation while those with lower scores 21- 25 appeared to have improved scores in vocabulary and grammar. Learning procedural knowledge seems to take more time than that of declarative knowledge. Third, less than 10% overall improved pronunciation more than 5 points, and among this small group there was very little improvement in the other elements, and often substantial falls in vocabulary and grammar. Not only does it seem to take time to improve pronunciation, but also declarative knowledge seems to suffer for its improvement. When a comparison was made between those students whose scores increased or decreased by more than 5 points, the group with significantly decreasing scores was larger. The interviews showed that these students who improved procedural knowledge tended to have time to listen and speak English outside class much more than other students. It seems easy to lose the command of procedural knowledge than that of declarative knowledge unless the student is keen on being exposed to spoken English. Paradis, Michael (2009). Declarative and Procedural Determinants of Second Languages. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

―――――――――――――――――――――

4

ASTE第 195回例会

Intercultural communicative competence for the workplace:

Problems faced by Japanese business professionals and suggestions for teaching

English-as-an-international-language

Hiroko Aikawa （Sophia University）

Summary of the presentation

1. Introduction

English is considered an international language for global communication, and many

people use English as a common language to interact with native speakers of English as well as

non-native speakers for a variety of specific purposes (McKay, 2002). In the Japanese workplace as

well, employees use English not only to negotiate with their global business partners, but also to

carry out their work duties with their colleagues from different backgrounds in their home offices

(Aikawa, 2015; 小坂, 2011). According to a survey conducted at Sophia University (2013),

approximately forty-three percent of Sophia graduates who majored in non-English-related subjects

use English in their workplaces almost every day. Thus, it can be said that English is a fact of life

for many business professionals in Japan. However, acquiring linguistic skills might be

overemphasized, which could result in paying little attention to other necessary skills and

knowledge to be able to function in the workplace (Kubota, 2013).

2. Literature Review

While it is widely accepted that Japanese business professionals must be equipped with

strong English language skills for international business, there seems to be a serious concern about

their inadequate language skills as well as their lack of confidence (The Japan Economic Research

Center, 2011). Previous research studies on the business discourse of Japanese professionals,

however, have pointed out that other factors besides linguistic accuracy and fluency might trigger

problems in intercultural interactions.

For example, Yamada (1992) examined meetings between Japanese and American

bankers focusing on topic management, turn-taking, and back-channeling, and found that both

parties often took part in the meetings based on their own expectations without a clear

understanding of the differences in norms and expectations for meetings, which ended in difficulties

in understanding each other. In a similar vein of research, Miller (1994, 1995, 2008) and Fujio

5

(2004) examined American and Japanese business meetings. In addition, Tanaka (2009) and

Du-Babcock and Tanaka (2013) looked at meetings between Japanese and non-Japanese business

professionals such as Hong Kong Chinese and Southeast Asians. These research studies have

mostly supported Yamada’s (1992) findings.

In another example, Marriott (1990) showed that an Australian and a Japanese business

professional differed in their perceptions of the goals of their negotiation meeting. While the

Australian manufacturer wanted to see if the Japanese trading company would be interested in their

products and expected the Japanese representative to make an initial decision, the Japanese

representative wanted to gather information on the Australian company, its products, and its plans

in order to make a decision with his boss and colleagues later in their office. However, neither of

them was aware of these differences at all, which ended up failing to make a deal.

More recently, Fairbrother (2015a, 2015b) investigated how Japanese and non-Japanese

employees carried out their daily work using their language repertoires in European multilingual

workplaces in Japan focusing on language management and power. These studies revealed that the

participants mix their linguistic resources (i.e., their native language and other languages) with

norms of different languages in order to complete their work duties within the hierarchy constraint.

These studies investigated how misunderstandings occurred in intercultural business

settings; however, they mainly focused on interactions with native speakers of English except

Tanaka (2009), Du-Babcock and Tanaka (2013) and Fairbrother (2015a, 2015b). Furthermore, those

contexts were limited to meetings except Fairbrother (2015a, 2015b). It can be said that there are

still few studies on how Japanese professionals use English in the Japanese workplace and what

problems they are facing. Therefore, this study investigates the current situation and perceptions of

business professionals who are required to use English in the Japanese workplace and explore what

skills and attitudes they actually need to develop.

3. Methodology

Interaction interviews (Neustupný, 1994, 2003) were conducted with nine Japanese and

eight non-Japanese business professionals (Table 1 & 2) from September 2013 to October 2014. All

the data from the interviews were audio-recorded for analysis and were coded according to

interviewees’ backgrounds, problems, competence to improve, and in-house training and Test of

English for International Communication (TOEIC) score requirements. For further analysis, all the

problems perceived by the interviewees were classified into linguistic, sociolinguistic, and

sociocultural problems (Neustupný, 1997).

6

Table 1: Japanese participants

Participants Age Job Proficiency Level

JM1 30s Chemical researcher Upper intermediate

JM2 30s Fashion buyer Upper intermediate

JM3 40s Medical researcher Upper intermediate

JM4 30s Airline Engineer Intermediate

JF1 50s Chemical researcher Advanced

JF2 20s Advertising Intermediate

JF3 30s School manager Intermediate

JF4 20s School assistant manager Upper intermediate

JF5 20s Clinical research agent Intermediate

Table 2: Non-Japanese participants

Participants Age Job Nationality

NJM1 20s English teacher US

NJM2 20s Corporate English instructor UK

NJM3 40s Marketing manager US

NJM4 20s Data analyst France

NJF1 20s English teacher Australia

NJF2 30s Bilingual recruiting consultant Canada

NJF3 30s Multimedia business development manager Taiwan

NJF4 30s Retail finance assistant manager China

4. Analysis

4.1 The Contexts where the Participants Use English in the Workplace

The findings of this study show that all the Japanese participants use English in various

situations for specific purposes. Spoken communication where they interact in English includes

formal and informal meetings, teleconferences, videoconferences, symposiums, interviews,

consultations, business trips, telephone conversation, attending overseas business partners, assisting

foreign colleagues, lunch or dinner with business partners, and day-to-day operations. Their written

communication includes corresponding via e-mail, reading documents and references, compiling

data research and reports, making documents for meetings, making presentation slides and handouts,

and writing weekly or monthly reports, minutes, resumes, and communications on chat or message

boards.

E-mail communication is particularly important. Actually, most of the Japanese and

7

non-Japanese participants communicate with their foreign colleagues and business partners almost

every day in the workplace. For example, JF2, who works in advertising, communicates with their

branch offices in New York, London, Paris, Shanghai, Seoul, Singapore, Bangkok and Moscow

mainly via email. Also, writing various types of reports is another important job. For instance, JM3

writes weekly reports in English, and JM1 writes the minutes after teleconferences with his project

partners in Malaysia.

In sum, it was found that most of the situations where the Japanese participants use

English are in Japan, not in other countries. Moreover, as McKay (2002) has argued, the Japanese

participants as well as the Japanese colleagues and business partners of the non-Japanese

participants use English for a wide variety of specific purposes in the workplace.

4.2 Difficulties and Issues Faced by the Participants

4.2.1 Linguistic problems.

Linguistic problems concern grammar, lexicon, and phonology (Neustupný, 1997). The

Japanese participants noted deviations or what the participants find different from their norms or

expectations in interaction (Neustupný, 2003) regarding grammar, pronunciation, different varieties

of accents, vocabulary, and listening, and regarding the fluency of speaking, reading and writing,

whereas the non-Japanese participants noted the same kinds of deviations as well as wasei eigo (i.e.,

Japanese English).

4.2.2 Sociolinguistic problems.

Sociolinguistic problems concern how language should be used in a given context

(Neustupný, 1997). Both the Japanese and non-Japanese participants noted various sociolinguistic

deviations. To identify the sources of these perceived problems, these noted deviations were

classified into eight categories according to Neustupný’s (1997) rules of interaction: switch-on rules,

variation rules, setting rules, participant rules, content rules, frame rules, channel rules, and

management rules.

For example, JF1, who is a Japanese chemical researcher, often attends international

conferences. She recently attended an international conference in Yokohama. After the presentations,

she wanted to speak to one of the presenters at the gathering; however, the Australian researcher

was talking with other people, and she was not able to get into the conversation. She commented:

「ディスカッションの時間以外に、自分から歩み寄れる度胸と実力があれば、もっと

ここはどうだったのみたいなことが聞けるじゃないですか？それができなかった。」

(I could have asked further questions on a particular point during the time beside

8

the discussion session if I were brave and fluent enough to speak to him on my own.

But I couldn’t.)

She further explained that in English lessons, turns are usually provided or decided by the

teacher. However, outside the class, she needs to take a turn by herself to join a conversation. When

she was asked what ability she needed to develop in order to get into this conversation, she

commented, 「場数と即興力かな?」(Experience and spontaneous response?) When she was already in

the discussion, she might be able to signal her intention to take a turn by raising her hand; however,

it seems that it was difficult for her to find a split second pause between turns (i.e., ‘transition

relevance place’ Sacks et. al., 1974). Moreover, she added that she would learn more expressions

and practice more in her English lessons, which suggests that she seems to believe that she would

be able to get into a conversation through improving her linguistic competence and gaining more

similar experiences. However, unless she understands that there is a system in conversation and that

turn-taking system varies across cultures as well as within a culture (Sacks et al., 1974; Yamada,

1992), it might be still difficult for her to join a similar conversation even if she becomes more

fluent.

4.2.3 Sociocultural problems.

Neustupný (1997, 2003) has argued that successful interaction entails not only

grammatical (i.e., linguistic) and sociolinguistic competence but also sociocultural competence.

Sociocultural competence is “competence to apply rules of culture other than grammatical or

sociolinguistic rules” (Neustupný, 1997, p. 2). A message may not make sense if it is not placed in a

social and cultural context that enables someone else to interpret it.

The participants of this study noted several deviations relating to sociocultural norms.

Some deviations were reported as overall impressions, such as “Japanese decision-making is slow”

(NJM1, NJM2, and NJF1) and “Japanese people are actually loose about time” (NJF3). Moreover,

JN1 commented on sociocultural aspects:

「当たり前のところがどこかって、国によって違うと思いますし。（中略）英語がすごく話せ

ても、わかんないとうまくいかない。」(What is take-it-for-granted knowledge? I think it

depends on the country…Even if you speak English really fluently, you might not be

able to communicate smoothly without this kind of knowledge.).

The participants of this study noted deviations regarding meetings, time, space, religion, ideology,

gender, and family.

