jalt

jo

ur

na

l

Volume 23 - No. 2 November 2001

Japan Association for Language Teaching

Articles176 L2Learners’StrategicMentalProcessesduringa

ListeningTest Naoko Taguchi202 HowReliableandValidIstheJapanese

VersionoftheStrategyInventoryforLanguageLearning(SILL)?

Gordon Robson & Hideko Midorikawa227 QuietApprehension:ReadingandClassroomAnxi-

eties Sae Matsuda & Peter Gobel

Perspectives248 ARationaleforL1-to-L2LiteraryTranslationinCol-

legeEFLInstruction James W. Porcaro

Reviews269 SLA研究と外国語教育—文献紹介—(JACET SLA 研

究会編)Literature in SLA Research and Foreign Lan-guage Teaching ReviewedbySumioTsuchiya

272 The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd edition)(JeremyHarmer)

ReviewedbyJosephTomei274 A Dictionary of Loanword Usage (PremMotwani)

&Tuttle New Dictionary of Loanwords in Japa-nese (TaekoKamiya).

ReviewedbyFrankE.Daulton276 Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduc-

tion (AlastairPennycook) ReviewedbyRobertMahon

ISSN 0287-2420

¥950

全国語学教育学会

��Contents

InThisIssue FromtheEditors

Articles�76 L2Learners’StrategicMentalProcessesduringaListeningTest Naoko Taguchi202 HowReliableandValidIstheJapanese

VersionoftheStrategyInventoryforLanguageLearning(SILL)? Gordon Robson & Hideko Midorikawa227 QuietApprehension:ReadingandClassroomAnxieties

Sae Matsuda & Peter Gobel

Perspectives248 ARationaleforL�-to-L2LiteraryTranslationinCollegeEFL

Instruction James W. Porcaro

Reviews269 SLA研究と外国語教育—文献紹介—(JACET SLA 研究会編)

Literature in SLA Research and Foreign Language Teaching ReviewedbySumioTsuchiya

272 The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd edition)(JeremyHarmer)

ReviewedbyJosephTomei274 A Dictionary of Loanword Usage (PremMotwani)&Tuttle

New Dictionary of Loanwords in Japanese (TaekoKamiya). ReviewedbyFrankE.Daulton276 Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction (Alastair

Pennycook) ReviewedbyRobertMahon

JALT Journal Information InformationforContributors

Allmaterialsinthispublicationarecopyright200�bytheirrespectiveauthors.

November200�Volume23-No.2

22

JALT JournAL

Japan Association for Language TeachingA Nonprofit Organization

TheJapanAssociationforLanguageTeaching(JALT)isanonprofitprofessionalorga-nizationdedicatedtotheimprovementoflanguageteachingandlearninginJapan.Itprovidesaforumfortheexchangeofnewideasandtechniquesandameansofkeep-inginformedaboutdevelopmentsintherapidlychangingfieldofsecondandforeignlanguageeducation.Established in�976, JALTservesan internationalmembershipofmorethan3,500languageteachers.Thereare39JALTchapters inJapan,oneaffiliatechapter,�3SpecialInterestGroups(SIGs),threeaffiliateSIGs,andthreeformingSIGs.JALTistheJapanaffiliateofInternationalTESOL(TeachingEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguages)andisabranchofIATEFL(InternationalAssociationofTeachersofEnglishasaForeignLanguage).

JALTpublishesJALTJournal,asemiannualresearchjournal;TheLanguageTeacher,amonthlymagazinecontainingarticles,teachingactivities,reviews,andannouncementsaboutprofessionalconcerns;andJALTInternationalConferenceProceedings.

TheJALTInternationalConferenceonLanguageTeachingandLearningandEduca-tionalMaterialsExpositionattractssome2,000participantsannuallyandoffersover300papers,workshops,colloquia,andpostersessions.LocalmeetingsareheldbyeachJALTchapterandJALT’sSIGsprovideinformationonspecificconcerns.JALTalsosponsorsspecialeventssuchasworkshopsandconferencesonspecificthemes,andawardsannualgrantsforresearchprojectsrelatedtolanguageteachingandlearning.

Membershipisopentothoseinterestedinlanguageeducationandincludesenroll-ment in thenearest chapter, copiesof JALTpublications, and reducedadmission toJALT-sponsoredevents.JALTmemberscanjoinasmanySIGsastheywishforanannualfeeofｴ�,500perSIG.Forinformation,contacttheJALTCentralOffice.

JALT National Officers, 2001President:ThomasSimmons DirectorofPrograms:LarryCisarVicePresident:TadashiIshida DirectorofMembership:JosephTomeiDirectorofTreasury:DavidNeill DirectorofPublicRelations:GenevanTroyerDirectorofRecords:AmyHawley

ChaptersAkita,Chiba,Fukui,Fukuoka,Gifu(affiliate),Gunma,Hamamatsu,Himeji,Hiroshima,Hokkaido,Ibaraki,Iwate,Kagawa,Kagoshima,Kanazawa,Kitakyushu,Kobe,Kumamoto,Kyoto,Matsuyama,Miyazaki,Nagasaki,Nagoya,Nara,Niigata,Okayama,Okinawa,Omiya,Osaka,Sendai,Shinshu,Shizuoka,Tochigi,Tokushima,Tokyo,Toyohashi,WestTokyo,Yamagata,Yamaguchi,Yokohama.

Special Interest GroupsBilingualism;CollegeandUniversityEducators;ComputerAssistedLanguageLearning;ForeignLanguageLiteracy (Affiliate SIG);GenderAwareness in LanguageEducation(AffiliateSIG);GlobalIssuesinLanguageEducation;JapaneseasaSecondLanguage;JuniorandSeniorHighSchoolTeaching;LearnerDevelopment;MaterialWriters;OtherLanguageEducators(AffiliateSIG);Professionalism,AdministrationandLeadershipinEducation;TeacherEducation;TeachingChildren;TestingandEvaluation;Video;AppliedLinguistics(FormingSIG),CrossingCultures(FormingSIG),Pragmatics(FormingSIG).

JALT Central OfficeUrbanEdgeBuilding,5F�-37-9Taito,Taito-ku,Tokyo��0-00�6,Japan

Tel:03-3837-�630;Fax:03-3837-�63�;E-mail:jalt@gol.com

33

In this Issue

Articles

Fourarticlesareincludedinthemainsectionofthisissue. Naoko Taguchi offers some insights into second language learners’strategicmentalprocessesduringa listeningcomprehensiontest throughheranalysisof apost-test strategyquestionnaire.Gordon RobsonandHideko Midorikawa examinetheinter-nal reliabilityof theStrategy Inventory forLanguageLearning(Oxford,�990)usingtheESL/EFLversioninJapanesetranslation.TheyuseinterviewswithparticipatingstudentstoinvestigatetheabilityofparticipantstounderstandthemetalanguageusedinthequestionnaireaswellastheappropriatenessofsomeitemsforaJapaneseandEFLsetting.Sae Matsuda andPeter Gobelinvestigate thepossible relationshipbetweengeneral foreignlanguageclassroomanxiety(FLCA)andforeignlanguagereadinganxiety(FLRA)intheJapaneseclassroomandexaminethereli-abilityandvalidityofpreviouslypublishedmeasurementscales(theFLCASandtheFLRAS)forJapaneselearners.

Perspectives

ArationaleforJapanese-to-EnglishliterarytranslationforcourseinEFLcollegeprogramsinJapanisdescribedbyJames W. Por-caro. Basedonrelationshipsacross languagesandacross themodalitiesofL�readingandL2writing,theauthordemonstratesitseffectiveness indeveloping students’writtenexpression inEnglish.

Reviews

ReviewsinthisissueareareviewofaJapanesebookinJapanesebySumio Tsuchiya andEnglish reviewsby Joseph Tomei,Frank E. Daulton,andRobert Mahon.TopicscoveredinbooksreviewedincludeasurveyofliteratureinSLAresearchandforeignlanguageteaching,Englishlanguageteachingpractices,Japaneseloanwords,andcriticalappliedlinguistics.

44

JALT JournAL

From the Editors

With this issue theneweditorial team takesover the challengeofupholdingtheJALTJournaltraditionofexcellence.WeareespeciallygratefultooutgoingeditorSandra Fotosforthemodelsheprovidedthroughouthertenureaseditorandhersupportandassistancethrough-outtheeditorialtransition.Fromthisissue,Nicholas O. Jungheimistheneweditor,Donna Tatsukitakesoverastheassociateeditor,andSayoko YamashitabecomestheJapaneseeditor.WearealsopleasedtowelcomeformereditorSandra Fotos totheEditorialAdvisoryBoard.WeofferourdeepestgratitudetodepartingBoardmembersCharles Adamson andBernard Susser for theirmanyyearsof service tothelanguageteachingcommunitythroughtheirworkwiththeJALTJournal.

Conference News

TheFourthPan-AsianConferenceandEleventhInternationalSympo-siumandBookFaironEnglishTeachingwillbeheldNovember8-�0,2002, attheChienTanOverseasYouthActivityCenter,Taipei,TaiwanR.O.C.TheconferencethemeisｴLTinAsianContexts:FourPCsinthe2�stCentury.ForfurtherinformationpleasecontactJohannaE.Katchen,Departmentof Foreign Languages,NationalTsingHuaUniversity,Hsinchu30043,Taiwan,886-3-57�8977forfaxore-mailatkatchen@mx.nthu.edu.tw.ThedeadlineforabstractsisDecember3�,200�;no-tificationofacceptanceisMarch�5,2002;thecompletepaperisdueJuly�5,2002;andpaymentofpre-registrationfeeforpresentersisdueSeptember�5,2002.

Corrections

TherunningheadonthearticlebyLynneHansenandYung-LinCheninVol.23(�)shouldhaveshownMs.Chen’sfamilynameinsteadofhergivenname.Therunningheadshouldhavereadｴansen&Chen.ThesecondhalvesofCharts�and2onpp.98-99wereinadvertentlycut.Thefullchartsareincludedbelow.Weapologizetotheauthorsandourreadersforanyinconveniencethatthismayhavecaused.

55

66

JALT JournAL

Articles

L2 Learners’ Strategic Mental Processes during a Listening Test1

Naoko TaguchiMinnesota State University-Akita, Japan

Thisstudyofferssomeinsightsintosecondlanguagelearners’strategicmentalprocessesduringalisteningcomprehensiontest.Fifty-fourJapanesecollegestudents(26malesand28females)inanintensiveEnglishprogramtookanEnglishlisteningtestandcompletedastrategyquestionnaireimmediatelyafterthetest.Thequestionnaireconsistingof42Likert-scaleditemsandfouropen-endedquestionsaddressed the students’perceptionsof listening strategiesused for recovering from comprehensionbreakdown, compensating forcomprehension,andreducing testinganxiety.Thequestionnairealsoaskedabout theelements that causedcomprehensiondifficulty for the students.TheresultsoftheLikert-scaleditemsectionrevealedastatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenproficientandlessproficientlistenersintheirperceiveduseoftop-downstrategiesandreportedelementsoflisteningdifficulty,butnodifferenceintheiruseofrepair,affective,orbottom-upstrategies.Analysesoftheopen-endedresponsesshowedthatproficientlistenersidentifiedagreaterrangeofstrategies.

本研究では、集中英語課程に所属する日本人大学生５４人（男子２６人、女子２８人）が英語のリスニングテストを受け、そのあとすぐにリスニングストラテジーに関するアンケートに記入した。アンケートは４２のリカートスケールアイテムと４つの記述式アイテムから成り、学生がテストの最中効果的に英語を聞き取るため、また、テスト不安を少なくするためにどのようなストラテジーを使ったかを聞いた。また、アンケートは、どのような要素が聞き取りを困難にしたかについても聞いた。リカートスケールアイテムの分析の結果、テストスコアの良い学生とその他の学生を比べて、トップダウンストラテジーの使い方とリスニングを困難にする要素に違いがあることが分かったが、リペア、アフェクテイブ、ボトム\アップストラテジーの使い方には違いは見られなかった。記述式アイテムの分析からは、テストスコアの良い学生はより幅の広いストラテジーを使っていることが分かった。

77TAguchi

EarlyinterestinL2listeningresearchstemmedfromatheorythat mereexposuretocomprehensibleinputwouldenhancelisten- ingskillsandpromotelanguageacquisition(Krashen,�985).

Recently,thisexclusiveattentiontoinputhasshiftedtohowlearnersprocesstheinput.Understandingwhatstrategieslearnersuseandwhatdifficulties theyexperiencehasbecomean integralpartof listeningresearch.Informationgleanedfromsuchresearchisconsideredusefulbecauseitprovidesbetterinsightsintolearners’ listeningabilityandhelpsmaketheirlisteningefficient.Thus,thereisagrowinginterestinclarifyinglisteners’mentalprocesses,identifyingfacilitativestrategies,andincorporatingthemintoclassroomactivities(Mendelsohn,�995;Thompson&Rubin,�996;Vandergrift, �999).Althoughprevious re-searchhasexaminedlisteners’metacognitiveprocessesduringdifferenttasks,littleresearchhasbeendonetoinvestigatestrategiesusedwhiletakingalisteningtest.Sincethetestingsituationcouldhaveaconsider-ableimpactonlearners’strategyuse,itisimportanttounderstandwhatsuccessfullistenersactuallydoduringalisteningtest.Thus,thepurposeofthisstudywastofindoutifthereweredifferencesbetweenproficientandlessproficientlistenersintheirstrategicmentalprocessesduringatest.

Background

Research in listening comprehension strategieshas evolved in thecourseofanumberofstudiesinthefieldoflanguagelearningstrategies(O’Malley,Chamot,&Walker,�987;Oxford&Crookall,�989;Wenden&Rubin,�987). Language learningstrategiesaredefinedasdeliber-atetechniquesemployedbylearnerstoenhancetheuseofthetargetlanguageinformation(Oxford,�990).Previousresearchhasidentifiedthreestrategycategories:cognitive,metacognitive,andaffective,andhasrevealedthatthechoiceofastrategyisgreatlyinfluencedbylearnerproficiency (Conrad, �985;O’Malley&Chamot, �990;Rost&Ross,�99�).

