influence of living location on english test scores of...
TRANSCRIPT
Influence of Living Location on English Test Scores of Japanese University Students
Tetsuya Fukuda ([email protected])Keita Yagi ([email protected])
International Christian University
CILC4August 1, 201810:30 – 11:00
Overview
II. Methods
I. Case-Study Context
III. Results
I. Case-Study Context
IV. Conclusion
I. Case-Study Context
Japanese and English → its official languages
A. Students @ a bilingual university in Tokyo
I. Case-Study Context
B. Many returnees from ENG and non-ENG
English Language Program Japanese Language Program
I. Case-Study Context
C. Students in the English program
Stream 1 (Advanced)
TOEFL 623 - 667
(mean = 650 ) 20 Ss
Stream 2 (High Intermediate)
TOEFL 553-643
(mean = 597 ) 100 Ss
Stream 3 (Intermediate)
TOEFL 447-570
(mean = 517) 360 Ss
Stream 4 (Low Intermediate)
TOEFL 390-477
(mean = 450) 120 Ss
Intake
(600 students)
Streaming (TOEFL ITP, Interview,
Writing sample)
4 Streams
3 %
16 %
60 %
20 %
I. Case-Study Context
D. The English program’s objectives
(English for Liberal Arts Program, 2018, p. 7)
(1) To acquire academic English skills
(2) To acquire critical thinking and study skills
(3) To appreciate cultural differences
(4) To understand educational expectations
within the Liberal Arts tradition
Semi-intensive program
English for Academic Purposes
Freshman Sophomore
Spring Autumn Winter Spring Autumn Winter
Stream 1
(Advanced)
ARW Research
Writing
5 classes 4 classes
Stream 2
(High
Intermediate)
ARW and AS Research
Writing
6 classes 6 classes 4 classes
Stream 3
(Intermediate)
ARW (Academic Reading &
Writing), RCA (Reading and
Content Analysis), and AS
(Academic Skills)
11 classes 11 classes 10 classes
Research
Writing
(Spring or Autumn or Winter)
4 classes
Stream 4
(Low
Intermediate)
ARW, RCA, and AS
13 classes 11 classes 11 classes
FRW
3 classes
Research Writing
(Autumn or Winter)
4 classes
E. Students’ learning in the English program
I. Case-Study Context
Placement Test
2 terms
3 terms
4 ter s
5 terms
Freshman Sophomore
Spring Autumn Winter Spring Autumn Winter
Stream 1
(Advanced)
ARW Research
Writing
5 classes 4 classes
Stream 2
(High
Intermediate)
ARW and AS Research
Writing
6 classes 6 classes 4 classes
Stream 3
(Intermediate)
ARW (Academic Reading &
Writing), RCA (Reading and
Content Analysis), and AS
(Academic Skills)
11 classes 11 classes 10 classes
Research
Writing
(Spring or Autumn or Winter)
4 classes
Stream 4
(Low
Intermediate)
ARW, RCA, and AS
13 classes 11 classes 11 classes
FRW
3 classes
Research Writing
(Autumn or Winter)
4 classes
F. Placement and Exit Tests
I. Case-Study Context
Placement Test
2 terms
3 terms
4 terms
5 termsTOEFL ITP in April (2016)
IELTS in November (2016)
IELTS in March (2017)
IELTS in June (2017)
I. Case-Study ContextF. Placement and Exit Tests
mandatory Not mandatory
Overview
II. Methods
I. Case-Study Context
III. Results
II. Methods
IV. Conclusion
Research Questions
Q1: Do those who lived in an English-speaking country
(ENG) generally get a higher score than those who lived in
a non-English-speaking country (Non-ENG) or those who did not live overseas (Non-OVER)?
Analysis of Placement Test & Exit Test
Analysis of Placement Test & Exit Test
Independent t-tests & ANOVAs
Means of CEFR level improvement
Q2 : Do those who lived in an English-speaking country
(ENG) improve their English as much as those who lived in
a non-English-speaking country (Non-ENG) or those who did not live overseas (Non-OVER)?
Research Questions
Q2
Do ENG students improve their English as much as Non-ENG or Non-OVER?
Analysis of Placement Test & Exit Test
Means of CEFR level improvement
(Eiken Foundation of Japan, 2017)
(Common European Framework of Reference for Languages)
(IELTS, 2017)(Educational Testing Service, 2017)
Our Comparison Table
CEFR TOEFL ITP IELTS
C2→6 8.5-9
C1→5 627-677 7-8
B2→4 543-626 5.5-6.5
B1→3 460-542 4-5
A2→2 337-459 -3.5
A1→1
Participants
2015 Cohort 2016 Cohort
Total 575 619
PRE (TOEFL ITP) 569 617
POST (IELTS) 344 (60%) 381 (61%)
Both 342 380
After deletion
(TOEFL ITP 640～)
333 (-9) 356 (-24)
Participants
2015 Cohort 2016 Cohort
After
deletion
333 356
ENG(more than 9 months in
English speaking country)
59 69
Non-ENG(more than 9 months in
non-English speaking
country)
33 43
Non-OVER(No overseas experience
or less than 9 months
235 244
Overview
II. Methods
I. Case-Study Context
III. ResultsIII. Results
IV. Conclusion
Results 1
RQ1
Do those who lived in an English-speaking country (ENG)
generally get a higher score than those who lived in a non-
English-speaking country (Non-ENG) or those who did not
live overseas (Non-OVER)?
Result
In both PRE and POST, ENG got a higher average score
than Non-ENG and Non-OVER.
Results 1 PRE
Non-OVER
503
Non-ENG
541
ENG
555
Results 1 POST
Non-OVER
5.75
Non-ENG
6.26
ENG
6.54
Results 2
RQ2
Do ENG students improve their English as much as Non-ENG or Non-OVER?
Result
Yes, they do. ENG students improved their English, too.
Results 2
Growth in CEFR level
n. Average Growth in CEFR
3 ENG 69 0.78
2 Non-ENG 43 0.65
1 Non-OVER 244 0.87
Overview
II. Methods
I. Case-Study Context
III. Results
IV. Conclusion IV. Conclusion
Interpretations
1. Living in an English-speaking country influences the English level, and the influence is kept till the end of the English program.
2. Even if they lived in an English-speaking country, they can still improve their English even more in the English program.
Future Orientations
1. The data from multiple cohorts can be combined.
2. Models with other factors can be examined.
3. Structural Equation Modeling will be employed.
Mahalo!
Tetsuya Fukuda
Keita Yagi
References
Educational Testing Service. (2017). TOEFL ITP® overall performance
descriptors. Retrieved from
https://www.ets.org/toefl_itp/research/performance-descriptors/
Eiken Foundation of Japan. (2017). Comparison table. Retrieved from
http://stepeiken.org/comparison-table
English for Liberal Arts Program. (2018). ELA staff handbook. Tokyo:
International Christian University.
IELTS. (2017). Common European framework. Retrieved from
https://www.ielts.org/ielts-for-organisations/common-european-framework