9

For instance, JM2, who is a Japanese fashion buyer at a TV shopping who operates in five

countries, such as the States and Italy, reported the interaction he had with his American vice

president. When they were preparing for the winter promotion, the vice president told his staff

members that they should stop selling fur jackets and coats, because they needed to take the animal

rights movement in the American and European markets into account. JM2 thought:

「日本で毛皮は売れているし、簡単にフェイクファーで数字はとれない。あほか。」(In the

Japanese market, fur sells a lot. We cannot fill the sales quota with fake fur. Are you a fool?)

He commented:

「感情が入る激しい議論になりましたね。文化の違いというか考え方が大きく違う。 日 本 の マ

ーケットをわかっていない。」(The discussion became emotional and aggressive. It was a cultural

difference or rather both of us had very different ways of thinking. He doesn’t understand the

Japanese market at all.)

A few days later, he convinced the vice president to continue selling fur jackets showing

some supporting data. However, JM2 still did not seem to understand why the vice president tried to

implement this policy even though the animal rights movement is not very active in Japan. This

example illustrates a perception gap relating to ideology and the economy. For the American vice

president, animal rights outweigh profits, whereas for JM2, this ideology is not as important as

sacrificing sales. Even if both of them knew where the perception gap came from, it would still be

very difficult to understand how deep and important the value that the other party held was.

5. Concluding Discussion

As these examples have shown, the findings of this study reveal that first, although

various problems were reported, it was difficult for the participants to accurately identify the source

of those problems. Some participants were unable to notice that a problem had ever occurred.

Second, when sociolinguistic and sociocultural problems were noted, they were almost always

blamed the other party. Third, the participants seem to believe that they would be able to handle

those problems better as they improve their linguistic competence and are exposed to features in

various speech events. However, exposure to intercultural interaction does not automatically result

in improving their ability of interacting with people from different backgrounds (Feng, 2009).

Therefore, as Byram (1997) has argued, the findings of this study suggest that Japanese

business professionals should focus not only on their linguistic competence rather on critical

10

cultural awareness. One of the feasible ways to develop critical cultural awareness might be

self-reflective approach, which allows learners to see similarities and differences in relation to their

own culture and encourage them to mediate different perspectives (Kramsch, 1993; McKay, 2002).

Considering the fact that the Japanese workplace is not monolingually Japanese nor English

anymore, with repeated practices (cf. Appendix 1&2: Suggested lesson plan and student handout,

Aikawa, 2015), Japanese learners of English regardless of age and proficiency levels might need to

develop meaning-making process to look at the unknown in relation to one’s own language and

culture and to mediate different perspectives in order to work with their colleagues and business

partners from different backgrounds collaboratively.

References

Aikawa, H. (2015). Intercultural communicative competence for the workplace: Problems faced by

Japanese business professionals and suggestions for teaching

English-as-an-international-language. Unpublished MA thesis. Tokyo: Sophia

University.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedone:

Multilingual Matters.

Du-Babcock, B., & Tanaka, H. (2013). A comparison of the communication behaviours of Hong

Kong Chinese and Japanese business professionals in intracultural and intercultural

decision-making meetings. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 27,

263-287.

Fairbrother, L. (2015a). The ‘multiform’ linguistic, sociolinguistic and sociocultural practices of

plurilingual employees in European multinationals in Japan. The Japanese Journal of

Language in Society, 18(1), 162-175.

Fairbrother, L. (2015b). Language management in the Japanese workplace. In W. Davis & E.

Ziegler (Eds.), Language planning and microlinguistics: From policy to interaction and

vice versa (pp. 186-203). Baingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Feng, A. (2009). Becoming interculturally competent in a third space. In A. Feng, M. Byram & M.

Fleming (Eds.), Becoming interculturally competence through education and training

(pp. 71-91). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Fujio, M. (2004). Silence during intercultural communication: A case study. Corporate

Communication, 9(4), 331-339.

Japan Economic Research Center. (2011, July 11). Eigoryoku no bihaindo ga maneku kokusai

kyōsouryoku no teika [The decline of competitiveness in the international market due to a

11

lack of English proficiency] Retrieved from

http://www.jcer.or.jp/report/econ100/pdf/econ100bangai20110711data.pdf.

小坂貴志 (2011). 英語ビジネスコミュニケーションの新パラダイム-グローバル日本企業の社内英語化方針

に関する議論の分析と一考察. The Kanda Journal of Global and Area Studies, 2, 15-39.

Kramsh, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Kubota, R. (2013). ‘Language is only a tool’: Japanese expatriates working in China and

implications for language teaching. Multilingual Education, 3(4).

Marriot, H. (1990). Intercultural business negotiations: The problem of norm discrepancy. Journal

of the Association of teachers of Japanese, 27(2). 161-175.

McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and

approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Miller, L. (1994). Japanese and American indirectness. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication,

5(1&2), 37-55.

Miller, L. (1995). Two aspects of Japanese American co-worker interaction: Giving instructions and

creating rapport. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31(2), 141-161.

Miller, L. (2008). Negative Assessments in Japanese-American workplace. In In H. Spencer-Oatey

(Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 227-240).

London: New York: Continuum.

Neustupný, J.V. (1994). Nihon kenkyū no hōhōron: Dētā shūshū no dankai [A methodology for

Japanese studies: The stage of data collection]. Machikaneyama Ronsō: Nihongogakuhen,

28, 1-24.

Neustupný, J. V. (1997). Teaching communication or teaching interaction? Intercultural

Communication, 10.

Neustupný, J.V. (2003). Japanese students in Prague. Problems of communication and interaction.

International Journal of the Sociology of Language 162, 125-143.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of

turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.

ソフィア会. (2013, October 25). 卒業生を対象とした英語使用状況に関するアンケート」集計結果報告. 上

智大学言語教育研究センター. Retrieved from

http://www.sophiakai.gr.jp/news/news/2013/2013101102.html?mn=20131024

Tanaka, H. (2009). Japan. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini (Ed.), The handbook of business discourse.

332-344.

Yamada, H. (1992). American and Japanese business discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

12

Appendix 1: Suggested Lesson Plan for Business Professionals

1. Title: Conversational style

2. Level: Intermediate and above

3. Goals: This lesson is designed for learners to acknowledge that although people seemingly talk

to each other as they want, in fact there is a system, which governs the conversation. Learners

will also consider how turn-taking and pausing could affect their conversation practices by

reflecting on their own turn-taking, and further explore how they could interact with people

who have different turn-taking systems in contact situations. Moreover, learner will consider

different styles and functions of meetings.

4. Structure of this lesson:

Activity Purpose

1 Warm-up

discussion

Introduce a familiar situation relating to the topic (i.e.,

chatting with their colleague in the office)

Self-reflect on their own interaction in the situation

2 Critical incident

1

Consider why it can be difficult to get into a

conversation in a contact situation

Introduce the concept of turn-taking

Self-reflect on their own turn-taking in a similar

situation

3 Experimental

activity

Practice getting into a conversation

Explore some strategies to join a conversation

4 Critical incident

2

Consider norms and expectations relating to

participation in meetings highlighting turn-taking and

behaviors after taking turns

Self-reflect on their own meetings and explore possible

adjustments

13

Appendix 2: Student Handout

Cultural Dimensions: Conversational Style

1. Work in pairs and discuss the following questions.

1) Do you chat with your colleagues in the office?

2) What do you usually talk about?

3) If you saw your colleagues chatting and laughing in the hallway, would you

join the conversation?

2. Critical incident 1

1) What do you think is happening here? Listen to the case and fill in the blank.

Miki is an experienced Japanese researcher who works for a consumer goods company. She’s

never studied abroad, but she is an advanced-level English speaker. She ( ) attends

an international conference and is always ( ) in discussion conducted in English. One

day, she attended international conferences in Yokohama. After the presentations, there was a

small ( ). She chatted with some people from different companies and research

organizations and saw an Australian researcher she knows talking with some researchers

including a Japanese researcher. Since they were talking about her ( ), she

wanted to say hello to the Australian researcher and join the conversation. Although she

( ) get into the conversation, she wasn’t able to speak to the group even though she

( ) understood what they were talking about. She was disappointed that she missed

this opportunity and asked herself, “Is my English that bad?”

2) Work in pairs and discuss the following questions.

What seems to be the problem?

Why do you think she wasn’t able to join the conversation?

If you were her, what would you do?

Have you ever had a similar experience?

14

3. Activity for strategy development

Was it easy to get into the conversation?

What did you do to join the conversation?

4. Critical incident 2: What do you think is happening here?

Aya works for a multinational company. Her boss is American and half of the team members

are from different countries. Although it is still challenging for her to attend a meeting conducted in

English, she’s always well-prepared and expresses her opinions in the weekly meeting. Today, her

team discussed a new project proposal. Her foreign colleagues actively participated in the

discussion. Since she had the same ideas as one of her colleagues, she said, “John, that’s a great

idea. I totally agree with you. We should do it”, but she didn’t say much for the rest of the

discussion. After the meeting, she briefly talked with John about the proposal, but she got the

feeling that he wasn’t very happy with her. She asked herself, “I clearly expressed my opinion and

supported his ideas. What should I have done?”

What did she do in the meeting?

What did other people do in the meeting?

Why do you think John wasn’t satisfied with her behavior at the meeting?

What seems to be the problem?

What do you think she should have done?

How are your meetings? Have you noticed any similarities or differences between Aya’s

meetings and yours?

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

15

Designing a CLIL curriculum for Japanese EFL learners

Jason McEvoy (Sophia University)

With CLIL approaches gaining in popularity and an increasing number of schools adopting

the methodology in Japan, it is necessary to establish a framework for creating quality CLIL

materials. Despite this need, there is very little research which focuses on CLIL material

development from a design perspective (Coyle et al. 2010). In addition, research suggests that the

availability of ready-made CLIL materials is scarce (Alonso, Grisalena & Campo, 2008; Maley,

2011; Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols, 2008), therefore the responsibility falls to educators to create

quality CLIL materials. In response to the current situation, a material development project was

implemented to highlight the process of CLIL material design, and to provide a template for CLIL

educators in Japan, to create their own CLIL materials appropriate for the needs of their learners.

This report provides a summary of that process.

Building a framework

The CLIL course that was created for the present project was based on the curriculum

design model by Nation and Macalister (2010). The model is comprised of three components,

principles, environment, and needs. The principles section of the model consists of the goals of the

course, the content to be taught, its sequencing, and the format and presentation of the lessons.

Information related to the context of the learners, how many sessions the course will have and the

focus of each lesson make up the environmental aspect of the model. Moreover, the needs section

takes into account the needs of the learners’ current language level, and the areas in which they lack

the required skills.