Cognitive strategies areproblem-solving that learners employ tomanipulatetheirlearningtasksandfacilitateacquisitionofknowledgeorskills(Derry&Murphy,�986).Examplesofcognitivestrategiesinthefieldoflisteningincludepredicting,inferencing,elaborating,andvisualization.Previous researchhas largely focusedon two typesofcognitive strategies, bottom-upand top-down, and confirmed thatproficientstudentsusemoretop-downstrategiesthanlessproficientlisteners(Clark,�980;Conrad,�985;Tsui&Fullilove,�998;O’Malley,Chamot,&Kupper,�989).Vandergrift’s(�998)studyofFrenchlearners

88

JALT JournAL

showedthatweaklearnerstranslatedmoreandallocatedmoreatten-tiontodecodingindividualwords,whilestronglistenersfocusedonlargerchunks.Overrelianceonbottom-upprocessingseemedtocauseoverloadingofshort-termmemoryanddiscouragedtheuseofmoreimportantstrategiessuchaspredictingorinferencing.Vogely(�998)recentlyinvestigatedthelisteninganxietyofcollegestudentsofSpan-ish.Thesubjectsfocusedonunderstandingandtranslatingeverywordtheyheard,andtheyreportedfrustrationandanxietywhentheycouldnottranslateeverything.Bottom-upprocessingsuchasword-by-worddecodingcouldmakelistenersanxiousandconsequentlyhindertheirlisteningprocess.

Anothertypeofstrategy,metacognitive,isamanagementtechniquethatlearnersusetocontroltheirlearningthroughplanning,monitor-ing,evaluating,andmodifying(Rubin,�987).BakerandBrown(�984)distinguishedtwoaspectsofmetacognitiveability:knowledgeoncog-nition(i.e.,knowingｴwhat’)andregulationofcognition(i.e.,knowingｴhow’).Thefirstaspectrelatestothelearners’conceptualizationabouttheirlisteningprocess,namelytheirawarenessofwhatisgoingonandwhat isneeded to listeneffectively.Previousresearchhasexaminedlearners’persistencewhenencountering comprehensiondifficultyas a factor influencingeffective listening. Learners’persistencewasrelatedtotwotypesofmetacognitivestrategies:self-management(i.e.,controllinglanguageperformance)andself-monitoringstrategies(i.e.,checkingone’scomprehension)(O’Malley&Chamot,�990).Accord-ingtoO’Malleyetal.(�989),stronglistenersusemorerepairstrategies;whencomprehensionfails,stronglistenersmakeanefforttoredirecttheirattentionbacktothetaskquicklyandkeeponlisteningactively,whileweaklistenersstoplisteningfurther.

AccordingtoNagleandSanders’(�986)modeloflisteningcompre-hension,whenrawspeechentersthebrain,theattentionstageplaysanimportantroleinretainingthedatainshort-termmemory,narrowingthefocus,andinitiatingtheinformationprocessing.Attentionisanin-dispensablestepforlistening,asnostoringandsortingofinformationcouldbeginwithoutit.Thus,attentionrecoverymayinfluencesuccess-fulcomprehension.Proficientlistenersshowmorepersistencewhenlisteningthroughtheiractiveuseofrepairstrategies.

Thelastcategory,affectivestrategies,includesattemptstoenhancepositive emotional reactions toward language learning (Chamot&O’Malley, �987).Oxford (�990) identified four typesof facilitativesocio-affective strategies: seeking social support, lowering anxiety,self-encouragement,andtakingemotionaltemperature(i.e.,avertingnegativeemotionsandmakingthemostuseofpositiveones).Theso-

99TAguchi

cio-educationalmodel(Gardner&MacIntyre,�992,�993)stressedthatthelearningcontextisdirectlyrelatedtolearners’social-psychologicalfactors:howlearnersfeelandreacttothelearningexperience.Therefore,thestrategiesusedforaffectivecontroloverlearningexperiencesareconsideredtoplayanimportantroleinL2learning.Vandergrift(�996,2000)documentedthatjunior/seniorhighschoolstudentsofFrenchusedmoreaffectivestrategiesastheircourselevelincreased.Aneiro(�989)alsoreportedasignificantcorrelationbetweenlowanxietyandhighlisteningability,suggestingthattheuseofaffectivestrategiescouldfacilitatelistening.

Insum,precedingstudiesidentifiedavarietyoflisteningstrategiesandconfirmedthatproficientlistenersusedmoremetacognitivestrate-giessuchasself-monitoringorself-directing,andtop-downcognitivestrategiessuchaselaborationandinferencing.Apositiverelationshipwas also foundbetween theuseof affective strategies and listenerproficiency.

Whileavastbodyofresearchprovidesareasonablywell-formulatedanalysisofthelisteners’strategicprocessanditsrelationshiptolisten-ingability,questionsremainastohowlistenersofdifferentskilllevelscompareindifferentlisteningsituations.Previousresearchhasfocusedexclusivelyonclassroomlisteningactivities,andlittleresearchhasbeendonetoinvestigateotherlisteningsettings,suchastestingsituations,tounderstandlearners’strategicinvolvementintheprocess.Atestingsituationcouldexhibitconsiderablydifferenttaskcharacteristicsanddemands.Testsusedfortracking,promotion,orcertificationpurposescouldcauseconsiderableanxietybecausetheoutcomesofthetestshaveadirectimpactonthelivesofthetesttakers.Inatestingsituationwherelearnersareexpectedtoperformaccuratelyundertimeconstraints,theymaybediscouragedfromusingcertainstrategiessuchasrisktakingormonitoring. Strategies for affectivecontrol andconcentration,ontheotherhand,mightsurfaceasstrong,generaltesttakingstrategies.Therefore,itisimportanttofindoutwhetherthepreviousclaimsmadeaboutvariouslisteningstrategiesareconfirmedinatestingsituation.Suchinvestigationwilladdtoagrowingbodyofliteraturefocusedontherelationshipbetweenstrategyuseandtaskcharacteristics(Cohen,2000).

Informationon learners’ strategic involvementduring test takingcouldprovideadditionalinsightsintotheprocessthatlearnersusetoderivecorrectanswers(Bachman,�990;Cohen,�998).Thereisgrowinginterestinanalyzingtesttakingfromafstrategicperspectivebecausesuchinformationcouldhelpusunderstandwhattestitemsarereallytestingandwhatdifficultiesthetesttakersencounter(Buck,�990;Yi’an,

�0�0

JALT JournAL

�998).Suchan investigationwillsupplement traditional testanalysisbyprovidinginsightsintowhyandhowindividualitemsareansweredcorrectly.

Furthermore,inmostresearch,learnersaredesignatedasproficientor lessproficient listenersbasedonaseparatemeasurement(e.g.,acoursegrade,general language test,or teacherevaluation),butnotbasedontheirperformanceonthespecificlisteningtasktowhichtheyappliedtheirstrategies.Sinceinformationonlearners’strategiesandtheirabilitiescomesfromdifferentsources,therelationshipbetweenthetwovariablesmaybeconsideredindirect.Thus,investigatinghowstronglearnerslistenedduringtestonwhichtheyachievedahighscoremayshowamoredirectrelationshipbetweenstrategyuseandlisten-ingability.Althoughseveralstudieshaveinvestigatedtherelationshipbetweentheuseofspecificstrategiesandtestperformance(Cohen,Weaver,&Li,�996),thecorpusofsuchdataisstilllimited.Fewstudieshavedocumentedthatfrequentuseofparticularstrategiesisdirectlyassociatedwithanincreaseinscore.Thus,additionalresearchinthisareacouldaddtoourunderstanding.

Finally,listeners’evaluationsofwhichstrategiesaredifficulttoap-plyorwhatmakesatextdifficultcouldenhanceourunderstandingoflisteners’conceptualizationsofthelisteningprocess.Aspreviouslitera-turestates,certaintextualelements(e.g.,recognizingcombinationsofwords,dividingthestreamofspeech,morphologicalcomplexity)causecomprehensiondifficultyandaffectstrategyuse(Rubin,�994;Vogely,�995).Therefore,therelationshipbetweenlearners’strategychoiceandtheirconfidenceinusingthestrategiesisworthinvestigating.

Purpose

Thecurrent studyexamines strategicmentalprocessesof JapaneselearnersofEnglishduringalisteningtest,focusingontwosubproblems:thetypesoflisteningstrategiesusedandthereportedelementsoflis-teningdifficulty.Thesubproblemswereexploredbythefollowingfiveresearchquestionsandtheresearcher’salternativehypotheses:

RQ�. Aretheredifferencesbetweenproficientandlesspro-ficientlistenersintheirperceiveduseofrepairstrate-gies?

H�. Proficientlistenersusemorerepairstrategiesthanlessproficientlisteners.

RQ2. Are there differences betweenproficient and lessproficientlistenersintheirperceiveduseofaffective

����TAguchi

strategies?H2. Proficientlistenersusemoreaffectivestrategiesthan

lessproficientlisteners.RQ3. Are there differences betweenproficient and less

proficientlistenersintheirperceiveduseoftop-downcompensatorystrategies?

H3. Proficientlistenersusemoretop-downstrategiesthanlessproficientlisteners.

RQ4. Aretheredifferencesbetweenproficientandlesspro-ficient listeners in theirperceiveduseofbottom-upcompensatorystrategies?

H4. Proficientlistenersusefewerbottom-upstrategiesthanlessproficientlisteners.

RQ5. Aretheredifferencesbetweenproficientandlesspro-ficientlistenersintheirreportedelementsoflisteningdifficulty?

H5. Proficientlistenersreportlesslisteningdifficultythanlessproficientlisteners.

Method

Participants

Theparticipantswere54firstyearJapanesestudentsenrolledintheIntensiveEnglishProgram (IEP) at abranchAmericanuniversity innorthernJapan.Therewere26malesand28femaleswithanaverageageof�8.7andarangeof�8to26.TheIEPisdividedintotwoparts:theFocalSkillsProgramandtheEnglishforAcademicPurposesProgram.TheinitialpartoftheIEP,theFocalSkillsProgram,consistsofthreemodules:Listening,Reading,andSpeaking/Writing.TheobjectiveoftheFocalSkillsProgramistohelpstudentsfirstachieveproficiencyinreceptiveskills(i.e.,listeningandreading),priortoproductionskills(i.e., speakingandwriting).Theparticipants in this studywerefirstyearstudentsenrolled in thefirst four-weeksessionof theListeningModule.Theyreceived20hoursofEnglishinstructionperweekaimedatdevelopingtheirlisteningskills.Priortoplacementintothemodule,theyhadreceivedatleastsixyearsofformalEnglisheducationinJapan,betweentwotofourhoursperweekontheaverage.However,duetotheinstructionalemphasisongrammar,theparticipants’overalllisteningabilitywasconsideredasbeginningtointermediatelevel.

�2�2

JALT JournAL

MaterialsPilot StudyApilotstudywasconductedinordertoaddressthereliabilityofthelisteningquestionnaireandrevisethequestionnaireaccordingly.Theparticipantsinthepilotstudywere39malesand34femalesenrolledinthesameFocalSkillsListeningModuleayearbeforethemainstudy.At theendof thefirst four-week session, they took theFocal SkillsListeningTest(FocalSkillsResources,�990)andcompletedalisteningquestionnaireinJapaneseconsistingoftwoparts:Likert-scaleditemsandopen-endedquestions.

The Likert-scaled itemswereon anordinal scale ranging fromStronglyAgree(5)toStronglyDisagree(�).The30itemsweredividedinto4categories:repair,affective,andcompensatorystrategies,andlis-teningdifficulty.Repairstrategies(sixitems)weredefinedastechniquesusedtorecoverfromcomprehensionbreakdown.Thethreeaffectiveitemswerefromthesocio-affectivestrategies(Oxford,�990):loweringanxiety,self-encouragement,andtakingemotionaltemperature(i.e.,avertingnegativeemotions).Compensatorystrategiesconsistedoffivebottom-upandfivetop-downstrategiesthatwereusedtofacilitatethecomprehensionprocess.Bottom-upstrategies includedattending tosmallerunitsofthetext.Top-downstrategiesincludedusingcontextualinformationorpriorknowledgetocomprehendthemainideaofthetext.Difficultyareaincludedasetoftextualelementssuchassound-letter correspondence, relatingvocabulary tomeaning, textgist,orspeedofspeech.

Theitemsintherepair,compensatory,anddifficultycategoriesweredirectlytakenfromtheMetacognitiveAwarenessStrategyQuestionnaire(MASQ)(Carrell,�989).TheMASQwasoriginallydevelopedtoanalyzeL2learners’readingprocess.Vogely(�995)adaptedittoanalyzethelisteningprocessofL2Spanishlearners.ThethreeaffectivestrategieswereaddedtotheMASQbytheresearcherinordertoaccountforthetestingsituation.TheMASQ itemswere translatedby the researcherandadministeredinJapanese.AnotherJapaneseinstructorofEnglishcheckedthequalityofthetranslation.

Thesecondsectionofthequestionnairehadfouropen-endedques-tionscorrespondingtothefoursub-categoriesoftheLikert-scaleditemsection.Thequestionsasked learners to report repair,affective,andcompensatorystrategies,andtheareasoflisteningdifficulty.

Thequestionnairewasrevisedbasedonthereliabilityassessment.Itemanalysiswasconductedinordertocheckthedegreeofconsensusregardingthedirectionofeachquestionnairecategory(i.e.,positive/negativeresponse).Pearsonproduct-momentcorrelationcoefficients

�3�3TAguchi

werecalculatedbetweenitemscoresandtotalcategoryscores.Accord-ingtoMueller(�986),azeroornegativecorrelationindicatesthattheitemisdiscriminatingrespondentsinadifferentwayfromthetotalscoreorworkingagainstthediscrimination,andthusissubjecttorevision.Jaeger(�993)alsostatesthatcorrelationcoefficients lowerthan0.40indicateweakrelationships.Inthepilotstudy,allitemshadcorrelationcoefficientsbetween0.50and0.80andthuswerenotrevised.

Internalconsistencyreliabilityofthequestionnairewasestimatedus-ingtheSpearman-BrownProphecyformula(Brown,�996).Theadjustedfull-questionnairereliabilitywas0.73.Thereliabilityestimatesforthefivesub-categorieswere0.5�,0.33,0.79,0.68,and0.88forrepair,affective,top-down,bottom-up,anddifficultyarea,respectively.Duetothelowreliability,thenumberofitemsinrepair,affective,andcompensatorycategorieswasincreased.

Theopen-endedsectionprovidedinformationtodecidewhatitemstoadd toeach section.The studentswhoachievedahigh scoreonthe listeningtestwere identifiedbyusingameansplit (n=34),andtheirresponsestoeachstrategycategorywerecompiled.Thestrate-giesthatwerefrequentlyreportedbythestudentswereaddedtoeachcategory.

Listening QuestionnaireTherevisedquestionnairehad42Likert-scaleditemsand4open-endedquestions(Appendix�).TheLikert-scaleditemsconsistedofeightrepair,eightaffective,seventop-down,eightbottom-up,andelevendifficultyitems(seeAppendix2forthetableofspecifications).Whenadminis-teredinthepresentstudy,theinternalconsistencyreliabilitywas0.80forthefullquestionnaire,usingtheSpearman-BrownProphecyformula.Thereliabilityestimateswere0.73,0.73,0.83,0.70,and0.86forrepair,affective,top-down,bottom-up,anddifficultyarea,respectively.

Thesameopen-endedquestionsusedinthepilotstudywereaskedinthemainstudy.AsChamot,Kupper,andImpink-Hernandez(�988)note,quantitativeanalysesoflisteningprocesscanofferonlyasuperfi-cialpicture.Thus,thepurposeofthisopen-endedsectionwastoobtainqualitativedataontheparticipants’mentalprocesseswhilelisteningandtosupplementtheinformationgleanedfromthequantitativeanalysis.Thefourquestionswere:

�.Whatdidyoudowhenyoudidn’tunderstandsomethingduringthetest?

2.Whatdidyoudotorelaxforthetest?3.Whatdidyou focuson inorder tocompensate foryour

�4�4

JALT JournAL

listeningduringthetest?4.Whatkindsof thingsweredifficult foryouwhile listen-

ing?

Focal Skills Listening Test

TheFocalSkillsListeningTest(FocalSkillsResources,�990)wasusedtodesignatestrongandweaklisteners.Thetestalsofunctionedaslisteninginputonwhichtheparticipantscouldreflectintermsoftheirmentalprocesseswhilerespondingtothequestionnaireitems.Thetestwasapproximately30minuteslongandhad60shortdialoguesfollowedbyyes-noquestions.ItisacommerciallyavailabletestdesignedfortheFocalSkillsProgram.ThepublishedK-R2�reliabilityestimateofinternalconsistencyofthetestis0.9�,andthestandarderrorofmeasurement(SEM)is3.02.Thetestaimstoassesslisteners’basiccomprehensionskillsoveravarietyofdailytopicsinfamily,school,andsocialsituations.Thetestscoreproducesanintervalscalefromzeroto60,onepointbeingassignedpercorrectanswer.Inthecurrentstudy,thereliabilityestimatewas0.75usingK-R2�,andtheSEMwas3.65.

Procedures

Thestudywasconductedinthespringof2000attheendofthefirstfour-weeksessionoftheacademicyearintheIEP.TheparticipantstooktheFocalSkillsListeningTestinthelisteninglabattheiruniversityin30minutes.Immediatelyafterthetest,theywereaskedtocompletethelisteningquestionnaireinapproximately�5to20minutes.ThewrittendirectionsforthequestionnairewereinJapanese.Thesubjectswerereminded to thinkabout the listening test theyhad just takenwhilerespondingtothequestionnaireitems.

Analysis

ThisstudycomparedthestrategicmentalprocessesofproficientandlessproficientJapaneselearnersofEnglishduringalisteningtest.Listeningproficiency,theindependentvariableinthestudy,wasoperationalizedasthescoresontheFocalSkillsListeningTestwithanintervalscalebetweenzeroand60.Scoresweredichotomisedintotwogroupsbyameansplitrepresentinghighandlowscoringgroups.Thus,learnerproficiencywastreatedasanominalvariablewithtwolevels:proficientandlessproficient.

Learners’strategicmentalprocesswasoperationalizedintermsoftheirperceivedlisteningstrategyuseandlisteningdifficulty.Thedepen-

�5�5TAguchi

dentvariableswerethefourareasoflisteningstrategies:repair,affec-tive,top-downcompensatory,andbottom-upcompensatorystrategies.Listeningdifficultywasthefifthdependentvariable.ThefivevariablesweremeasuredbytheLikert-scaleditemsofthelisteningquestionnaire,whichhadanordinalscaleofonetofive.Theordinalscoresweretrans-formedintointervalscoresbycomputingthesumoftheitemscoreswithineachvariablecategory.Ahighintervalscoreindicatedfrequentuseofthespecificstrategyorincreasedperceptionofdifficulty.Thefivedependentvariableswerealsoaddressedqualitativelybysummarizingtheresponsestotheopen-endedsectionofthequestionnaire.

TheresponsestotheLikert-scaleditemswerecomparedbetweenproficientandlessproficientlistenersbyusingaone-tailedttestfortwoindependentsamples.Thettestwasselectedbecauseitisatypeofparametric test that ismorepowerful forhypothesis testing thannon-parametrictests(Hatch&Lazaraton,�99�).Inaddition,datamettheunderlyingassumptionsforusingthettest.Thereweretwolevelsofoneindependentvariabletocompare,andeachsubjectwasassignedtoonlyonegroup.Thedatawereconsideredascontinuousbecausetheordinalscoresofthequestionnaireitemsweresummedwithineachcategory. Inaddition,normalityof scoredistributionofeachgroupwasconfirmedby theShapiro-Wilks’ testat thesignificance levelof0.0�.Finally,theLevene’stestwasappliedtochecktheassumptionofhomogeneityofvariance.Thevarianceofthetwogroupswasequalineachofthefivevariablestestedatasignificancelevelof0.0�.

Priortoapplyingthettestforthestatisticalanalyses,basedonthepreviousconventions,thesignificancelevelwassetat0.05.However,becausethecurrentstudyusedfivettests(i.e.,onettestperdependentvariable),thesignificancelevelwasadjustedto0.0�usingtheBonferronicorrectionbydividingthealphalevelof0.05bythetotalnumberofcom-parisons(Hatch&Lazaraton,�99�;Jaeger,�993;SPSS,�998).Thus,thestatisticalresultsreportedinthispaperarebasedontheadjustedalphalevelof0.0�inordertoavoidtheerrorofrejectingthenullhypothesiswhenitshouldnothavebeenrejected(Brown,�990).

Results and Discussion

ThissectionpresentsdescriptivestatisticsoftheFocalSkillsListeningTestandthelisteningquestionnaire,anddiscussionsofthefirstandsecondsubproblems.

�6�6

JALT JournAL

Descriptive Statistics

ThedescriptivestatisticsoftheFocalSkillsListeningTestandthelisten-ingquestionnairearepresentedinTables�and2.Themeanandmedianofthetestwere37.00.Themeanandmedianwereequivalent,andthescoreshadanormaldistributionrangingfrom23.00to56.00.Becausethemeanisthebestmeasureofcentraltendency,theparticipantsweredividedintotwogroupsbyameansplit.Twenty-eightstudentswhoscored37orhigherwerecalledproficientlisteners(mean=43.36,SD=4.68),andthestudentswhoachievedascoreoflowerthan37(n=26)werecalledlessproficientdlisteners(mean=3�.23,SD=3.79).

Subproblem One: Are There Differences in Perceived Strategy Use?

Table�:DescriptiveStatisticsoftheFocalSkillsListeningTest

Group N Mean Median SD Min Max Range

Total 54 37.00 37.00 7.03 23 56 0-60Proficient 28 43.36 4�.50 4.6837 56Lessproficient 26 3�.23 32.00 3.7923 36

Note:Nmeansthenumberofparticipants.Thetesthad60itemsintotal,sotherangemeansthelowestandhighestscorepossible.

Table2:DescriptiveStatisticsoftheListeningQuestionnaire

Category K Mean Median SD Min Max Range

Repair 8 29.53 30.00 4.�2 20 39 8-40Affective 8 25.�0 25.00 5.58�4 39 8-40Top-down 7 25.94 27.00 4.86�6 35 7-35compensatoryBottom-up 8 26.26 26.00 4.0� �8 35 8-40compensatoryDifficulty �� 35.53 37.00 7.30 �8 50 ��-55

Note:EachLikert-scaleditemhadanordinalmeasurementof�-5,sotherangerefers to the lowest andhighest scorepossible ineach strategycategory.Kmeans thenumberofquestionnaire items ineachcategory.Thenumberofparticipantswas54.

Subproblemoneinthisstudyaskedwhether thereweredifferencesbetweenproficientandlessproficientlistenersintheirperceiveduseofrepair,affective,top-down,andbottom-uplisteningstrategies.Thissubproblemwasaddressedquantitativelyandqualitatively,basedontheresultsoftheLikert-scaleditemsectionandtheopen-endedques-tionsection.

�7�7TAguchi

Likert-Scaled Item Section

Basedontheprevious literature, itwashypothesizedthatproficientlistenersusemorerepair,affective,andtop-downstrategiesandfewerbottom-upstrategies.Havingmettheunderlyingstatisticalassumptions,theresponsestotheLikert-scaleditemswerecomparedbetweenpro-ficientandlessproficientlistenersbyusingtheone-tailedttestfortwoindependentsamples(a=0.0�,adjustedalphalevelaccordingtotheBonferronicorrection).AsshowninTable3,thettestresultsrevealedasignificantdifferenceintheuseoftop-downstrategiesonly(t=2.53,p<0.0�),withamoderateeffectsizeof0.70basedontheCohenconven-tions(Cohen,�988;Howell,�997).

Althoughthettestresultsshowedthatsignificantlymoreproficientlistenersusedtop-downstrategies,thereseemstobeagreatdiscrep-ancyamongtheindividualtop-downstrategies.Table4summarizesthepercentagesof theproficient and lessproficient listenerswhochoseStronglyAgree(5)orAgree(4)foreachLikert-scaledtop-down

Table3:tTestsforRepair,Affective,andCompensatoryStrategies

Strategycategory Group Mean SD tvalue(one-tailed)

Repair Proficient 30.50 3.94 �.85 Lessproficient 28.44 4.�8 Affective Proficient 25.00 5.34 -0.�5 Lessproficient 25.20 5.93

Top-down Proficient 27.46 3.82 2.53** Lessproficient 24.24 5.40

Bottom-up Proficient 26.75 4.30 0.92 Lessproficient 25.72 3.82

Note:**p<0.0�.

item.Amongthesevenstrategies,“understandingtheoverallmeaning”(Item23)receivedthestrongestresponse(80%ormore),whileonly25%orfewerof thestudents inbothgroupsreported“relatingeachconversationtopriorexperience”(Item38).Inaddition,proficientlis-tenersusedsomestrategiesmuchmorefrequentlythanlessproficient

�8�8

JALT JournAL

listeners.Approximately80%oftheproficientlistenerswereinfavorof“payingattentiontothespeakers’toneofvoiceandintonation”(Item27),whilethepercentageofthelessproficientlistenerswaslessthan30%.Similarly,“Imaginingthesetting”(Item�3)and“attendingtothetoneof conversation” (Item28)wereemployednotablymoreoftenbyproficientlisteners,suggestingtheireffectiveuseofpragmaticandcontextualclues.

Theposthocanalysisofbottom-upstrategiesshowedasimilarten-dency(Table5).Certainbottom-upstrategieswereusednotablymoreoftenthanothers.“Tryingtofindfamiliarvocabulary”(Item7)receivedthestrongestresponsefrombothgroups(80%ormore),whileotherstrategiessuchas“focusingongrammaticalstructures”(Item25)and

Table4:PercentagesoftheLearnersWhoChoseAgree/StronglyAgree

forEachTop-DownStrategy Questionnaireitems Proficient Lessproficient

8. Itriedtopredictthequestionscoming aftereachconversation. 75.0 60.0 �3. Itriedtoimaginethesettingofeach conversation. 78.6 56.0 23. Ifocusedonunderstandingthe overallmeaning. 97.2 80.0 27. Ipaidattentiontospeakers’toneof voiceandintonation. 78.6 28.0 28. Ipaidattentiontotheoveralltoneof thesituation. 85.7 64.0 38. Itriedtorelateeachconversationto myownexperienceinorderto understandtheconversation. 25.0 20.0 39. Iwasthinkingabouttherelationship betweenthespeakers. 60.7 60.0

“payingattentiontoparticularpartsofspeech”(Item�6)receivedweakresponses(approximately30%orless).Thesedescriptiveanalysessug-gest that individual top-downandbottom-upstrategies, rather thanthedichotomizedstrategies,couldbefactorscontributingtoeffectivelistening.Specificstrategiesmayworkdifferentlyindistinguishingsuc-cessfulandunsuccessfullisteners.

Open-Ended Responses

Theparticipants’responsestotheopen-endedquestionswerecom-

�9�9TAguchi

piledandcomparedbetweenproficientandlessproficientlisteners.Tables6 through8display themean frequencyof repair, affective,andcompensatorystrategiesreported.Proficientlistenersreportedagreatervarietyofstrategiesinallcategoriesthanlessproficientlisteners.Althoughbothgroupsreportedthattheyguessedmeaningwhentheircomprehensionfailed(Table6),proficientlistenersfurtherelaboratedhowtheyguessed(i.e.,guessingfromtoneofconversation,speakers’voice/intonation,andtestquestions).

Oneofthemostnotabledifferencesintheaffectivestrategiesisthatconsiderablymoreproficient listeners reported that theywerenotnervousabout the test (Number� inTable7).Thismaybebecause

Table5:PercentagesoftheLearnersWhoChoseAgree/StronglyAgree

forEachBottom-UpStrategy

Questionnaireitems Proficient Lessproficient

6. Whilelistening,Ipaidattentiontothevocabulary thatwasrepeatedlyusedintheconversation. 60.7 76.0 7. Whilelistening,Iwastryingtohear familiarvocabulary. 89.3 80.0 �2. IusedJapanesepartially(e.g.,wordtranslation). 60.7 52.0 �6. Ipaidattentiontoparticularpartsofspeech (e.g.,verbs). 32.� 24.0 �8. Ifocusedonunderstandingthedetailsof theconversation. 35.7 28.0 20. Itranslated. 39.3 24.0 25. Ifocusedonthegrammaticalstructures. 2�.4 8.0 3�. Ifocusedonunderstandingthemeaning ofeachword. 57.� 32.0

Table6:MeanFrequenciesofRepairStrategiesReportedbytheLearners

Q:Whatdidyoudowhenyoudidn’tunderstandsomething?