Principles

Coyle’s 4Cs framework (Coyle et al. 2010) was used as the foundation of creating the CLIL

materials. Additionally, Tomlinson’s (2011) principles of material development were referred to

during the design process. Tomlinson provides a vast amount of principles for developing quality

materials. For the current course, the following principles were followed:

1) Materials must have an impact on the learners. This impact can be a result of the cognitively

demanding tasks, the content, or the visual style of the materials.

2) Materials must make the learner feel that what they are learning has some relevance in their

lives.

16

3) Materials must strive to be authentic which can be accomplished through the texts that the

learners are studying, and the given instructions.

4) Materials should provide learners with a goal to attain, and provide feedback, rather than just

having students practicing the language aspects.

Psychology was chosen for the content of the course as it fulfills the necessary criteria

proposed with Coyle’s 4Cs framework. To elaborate, Psychology is a science and therefore

provides an opportunity for critical thinking through analyzing theories, studies and data, this

fulfills the criteria that content must be cognitively demanding in CLIL. Further, although learners

may have limited knowledge of psychology, each learner has an innate awareness of the topics as

they are grounded within everyday human interactions, thus the content is meaningful and has

relevance to the learner’s lives. Also, the content of the course enables leaners to develop an

awareness of the content through different cultural perspectives. The final principle of the model

was to incorporate a task-based teaching approach to provide students with an opportunity to

participate in authentic and meaningful communication. The reasoning behind the inclusion stems

from the notion that TBLT and CLIL share similar underlying features and the cooperative nature

of both approaches can be utilized for significant benefits.

Environment

The students for which the CLIL materials were created for were delineated as B1

proficiency on the common European scale of reference (CEFR). Through a needs analysis, it was

revealed that the students were competent in their listening and comprehension skills, however they

felt they needed to improve their ability to communicate effectively and express opinions.

Therefore, communicative tasks with a heavy focus on group work were implemented into the

course and the following goals were decided upon:

1) Students will learn interesting, cognitively demanding content through topics in Psychology.

2) Students will be able to develop their ability and confidence in expressing opinions and critically

discussing topics.

3) Ultimately the course will aim to increase students’ motivation and interests in learning through a

foreign language.

Selecting the appropriate content

When creating materials, it is important to be aware that materials are dependent on the

needs of the learners for whom the materials are intended for. The materials effectiveness will vary

depending on the context, for this reason, the first step in the design process was to conduct a needs

analysis for the learners and the content to be taught. This was accomplished through informal

17

interviews for each student which lasted approximately 20 minutes. During the interviews, students

were asked what they felt their strengths and weaknesses were in studying English, what skills they

want to improve upon, what they want to study about, and what topics they are interested in. The

data gathered from this process was taken into account and tailored towards during the curriculum

design process. Moreover, research into current psychology texts was conducted to generate an

idea of what content would be appropriate for including in the CLIL course. As the course aimed

to provide an introduction to the content, the present author, using their own academic background

in the subject, and through their experience in interacting with the students, selected the content

which would engage interest and hold the most meaning within their lives. A list of aims of what

content needed to be covered was created and referred to during the process of selecting the

appropriate content. Psychology textbooks, websites, newspapers and social sciences magazines

were used as resources for selecting content. Furthermore, as the lessons aimed to provide

multi-modal input, video clips, audio tracks, and educational talks were selected from websites such

as YouTube and the TED website.

Once the content was decided upon, the next step involved deciding what language

aspects would be the focus of each lesson. In this context, as the needs analysis revealed that the

students needed to improve their discussion and critical thinking skills, language functions as

opposed to grammar were decided to be the primary language focus, and therefore were

implemented into the lessons. Some examples of the language functions were as follows: using

language to exchange information, give opinions, agreeing and disagreeing, building on previous

ideas, and formulating ideas.

Creating the materials

PowerPoint slides were used as the primary method of providing input and acting as a

foundation for the content to be presented and taught to the learners through activating their prior

knowledge by means of asking questions, pair shares and brainstorming tasks. After incorporating

all the content onto the slides and determining the structure of the lesson, the next step consisted of

creating the worksheets and the tasks of the lessons. Initially, using the principles that activating

prior knowledge and relating content to learner’s real-life contexts are a necessity in CLIL, these

were included as introductory tasks on the worksheets. Methods such as brainstorming through

mind maps, clustering information, asking for personal experience in pair shares, completing

targets, using visuals, summarizing video clips, eliciting responses, and discussions were used in

activating prior knowledge. Furthermore, main tasks for each lesson with the purpose of facilitating

communication and group work were decided upon, some examples include information gaps,

dictogloss, interviews, role plays, and jigsaw activities.

18

To ensure that the content selected for the materials was not too cognitively demanding

for the learners, the CEFR was constantly referred to in determining whether the input was

appropriate for their language ability. In the cases where the materials had to be adapted for the

learners, McDonough and Shaw’s (2003) framework for adapting materials was used. In regards to

the adaptation of reading material, methods consisted of shortening the text, rewriting and changing

the vocabulary into suitable synonyms, providing titles to break up the paragraphs and make

reading the text easier, and highlighting vocabulary and language forms to draw attention to these

features. Lastly, pre reading tasks such as scanning the text for information, pair discussions on

experience related to the topic, prediction questions, and describing visuals to illicit responses about

what the main idea of the text is, were included as alternative means of scaffolding and adapting

the text.

The CLIL materials checklist

After implementing CLIL materials, it is important to evaluate their effectiveness through

student questionnaires and keeping a reflective journal to record any observations from the

teacher’s perspective. Although it is the needs of the learners which dictate how educators develop

and create materials, the following principles provided can be used as a foundation for creating

CLIL materials:

1) The topics for CLIL materials should build upon each other to allow students to form

connections and deepen their understanding. In a sense thread between tasks must be created, this

will help students develop an awareness to see beyond the topics they are learning and make

connections which are not explicitly stated.

2) CLIL materials should incorporate a variety of media such as newspapers, videos, audio

tracks, music, the internet, projectors etc. Further, they should utilize and adapt authentic materials.

3) The lesson goals and the content to be studied should be made explicit to the students and

allow for them to monitor their own progress. This can be accomplished through providing a

handout and a checklist with the goals of the lesson in regards to content and language which they

must achieve.

4) Worksheets should incorporate graphics that improve understanding, raise interest, and

have the appropriate amount of white space for accomplishing tasks and taking notes.

5) The content and tasks should have some meaning within the context of the learner’s lives

and should stimulate some emotional connection. They must reflect the needs of the learners, be

cognitively challenging, and foster critical thinking.

6) CLIL materials must strive to activate the students’ prior knowledge.

19

References

Alonso, E., Grisalena, J., & Campo, A. (2008). Plurilingual education in secondary schools:

Analysis of results. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (1), 36-49.

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maley, A. (2011). Squaring the circle – reconciling materials as constraint with materials as

empowerment. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching, (2nd

ed). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

McDonough, J. & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishers.

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: content and language integrated

learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan publishers Ltd.

Nation, P. & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York: Routledge.

Tomlinson, B. (2011). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

―――――――――――――――――――――

ASTE第196回例会

スピーチの聞き取りやすさ向上を目指した発音教育とは？

音声面に焦点をあてたプレゼンテーション授業の実践報告

齋藤 雪絵

（立教大学ランゲージセンター教育講師 テンプル大学博士後期課程）

1 はじめに

近年、ビジネスだけでなく様々な分野においてプレゼンテーション能力の必要性が問われ

る中、そのニーズに応えるため英語プレゼンテーションの授業が多くの英語教育において

積極的に取り入れられている。プレゼンテーションの授業では、内容構成、パワーポイン

トスライドなどの視覚資料、そして表現（伝え方）の三要素を柱に指導するのが一般的で

あるが、表現力に含まれる、声の抑揚、特に日本語とは異なる英語のリズム、イントネー

ションを効果的にプレゼンテーションに取り入れることは学習者にとって容易ではない。

実際、発音指導の難しさといった教員側の理由に加え、時間的制約から、音声面に焦点を

あてたプレゼンテーションの指導はあまり行われていない。こうした背景を踏まえ、本研

20

究会では、まず発音に関する先行研究を概括した上で、大学１年生を対象の、音声面に着

目したプレゼンテーション授業の実践報告を行った。

2 発音研究の概要

2-1 発音とは何か

英語音声教育における発音とは主に、分節音、超分節音、音声変化の三つに分けて論じ

られることが多い。分節音 (segmentals) は母音・子音などの個々の音を指すのに対して、

超分節音 (suprasegmentals) とは、個々の音（分節）を超えたレベルでの音声的特徴のこと

で、ストレス・イントネーションなどを含む。音声変化は、connected speechとも呼ばれ、

脱落 (deletion)、同化 (assimilation)、連結 (linking) などが含まれる。また、音声変化は超

分節音として分類されることもある (遠山, 2012)。本研究では超分節音（ストレス・リズ

ム・イントネーション）に焦点を当てたが、その理由については後に記述する。

2-2 発音指導の実態

「発音」「発音指導」と聞いて、まずどのような印象を持つだろうか。学習者からは「日

本人には難しい」「あまり意識したことがない」、また教員からは「発音指導を行う時間

がない」「どのように教えたら良いのか分からない」といったやや否定的な声を聞くこと

が多いのではないだろうか。実際、カナダで行われた教員の発音指導に関する意識調査で

は (Breikreutz, Derwing, & Rossiter, 2001)、彼らのほとんどが発音指導の重要性を認識して

いるにも関わらず、時間的、制度的な制約から、また発音指導に関する専門的な知識の欠

如から、定期的に授業内に組み込むことは難しいと感じていることが明らかになった。似

たような結果が、同じカナダで10年後に実施された調査でも判明しており (Foote, Holtby,

& Derwing, 2011)、アメリカ (Darcy, Ewert, & Lidster, 2012) やイギリス (Burgess & Spencer,

2000) での実態にも共通点が多く見受けられる。こうしたESL環境で行われた研究では、教

員向けの発音指導養成プログラムの必要性が繰り返し指摘されている。日本での発音指導

の現状を包括的に調査した事例はまだないが、発音指導に関する研修不足がやはり研究者

の間で問題視されている (Kashiwagi & Snyder, 2014)。

もう一つの問題は、「発音指導は英語を母語とする教員が行う」という前提が根強いこ

とである。語彙や文法習得に比べて、発音習得は個人の英語学習開始年齢に大きく影響を

受けるため (Ioup, 2008)、自分の英語を発音のモデルとして学習者に提示することを躊躇す

る非母語話者教員も多い (Murphy, 2014)。事実、発音指導の効果を検証した先行研究のほ

ぼ全てにおいて、その指導は英語を母語とする教員によって行われていた。

この点に焦点をあてた最近の面白い研究がある (Levis, Sonsaat, Link, & Barriuso, 2016)。

英語母語話者教員（アメリカ人）、非母語話者教員（トルコ人）によって指導を受けた二

つのクラス（各クラス16名の学習者）を比較した結果、学習者はスピーキング、特に発音

21

指導者として英語母語話者教員を好む傾向があったが、33名のアメリカ人による

comprehensibility （聞き取りやすさ）の評価において二つのグループ間の有意差は見られ

なかった。この論文では、発音指導の効果も他の言語項目と同様、教員の母語ではなくむ

しろ彼らの教授力 (knowledgeable teaching practices) に左右されると結論づけられている。

英語非母語話者による発音指導の効果に関しては十分に検証されていないため、今後も

Levis et al. (2016) のような研究が望まれる。

2-3 発音指導の目標

発音研究において、一般的に学習者のスピーキング能力を測るために、accentedness（外

国語訛り）、 intelligibility （理解度）、comprehensibility （聞き取りやすさ）の評価基準

が用いられている (Derwing, Munro, & Wiebe, 1998)。以下の図１はそれらの定義、測定方法

をまとめたものである。外国語訛りと聞き取りやすさは、リッカート尺度を使用し評価者

の主観に基づいて判断されるのに対し、理解度は主に、聞き手が実際に聞き取った文章と

元の英文を照らし合わせた上での一致度として測定され、より客観的な尺度と見なされて

いる。

図１ Accentedness, intelligibility, and comprehensibility (Derwing & Munro, 2015; Derwing et al., 1998)