Proficient Lessproficient

�. Iattendedtothenextsegment. 0.04(�) 0.05(�)2. Ijustguessed. 0.��(3) 0.23(6)3. Iguessedfromthecontext(beforeandafter). 0.25(7) 0.23(6)4. Iguessedfromthetoneofconversation. 0.�8(5) 0.00(0)5. Iguessedfromspeakers’toneofvoiceandintonation. 0.04(�) 0.00(0)6. Iguessedfromvocabulary. 0.2�(6) 0.�9(5)7. Iguessedfromthequestion. 0.07(2) 0.00(0)8. ItriednottodwellonthepartIdidn’tunderstand. 0.�8(5) 0.�5(4) Totalfrequency (30) (22)

Note:Thenumbersintheparenthesesrepresentrawcounts.

2020

JALT JournAL

stronglistenershadconfidenceintheirabilityoralreadyknewhowtocontroltheirtestanxiety.Otheraffectivestrategiessuchaspositiveself-talk(Number6)andbeinglessconsciousaboutthetest(Number7)werealsoobservedexclusivelyintheresponsesofproficientlisteners.Inaddition,alargerportionofproficientlistenersreportedthattheyspokewiththeirAmericanfriendsinordertomentallyprepareforthetest(Number2).

Intheareaofcompensatorystrategies,proficientlistenersidentifiedmoredifferent typesof strategies (Table8).The reported strategiesincludedbothtop-down(i.e.,imaginingthesettings,payingattentiontothespeakertone)andbottom-up(i.e.,focusingonnounsandverbs,

Table7:MeanFrequenciesofAffectiveStrategiesReportedbytheLearners

Q:Whatdidyoudotorelaxforthetest? Proficient Lessproficient

�. Iwasn’tnervous. 0.25(7) 0.05(�)2. IspokewithmyAmericanfriendsbeforethetest. 0.�4(4) 0.05(�)3. Ichewedgum. 0.00(0) 0.08(2)4. Iwassingingmyfavoritesongsinmind. 0.04(�) 0.08(2)5. Itookawalkorexercisedbeforethetest. 0.07(2) 0.�5(4)6. Ikeptsayingtomyself,“Icanpassthetest.” 0.07(2) 0.00(0)7. Itriednottothinkthatit’satest. 0.�4(4) 0.00(0)8. Ifocusedmyeyesononepoint. 0.04(�) 0.05(�)9. Ihadacupofcoffeebeforethetest. 0.04(�) 0.05(�)�0. Itookadeepbreath. 0.04(�) 0.00(0)��. Iwasthinkingaboutsomethingfun. 0.00(0) 0.05(�)�2. Iclosedmyeyes. 0.07(2) 0.20(5) TotalFrequency (25) (�8)

Table8:MeanFrequenciesofCompensatoryStrategiesReportedbytheLearners

Q:Whatdidyoufocusontocompensateforlistening? Proficient Lessproficient

�. Itriedtoconcentrateintentlyonlistening. 0.40(��) 0.46(�2)2. Iimaginedthesettingsoftheconversations. 0.�4(4) 0.08(2)3. Ifocusedonnounsandverbsintheconversations.0.04(�) 0.00(0)4. Itriedtofindfamiliarvocabulary. 0.07(2) 0.00(0)5. Itriedtobuildconfidenceasanativespeaker. 0.04(�) 0.00(0)6. Ipaidattentiontothespeakertone. 0.04(�) 0.00(0)7. IdecidedontheanswerquicklysothatIcanbe preparedforthenextconversation. 0.04(�) 0.00(0)8. Itriednottomissthebeginningportionofthe conversation. 0.00(0) 0.04(�) Totalfrequency (22) (�5)

2�2�TAguchi

tryingtofindfamiliarvocabulary).SimilartothefindingsfromtheLik-ert-scaledsection,individualstrategiesinbothcategoriesofcognitivestrategiesseemtodeserveattention.

Subproblem Two: Are There Differences in Difficulty Elements?

Thesecondsubproblemwasrelatedtohowproficientandlessproficientlistenersevaluatedthelisteningtaskintermsofdifficulty.

Likert-Scaled Item Section

Theresultsoftheone-tailedttestfortwoindependentsamplesrevealedthatproficientlistenersreportedlesslisteningdifficulty,t(52)=-4.68,p<0.0�,withahigheffectsizeof�.30(Table9).

Table9:tTestforDifficultyElements

Group Mean SD tvalue

Proficient 3�.79 6.69 -4.68** Lessproficient 39.72 5.5�

Note:**p<0.0�.

Table �0 summarizes thepercentagesof theproficient and lessproficientlistenerswhochoseAgree(4)orStronglyAgree(5)foreachｴifficultyitem.Overall,considerablymoreweaklistenersfeltthelis-teningtaskwasdifficult,andthistendencywasconsistentforallindi-vidualitems.Forbothlistenergroups,“understandingthedetailsoftheconversation”(Item26)and“relatingeachconversationtoone’sownexperience”(Item30)weredifficultstrategiestoemploy.Previousposthocanalysesoncompensatorystrategiesalsoshowedthatthelearnersdidnotusethesestrategies.Inaddition,approximately90%ofthelessproficient listeners felt “understandingpronunciationofeachword”(Item4)and“rememberingthecontentoftheconversation”(Item4�)weredifficult.However,amajorityoftheproficientlistenersfeltthatthesetwoelementsdidnotcausecomprehensiondifficulty.

2222

JALT JournAL

Whatisnoteworthyinthepresentresultsisthat,forlessproficientlisteners,thereseemstobeagreatergapbetweentheirperceptionofcompensatorystrategiesandtheiractualapplicationofthestrategies.Theposthocanalysisoftop-downstrategiesrevealedthat80%ofthelessproficientlistenersfocusedongettingtheoverallmeaningofthetext;however,morethan70%ofthesamegroupalsoreportedthatunder-standingthemainideawasdifficult(Item5).Othertop-downstrategies,“imaginingthesetting”(Item��)and“predictingthequestion”(Item�9),showedsimilartendencies,indicatingthatweaklistenerscouldnotusethesestrategieseasily.Itissuggestedthatbeingstrategicmeansnotonlyknowingwhichstrategiestousebutalsohowtousethemeffectively.ThecurrentresultsconcurwithBakerandBrown’s(�984)distinctionbetweendeclarativeknowledge(i.e.,knowledgeof“what”)andpro-ceduralknowledge(i.e.,knowledgeof“how”).Knowingthatacertainstrategyisusefulmayprecedetheabilitytouseitroutinely.

Open-Ended Responses

Table��summarizesthemeanfrequenciesofthedifficultyelementsreportedbytheparticipants.Onenotablefindingisthatconsiderablymoreweaklistenerssaid“everything”wasdifficult(Number8),suggest-ingthattheycouldnotpinpointthespecificareasoflisteningdifficulty.Thismaybedue to their lowlisteningproficiencybecausesomeofthemlisted“speedoftheconversation”asoneofthedifficultyareas.Ontheotherhand,severalproficientlistenersidentifiedvocabularyandspecificlinguisticfeatures(i.e.,partsofspeech,grammaticalfunctions)

Table�0:PercentagesoftheLearnersWhoChoseAgreeorStronglyAgreeforEachDifficultyElement

Questionnaireitems Proficient Lessproficient

4. Pronunciationofeachword. 46.4 92.05. Understandingthemainideaofeachconversation. 25.0 72.0��.Imaginingthesettingofeachconversation. 2�.4 52.0�4.Keepingupwiththespeedofthetape. 25.0 64.0�7.Understandingthecombinationofwordsintophrases. 35.7 76.0�9.Predictingthequestioncomingaftereachconversation. 60.7 92.026.Understandingthedetailsoftheconversation. 85.7 96.030.Relatingeachconversationtomyownexperience. 85.7 84.034.Understandingthemeaningofeachword. 35.7 56.04�.Rememberingthecontentoftheconversation. 42.9 88.042.KnowingwhenIunderstood somethingandwhenIdidnot. 35.7 68.0

2323TAguchi

asdifficultyareas.

Table��:MeanFrequenciesofDifficultyElementsReportedbytheLearners

Q:Whatkindsofthingsweredifficultforyouwhilelistening? Proficient Lessproficient

�. Concentration. 0.07(2) 0.00(0) 2. Understandingsounds. 0.04(�) 0.05(�) 3. Thespeedoftheconversation. 0.��(3) 0.38(�0) 4. Rememberingthecontent. 0.00(0) 0.05(�) 5. Thecombinationofwordsintophrases. 0.04(�) 0.�0(2) 6. Vocabulary. 0.43(�2) 0.27(7) 7. Hearingtheconversationonlyonce. 0.07(2) 0.00(0) 8. Everything. 0.04(�) 0.3�(8) 9. Conversationistoolong. 0.00(0) 0.05(�) �0. People’snames. 0.00(0) 0.05(�) ��. Nounsandverbs. 0.04(�) 0.00(0) �2. Grammaticalfunctions(e.g.,negationmarkers). 0.04(�) 0.00(0) Totalfrequency (24) (3�)

Conclusions and Implications for Future Research

This studyexamined the conscious and strategicmentalprocessesofJapaneselearnersofEnglishduringalisteningtest.Thestudywasmotivatedbypreviousfindingsshowingthatstrongandweaklistenershavedifferentmentalandstrategic involvementwhile listening.Thestudyrepresentedanattempttofindoutwhethersuchfindingscouldbeconfirmedinadifferentlisteningsituationsuchastesting.Thestudyalsoprovidedaprocess-orientedperspective to language testing. Itsupplemented the traditionaloutcome-oriented testingpracticebydocumentingtheactualinternalprocessesthatthelearnersgothroughinordertoarriveatanswers.Interpretationsoftheresultsandimplica-tionsforfutureresearcharepresentedbelow.

Interpretation of Perceived Strategy Use

Thefirstfourresearchquestionsaddressedwhetherlearnersofdifferentproficiencylevelsdifferintheiruseoffourtypesofstrategies:repair,af-fective,top-down,andbottom-up.Theresultssupportedpreviousfind-ingsthatsuggestthatproficientlistenersusemoretop-downstrategies,butdidnotsupporttheclaimsaboutrepair,affective,andbottom-upstrategies.Thepresentstudyrevealedthatstrategictendenciescould

2424

JALT JournAL

interactwithtask/contextcharacteristics(e.g.,taskgoal,demands),inadditiontoactingwithlistenercharacteristics(e.g.,proficiency).Repli-catingpreviousfindingsfromclassroomcontexts,thecurrentfindingsshowedthat,inatestingsituation,learnersmightdemonstratedifferentpreferencestowardspecificstrategycategories.Duringtesting,learnerstendtobestronglymotivatedtowardthetaskandareconcernedabouttheaccuracyoftheirlistening.Asaresult,testtakersmightactivelytrytosustaintheirconcentrationandtolistencarefullyfordetails.Similarly,ina testing situation,where thepsychologicaldemand is themajorcontrollingelement,affectivestrategiescouldfunctionasgeneraltesttakingstrategiesandareemployedfrequentlyregardlessoflearners’proficiency levels.Therefore,previousgeneralizationsmadeaboutstrategyusecomparing strongandweak listenersmaynot apply todifferentlisteningsettingswithdifferentdemands.

Thisstudyalsofoundthatproficientlearnersusesignificantlymoretop-downstrategies, suggesting that this strategycategorymightbea ffactor contributing toeffective listeningon thecurrent task.Thisfindingaddstothelimitedbodyofexistingliteraturebecause,forthisparticularlisteningtask,anexplicitlinkwasestablishedbetweentheuseofcertaintypesofstrategiesandperformanceonthelisteningtest.Anincreaseintheuseoftop-downstrategieswasfoundtoberelatedtoanincreaseintestscores,providinginsightsintohowandwhytestitemswereansweredcorrectly,inadditiontowhogottheitemscorrect.

Anotherimplicationgleanedfromthecurrentfindingsisthevariationamongindividualstrategies.Despitethestatisticalevidencethatstronglistenersusemoretop-downstrategies,theposthocanalysesdemon-stratedthatparticulartop-downandbottom-upstrategieswereusedmuchmorefrequentlybytheproficientgroupthanthelessproficientgroup.Thefindingsimplyaneedtolookintoindividualcompensatorystrategies,ratherthanthedichotomizedcategories.Specifictop-downandbottom-upstrategiesmaycontributedifferentlytodiscriminatingsuccessfulandunsuccessfullisteners.Lookingintotheexistingvarietyineachcompensatorycategorymaybeimportanttocaptureapictureoftrulyinfluentialstrategies.

Theresponsestotheopen-endedquestionsdocumentedawiderrangeofrepair,affective,andcompensatorystrategiesreportedbytheproficient listeners. Strong listeners seem tobeable to identify andelaboratethespecifictacticstheyused.Theyseemtobemoreawareoftheirownlisteningprocessandtohavebetterretrospectiveobservationoftheirstrategyuse.AsWenden(�986)notes,appropriatechoiceanduseofstrategiesrequiresmetacognition.Futurestrategyresearchshouldexpandtheanalyticalcategoriestodescribewhatlearnersknowabout

2525TAguchi

theirlearningprocesses,andwhattheyarecapableofexpressing.Thepresentstudyidentified,bothquantitativelyandqualitatively,a

setofstrategiesthataremorestronglyfavoredbyhighscoringlisteners,andthuspotentiallycontributetoeffectivelistening.Additionalresearchmightprovideevidenceofwhetherornot teaching these strategiestoweak listenerscanactually improve theirperformance in testing.Suchinquiryhasgreatpotentialbecauseitcouldprovideanempiricalbasistoinvestigate,thatis,whetherstrategiesareactuallyteachable.Itcouldofferapotentialcause-effectlinkbetweenstrategyuseandlis-teningperformance.Aproblemofstrategyresearchisthatitisdifficulttodetermine thecauseandeffect relationshipbetweenstrategyuseandL2performance,whetherusingcertainstrategiesleadstobetterperformanceorviceversa.Therefore, instructional studies that canshowwhichstrategiesactuallyimproveperformancewillexpandourunderstandingofthelearningprocess.Thesetofpotentiallyinfluentialstrategiesidentifiedinthepresentstudycouldserveasabaselineforfutureinvestigations.

Interpretation of Listening Difficulty

Thefifthresearchquestionaskedwhethertherearedifferencesbetweenproficientandlessproficientlistenersintheirreportedelementsoflis-teningdifficulty.Theresultssupportthepreviousclaimthatstructuralandtextualelementsaresourcesoflisteningdifficultyforlessproficientlisteners.Theseelementsdeserveinstructionalattentionandarepoten-tialareastobeovercomeinordertoimprovelisteningperformance.Similar to strategyuse, the responses to theopen-endedquestionsrevealedthatproficientlistenerspossessedgreatermetacognitiveaware-nessoftheircomprehensiondifficultyduringthetest.

Theexistingdifferencebetween thedifficultyareaand theactualuseofstrategiesfoundinthisstudyimpliesthatcomprehensiondiffi-cultycouldbethefactorthatdiscouragesweaklistenersfromapplyingstrategiessuccessfullytotheirlisteningtasks.Asshownintheposthocanalyses,althoughalargenumberofweaklistenersreportedtryingtousetop-downstrategies,theyalsofeltthosestrategiesweredifficulttouse.

Thegapbetweentheperceiveduseandactualapplicationofstrate-giesmaystemfromthelearners’lackofbasiclisteningabilityorex-perienceinapplyingthestrategies.Thedifferencebetweenproficientand lessproficient listeners could lie in their ability to actuallyusethestrategiesratherthanknowingwhichstrategiestheyshoulduse.Knowingwhichstrategiestouseandbeingabletousethestrategies

2626

JALT JournAL

successfullymaybetwoseparateskills.Listeners’basicproficiencyorstrategypracticecouldgreatlyinfluencetheirabilitytoactuallyutilizethestrategiesinlisteningtasks.Thepresentfindingsimplyaneedforfurtherresearchtoinvestigatethedegreeofconfidencethatproficientandlessproficientlistenershavewhenusingthestrategies,notonlythetypesofstrategiestheyaretryingtoemploy.

Acknowledgements

IwishtothankJoanJamiesonforherconstructivefeedbackandguid-ancethroughoutthisstudy.ThanksalsogototwoanonymousreviewersofJALTfortheirhelpfulcommentsandsuggestionsonearlierdrafts.Iamsolelyresponsibleforalltheerrorsthatmayremain.

NaokoTaguchi,currentlyoneducationalleavefromtheESLDepartmentofMinnesotaStateUniversity-Akita,ispursuingherPh.D.inAppliedLinguisticsatNorthernArizonaUniversity.Herresearchinterestincludesinterlanguagepragmatics,learningstrategies,anddiscourseanalysis.

Notes

�.AnearlierversionofthispaperwaspresentedattheannualSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearchForum(SLRF)attheUniversityofWis-consininSeptember2000.

ReferencesAneiro,S.(�989).Theinfluenceofreceiverapprehensioninforeignlanguage

learnersonlisteningcomprehensionamongPuertoRicancollegestudents.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,NewYorkUniversity,NewYork.

Bachman,L.F.(�990).Fundamentalconsiderationsinlanguagetesting.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Baker,L.,&Brown,A.L.(�984).Metacognitiveskillsandreading.InP.David(Ed.),Handbookofreadingresearch(pp.353-394).NewYork:Longman.

Brown,J.D.(�990).Theuseofmultiple t tests in languageresearch.TESOLQuarterly,24,770-772.

Brown, J.D. (�996).Testing in languageprograms.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.

Buck,G. (�990). Introspectionon listening-test taking. LanguageTesting,8,67-9�.

Carrell,P.L.(�989).Metacognitiveawarenessandsecondlanguagereading.TheModernLanguageJournal,73,�2�-�33.

2727TAguchi

Chamot,A.U.,Kupper,L.,&Impink-Hernandez,M.V.(�988).Astudyoflearningstrategiesinforeignlanguageinstruction:Findingsofthelongitudinalstudy.Rosslyn,VA:InterstateResearchAssociates.

Chamot,A.U.,&O’Malley,J.M.(�987).Thecognitiveacademiclanguagelearningapproach:Abridgetothemainstream.TESOLQuarterly,2�,227-249.

Clark,M. (�980).The short circuithypothesisofESL reading.TheModernLanguageJournal,64,203-209.

Cohen,A.D. (�998). Strategies andprocesses in test taking andSLA. In L.F.Bachman&A.D.Cohen (Eds.), Interfacesbetween second languageacquisition and language testing (pp. 90-���). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Cohen,A.D. (2000).The learner’s sideofESL:Wheredo styles, strategies,and tasksmeet?Paperpresentedat theSoutheastTESOLMeeting,Miami,Florida.

Cohen,A.D.,Weaver,S. J.,&Li,T-Y. (�996).The impactof strategies-basedinstructiononspeakinga foreign language.CARLAWorkingPaperSeriesNo.4.Minneapolis:CenterforAdvancedResearchonLanguageAcquisition,UniversityofMinnesota.

Cohen,J.(�988).Statisticalpoweranalysisforthebehavioralsciences(2nded.).NewYork:AcademicPress.

Conrad,L.(�985).Semanticversussyntacticcuesinlisteningcomprehension.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition,�,59-72.

Derry,S.J.,&Murphy,D.A.(�986).Designingsystemsthattrainlearningability:Fromtheorytopractice.ReviewofEducationalResearch,56,�-39.

FocalSkillsResources(�990).TheFocalSkillsAssessmentsofEnglishProficiency.Plano,TX60:FocalSkillsResources.

Gardner,R.C.,&MacIntyre,P.D.(�992).Astudent’scontributionstosecondlanguagelearning.PartI:Cognitivevariables.LanguageTeaching,22,2��-220.

Gardner,R.C.,&MacIntyre,P.D.(�993).Astudent’scontributionstosecondlanguagelearning.PartII:affectivevariables.LanguageTeaching,26,�-��.

Hatch,E.,&Lazaraton,A.(�99�).Theresearchmanual:Designandstatisticsforappliedlinguistics.Boston:Heinle&HeinlePublishers.

Howell,D.C.(�997).Statisticalmethodsforpsychology(4thed.).Belmont,CA:WadsworthPublishingCompany.

Jaeger,R.M.(�993).Statistics:Aspectatorsport(2nded.).NewburyPark,CA:Sage.

Krashen,S.D.(�985).Theinputhypothesis:Issueandimplications.London:Longman.

Mendelsohn,D. (�995).Applying learning strategies in the second/foreignlanguage listening comprehension lesson. InD.Mendelsohn& J. Rubin(Eds.),AGuidefortheteachingofsecondlanguagelistening(pp.�32-�50).SanDiego:DominiePress.

2828

JALT JournAL

Mueller,D.J.(�986).Measuringsocialattitudes:Ahandbookforresearchersandpractitioners.NewYork:TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity.

Nagle,S.,&Sanders,S.(�986).Comprehensiontheoryandsecondlanguagepedagogy.TESOLQuarterly,20,9-26.

O’Malley,J.M.,&Chamot,A.U.(�990).Learningstrategiesinsecondlanguageacquisition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

O’Malley,J.M.,Chamot,A.U.,&Kupper,L.(�989).Listeningcomprehensionstrategiesinsecondlanguageacquisition.AppliedLinguistics,29,33�-34�.

O’Malley, J.M.,Chamot,A.U.,&Walker,C. (�987). Some applicationsofcognitivetheorytosecondlanguageacquisition.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition,9,287-306.

Oxford,R. (�990).LanguageLearningStrategies:Whatevery teacher shouldknow.NewYork:NewburyHouse.

Oxford,R.,&Crookall,D. (�989).Researchon language learning strategies:Methods,findings,andinstructionalissues.TheModernLanguageJournal,73,404-4�9.

Rost,M.,&Ross,S.(�99�).Learneruseofstrategiesininteraction:Typologyandteachability.LanguageLearning,4�,235-273.

Rubin,J.(�987).Learnerstrategies:Theoreticalassumptions,researchhistoryandtypology.InA.Wenden&J.Rubin(Eds.),Learnerstrategiesinlanguagelearning(pp.�5-30).EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.

Rubin,J.(�994).Areviewofsecondlanguagelisteningcomprehensionresearch.TheModernLanguageJournal,78,�99-22�.

SPSS.(�998).SPSSbase8.0applicationsguide.Chicago:SPSS.

Thomspon, I.,&Rubin, J. (�996).Canstrategy instruction improve listeningcomprehension?ForeignLanguageAnnals,29,33�-34�.

Tsui, A., & Fullilove, J. (�998). Bottom-up or top-downprocessing as adiscriminatorofL2listeningperformance.AppliedLinguistics,�9,432-45�.

Vandergrift,L.(�996).ThelisteningcomprehensionstrategiesofcoreFrenchhighschool.TheCanadianModernLanguageReview,52,200-22�.

Vandergrift,L.(�998).SuccessfulandlesssuccessfullistenersinFrench:Whatarethestrategydifferences?TheFrenchReview,7�,370-395.

Vandergrift,L.(�999).Facilitatingsecondlanguagelisteningcomprehension:Acquiringsuccessfulstrategies.ELTJournal,53,�68-�73.

Vandergrift,L.(2000).SuccessfulL2listenersinjuniorhighschool:Howdotheyunderstand?PaperpresentedatAnnualAssociationofAppliedLinguisticsconference,Vancouver,Canada.

Vogely,A.(�995).Perceivedstrategyuseduringperformanceonthreeauthenticlisteningcomprehensiontasks.TheModernLanguageJournal,79,4�-56.

Vogely.A.(�998).Listeningcomprehensionanxiety:Students’reportedsourcesandsolutions.ForeignLanguageAnnals,3�,33-43.

2929TAguchi

Wenden,A. (�986).What do second-language learners knowabout theirlanguage learning?: A second look at retrospective accounts. AppliedLinguistics,7,�86-20�.

Wenden, A.,& Rubin, J. (�987). Learner strategies in language learning.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Yi’an,W.(�998).Whatdotestsoflisteningcomprehensiontest?:AretrospectivestudyofEFLtest-takersperformingamultiple-choicetask.LanguageTesting,�5,2�-24.

(ReceivedDecember26,2000;revisedJune�2,200�)

Appendix2

TableofSpecificationsoftheLikert-ScaledItemSectionoftheListeningQuestionnaire

ListeningStrategies(3�itemstotal) ItemNumbers

A.Repair(metacognitive) 3,�0,�5,24,32,33,35,37 B.Affective �,2,9,2�,22,29,36,40 C.Compensatory(cognitive) C.�.Top-downstrategies 8,�3,23,27,28,38,39 C.2.Bottom-upstrategies 6,7,�2,�6,�8,20,25,3�

DifficultyElements(��itemstotal) 4,5,��,�4,�7,�9,26,30,34,4�,42

Note:TheLikert-scaleditemshaveanordinalmeasurementof�-5.

3030

JALT JournALA

ppen

dix

�Q

ues

tionnai

re(Tra

nsl

atio

n)

*This

ques

tionnai

reis

ask

ing

aboutt

he

liste

nin

gte

sty

ouju

stfi

nis

hed

.Ple

ase

indic

ate

the

leve

lofy

ourag

reem

ento

rdis

agre

emen

twithe

achs

tate

-m

entb

yci

rclin

gth

eap

pro

pri

ate

num

ber

.Than

kyo

uv

ery

much

foryo

urco

oper

atio

n!

Duri

ng

the

liste

nin

gte

st...

..

Stro

ngl

yA

gree

N

eith

era

gree

D

isag

ree

Stro

ngl

y

agr

ee

nordis

agre

e

dis

agre

e�.

D

uri

ng

the

test

,Ik

epte

nco

ura

ging

mys

elf.

5

4

3

2

�

2.

Itr

iedto

enjo

ylis

tenin

g.

5

4

3

2

�3.

W

hen

Id

idn’t

under

stan

ds

om

ethin

g,Itr

iedn

ott

ow

orr

yab

outi

tsom

uch

.

5

4

3

2

�4.

Itw

asd

ifficu

ltto

under

stan

dth

epro

nunci

atio

no

feac

hw

ord

.

5

4

3

2

�

5.

Itw

asd

ifficu

ltto

under

stan

dth

em

ainid

eao

feac

hc

onve

rsat

ion.

5

4

3

2

�6.

W

hile

list

enin

g,Ip

aida

ttentio

nto

the

voca

bula

ryth

atw

asrep

eate

dly

use

din

the

conve

rsat

ion.

5

4

3

2

�

7.

While

list

enin

g,Iw

astr

ying

toh

earfa

mili

arv

oca

bula

ry.

5

4

3

2

�8.

Itr

iedto

pre

dic

tthe

ques

tions

com

ing

afte

rea

chc

onve

rsat

ion.

5

4

3

2

�9.

D

uri

ng

the

test

,Itr

iedto

forg

etIa

mta

king

the

test

.

5

4

3

2

��0

.When

Id

idn’t

under

stan

ds

om

ethin

g,Ig

ues

sedth

em

eanin

gfr

om

the

conte

xt.

��.I

twas

difficu

ltto

imag

ine

the

settin

gofe

achc

onve

rsat

ion.

5

4

3

2

�

�2.I

use

dJap

anes

epar

tially

(e.

g.,w

ord

tran

slat

ion).

5

4

3

2

�

�3.W

hile

list

enin

g,Itr

iedto

imag

ine

the

settin

gofe

achc

onve

rsat

ion.

5

4

3

2

�

�4.I

twas

difficu

ltto

kee

pu

pw

ithth

esp

eedo

fthe

tape.

5

4

3

2

�

�5.W

hen

Id

idn’t

under

stan

ds

om

ethin

g,Ig

ave

uptr

ying

toc

om

pre

hen

d.

5

4

3

2

��6

.While

list

enin

g,Ip

aida

ttentio

nto

par

ticula

rpar

tso

fspee

ch(ve

rbs,

nouns)

.

5

4

3

2

�

�7.I

twas

difficu

ltto

under

stan

dth

eco

mbin

atio

no

fword

sin

top

hra

ses.

5

4

3

2

��8

.Ifo

cuse

do

nu

nder

stan

din

gth

edet

ails

oft

he

conve

rsat

ion.

5

4

3

2

�

�9.I

twas

difficu

ltto

pre

dic

tthe

ques

tionc

om

ing

afte

rea

chc

onve

rsat

ion.

5

4

3

2

�20

.Itr

ansl

ated

.