定義 主な測定方法

Accentedness

（外国語訛り）

The degree to which a speech is different from a

native-speaker model

Human ratings

（主観的判断）

Intelligibility

（理解度）

The degree of match between a speakers’ intended

message and the listeners’ comprehension

Transcription

（聞き取り）

Comprehensibility

（聞き取りやすさ）

The ease of difficulty a listener experiences in

understanding an utterance

Human ratings

（主観的判断）

Levis (2005) は、発音指導における目標を Nativeness PrincipleとIntelligibility Principleの二

つに分けて論じている。前者では、英語学習者の発話をなるべく英語母語話者に近づける

こと、つまり学習者の外国語訛りを減らすことが重要視されてきた。一方、後者では、学

習者の発話の理解度や聞き取りやすさを向上させることが目標とされている。国際語とし

ての英語が広まり、英語非母語話者の数が英語母語話者の数をはるかに上回る昨今におい

て (Crystal, 2003)、発音指導の目標はNativenessからIntelligibility Principleへと移行している。

なお、「聞き取りやすさ」とは多面的な概念であり、発音だけでなく、語彙、文法、流暢

さといった様々な言語分野が複雑に聞き手の評価に影響を与えるという点も留意すべきで

ある (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2012)。

22

目標設定におけるもう一つの重要な課題として、分節音と超分節音のどちらを優先すべ

きか、という問題がある。もちろん両方をバランス良く指導することが理想的であるが、

限られた教室内の時間の中で、どちらに重きをおくかについては様々な議論がなされてき

た。近年では、以下のような理由により、超分節音を重視する傾向が見られる。

分節音の誤りは、超分節音を効果的に使うことによって補足できる (Gilbert, 2012)。

超分節音の誤りは、分節音の誤り以上に、発話全体としての聞き取りやすさを低

下させる傾向にある (Kang, Rubin, & Pickering, 2010)。

超分節音を重視した指導は、分節音を重視した指導に比べて、より効果的に学習

者の聞き取りやすさを向上させる (Derwing et al., 1998)。

分節音の正確性は、上級英語話者に求められるのに対し、超分節音の正確性はレ

ベルに関係なく、初中級者にも重要な課題である (Saito, Trofimovich, & Isaacs, 2015)。

以上の研究結果に基づき、本研究においても指導対象を分節音ではなく超分節音に絞り、

その中でも、ストレス、リズム、イントネーションの三項目に着目した。

2-4 ストレス、リズム、イントネーションとは

議論をさらに進める前に、ここで本研究の指導対象であるストレス、リズム、イントネ

ーションについて簡単に説明しておきたい (竹林 & 斎藤, 2007参照)。

１）ストレス

ストレス (stress) は語アクセント、語強勢とも呼ばれ、2音節以上の単語において最も強

く読まれる音節のことを指す。日本語ではアクセントは声の高低を用いて発音されるが、

英語ではストレスは声の高さだけでなく、母音の強さ、長さの三要素を用いて発音される

のが特徴である。

２）リズム

単語内で強く読まれる音節と弱く読まれる音節があるのと同じように、文中においても

また、強く読まれる単語と弱く読まれる単語がある。強く読まれる単語のことを文ストレ

ス (sentence stress)、または文アクセントと呼び、名詞・形容詞・動詞・副詞などの内容語

(content word) がこれにあたる。一方、冠詞、代名詞、助動詞、接続詞といった機能語 (function

word) は文中では弱く読まれる。この文中での強弱のパターンをリズムと呼び、英語では

日本語と異なり、ストレスがほぼ均一な時間的間隔で繰り返される傾向にある。

３）イントネーション

イントネーションとは、文全体に及ぶ声の高さ（ピッチ）の変動を指す。その役割はさ

まざまで、話者の心情を表す心情態度機能 (attitudinal function)、句や節の切れ目や、平叙

文と疑問文の違いを明らかにする文法的機能 (grammatical function)、話題の転換を合図し、

情報の新旧を分かりやすくする談話的機能 (discoursal function) がある。今回の発音指導で

は、１）句、文の終わりのピッチパターン、主に下降調 (fall) と上昇調 (rise) の区別と、

23

２）情報の焦点を明らかにするために、最も重要な単語 (核音節、nucleus) においてピッ

チを急激に下降または上昇させる点を指導に取り入れた。

2-5英語プレゼンテーションにおける発音指導の重要性

今まで、発音指導の実態とその目標について見てきたが、ここでは英語プレゼンテーシ

ョン授業に発音指導を取り入れる意義について考えてみたい。発音指導により学習者のス

ピーキングの聞き取りやすさを向上させることは、言語習得全般における目標の一つであ

る。特にプレゼンテーションでは、発表内容を聞き手に効果的に伝えることが重要であり、

聞き手に合わせたペース配分、重要な情報を強調するための声の高さや大きさの変化など

が求められる。プレゼンテーションの授業でよく使用されている教科書Speaking of Speech

(Harrington & LeBeau, 2009) では、声の変化 (voice inflection) というユニットの中で、

stressing a word or phrase、stretching a word or phase、pausing before a word or phraseが紹介さ

れている。

また、超分節音の効果的使用が、プレゼンテーションのみならずスピーキング評価の向

上につながるという研究結果も出ている。一般的に、英語非母語話者の声のピッチ使用域、

すなわち一番高い声と一番低い声の間の差は、英語母語話者と比べて狭いことが分かって

おり (Mori, 2011)、ピッチ使用域を広くすることで、聞き手の発表に対する評価が高まる

とされている (Hincks & Edlund, 2009)。また、聞き手は、情報の新旧や対比を目立たせる

ための核音節 (nucleus) が欠如した、あるいは誤った文章に比べて、それが正しく置かれ

た文章の内容をより多く覚えていたという研究もある (Hanh, 2004)。

これらのことから、英語プレゼンテーション授業における発音指導は、学習者の表現力、

さらにはスピーキング能力全般（聞き取りやすさ）の向上につながると考えられ、その重

要性が認識されつつある。

3 大学における授業実践報告

3-1 基本情報

以下は、ある私立大学での必修英語プレゼンテーションの2クラスで実施した発音指導の

実践報告をまとめたものである。対象学生は大学1年生で、クラスA は初級 (16名、TOEIC

300点前後)、クラスBは初中級 (18名、TOEIC 420点前後) であった。発音指導は1学期間 (14

週) のうち、6週間にわたり、授業の開始から30分間、筆者が用意した補助教材を用いて行

われた（図２参照）。リズムに関しては、学生がストレスについての理解を深めた上で11

週目に導入した。また学習効果を高めるため、イントネーションとストレスを交互に扱い、

各指導のはじめには、先の授業で扱った内容を簡単に復習した。指導効果の詳しい検証結

果はSaito & Saito (2016) に掲載しており、この報告書では、具体的な指導内容と、学生の

反応に焦点をあてて論じる。

24

図２ 全6回の発音指導の内容

指導1 5週目 イントネーション 下降調と上昇調の違い

指導2 6週目 ストレス 英語におけるストレスのつけ方

指導3 7週目 イントネーション 核音節

指導4 8週目 ストレス 弱母音(ə)、can/can’tの違い

指導5 9週目 イントネーション 下降調と上昇調の違い、核音節

指導6 11週目 ストレス・リズム 内容語と機能語の違い

3-2 授業内容

発音指導は、主に以下４つの流れに沿って行われた(図３、図４)。

図３ ストレスを例にした指導の流れ

1. 日本語と英語の違いを意識し

た明示的指導

英語でのストレスは、日本語とは異なり、強く・長

く・高く発音されることを説明する。弱音(ə)につい

ても言及し、教員の後に続いて繰り返し練習する。

2. 言語形式に焦点をあてた活動 多音節語のストレスを見つけ、意識しながら読む。

can/can’tの聞き分けをペアで行う。

3. コミュニケーション活動の中

での練習（ペア活動）

Iを主語に、can/can’tを使った文章を書き、何ができ

るのか、できないのかをペアで聞きあう。

4. コミュニケーション活動の中

での練習（プレゼンテーション）

自分の書いたプレゼンテーション原稿の中で多音節

語をチェックし、ストレスを意識しながら練習する。

図４ リズムを例にした指導の流れ

1. 日本語と英語の違いを意識し

た明示的指導

日本語と異なり、英語の文中では強く読まれる単語

と弱く読まれる単語があることに注目させ、その違

いについて気付かせる（内容語と機能語）。

2. 言語形式に焦点をあてた活動 内容語と機能語を見分ける練習を行う。新聞の見出

しは機能語が省略されていることにも言及する。

There will be more power cuts.

Six people were killed in the explosion.

リズムを意識しながらペアで文章を読む。

The

●

MICE

MICE have

●

CHASE

CHASED

●

CHEESE

CHEESE

25

The MICE will CHASE the CHEESE

3. コミュニケーション活動の中

での練習（ペア活動）

What makes you happy? What makes you tired? などの

身近な質問にペアで答えさせる。教員は、強弱が意

識された話し方ができているかをモニターし、適宜

フィードバックを与える。

4. コミュニケーション活動の中

での練習（プレゼンテーション）

プレゼンテーションで使われるフレーズを見て、内

容語に下線を引き、リズムを意識しながら練習する。

In this presentation, I want to cover three points.