5

4

3

2

�

2�.W

hile

list

enin

g,Id

ids

om

ethin

gsp

ecia

ltorel

ax.

5

4

3

2

�

22.I

kep

tsay

ing

tom

ysel

f,“I

can

pas

sth

ete

st.

5

4

3

2

�

23.I

focu

sedo

nu

nder

stan

din

gth

eov

eral

lmea

nin

goft

he

conve

rsat

ion.

5

4

3

2

�

3�3�

24.I

lost

my

conce

ntr

atio

nw

hen

Id

idn’t

under

stan

ds

om

ethin

g,b

utI

reco

vere

dm

yco

nce

ntr

atio

nim

med

iate

ly.

5

4

3

2

�

25.I

focu

sedo

nth

egr

amm

atic

als

truct

ure

s.

5

4

3

2

�26

.Itw

asd

ifficu

ltto

under

stan

dth

edet

ails

oft

he

conve

rsat

ion.

5

4

3

2

�27

.Ip

aida

ttentio

nto

the

spea

kers

’tone

ofv

oic

ean

din

tonat

ion.

5

4

3

2

�

28.W

hile

list

enin

g,Ip

aida

ttentio

nto

the

over

allt

one

oft

he

situ

atio

n.

5

4

3

2

�

29.B

efore

the

test

,Id

ids

om

ethin

gto

rel

ax.

5

4

3

2

�30

.Itw

asd

ifficu

ltto

rel

ate

each

conve

rsat

ionto

my

owne

xper

ience

.

5

4

3

2

�3�

.Ifo

cuse

do

nu

nder

stan

din

gth

em

eanin

gofe

achw

ord

.

5

4

3

2

�

32.W

hen

Id

idn’t

under

stan

ds

om

ethin

g,Ilo

stm

yco

nce

ntr

atio

na

ndc

ould

n’t

hea

rth

ere

sto

fthe

conve

rsat

ion.

5

4

3

2

�

33.

While

list

enin

g,Ig

ues

sedth

em

eanin

gfr

om

the

voca

bula

ryIk

now

.

5

4

3

2

� 34.I

twas

difficu

ltto

under

stan

dth

em

eanin

gofe

achw

ord

.

5

4

3

2

�

35.

When

Id

idn’t

under

stan

ds

om

ethin

g,Ig

ues

sedth

em

eanin

gfr

om

the

tone

oft

he

conve

rsat

ion.

5

4

3

2

�36

.Iw

asth

inki

ng

aboutd

oin

gso

met

hin

gfu

na

fter

the

test

.

5

4

3

2

�37

.W

hen

Id

idn’t

under

stan

ds

om

ethin

g,Ifo

undm

ysel

fstu

cko

nth

e

segm

entI

did

n’t

under

stan

d.

5

4

3

2

�38

.Itr

iedto

rel

ate

each

conve

rsat

ionto

my

owne

xper

ience

ino

rder

to

under

stan

dth

eco

nve

rsat

ion.

5

4

3

2

�39

.While

list

enin

g,Iw

asth

inki

ng

aboutt

he

rela

tionsh

ipb

etw

eenth

esp

eake

rs.

5

4

3

2

�40

.Ilis

tened

toE

ngl

ishb

efore

the

test

ino

rder

tog

etm

enta

llyp

repar

edfo

rth

ete

st.

5

4

3

2

� 4�.

When

Ih

eard

aq

ues

tion,i

twas

difficu

ltto

rec

allt

he

conte

nto

fthe

conve

rsat

ion.

5

4

3

2

� 42.W

hile

list

enin

g,it

was

difficu

ltto

know

when

Iu

nder

stoods

om

ethin

g

andw

hen

Id

idn

ot.

5

4

3

2

�

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

ｴｴ

*Ple

ase

wri

tey

ourre

sponse

sto

the

follo

win

gques

tions.

�.W

hat

did

youd

ow

hen

youd

idn’t

under

stan

ds

om

ethin

gduri

ng

the

test

?

2.W

hat

did

youd

oto

rel

axfo

rth

ete

st?

TAguchi

3232

JALT JournAL

How Reliable and Valid is the Japanese Version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)?

Gordon RobsonShowa Women’s UniversityHideko MidorikawaShowa Women’s University

ThisstudylooksattheinternalreliabilityoftheStrategyInventoryforLanguageLearning(Oxford,�990),usingtheESL/EFLversioninJapanesetranslation.Theresultsof theCronbach’salphaanalysis indicateahighdegreeof reliabilityfortheoverallquestionnaire,butlesssoforthesixsubsections.Moreover,thetest-retestcorrelationsforthetwoadministrationsareextremelylowwithanaveragesharedvarianceof�9.5percentattheitemleveland25.5percentatthesubsectionlevel.Inaddition,theconstructvalidityoftheSILLwasexaminedusingexploratoryfactoranalysis.While theSILLclaimstobemeasuringsixtypesof strategies, the two factor analyses include asmany as �5 factors.Moreover,anattempttofit thetwoadministrationsintoasix-factorsolutionresultsinadisorganizedscatteringofthequestionnaireitems.Finally,interviewswithparticipatingstudentsraisedquestionsabouttheabilityofparticipantstounderstand themetalanguageused in thequestionnaire aswell as theappropriatenessof some items fora JapaneseandEFL setting.TheauthorsconcludethatdespitethepopularityoftheSILL,useandinterpretationofitsresultsareproblematic.

本研究は、Oxford(1990)の外国語学習ストラテジー・インベントリー(SILL)のEFL/ESL用日本語版の内部信頼性及び構成概念妥当性を実験と統計によって検証したものである。クロンバック・アルファ検定による内部信頼性については、インベントリーの全項目は全体としては信頼性が高かったが、6タイプのサブカテゴリーに分類されたストラテジーについては信頼性が低かった。また、インベントリーを用いたテスト・再テストの相関は低く、全項目では平均寄与率19.5パーセント、サブカテゴリーでは25.5パーセントであった。構成概念妥当性検定のための説明的因子分析の結果は、6タイプのストラテジーが15因子に細分化されたこと、さらに、全項目を6因子に分けた結果、それぞれの因子が無秩序に分類される結果となった。最後に、インタビューによって、この実験に参加した被験者学生にインベントリーの各項目の内容理解について確認した結果、日本語がわかりにくく判断しいくい記述、日本のEFLの状況では理解しにくい記述があることが明らかになった。以上のすべてから、SILLの実用的評価にもかかわらず、それを用いること、また、そこから得た結果の解釈には問題が含まれているというのが、本研究の研究者が得た結論である。

3333robson & MidorikAwA

Theuseofself-reportinstrumentstoinvestigatevariousaspectsofindividuallearnerdifferencesisacommonandacceptedprac-tice in thefieldofsecondlanguageacquisitionresearch.Asa

consequence,alargenumberofsuchinstrumentshavebeendevelopedandusedover theyears.These include theAttitude/MotivationTestBattery(A/MTB)(GardnerandLambert,�972),theForeignLanguageClassroomAnxietyScale(FLCAS)(Horwitz,Horwitz,andCope,�986),andtheinstrumentunderdiscussionhere,theStrategyInventoryforLanguageLearning(SILL)(Oxford,�990).However,despitethewideacceptanceanduseoftheseinstruments,issuessuchastheirreliabilityandvalidityareoftenlostintheenthusiasmtofindoutwhatstudentsreallyfeelorbelieve.Althoughagiveninstrumentmayhavebeenrigor-ouslydevelopedandevensubjectedtovariousmeasuresofreliabilityandvalidity,whenitistranslatedintoanotherlanguageorusedinaculturalsettingdifferentfromtheoneoriginallyintended,itmustonceagainberigorouslyexamined,assuggestedbyGriffee(�999).

Thisreportwillpresenttheinitialresultsoftheresearchers’attemptstoprovidereliabilityandvaliditydataontheSILLinaJapaneseuniversitysetting.Thisstudyisgroundedintheresearchers’numerousotherat-temptstovalidateotherJapanesetranslationsofmeasuresofindividuallearnerdifferences,suchasmotivation,anxiety,learningstyles,learningbeliefs,andlearningstrategies.ReliabilityistypicallymeasuredthroughstatisticssuchasCronbach’salphaormultipleadministrationsofatestwiththesamesubjects,bothofwhichareusedhere.Regardingvalidity,althoughinthepastothermethodsofvalidatinghavebeenputforward,recentlyChapelle(�994)andMessick(�989)havepersuasivelyarguedforvaliditytobecondensedintoasingle,generalapproachwherethefocusisontheinstrumentasaconstruct.Asthemeasurestypicallyusedinthistypeofresearchhavebeenself-reportquestionnairesinwhichitemsweregroupedintocategoriesorsubscales,researchershavefa-voredfactoranalyticvalidationforthevariousgroupingsorcategoriesassignedtothequestionnaireitems.Theuseoffactoranalysistoconfirmatheorizedgroupingofitemsisalong-establishedpractice(Guilford&Fruchter,�973),especiallyinthefieldofpersonalityresearch,whereithasbeenusedtovalidateself-reportquestionnairesforover50years(seeforexampleAllport,�937;Guilford,�940;McCrae,�989).Therefore,thiswillbetheapproachtakeninvalidatingthesixgroupsofstrategiesmakinguptheSILL.

What is Reliability and Validity?

Therearevariousapproachestotestingandconfirmingthereliability

3434

JALT JournAL

andvalidityofagivenresearchinstrument.Wecandefinethereliabilityastheproportionofthevariationintestscoresthatistruevariationandnoterror(Bachman,�990;Brown,�988).Typically,whenmeasuringreliability,theitemsonthequestionnairearesubjectedtooneormoretypesofstatisticalmeasurement.ThemostcommonlyemployedstatisticisCronbach’salpha,whichmeasurestheinternalconsistencyofatest.Anotherapproachistoobtainsimplecorrelationsbetweentestitemsofameasurethatisgiventothesamepopulationtwoormoretimes.Thisisreferredtoastest-retestreliability.

Ingeneral,thevalidationofaself-reportinstrumentismuchmoredifficultandinthepastinvolvedseveraldifferenttypesofvaliditysuchasfacevalidity,contentvalidity,constructvalidity,factoranalyticvalid-ity,andcriterion-relatedvalidity.However,inaninsightfularticleMes-sick(�989)pointsoutthatwhileitisimportanttovalidatethemethodofdatacollection,themorecrucialareaistovalidatetheinferences,interpretations,andactionstakenbasedonthescoresderivedfromthedata.Moreover,Chapelle(�994)arguesthat“constructvalidityiscentraltoallfacetsofvalidityinquiry,”andasanongoingprocess,thereisnoonceandforevervalidity(p.�6�).

Fromastatisticalpointofview,thereareseveralwaystoconfirmtheconstructvalidityofaninstrument.Theuseofcorrelationapproachesand factor analysishasbeennotedpreviously. Typically these ap-proachesinvolveusingseveraltestsorquestionnairesthatarebelievedtorepresentaconstruct,suchaslanguage-learningstrategies,andthenconfirmingthevalidityof the itemsthroughhighcorrelations. If thecorrelationsarehighenough,thenwecaninferthattheymeasurethehypothesizedconstruct.Factoranalysiscanbeusedwhenmeasuresforseveraldifferentconstructsarebeingused,suchasformotivation,strategies,andpersonality.Subsequently,theirloadingsondistinctfac-torsconfirmthattheymeasureseparateaspectsoflearnerbehavior.Aseconduseoffactoranalysisistobreakameasureintosubgroupings,suchasthesixhypothesizedpartsoftheSILL,andthenfactorthemtoseeifthesedivisionsarevalid.Evidenceofameasure’svaliditycanalsobeconfirmedexperimentallyorquasi-experimentallythroughrelatedoutcomesusing,forexample,ameasureoflanguagelearningstrategiesandscoresonsomemeasureoflanguagelearningsuchastheTOEFLTest.Thiswouldindicatenotonlythatthemeasurewasvalidlymeasur-ingstrategies,butalsothatsuchstrategieswereuseful.

3535robson & MidorikAwA

The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

TheStrategy Inventory for LanguageLearning (SILL) is a self-reportquestionnaire for determining the frequencyof language learningstrategyuse.Itconsistsof50itemswithfiveLikert-scaleresponsesofneveroralmostnevertrueofme,generallynottrueofme,somewhattrueofme,generallytrueofme,alwaysoralmostalwaystrueofme.Basedonafactoranalysisofanearlier,largerversion,OxfordorganizedtheSILLintosixstrategysubscales:(a)MemoryStrategies(9items),(b)CognitiveStrategies(�4items),(c)CompensationStrategies(6items),(d)MetacognitiveStrategies(9items),(e)AffectiveStrategies(6items),and(f)SocialStrategies(6items).ThequestionnairewastranslatedintoJapaneseaspartoftheJapaneselanguageversion(Oxford,�990/�994)ofOxford’s(�990)LanguageLearningStrategies:WhatEveryTeacherShouldKnow.AlthoughOxforddoesnotdirectlydiscusstheprocessforestablishingthereliabilityandvalidityoftheSILL,anotetoChapterSixexplainsthatanearlier,�2�-itemversionoftheSILLwasfoundtohaveareliabilityof.96basedona�,200-personsampleand.95witha483-personsample.Shethengoesontostatethatthereliabilityof9of�0factorswasfoundtobemoderatetohighwithfiguresof.60to.86,althoughforthe�0thfactoritwasonly.3�.Thisisnotthetypicalwayofreportingtheresultsoffactoranalysis,andifthe�2�-itemversionwasclaimingtomeasuresixstrategytypes,thena�0-factorsolutionishardlyconfirmation.Thenotegoesontostatethatthefifty-itemversion7.0oftheSILLunderdiscussionherewasstillbeingassessedforreli-abilityandvalidity.Thus,whileitwouldseemthatthevariousversionsoftheSILLhaveaprovenlevelofreliability,thisdoesnotsuggestthatthequestionnaireisvalid.AsBachman(�990)hasstated,ｴheprimaryconcernintestdevelopmentanduseisdemonstratingnotonlythattestscoresarereliable,butthattheinterpretationsanduseswemakeoftestscoresarevalid(p.237).IfatthispointintheSILL’sconstructionitwerefoundtobeunreliable,therewouldbenoneedtoproceed,asanunreliablemeasureissimilarlynotvalid.