This graph shows the annual sales have been increasing.

ほぼ全ての学生が日本語母語話者であったため、まず日本語と英語の違いに注目しなが

ら、各超分節音の基本的なルールについて説明し、その後学生は教員のモデルに続いて反

復練習を行った（明示的指導）。次に、言語形式に焦点を当てた練習活動を繰り返した。

ここまでは、言語形式のみに焦点をあてた伝統的な発音指導と同じであるが、習得した言

語形式を実際のコミュニケーション活動の中でも使えるようにするために、今回の指導で

は、意味重視の活動の中での練習も積極的に取り入れた。最後に、プレゼンテーション活

動との連携を図るため、実際のプレゼンテーションの原稿を用いて、学習した言語形式の

復習を行った。

3-3 学生たちの反応

今回の指導対象となった2クラスの雰囲気はいずれも良好で、英語レベルはあまり高くな

いものの、学習意欲のある学生が多かった。毎回の発音指導に対する学生の反応は予想以

上に良好で、しっかりと声を出しながら熱心に課題に取り組んでいたのが印象的であった。

発音指導の一環として用いられる方法（マザーグースの詩の音読やジャズ音楽要素を取り

入れた英語のリズム学習）が主に幼児向けであることから、発音練習そのものを「幼稚な

もの」と見なし、敬遠する学生もいるのではという懸念もあったが、そのような学生はお

らず、むしろ積極的に、手拍子をとったり、机を鳴らしたりしながら、身体全体を使って

英語のリズムを習得しようとするものが多く見受けられた。

毎回の指導後の学生のコメントによると、ストレス・リズム・イントネーションについ

ては「何となく」理解はしていたが、今まで明示的な指導を受けたことがなかったと記述

したものが目立った。また、事前に学生に協力を求めた英語学習に関するアンケートの中

でも、中高6年間の英語教育では、文法や語彙指導が重要視され、発音に関しての扱いはほ

とんどなかったと書かれていた。6週間の指導後、ある男子学生は、以下のコメントを寄せ

ている。

26

イントネーションの高低は意識したことがなかったのですごく勉強になった。ア

クセントはセンター試験の第１問でしか使わないと思っていたので、今後は自分

のプレゼンテーションに活かしたい。

上記のコメントにあるように、ストレスに関しては、大学入試センター試験の第１問で、

第一アクセントの位置が他の選択肢と異なる単語を選ぶという設問が毎年4題ほど出題さ

れていることから、受験のために勉強したという学生も2-3名ほどいた。その学習方法は、

入試出題頻度の高い多音節語をリスト化したものを音読し、その第一アクセントの位置を

暗記するというものである。しかし、言語形式にのみ重点を置いた暗記学習で得たストレ

スに関する知識は、単なる「受験のために必要な知識」として認識されてしまう傾向があ

り、実際のスピーキングにどのように役立つのかについてはほとんど教えられていない。

超分節音が学習者のスピーキング能力（聞き取りやすさ）に及ぼす影響については先行研

究でも報告されている通りであり (Kang et al., 2010)、発音習得がスピーキングをはじめと

する英語スキルの向上にいかに結び付くのかを提示することで、学習者のモチベーション

を高め、より大きな指導の効果を期待できると考える。実際、多くの学生が今回学んだ知

識を、自分のプレゼンテーションに活かしたいと述べていた。

イントネーション・リズムに関しては、yes/no疑問文と、wh-疑問文ではイントネーショ

ンのパターンが異なること、英語のリズムは主に内容語と機能語の強弱で構成されている

ことを初めて知ったという声も多かった。どちらも学習者の母語である日本語とは異なる、

英語の超分節音の特徴である。第二言語発音習得においては、音声的母語転移 (L1 transfer)

が多く見られるため、今回のように、学習者の母国語が共通している場合には、L1-L2の違

いに着目した指導方法は適切かつ効果的だと考える (Crowther, 2015)。

４ まとめ

冒頭でも述べたように、近年グローバル化が進む中で、ビジネスに限らず様々な場面に

おいて英語プレゼンテーション能力が求められるようになってきた。2020年の東京オリン

ピック開催に向けて、招致委員会がIOC総会にて英語でプレゼンテーションを行ったのは

記憶に新しい。プレゼンテーションでは、内容・スライドはもちろん、話者のメッセージ

を伝えたいという気持ちが特に重要であり、そのためには相手にとってより分かりやすい

話し方を心がけることが非常に大切である。本研究では、その一つとして超分節音（スト

レス・リズム・イントネーション）を取り上げ、大学1年生を対象に発音指導を実施した。

学生の授業参加への積極的な態度、コメントを見ても、今回の指導はある程度成功したと

言えるであろう。

27

日本の英語教育、とりわけ中高時代においては、発音に関する指導はあまり行われてい

ないことが多く、授業内に組み込まれていたとしても、発音習得がどのように英語運用に

役立つかといった点について言及されるケースは少ないようである。発音研究が盛んに行

われている英語圏の学習者とは異なり(e.g., Derwing, Munro, Foote, Waugh, & Fleming,

2014)、外国語として英語を学習している者にとっては、教室外での英語使用場面も限られ

ており、発音習得の必要性を実体験に基づいて認識することが難しいかもしれない。しか

し、着実に英語能力が問われる時代が近づいており、発音指導の意義、目標を学習者に明

確に提示した上で、できるだけ実際の英語使用場面に則した活動を取り入れた指導が今後

一層求められると考える。

参考文献

Breikreutz, J. A., Derwing, T. M., & Rossiter, M. J. (2001). Pronunciation teaching practices in

Canada. TESL Canadian Journal, 19(1), 51-61.

Burgess, J., & Spencer, S. (2000). Phonology and pronunciation in integrated language teaching and

teacher education. System, 28(2), 191-215.

Crowther, D. (2015). Using what you know: Can cross-linguistic instruction improve L2

pronunciation? Concordia Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 6, 27-45.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Darcy, I., Ewert, D., & Lidster, R. (2012). Bringing pronunciation instruction back into the

classroom: An ESL teachers' pronunciation "toolbox". In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.),

Proceedings of the 3rd pronunciation in second language learning and teaching conference

(pp. 93-108). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives

for L2 teaching and research. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Foote, J. A., Waugh, E., & Fleming, J. (2014). Opening the window

on comprehensible pronunciation after 19 years: A workplace training study. Language

Learning, 64(3), 526-548.

Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for

pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48(3), 393-410.

Foote, J. A., Holtby, A. K., & Derwing, T. M. (2011). Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in

adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canadian Journal, 29(1), 1-22.

Gilbert, J. B. (2012). Clear speech: Pronunciation and listening comprehension in North American

English (4th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hanh, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of

28

suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223.

Harrington, D., & LeBeau, C. (2009). Speaking of speech (New ed.). Tokyo, Japan: Macmillan.

Hincks, R., & Edlund, J. (2009). Promoting increased pitch variation in oral presentations with

transient visual feedback. Language Learning and Technology, 13(3), 32-50.

Ioup, G. (2008). Exploring the role of age in the acquisition of a second language phonology. In J. G.

Hansen Edwards & M. L., Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp.

41-62). Amesterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2012). Deconstructing comprehensibility. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 34(3), 475-505.

Kang, O., Rubin, D. O. N., & Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and

judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. The Modern Language Journal,

94(4), 554-566.

Kashiwagi, A., & Snyder, M. (2014). Intelligibility of Japanese college freshmen as listened to by

native and nonnative listeners. JACET Journal, 58, 39-56.

Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL

Quarterly, 39(3), 369-377.

Levis, J. M., Sonsaat, S., Link, S., & Barriuso, T. A. (2016). Native and nonnative teachers of L2

pronunciation: Effects on learner erformance. TESOL Quarterly. Advance online

publication.

Mori, Y. (2011). Shadowing with oral reading: Effects of combined training on the improvement of

Japanese EFL learners' prosody. Language Education and Technology, 48, 1-22.

Murphy, J. M. (2014). Intelligible, comprehensible, non-native models in ESL/EFL pronunciation

teaching. System, 42, 258-269.

Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2015). Second language speech production: Investigating

linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability

levels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(2), 1-24.

Saito, Y., & Saito, K. (2016). Differential effects of suprasegmental-based instruction on the

development of second language comprehensibility, word stress, rhythm, and intonation:

The case of inexperienced Japanese EFL learners. Unpublished manuscript.

竹林 滋・斎藤弘子 (2007)『英語音声学入門』新装版 大修館書店

遠山道子 (2012) 「日本人英語学習者のピッチ使用域の改善について：シャドーイング訓

練の効果を探る」『Linga』23, 77-96.

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

29

ASTE第197回例会

「動画配信授業でできること、できないこと」

大谷浩

西南女学院大学

はじめに

本発表では、筆者が主として2014年度に北九州工業高等専門学校で実施した動画配信授業

を紹介した。そしてその実践を振り返りながら、ICT技術はどのように従来型授業を変える

ことができるか、さらにICT技術だけで授業を進めたときの違和感は何かについても共有

し、改めて「授業」とはどうあるべきかについて考察した。発表の場ではうまく総括でき

なかったが、「ICT技術でまかなえるのはPassive Learningの部分であり、感情を持った人間

同士の活動を伴うことがActive Learningに不可欠な部分ではないか」と今では考えている。

なお、本稿は後日の考察を加えて論点を絞り、割愛及び加筆を施している。

動画配信授業の概要

筆者は、（株）教育情報サービスが開発したThinkBoardというソフトを用いて、従来授業

中に行っていた説明を事前に動画収録し、その動画を授業時間中に視聴させるという授業

形態を試みた。さっそく以下に示す数枚の画像をご覧頂きたい。

図１

30

図１は、パソコン教室に置いて、学生各自のパソコンに教科書上の学習ページを映しだし、

それに説明を加えている動画のキャプチャ画面である。筆者自身の声で解説し、黒板に板

書するようなイメージで書き込みを加えていくことができる。必要に応じて、参考となる

教科書以外の画像を追加することも可能である。（図２参照）

図２

教科書に限らず、問題集であれ辞書であれ、MS-WORDやPDFまたは写真など、電子ファ

イルとしてパソコンに取り込めば何でも使用できる。（図３，４参照）

31

図３

図４

このソフトを用いることで、学習者はパソコンモニターとヘッドセットを使って授業を受

けることができる。録画済みの動画なので、一度聞いて理解できなかった箇所は繰り返し

32

再生が可能であり、最初から全てを見直すこともできる。専用のプレーヤーでは再生速度

の調整が可能で、例えば1.5倍速で再生すれば、その分時間を短縮できる。（iPadやスマー

トフォンを含め、いつでもどこでも視聴が可能であり、技術的には学習者達がCALL教室な

どの同じ場所に同じ時間帯に集まって視聴する必要はない。）図５と図６は、授業風景で

ある。

図５

33

図６

授業中は教室全体がとても静かで、私語もなく、学生達は説明を理解することに集中して

いる。従来型の授業では、特に学力の弱い者は、教科書のどの部分を説明しているかわか

っていないこともあるが、この方式では説明箇所が目の前に示されるので、その心配はな

い。あたかも、学生ひとり1人が個人指導を受けているかのようなイメージである。（発表

では、余談として「これはラーメンを食べることに集中させる、博多ラーメン一蘭の食事

形式に近い」と喩えた。）

34

学生達の反応

この授業形態に対する学生達の反応は概ね好意的であった。以下のアンケート結果をご覧

頂きたい。

5段階スケール（1：全くそう思わない 2：あまりそう思わない 3：どちらとも言えない

4：ある程度そう思う 5：強くそう思う）で、回答数は158である。

35

36

統計処理に的確でない部分もあるかもしれないが、受講学生達がこの授業形式を好意的に

受け止めていることは理解できる。

考察

このように見てくると、今回の動画配信授業はそれなりに成功しているように見える。授

業時間中に学習が進行し、学生達も概ね満足している。私語もなく集中度合いも高い。教

師は、授業時間内には大きな役割がないが、事前に時間をかけて質の高い動画を準備する

ことで、授業が学生達が活動する時間になっている。実際、当時の勤務校の公開授業では

「学生達が集中して各自のペースで学習しているのが素晴らしい。これはアクティブラー

ニングと言える」とコメントして下さった先生もいた。

37

しかし、発表のフロアからは「高度にパーソナライズされた授業、と言える反面、全てが

display活動に終始している」というご指摘を頂いた。筆者自身も今回実践した動画配信授

業は「従来の対面一斉型授業を、学習者個人のペースでユビキタス的に視聴できる点が一

番の強みだが、同時にそこで終わってしまっている」点に違和感を覚えていた。ただそれ

でも、授業において教師からの説明は必要なものであり、display活動自体が悪いわけでは

ない。

この動画配信授業でできたこと、そしてできなかったことは何であろうか？それはPassive

Learning とActive Learningという観点で説明できるのかもしれない。以下のLearning

Pyramid（図７）に照らしてみると、今回の動画授業が提供したものは、Lecture / Reading /

Audio-Visualであり、Active Learing形式授業の典型であるDiscussion やPractice by Doingなど

の学習活動は一切入ってこない。感じ続けた違和感はこの点だった、と今は認識している。

図７

Learning Pyramidは、学習定着率に関してActive LearningがPassive Learningより優位であるこ

とを示す資料としてよく用いられるが、Active LearningとPassive Learningの違いを端的に示

す図としても利用できる。つまり図７中の「受動的学習」は「個人の頭の中で進む学習」

38

であり、「能動的学習」は、「自分以外の人間との接点を通して進む学習」であることが

わかる。こう考えれば、動画配信授業はPassive Learningをサポートする授業形態と言える

かもしれない。「授業形態」というよりも個人学習の支援ツールと位置づける方が適切か

もしれない。

おわりに

今回ASTEで発表の機会を頂き、またNewsletter執筆の機会を頂き、過去の授業実践を改め

て振り返ることができた。ICT技術を使うことで、効果的かつ効率的な授業開発を目指して

「動画配信授業」に取り組んだが、結果として、授業というものに対する認識を一層深め

ることができた。個人の頭の中の活動であるPassive Learningの部分は、ICT技術を利用する

ことで効果と効率の向上が期待でき、基礎基本の理解や、従来型の試験対策などには対応

可能かもしれない。一方、昨今Active Learningという用語が流行語のようになっているが、

それはこれからの学習が知識の詰め込みに留まらず、人との交渉や協同作業によって進め

られていくべきことを示している。そしてその学習形態をfacilitateできるのは、人工知能

（AI）が囲碁の世界チャンピオンに勝つ時代になっても、やはり生身の人間なのではない

だろうか。今後とも視野を広め、思考を深めつつ、よりより授業を追究していきたい。

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

第198回ASTE例会

Learners' beliefs, strategies and sense of achievement

in an EAP and CLIL course

Keiko Imura （上智大学）

Mohammad Hadi Ahmadi （上智大学大学院）

Introduction

This paper examines Japanese learners’ sense of achievements, beliefs and learning strategies

in an academic English course. The impact of learners’ belief and experience has already been

investigated in some contemporary studies. It is discussed from different perspectives such as the

relationship between experience and belief, belief and learning strategy, belief and achievement,

and experience and achievement. In this study we observe the relationships between all these

factors in order to have a deeper understanding of them. The aim of this study is to explore how the

39

students’ sense of achievement, the actual progress, and their learning belief and strategies relate to

each other over the whole academic English course.

Literature Review

Although many studies have examined the language learner’s beliefs (e.g. Benson & Lor,

1999; Gaies, et al., 1999; Horwitz, 1985; Huang, 1997; Matsuura, et al., 2001; Mori, 1999; Park,

1995; Sakui & Gaies, 1999; Tanaka & Ellis, 2003; Truitt, 1995; Wenden, 1986; Yang, 1999), so far,

a few number of studies have considered the relationship between the language learners’ belief and

their achievement in language learning.

Yang (1999) investigated 505 university students in Taiwan. By doing both quantative and

qualitative analyses, he found connections between learners' self-efficacy belief and their use of

learning strategies. Additionally, this study indicates “cyclical relationships” between learners'

beliefs and strategy use (Yang, 1999, p. 531).

By examining Japanese university students’ belief about language learning after a 15-week

study-abroad program, Tanaka and Ellis (2003) concluded that there is a noticeable improvement in

self-efficacy and confidence of the learners as well as their proficiency level. In addition, beliefs

and proficiency of the learners both before and after going abroad have meaningfully related to each

other. In their study the learners’ belief is measured by questionnaire and their proficiency level is

evaluated by TOEFL tests. The language learners’ beliefs could be divided into two main

categories; belief about (a) language learning approaches and (b) themself as a learner.

Accordingly, the beliefs about analytic and experiential learning fall under the second category

(Tanaka & Ellis, 2003).

More recently, Izumi, et al., (2011) in a comparison of the learners who have lived abroad and

those who have not, found that those who have lived abroad tend to be more experiential learners

while those who have no experience of going abroad were more analytical and less confident.

Methodology.

Having considered the previous studies related to language learners’ belief and learning

strategy, it was observed that the relationship between experience, belief, strategy and learning have

been examined in different studies. However, to our knowledge, none of these studies have taken all

these factors into account. That is the reason why we decided to collect a detailed set of data, which

includes all these elements. The participants of the study were twenty-five advanced level students

and twenty-five intermediate level students taking part in English for Academic Purpose (EAP) and

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) course. A questionnaire has been developed

based on Izumi, et al., (2011). It was distributed twice during the academic year; the first time was

40

at the beginning of the spring semester and the second time was at the end of the fall semester. It

included the information about learning strategies, learning beliefs, affective factors (motivation

and participation), can-do statements related to the four skills and vocabulary knowledge. Students’

learning assessments were based on vocabulary, oral and writing tests, which were carried out three

times during the whole academic year; in the beginning, middle and end. The oral tests were in the

form of separate three, two and one minute monologues. For the vocabulary test, Complete Lexical

Tutor, receptive and productive tests were used. TOEFL prompts were used as the basis for the

evaluation of speaking and the writings.

Research Questions.

1. What do the students feel that they learned in an EAP and CLIL program?

2. What did they actually learn?

3. How do learning beliefs, learning strategies and learning history relate to 1 and 2?

Participants

The participants were learning Academic Communication I & II, in which EAP was employed

for I in the spring semester, and CLIL for II in the fall semester. These were compulsory courses,

and students learned basic academic English skills to prepare for the forthcoming content and

language integrated course. Both courses were taught in English only.

Learners were assigned to each class in spring, 2015 by listening and reading tests of TEAP

(Test of English for Academic Purposes). The score of Advanced II class was upper B1 level, and

Intermediate II was lower B1. Both classes consisted of students from different departments, and

none of them were English majors. As shown in Figure 1, the major approach used in the learners’

past learning experiences was “grammar translation method” for both levels. Compared to the

Advanced II, less Intermediate II students experienced “communicative approach”.

Figure 1. Learning experiences by groups.

41

The learners’ sense of achievements and result of the writing test and speaking test.

The questionnaire was first conducted in 2015 July, and second in 2016 January to explore the

learners’ sense of achievements in Academic Communication I and II. Figure 2 and Figure 3

compares the result of the questionnaire in 5 point Likert scale conducted for both levels.

Figure 2. Advanced level learners’ sense of achievements

Figure 3. Intermediate level learners’ sense of achievements.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Learning experiences

Advanced II Intermediate II

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Do you think that you acquired the following skills in this course?

Advanced II

July January

42

For the advanced level class, the average score of the learners’ sense of skill achievement was

3.95 in July and 3.56 in January. For the intermediate level class, the average score was 3.72 in July

and 3.53 in January. This shows that the learners’ feeling of achievement was relatively lower in the

fall semester than in the spring semester.

The learners’ learning assessment scores are shown below. Figure 4 compares the writing

pre-test and post 2 test. Statistical analysis using the SPSS t-test shows insignificant (t (24) = 1.789.

p > .01) for the advanced level, and significant (t (23) = 5.894. p < .01) for the intermediate level.

Considering the fact that the average writing test score of the advanced class was 220.32 in pre-test,

and 263.5 in post-test, the general view could be that for the advanced level, the writing score

relatively increased, and for the intermediate level, it significantly increased.

Figure 4. Writing pre-test and post 2 test.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Do you think that you acquired the following skills in this course?

Intermediate II

July January

43

Next, Figure 5 compares the speaking pre-test and post 2 test. Statistical analysis using the

SPSS t-test shows significant (t (23) = 8.109. p < .01) for the advanced level, and significant (t (24)

= 2.828. p < .01) for the intermediate level. For both levels, the speaking test score significantly

increased.

Figure 5. Speaking pre-test and post 2 test.

The general finding of these analyses is the gap between the learners’ sense of achievements

and their actual gain in writing test and speaking test scores. In spite of the fact that the students’

sense of overall achievement in the current course has gone down, their actual writing and speaking

test scores have generally gone up.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Advanced Intermediate

Writing test results

PRE wriitng POST2 writing

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Advanced II Intermediate II

Speaking Test

Pre speaking Post 2 speaking

44

The learners’ learning beliefs and strategies.