Oxford(�996)discussesthepsychometricqualitiesoftheSILL,andin termsof reliability, shecitesWatanabe (�990),wherea JapaneseversionoftheSILLachievedaCronbach’salphareliabilityof.92,andotherstudieswithsimilarreliabilitiesinthe.90range.Followingtheabove-mentionedMessick(�989)andChapelle(�994)approachtotestvalidity,OxfordexaminedanumberofstudieswheretheSILLcorrelatedsignificantlywithvariousmeasuresof language learning. InOxford,Park-Oh,Ito,andSumrall(�993),amultiple-regressionanalysisfoundlowbutsignificantpredictiverelationshipsbetweenstrategiesandfinal

3636

JALT JournAL

testgrades(.20).Takeuchi(�993),alsousingmultiple-regressionanalysiswithlanguageachievementasmeasuredbytheComprehensiveEnglishLanguageTest (CELT), found that fourSILL items(�7,2�,22and32)positivelypredictedlanguageachievementwhilefouritems(6,30,43and49)negativelypredictedlanguagesuccess.Finally,Watanabe(�990)foundlowcorrelationsbetweenSILLitemsandstudents’self-ratingsoftheirownproficiency.Althoughtheseresultsprovidesomemeasureofvalidation,onlyafewSILLitemsareinvolved,andthecorrelationsareextremelylow.

InBrown,Robson,andRosenkjar(�996)anindependentlytranslatedversionoftheSILLwasusedinamultiple,individuallearnerdifferencesstudy.Theoverallreliabilityofthattranslatedversionwas.94withthereliability for the six strategy typesbeing .74 forMemoryStrategies,.84 forCognitiveStrategies, .69 forCompensationStrategies, .88 forMetacognitiveStrategies,.63forAffectiveStrategies,and.73forSocialStrategies.ThefactoranalysisintheBrownetal.(�996)studywasonlyusedtodetermineiftheSILLwasmeasuringsomethingdistinctfromtheothermeasuresofsuchvariablesaspersonality,anxiety,andmo-tivation.Thesixstrategytypeswerefoundtoloadonasinglefactor,whichconfirmedthattheSILLwasmeasuringavariabledistinctfromtheother instruments.The researchersknowofnootherpublishedstudythathasattemptedtoestablisheitherreliabilityorvalidityinthismannerusingaJapaneseversionoftheSILL.

However,atTESOL2000inVancouver,Canada,HsiaoandOxford(2000)presentedtheresultsofamulti-groupconfirmatoryfactoranalysisforan80-itemSILL.Thefactoranalysisplacedonly�7itemsintothesixhypothesizedgroupings,leaving63itemswithnorelationtothesixstrategycategorieshypothesized.The�7itemswereMemoryStrategies(4,5,8),CognitiveStrategies(26,27,28),CompensationStrategies(4�,43),MetacognitiveStrategies(49,53,55),AffectiveStrategies(66,68,69),andSocialStrategies(72,73,74).Ofthese,onlyitems5,27,28,68,and72arethesameasorsimilartoitemsonthe50-questionversionoftheSILLunderstudyhere.

Tosummarize,theSILLappearstoenjoyahighdegreeofreliabilityin its variousversions and the languages inwhich ithasbeenem-ployed.However,thereliabilityhasbeenfortheSILLasawhole,withtheexceptionofBrownetal.(�996),whereseveralofthescaleswereratherlow.Thisstillleavesthequestionofvalidity,whichbasedonthesourcesdiscussedseemsfarfromestablished,andhasledustoaskthefollowingresearchquestions.

3737robson & MidorikAwA

Research Questions

�.HowreliableistheJapaneselanguageversionoftheSILLforJapaneseuniversitystudents?

2.TowhatdegreeistheJapaneselanguageversionoftheSILLvalidforJapaneseuniversitystudents?

Method

Thepresent study isbasedon twoadministrationsof theofficiallytranslatedSILL(Oxford�990/�994)tothesamegroupof�53Japaneseuniversitystudents.Thegroupwascomprisedof��0first-andsecond-yearfemalesand43first-andsecond-yearmalesstudyingataprivatewomen’suniversityandaprivatecoeducationaluniversityinTokyo.TheirEnglishproficiency levelwasapproximately lowintermediate.Thefirstadministrationwasconductedatthebeginningofthespringsemester.Asecondadministrationwasconductedduringthebeginningofthefallsemesterusingaversioninwhichtheorderoftheitemshadbeenrandomized.Therewerenochangesinthemakeupofthegroupofsubjectsforthetwoadministrationsofthequestionnaire.Inaddi-tion,post-administrationinterviewswereconductedwithtenrandomlyselectedstudents,fourmalesandsixfemalestogetfeedbackonwhatthestudentsthoughtaboutthequestionnaire.Theinterviewswerecon-ductedindividuallyinJapanesebytheJapanesenativespeakerauthorofthisstudywitheachoftheinterviewees.Theywerequestionedabouttheirthoughtsoneachofthe50itemsandtheirresponsesweretakendownintheformofnotes.

Analysis

ThedatacollectedfromthetwoadministrationsoftheSILLwerefirstanalyzedforitemstatisticsfollowedbydescriptivestatisticsforthesixpartsaswellastheentireSILL.Thealphalevelforallstatisticaldecisionswassetat .05.BothadministrationswerethenexaminedforinternalconsistencyusingCronbach’salphaforeachofthesixpartsaswellasoverallreliabilityforbothadministrations.Next,eachTimeOneitemwascomparedtoitsidenticalTimeTwoitemusingthePearsoncorrelation.Theresultingcorrelationswerethensquaredtodeterminethedegreeofsharedvariance.Thesquaredvalueofthecorrelationcoefficientcanbeinterpretedastheproportionofsimilaritybetweenthetwoitems(Hatch&Lazaraton,�99�).ThisprocedurewasrepeatedforthesixpartsoftheSILLandfortheentireSILLaswell.Finally,thetwoadministrationswere

3838

JALT JournAL

examinedusingprincipalcomponentanalysis(PCA),whichisatypeofexploratoryfactoranalysis,withvarimaxrotationandeigenvaluessetatone.Thesearethetypicalproceduresforcarryingoutfactoranaly-sis.Asiscommon,loadingsof.30andabovewereconsideredstrongenoughforinclusioninagivenfactor(Hatch&Lazaraton,�99�).IntheinitialuseofPCA,theanalysiswasallowedtoselectasmanyfactorsascouldbefoundwithaneigenvalueover�.00;however,asecondPCAwasrunonbothadministrationsinwhichtheanalysiswasforcedtochoosesixfactorsbasedonOxford’stheorizedgrouping.ScreeplotsforallPCAswerealsocalculated.TheseadditionalprocedureswereconductedtoprovidetheSILLwithasmanyopportunitiesaspossibletosupplysupportforitstheoreticalbasis.Finally,thenotestakendur-ingtheinterviewswereexaminedtodeterminethetypesofdifficultiesthestudentshadunderstandingthequestionnaireitemsandhowtheirdifficultiescomparedtooneanother.

Results

Table�showstheitemsthemselveswiththeirgroupings,themeanoneachitemandthestandarddeviation,withTable2showingthemeansandstandarddeviations for the itemson thesecondadministration.Table3provides thedescriptive statistics for the six subsectionsoftheSILLandtheentireSILLforbothadministrations.Thedistributionsarealleitherpositivelyornegativelyskewedandthosewithskewnessstatisticsat�.0orgreaterareproblematic(Brown,�997).Theseskeweddistributionscanreducethetestreliabilityandareviolationsoftheas-sumptionsofnormalityforthecorrelationstatisticsandfactoranalysis,whichcouldadverselyaffecttheseresults.

Table�:MeanScoresandStandardDeviationsfortheItemsandTheirStrategyTypes,TimeOne(n=�53)

Item Statement Type M SD

� IthinkofrelationshipsbetweenwhatIalready knowand newthingsIlearninEnglish. Memo 2.79 0.942 IusenewEnglishwordsinasentencesoI canrememberthem. Memo 2.56 0.953 IconnectthesoundofanewEnglishword andanimageorpictureofthewordtohelp meremember. Memo 3.02 �.094 IrememberanewEnglishwordandan imageorpictureofasituationinwhichthe wordmightbeused. Memo 2.63 �.�25 IuserhymestoremembernewEnglishwords. Memo 2.4� �.��6 IuseflashcardstoremembernewEnglishwords. Memo 2.�9 �.42

3939robson & MidorikAwA

7 IphysicallyactoutnewEnglishwords. Memo �.80 0.888 IreviewEnglishlessonsoften. Memo 2.66 0.669 IremembernewEnglishwordsorphrasesby rememberingtheirlocationonthepage,onthe board,oronastreetsign. Memo 2.56 �.24�0 IsayorwritenewEnglishwordsseveraltimes. Cog 3.98 0.99�� ItrytotalklikenativeEnglishspeakers. Cog 3.09 �.23�2 IpracticethesoundsofEnglish. Cog 3.40 �.05�3 IusetheEnglishwordsIknowindifferentways. Cog 2.89 0.96�4 IstartconversationsinEnglish. Cog 2.�7 0.86�5 IwatchEnglishlanguageTVshowsspokenin EnglishorgotomoviesspokeninEnglish. Cog 3.25 �.09�6 IreadforpleasureinEnglish. Cog 2.77 0.97�7 Iwritenotes,messages,lettersorreportsinEnglish.Cog 2.�9 �.06�8 IfirstskimanEnglishpassage(readoverthe passagequickly)thengobackandreadcarefully. Cog 3.39 �.09�9 Ilookforwordsinmyownlanguagethatare similartonewwordsinEnglish. Cog 2.39 �.�620 ItrytofindpatternsinEnglish. Cog 2.8��.072� IfindthemeaningofanEnglishwordbydividing itintopartsthatIunderstand. Cog 2.70 �.�822 Itrynottotranslateword-for-word. Cog 2.96 0.9923 ImakesummariesofinformationthatIhear orreadinEnglish. Cog �.97 0.9224 TounderstandunfamiliarEnglishwords, Imakeguesses. Comp 3.44 0.9225 WhenIcan’tthinkofawordduringa conversationinEnglish,Iusegestures. Comp 3.65 �.�626 ImakeupnewwordsifIdonotknowthe rightonesinEnglish. Comp 2.23 �.��27 IreadEnglishwithoutlookingupeverynewword. Comp 3.07 �.0528 Itrytoguesswhattheotherpersonwillsay nextinEnglish. Comp 2.35 0.9929 IfIcan’tthinkofanEnglishword,Iuseaword orphrasethatmeansthesamething. Comp 3.8� 0.9430 ItrytofindasmanywaysasIcantousemyEnglish.Meta 2.60 �.0�3� InoticemyEnglishmistakesandusethat informationtohelpmedobetter. Meta 3.37 �.0�32 IpayattentionwhensomeoneisspeakingEnglish. Meta 3.60 0.9833 ItrytofindouthowtobeabetterlearnerofEnglish. Meta 2.73�.0734 IplanmyschedulesoIwillhaveenoughtime tostudyEnglish. Meta 2.3� 0.8935 IlookforpeopleIcantalktoinEnglish. Meta 2.�9 �.0336 Ilookforopportunitiestoreadasmuchas possibleinEnglish. Meta 2.50 0.9737 IhavecleargoalsforimprovingmyEnglishskills. Meta 2.94 �.2938 IthinkaboutmyprogressinlearningEnglish. Meta 3.09 �.0439 ItrytorelaxwheneverIfeelafraidofusingEnglish.Aff 2.80 �.0740 IencouragemyselftospeakEnglishevenwhen Iamafraidofmakingamistake. Aff 3.07 �.�64� IgivemyselfarewardortreatwhenIdowell

4040

JALT JournAL

inEnglish. Aff 3.43 �.0942 InoticeifIamtenseornervouswhenIam studyingorusingEnglish. Aff 3.08 �.�643 Iwritedownmyfeelingsinalanguagelearningdiary. Aff �.480.8644 ItalktosomeoneelseabouthowIfeelwhen IamlearningEnglish. Aff �.99 0.9945 IfIdonotunderstandsomethinginEnglish,Iask theotherpersontoslowdownorsayitagain. Soc 4.�4 0.8846 IaskEnglishspeakerstocorrectmewhenItalk. Soc 2.65 �.�947 IpracticeEnglishwithotherstudents. Soc 2.24 �.0�48 IaskforhelpfromEnglishspeakers. Soc 2.69 �.2449 IaskquestionsinEnglish. Soc 2.44 �.0950 ItrytolearnaboutthecultureofEnglishspeakers. Soc 3.03 �.2�

Note:ThestatementforeachitemisintheEnglishoriginalfromwhichtheJapanesetranslationwasmade.KeyforStrategyType:Memo=Memory,Cog=Cognitive,Comp=Compensation,Meta=Metacognitive,Aff=Affective,Soc=Social

Table2:MeanScoresandStandardDeviationsfortheItems,TimeTwo(n=�53)

Item M SD Item M SD Item M SD Item M SD

� 2.99 �.�4 �6 3.95 0.89 3� 3.39 �.06 46 2.08 �.042 3.25 �.�3 �7 2.5� �.24 32 3.�5 �.04 47 2.97 �.223 3.52 0.90 �8 3.24 �.�7 33 2.88 �.07 48 3.47 �.044 2.36 0.82 �9 2.22 �.06 34

Table3:DescriptiveStatisticsfortheSILLandSubsections,TimesOneandTwo(n=�53)

Measure M SD Min Max Range Skew

SILL,TimeOne �39.00 24.60 66 207 �4� -.24Memo,TimeOne 22.64 4.66 �� 36 25 -.04Cog,TimeOne 39.95 7.65 �8 6� 43 -.20Comp,TimeOne �8.33 3.60 8 28 20 -.04Meta,TimeOne 25.03 6.34 9 40 3� -.�6Aff,TimeOne �5.84 3.64 7 27 20 .07

4�4�robson & MidorikAwA

Table4givesthereliabilityforthesixpartsandtheoverallreliabilityforbothadministrations.WhiletheSILLasawholeforbothtimesoneandtwohasveryhighreliabilityat.93,severalofthesubsectionsarevery low. Inparticular, theTimeOne reliabilities forMemo,Comp,andAffareunacceptablylow.ThesameistrueforMemo,Comp,Aff,andSocinTimeTwo.Theresultsforthesecondmeasureofreliability,test-retest,areshowninTables5and6.Thedegreeofsharedvariancefortheitemsdoesnotexceed46percentwithsomeaslowas3,4,5,and7percent.Theaverageforalltheitemsisjust�9.5percent.Forthesubsections,thesharedvarianceissimilarlylow,withtheonlyexcep-tionbeingfortheSILLasawholeat58percent.