Using the questionnaire adopted by Izumi, et al. (2011) the number of learners’ language

learning belief scores and strategy scores were calculated and categorized as either analytic or

experiential. The cut off point for each category (belief analytic, belief experiential, strategy

analytic and strategy experiential) was 18 out of 25. For example, if the learner’s score of belief

analytic was lower than 18, and belief experiential was higher than 18, it was categorized as A- E+,

and if the score of strategy analytic was higher than 18 and strategy experiential was lower than 18,

it was categorized as A+ E-. The following tables show the distribution of each learner strategy

types.

Table 1. Belief and Strategy (Advanced II)

Table 2. Belief and Strategy (Intermediate II)

Table 1 and Table 2 show that there is a gap between the learners’ belief and strategy for both

levels. Those who believed to employ experiential learning employed analytic learning in reality

and vice versa. For example, 12 students in the advanced class believed that they were experiential

(A- E+), but only 6 were experiential in actual learning. 12 students in the intermediate class

believed that they were balanced type (A+ E+), but only 4 were both analytic and experiential.

Overall, the number of students who employed analytic learning highly exceeded in reality for both

levels.

Correlations between the learners’ learning strategies and learning experiences.

Table 3 shows the correlations between the learners’ learning strategies and learning

experiences. The correlation analysis shows that there are significant correlations between the

learners’ experiential strategies and their learning experiences such as teaching English in English,

45

CLIL, teaching of culture, communicative approach and language use in classrooms, but no

correlation between learners’ analytic strategy and learning experiences.

Table 3. Correlation between the learners’ learning strategy and learning history.

Finally, the study compares the result of the writing and speaking tests for both levels by the

learners’ strategy types. As for the average score of each tests, A- E+ group seems to do better in

both writing and speaking test for the advanced level class, and not for the intermediate level class.

Although it is premature to indicate any patterns in these data, it seems that experiential learning

has something to do with learners achievements in higher level class, but not in the intermediate

level class.

The result of writing and speaking test by learner strategy types.

Figure 6. Writing pre-test and post 2 test by strategy groups in advanced level class.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

A+ E- A- E+ A+ E+ A- E-

Writing test by groupsAdvanced II (n=24)

prewriting post 2 writing

46

Figure 7. Speaking pre-test and post 2 test by strategy groups in advanced level class.

Figure 8. Writing pre-test and post 2 test by strategy groups in intermediate level class.

Figure 9. Speaking pre-test and post 2 test by strategy groups in intermediate level class.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

A+ E- A- E+ A+ E+ A- E-

Speaking test by groupsAdvanced II (n=24)

pre oral 1 post2 oral 1

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

A+ E- A- E+ A+ E+ A- E-

Writing test by groupsIntermediate II(n=25)

prewriting post 2 writing

47

Conclusion.

・The students’ sense of achievement has declined over the year. The students’ actual achievement

in terms of speaking and writing significantly improved.

・There was a mismatch between the learners’ belief and the strategy in both advanced and

intermediate class.

・There was a significant correlation between the learners’ past learning experiences, which were

teaching in English, communicative language teaching, teaching of culture, use of English and

learning different subjects in English and experiential strategies.

・There was no significant correlation between the learners’ past learning experiences and analytic

strategies.

・As for the categorization of four types of learners (A+ E-, A- E+, A+ E+, A- E-), for the advanced

class, experiential group A- E+ achieved more in writing and speaking tests. For the intermediate

class, the balanced group A+ E+ achieved more, and experiential group achieved less.

The decline of the learners’ sense of achievements of their language skills could be explained

by the fact that Academic communication I employed EAP which was aimed to acquire practical

academic English skills, and Academic communication II employed a more content based

approach, it is more than natural to assume that through a content based approach, students’

awareness of their language skills decreased. In contrast, their actual writing and speaking test

scores increased, which suggests the potential of CLIL instruction, whereby the learners use their

acquired language skills in a meaningful context, thus achieving higher productive skills.

As for the learner strategy types, experiential strategy seems to work for higher level learners,

but not for the lower level learners. Learners who had experienced communicative language

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

A+ E- A- E+ A+ E+ A- E-

Speaking test by groupsIntermediate II (n=25)

pre oral 1 post2 oral 1

48

teaching, teaching English in English, CLIL, learning culture in English and who had opportunities

of using their language skills in classrooms were those who used experiential strategies, and they

performed better in productive language tests. Intermediate level learners who had less chance to

experience those learning situations still employed analytic strategies in their language learning.

Reference:

Benson, P. & Lor, W., (1999). Conceptions of language and language learning. In: Wenden, A.

(Ed.), System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics:

Special Issue on Meta-cognitive Knowledge and Beliefs in Language Learning 27 (4).

Gaies, S.J, Galambos, A., Cornish, Y. (1999). The beliefs about language learning of Russian

learners of English. Unpublished manuscript.

Horwitz, E.K., (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In: Wenden, A., Rubin, J.

(Eds.), learner strategies in language learning. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp.

119-129.

Huang, S.C., (1997). Taiwanese senior high school students' EFL learning: focus on learning

strategies and learning beliefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, IN.

Izumi, S., Shiwaku, R. & Okuda, T. (2011). Beliefs about language learning, learning strategy use,

and self-efficacy/confidence of EFL learners with and without living-abroad experience.

Sophia Linguistica, 59, 151-184.

Matsuura, H., Chiba, R., & Hilderbrandt, P. (2001). Beliefs about learning and teaching

communicative English in Japan. JALT Journal, 23, 69-89.

Mori, Y., (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: what do language learners

believe about their learning? Language learning, 49, 377-415.

49

Park, G.P., (1995). Language learning strategies and beliefs about language learning of university

students learning English in Korea. Unpublished doctoral, dissertation, The University of

Texas, Austin, TX.

Sakui, K. & Gaies, S.J. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners' beliefs about language learning.

System, 27, 473-492.

Tanaka, K. & Ellis, R. (2003). Study abroad, language proficiency, and learner beliefs about

language learning. JALT Journal, 25, 63-85.

Truitt, S.N., (1995). Anxiety and beliefs about language learning: a study of Korean University

students learning English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin,

TX.

Wenden, A.L., (1986). What do second-language learners know about their language learning? A

second look at retrospective accounts. Applied linguistics 7, 186-205.

Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use.

System, 27, 515-535.

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

Potentials and issues of JTEs -based own data from a large scale survey-

Kiyotaka Suga (上智大学大学院)

Introduction

In the January ASTE meeting, the results of the further analysis of Yoshida and Suga

(2015) were presented by focusing on the background information of J-shine (Japan Shogakko

50

Instructors of English) teachers who are actually teaching in elementary school as Japanese teacher

of English (JTE).

Since the introduction of “Foreign Language Activity” for fifth- and sixth-grade of

elementary school in 2011, a number of external staffs who have a license to teach English in

elementary school have played a crucial role in complementing the elementary school teachers to

conduct their English classes. MEXT (2014) proposed a new English education reform plan:

introducing “Foreign Language Activity” for third- and fourth-grade in 2020, implementing English

as an official subject for fifth- and sixth-grade. One of the biggest challenges in implementing the

new plan is who is going to teach English in elementary school. To successfully inclement the new

plan, MEXT (2014) estimated that 73,000 English teachers are needed. However, up until the

present time, the number of English specialist teachers (English Senka-kyoin) in elementary school

is quite limited. The number of ALTs in Japan is also not enough (around 16,000 ALTs in Japan)

(MEXT, 2014). Considering these situation, these is a big gap between the the new reform plan and

the current situation. Thus, it is crucial to promote utilization of external staffs.

However, there has been few studies conducted on external staffs who are helping out

elementary school homeroom teachers (HRT) to conduct “English Activity.” This study which is

based on the analysis of large-scale questionnaire was conducted on 6,028 external staffs who

possess J-shine certificate, a license to teach English with HRTs in elementary school. This

extensive-survey on J-shine holders’ background and their teaching situation in elementary school

shed lights on the potential that J-shine teachers have and also some issues that need to be

considered for achieving the new English education policy in Japan.

51

In this newsletter, first, Yoshida and Suga’s (2015) ASTE presentation is briefly

summarized. Then, the results from the further analysis of J-shien teachers’ background will be

discussed.

A Summary of Yoshida and Suga’s (2015) ASTE presentation

From this large-scale-questionnaire survey, we found that there are quite a few numbers

of qualified J-shine holders in Japan. Many of them possess relatively high English proficiency;

junior-high- and senior-high-school English-teaching license; experience in teaching English;

experience in living abroad. In spite of these high qualifications, the results showed that the

percentage of J-shine holders who continue to attend training-sessions are small (28.13%). This is a

major issue that need to be considered.

As for J-shine holders’ actually teaching in elementary school, the results shows that their

teaching is basically going smoothly in terms of how much schools accept J-shien teachers’

teaching, their relationship with homeroom teacher (HRT) in school and so on (see Yoshida & Suga,

2015 for more detailed information). However, pays that J-shine teachers receive is another big

issue. It was found that most of the J-shine teachers do not receive appropriate reward form their

schools. More than half of them receives less than 2000 yen per-class with no transportation fee.

Another major issue is preparation-time for their classes with HRT. Almost half of them prepare

classes with HRT within 15 minutes.

Although this is a brief summary of Yoshida and Suga’s (2015) presentation, the findings

from the large-scale-survey on J-shine holders revealed that there are a number of qualified external

staffs who have a great potential to contribute to the implementation of the new English reform plan.

However, these are also some issues that need to be considered in order to fully utilize their

strengths, such as teacher training, pays, preparation time for class with HRT.

52

Further Analysis of J-Shine Teachers’ Background)

The further analysis of J-shine teachers’ background was motivated by a question asked

by audience during Yoshida and Suga’s (2015) presentation. The background data of J-shine

holders shown in the last year’s presentation was the data form all the 6,028 respondents, which

include J-shine holders who are not teaching in elementary school at the time. Therefore, it is

possible that the differential results can be obtained by the analysis that focuses on J-shine teachers

who are teaching in elementary school as JTE.

In this section, the data from the further analysis, which focuses only on 571 J-shine

teachers who are teaching in elementary school as JTE, will be presented and discussed by comparing

the results from the whole (6,028 respondents’) data. The following background data is covered:

J-shine teachers’ gender, age, English proficiency, English teaching license, experience in living

abroad, English teaching experience, and teacher-training.

First, the data of J-shine teachers’ male/female ratio shows that the majority of them are

female (98%), which is higher than the percentage of the whole 6.028 J-shine holders’ data (94%).

The highest percentage of their age group is 41-60 years old, while the whole data shows that 31-50

years old is the highest. From these data, it was found that the majority of J-shine teachers who are

helping out HRTs in elementary school are middle-aged female teachers.

To obtain J-shine teachers’ English proficiency, their Eiken grade and their TOEIC score

are asked. As for Eiken, the data revealed that quite high percentage of J-shine teachers possess

above Eiken pre-first grade (45%). Their TOEIC score also reflect on J-shine teachers’ high English

proficiency. 86% of them already have over 700 in TOEIC. Out of these teachers, 52% of them

have over 800 in TOEIC. Compared to the data of Junior-high-school English teachers’ and

senior-high-school English teachers’ English proficiency, the results of the further analysis suggests

53

that the majority of J-shine teachers who are teaching in elementary school as JTE are qualified to

teach in terms of English proficiency (see Yoshida and Suga, 2015 for the whole J-shine holders’

English proficiency). MEXT (2016) reported that the percentage of junior-high-school English

teachers who possess Eiken pre-first grade, TOEIC over 730, or TOEFL iBT over 80 was 29%; the

percentage of senior-high-school English teachers who already have these qualifications was 55%.

These results also suggests that even though English Activity does not require students to have

higher English proficiency, teaches need to have relatively higher proficiency to teach English in

elementary school.

The further analysis also revealed that the percentage of J-shine teachers, who have English

teaching license, is higher that that of the whole data. 60% of them possess junior-high-school

English teaching license. 43% have senior-high-school English teaching license. In the whole J-shine

holders’ data, 44% of them possess junior-high-school English teaching license and 35% of them

have junior-high-school English teaching license.

As for J-shine teachers’ experience in living abroad, 65% of them answered that they had

lived abroad more than half a year. It is also revealed that the J-shine teachers who are actually

teaching in elementary school had stayed for a longer period than the whole J-shine holders. One

interesting trend that was found from the further analysis is that the percentage of J-shine teachers

who stayed in the United States and the United Kingdom is higher than that of the whole J-shine

holders. In addition, many of them answered that they went to these two countries because of their

family-member’s job.

The data also shows that most J-shine teachers teaching in elementary school as JTE are

experienced teachers. More than 80% of the J-shine teachers answered that they had taught English

54

three years or more while the percentage of the whole J-shine holders who have three-years-or-more

teaching experience was 75%.

The last part of this sections is whether the J-shine teaches are attending training sessions.

This is the biggest difference between the data from the whole J-shine holders and the J-shine teaches

who are teaching in elementary school as JTE. In the whole J-shine holders’ background data, one of

the biggest issues is how to keep J-shine holders informed through training sessions. However, the

results shows that the majority of the J-shine teachers who are teaching in elementary school are

actually attending training sessions (70%). Furthermore, they are attending some kind of training

session regularly. Out of them, 57% of the J-shine teachers are attending training a few times a year.

From the further analysis, it can be inferred that the the majority of J-shine teachers who are

teaching in elementary school are aware of the importance of attending training sessions. Therefore,

toward the smooth implementation of the new English-education-reform-plan in 2020,

teacher-training sessions need to be more accessible even for J-shine holders who are not currently

teaching in elementary school.

Conclusion

In this newsletter, the current state of external staffs (J-shine instructors) are discussed.

Toward the English-education-reform-plan in 2020, there are a number of issues that need to be

considered. One of the biggest issues is who is going to teach English in elementary school. Since the

number of English specialist teachers and ALTs are not enough to implement the new plan, helps

from external staffs who are proficient in English and have experience in teaching English is crucial.

This study shows that there are a number of qualified external staffs outside the school system, who

are ready to help out English Activity in elementary school. Though there are still a number of

challenges we need to overcome with regard to external staffs, the new English education policy

55

would not work without their helps. It is necessary to promote their contribution in order to

achieve the new English education plan in Japan.

References

文部科学省 (2014). 平成２６年度公立小学校における英語教育実施状況調査の結果に

ついて. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/

__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/06/04/1358566_04_1.pdf

文部科学省 (2014). 第5回英語教育の在り方に関する有識者会議資料１

これまでの意見の概要（小委員会). Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/

b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/102/102_1/shiryo/attach/1350487.htm

Yoshida, K. & Suga, K. (2015). Issues in teaching English in Elementary School and

Future Implications. ASTE (Association of Sophian Teachers of English)

Newsletter. 63. 55-68. Retrieved from

http://www.bun-eido.co.jp/aste/aste63.pdf 05/26/2015

上智大学他の言語教育関係のホームページ

1) 上智大学のホームページ http://www.sophia.ac.jp/

2) 上智大学外国語学部英語学科 HOME PAGE http://dept.sophia.ac.jp/fs/english/ l

英語学科が独自に運営しているホームページ。英語学科同窓会(SELDAA)ホームページへのリンクも

あります。語学の色々な分野を紹介したエッセイ集です。

3) 上智大学言語教育研究センター http://www.sophia-cler.jp/

4) 吉田研作のHome Page http://pweb.sophia.ac.jp/1974ky

5）上智大学国際言語情報研究所（SOLIFIC） http://dept.sophia.ac.jp/is/solific/

6）TEAP (The Test of English for Academic Purposes) https://www.eiken.or.jp/teap/

56

7）CLIL Japan http://www.cliljapan.org/sample-page/

8) えいごねっと http://www.eigo-net.jp/

文科省の英語教育リソースサイト。色々な情報が満載です。

9) ＮＰＯ小学校英語指導者認定協議会 (J-Shine)

民間のNPOとして小学校の英語教育の指導者を認定する組織です。 http://www.j-shine.org/

10）Asia TEFL

アジア諸国を中心とした初の国際英語教育学会です。 http://www.asiatefl.org/

11）The International Research Foundation for English Education (TIRF) http://www.tirfonline.org/

TEFL関係の優秀な研究（博士論文を含む）に研究資金を提供しています。

SRA・英語教育関係の文献リストの宝庫

12) Benesse 教育開発研究所 http://www.benesse.jp/berd/data/index.shtml

13) ARCLE (Action Research Center for Language Education) http://www.arcle.jp/

14) 英検で海外留学 http://www.eiken.or.jp/ryugaku/index.html

15) TOEFL http://www.ets.org/toefl/index.html

16)文科省の外国語教育資料サイト http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/

下記の内容が検索できます。

小学校外国語活動

“Hi，friends！”関連資料

小学校の新たな外国語教育における補助教材の作成について

新学習指導要領に対応した外国語活動及び外国語科の授業実践事例映像資料

“Broaden Your Horizons with English！－英語を使って羽ばたく日本人－”（DVD）

英語教育ポータルサイト『えいごネット』

グローバル化に対応した英語教育改革実施計画

生徒の英語力向上推進プラン

英語教育強化地域拠点事業

平成26年度「英語教育強化地域拠点事業」事業経過報告書

57

平成26年度「英語教育強化地域拠点事業」拠点校一覧

平成27年度「英語教育強化地域拠点事業」拠点校一覧

外部専門機関と連携した英語指導力向上事業

平成26年度「外部専門機関と連携した英語指導力向上事業」研修協力校一覧

平成27年度「外部専門機関と連携した英語指導力向上事業」研修協力校一覧

英語教員の英語力・指導力強化のための調査研究事業

各中・高等学校の外国語教育における「CAN-DOリスト」の形での学習到達目標設定のための手引き

小学校英語活動実施状況調査及び英語教育改善実施状況調査（中学校・高等学校）

平成17年度

平成18年度

平成19年度

公立小・中学校における教育課程の編成・実施状況調査

平成21年度公立小・中学校における教育課程の編成・実施状況調査の結果について

平成23年度公立小・中学校における教育課程の編成・実施状況調査の結果について

公立高等学校における教育課程の編成・実施状況調査

平成22年度公立高等学校における教育課程の編成・実施状況調査の結果について

「国際共通語としての英語力向上のための五つの提言と具体的施策」に係る状況調査

平成23年度「『国際共通語としての英語力向上のための五つの提言と具体的施策』に係る状況調査」の

結果について

平成24年度「『国際共通語としての英語力向上のための五つの提言と具体的施策』に係る状況調査」の

結果について

小学校外国語活動実施状況調査

平成26年度小学校外国語活動実施状況調査の結果について

公立小学校・中学校及び高等学校における英語教育実施状況調査

平成25年度英語教育実施状況調査の結果について

平成26年度英語教育実施状況調査の結果について

外国語指導助手（ALT）の雇用・契約形態に関する調査

平成21年度 外国語指導助手（ALT）の雇用・契約形態に関する調査について

平成22年度 外国語指導助手（ALT）の雇用・契約形態に関する調査について

外国語指導助手の契約形態について（通知）

外国語指導助手の請負契約による活用について（通知）

外国語指導助手の請負契約による活用について（業務内容の確認及び外国語会話の実演）（通知）

平成25年度「外部検定試験を活用した英語によるコミュニケーション能力・論理的思考力の検証に関する調

査」報告書

58

平成25年度「外部検定試験を活用した英語によるコミュニケーション能力・論理的思考力の検証に関する調

査」報告書

平成26年度 英語教育改善のための英語力調査事業報告

過去の調査研究事業

スーパー・イングリッシュ・ランゲージ・ハイスクール（SELHi）について

外国語活動における教材の効果的な活用及び評価の在り方に関する実践研究事業

英語教育改善のための調査研究事業

平成24年度「外部検定試験の活用による英語力の検証」報告書について

59

2016 年度春期ＡＳＴＥ例会スケジュール

ASTE第 199回例会 (教育実習事前授業)

Special Lectures (*starting from 13:30)

講演：Teaching English for Communication: What does it entail?

講師：和泉伸一（上智大学）

日時：2016 年 4月 16日（土） 13:30〜15:00

場所：上智大学 2号館 414教室

講演：Issues in the Revision of English Education

講師：吉田研作 (上智大学)

日時：2016 年 4月 16日（土） 15:15〜16:45

場所：上智大学 2号館 414教室

＊Both lectures will double as lectures for students taking part in practice teaching

ASTE第 200回例会

講演：The Effects of Story-Retelling in PCPP Instruction on Accuracy Development: Output Practice in

Meaning-Oriented Focus on Form

講師：菅清隆（八王子中高等学校）

日時：2016 年 5月 21日（土） 15:00〜17:00

場所：上智大学 12号館 201教室

ASTE第 201回例会

講演：中学校英語教科書における文法事項の出現頻度推移

講師：安間一雄 (獨協大学)

日時：2016 年 6月 18日（土） 15:00〜17:00

場所：上智大学 教室未定

ASTE Home Page: http://www.bun-eido.co.jp/ASTE.html

ASTE事務局

〒102－8554 東京都千代田区紀尾井町7－1

上智大学外国語学部英語学科内

和泉伸一研究室

Tel:03-3238-3719 （英語学科事務室）

Fax:03-3238-3910