Soc,TimeOne �7.�8 4.89 6 30 24 .��SILL,TimeTwo �44.58 25.22 63 229 �66 -.26Memo,TimeTwo 26.67 4.94 �� 4� 30 -.29Cog,TimeTwo 37.84 7.9� �6 66 50 .�3Comp,TimeTwo �8.85 3.4� 8 27 �9 -.42Meta,TimeTwo 26.2� 5.7� 9 44 35 -.�6Aff,TimeTwo �7.45 3.73 6 27 2� -.38Soc,TimeTwo �7.54 3.65 6 26 20 -.25

KeyforStrategyType:Memo=Memory,Cog=Cognitive,Comp=Compensation,Meta=Metacognitive,Aff=Affective,Soc=Social

Table4:InternalConsistencyfortheSILLandSubsections,TimesOneandTwo(n=�53)

Measure Alpha Measure Alpha

SILL,TimeOne .93 SILL,TimeTwo .93

Memo,TimeOne .63 Memo,TimeTwo .66

Cog,TimeOne .80 Cog,TimeTwo .83

Comp,TimeOne .67 Comp,TimeTwo .58

Meta,TimeOne .85 Meta,TimeTwo .79

4242

JALT JournAL

Table5:PercentageofSharedVarianceBetweenSILLItems,TimesOne&Two(n=�53)

Items RSquared Items RSquared

� .03 26 .282 .�6 27 .�03 .�6 28 .�04 .2� 29 .�45 .�8 30 .246 .07 3� .�87 .�8 32 .�88 .07 33 .249 .�3 34 .�8�0 .�8 35 .4��� .34 36 .25�2 .26 37 .42�3 .�2 38 .�6�4 .29 39 .24�5 .29 40 .22�6 .29 4� .34�7 .27 42 .08�8 .�4 43 .2��9 .�4 44 .0520 .�4 45 .�42� .27 46 .4622 .07 47 .2423 .�� 48 .2824 .07 49 .0725 .36 50 .04

Table6:PercentageofSharedVarianceBetweentheSILL&Subsections,TimesOne&Two(n=�53)

Measure RSquared

Memo .25Cog .36Comp .�4Meta .35Aff .�7Soc .26SILL .58

KeyforStrategyType:Memo=Memory,Cog=Cognitive,Comp=Compensation,Meta=Metacognitive,Aff=Affective,Soc=Social

4343robson & MidorikAwA

Tables7and8showtheresultsofthefirstPCAswitha�5-factorso-lutionforTimeOneanda�3-factorsolutionforTimeTwo.Wewouldexpectthefactoranalysistogroupitems�through9inonefactor,items�0through23inasecondfactor,items24through29inathirdfactor,items30through38inafourthfactor,items39through44inafifthfac-tor,anditems45through50inasixth.However,theresultsfortheTimeOnePCAshowveryfewitemsloadingtogether.Thegreatestgroupofitemsloadingtogetherisinfactor�4withitems46through49together;however,beyondthis,therearenogreatergroupsofloadingsthanjusttwoorthreeitemstogether.Factoronetakesup23percentofthetotalvariancewiththeotherfactorsaccountingforconsiderablyless,whichisconfirmedbytheeigenvalues.Inaddition,thecommunalities,whichshowthedegreetowhichthefactorsareaccountingforeachitem,arenotparticularlyhighexceptforitems24,25,35and36.AsimilarstateofaffairsisfoundfortheTimeTwoPCA;however,therearenogroupsofloadingsgreaterthantwo,makingtheresultsappearevenlesssystem-aticthanwiththoseoftheTimeOneanalysis.Again,almostallthetotalvarianceisbeingaccountedforbyfactorone.Also,withtheexceptionsofitems�3and�4,thecommunalitiesarenotparticularlyhigh.

Tables9and�0showtheattempttoforcetheSILLintoasix-factor

Table7:PrincipalComponentAnalysis,TimeOne(n=�53)

Item FactorLoadings Factor� Factor2Factor3 Factor4 Factor5Communalities

35 0.85 0.9�36 0.85 0.9�23 0.64 0.4730 0.60 0.5850 0.44 0.6�32 0.72 0.5729 0.66 0.5�4� 0.59 0.533� 0.56 0.6240 0.53 0.5839 0.45 0.5020 0.70 0.579 0.63 0.35�9 0.58 0.442� 0.39 0.458 0.79 0.4934 0.49 0.54�6 0.45 0.57Table7cont...

4444

JALT JournAL

Item FactorLoadings Factor� Factor2Factor3 Factor4 Factor5Communalities

44 0.79 0.38� 0.32 0.38

Eigenvalues ��.54 3.�9 2.40 2.02 �.98PercentofTotalVariance 23.08 6.37 4.8� 4.04 3.95

Item FactorLoadings Factor6 Factor7Factor8 Factor9 Factor�0Communalities

24 0.9� 0.9�25 0.9� 0.9�27 0.43 0.5926 0.79 0.3933 0.63 0.5338 0.56 0.5537 0.52 0.5��2 0.38 0.53�0 0.78 0.3845 0.4� 0.496 0.79 0.4342 0.53 0.35

Eigenvalues �.69 �.60 �.45 �.33 �.22PercentofTotalVariance 3.39 3.20 2.9� 2.66 2.45

Item FactorLoadings Factor�� Factor�2 Factor�3 Factor�4 Factor�5Communalities

�8 0.68 0.4722 0.65 0.50�3 0.37 0.453 0.74 0.464 0.58 0.5�7 0.46 0.4�5 0.46 0.44�7 0.73 0.49�4 0.59 0.65�5 0.58 0.42�� 0.48 0.5948 0.70 0.5746 0.64 0.6547 0.52 0.6343 0.52 0.4649 0.5� 0.6�Table7cont...

4545robson & MidorikAwA

28 0.74 0.422 0.47 0.36

Eigenvalues�.�9 �.�8 �.�2 �.08 �.04PercentofTotalVariance2.38 2.36 2.24 2.�6 2.09

Note:Onlyitemswithloadingsequaltoorover0.30areindicatedinthetable

Table8:PrincipalComponentAnalysis,TimeTwo(n=�53)

Item FactorLoadings Factor� Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Factor5Communalities

�7 0.72 0.6635 0.7� 0.7626 0.65 0.594� 0.6� 0.5630 0.58 0.52�9 0.53 0.5522 0.46 0.48�2 0.43 0.4�8 0.39 0.5�2� 0.38 0.549 0.69 0.5838 0.64 0.4844 0.62 0.4940 0.56 0.5437 0.55 0.56�0 0.54 0.5�32 0.49 0.55�� 0.48 0.5542 0.66 0.6�28 0.65 0.53�6 0.63 0.6245 0.63 0.4729 0.54 0.5�5 0.38 0.42�5 0.67 0.4247 0.59 0.533� 0.5� 0.55� 0.5� 0.533 0.46 0.494 0.38 0.37�3 0.85 0.9��4 0.85 0.9�

Eigenvalues ��.94 3.02 2.70 2.09 �.89PercentofTotalVariance 23.88 6.04 5.4� 4.�8 3.79

4646

JALT JournAL

Table8cont...Item FactorLoadings Factor6 Factor7 Factor8 Factor9 Factor�0Communalities

2 0.76 0.4236 0.45 0.5346 0.85 0.48�8 0.73 0.5�20 0.52 0.6624 0.49 0.4725 0.42 0.4643 0.77 0.4650 0.49 0.4�49 0.39 0.5�6 0.62 0.387 0.43 0.42

Eigenvalues �.58 �.46 �.39 �.36 �.20PercentofTotalVariance 3.�6 2.9� 2.79 2.73 2.40

Item FactorLoadings Factor�� Factor�2 Factor�3 Communalities

48 0.72 0.3739 0.43 0.6434 0.37 0.4923 0.75 0.5333 0.40 0.7027 0.72 0.3�

Eigenvalues �.�6 �.�0 �.05PercentofExplainedVariance 2.3� 2.20 2.09

Note:Onlyitemswithloadingsequaltoorover0.30areindicatedinthetable.

solution.Herewehaveaclearerpictureofwhythefirstfactoristak-ingupsomuchofthetotalvariance,althoughwithTimeTwo,thereislessofaconcentrationofitemsinthefirstfactor.Nonetheless,theloadingsforbothPCAsshowacombinationofrelatedandunrelateditems fromthesixsubgroups loading together.Figures�and2givevisualrepresentationsoftheeigenvaluesthroughscreeplots,which,ifwecountthenumberoffactorstotheleftofthepointwherethelineturnsstronglytotheright,seemtoindicatethataonefactoranalysisoftheSILLwouldbemostappropriate.

Theinterviewsrevealedsomeveryinterestingproblemsthequestion-

4747

Table9:PrincipalComponentAnalysiswithSixForcedFactors,TimeOne(n=�53)

Item FactorLoadings Factor� Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Communalities

35 0.79 0.9�36 0.79 0.9��4 0.69 0.6547 0.68 0.6449 0.68 0.6�30 0.67 0.5946 0.67 0.6548 0.60 0.5723 0.55 0.47�7 0.5� 0.4950 0.49 0.6240 0.47 0.5828 0.44 0.42�6 0.43 0.574 0.42 0.5��5 0.39 0.42�3 0.35 0.4526 0.3� 0.3920 0.72 0.572� 0.66 0.45�9 0.59 0.4422 0.49 0.50�8 0.44 0.4739 0.43 0.509 0.43 0.357 0.40 0.423 0.39 0.465 0.35 0.4432 0.69 0.57�� 0.62 0.5945 0.57 0.49�2 0.56 0.5329 0.55 0.5�38 0.5� 0.5533 0.5� 0.533� 0.49 0.6237 0.44 0.5��0 0.39 0.388 0.69 0.4934 0.49 0.532 0.48 0.366 0.44 0.43

Eigenvalues ��.54 3.�9 2.40 2.02PercentofTotalVariance 23.09 6.37 4.8� 4.04

4848

JALT JournAL

Table9cont...Item FactorLoadings Factor5 Factor6 Communalities

43 0.53 0.4644 0.53 0.38� 0.43 0.384� 0.37 0.5324 0.86 0.9�25 0.86 0.9�27 0.44 0.50

Eigenvalues �.98 �.69PercentofTotalVariance 3.96 3.39

Note:Onlyitemswithloadingsequaltoorover0.30areindicatedinthetable.

Table�0:PrincipalComponentAnalysiswithSixForcedFactors,TimeTwo(n=�53)

Item FactorLoadings Factor� Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Communalities

38 0.63 0.4844 0.58 0.4932 0.57 0.5539 0.57 0.6437 0.57 0.563� 0.56 0.5524 0.53 0.4740 0.52 0.544 0.47 0.3725 0.47 0.46�5 0.40 0.4235 0.68 0.7622 0.66 0.4826 0.65 0.59�7 0.59 0.66�3 0.57 0.9��4 0.57 0.9�6 0.54 0.387 0.5� 0.424� 0.5� 0.5630 0.5� 0.5233 0.44 0.7023 0.39 0.532� 0.39 0.54�0 0.38 0.5��6 0.72 0.6242 0.65 0.6�

4949robson & MidorikAwA

Table�0cont...20 0.65 0.6628 0.64 0.5329 0.6� 0.5�45 0.49 0.47�8 0.47 0.5�5 0.47 0.423 0.37 0.4934 0.37 0.4947 0.59 0.5349 0.57 0.5�36 0.57 0.53� 0.52 0.5348 0.49 0.3750 0.48 0.4�8 0.44 0.5��2 0.32 0.4�

Eigenvalues ��.94 3.02 2.70 2.09PercentofTotalVariance 23.88 6.04 5.4� 4.�8Item FactorLoadings Factor5 Factor6 Communalities

9 0.62 0.58�� 0.58 0.55�9 0.56 0.5543 0.39 0.462 0.69 0.4227 -0.52 0.3�46 -0.42 0.48

Eigenvalues �.89 �.58PercentofTotalVariance 3.79 3.�6

Note:Onlyitemswithloadingsequaltoorover0.30areindicatedinthetable.

naireposedfortherespondents.Themajorityofstudentsinterviewedhaddifficultyunderstandingitems�,5,6,7,�4,�9,20,22,26,43,44,and47.ThemostcommonlycitedreasonfortheirlackofunderstandingwasunfamiliarJapaneseorEnglishexpressions.Thiswasparticularlytrueforitems5,6,22,and43.Anotherreasonrespondentsgavefortheirdifficultyinunderstandingwasthattheycouldnotimaginethesituation.

Discussion

TheresultsreportedaboveprovideahighlevelofreliabilityfortheSILL

5050

JALT JournAL

Figure�:ScreePlot,PrincipalComponentAnalysis,TimeOne(n=�53)

Figure2:ScreePlot,PrincipalComponentAnalysis,TimeTwo(n=�53)

5�5�robson & MidorikAwA

asawhole,whichisproblematic,astheSILLshouldbemeasuringsixdifferent typesof strategies,notonegrand strategy type.Moreover,thealphasforthesubsectionsshowasimilarlylowlevelofreliabilityaswasfoundbyBrownetal.(�996).Onereasonforthiscouldbethenumberofitemsinthesubsections,wherethelongersubsectionssuchasCognitiveStrategieshavehigherreliability.Lengthisanimportantfactorinreliability,aslongermeasurestendtobemorereliable(Bach-man,�990).Moreover,aswasnotedpreviously,allthedistributionsareskewed,whichmustalsobeaffectingthelevelofreliability.Forexample,SocialStrategiesTimeOnehasfairlyhighreliability,butatTimeTwoitdropsto.59.However,thereisalsoanincreaseintheskewbetweentimesone(.��)andtwo(-.25).Nevertheless,theseskeweddistributionscannotfullyexplaintherelativelylowreliabilityastheCognitiveStrate-giessubsectionhasaconsistentlevelofreliabilityfromTimeOnetoTimeTwo,butskeweddistributionsof-.20and.�3.Thetest-retestreli-abilityasindicatedbythepercentageofsharedvariancefortheitems,subsectionsandentiremeasureshowthattheSILLishighlyunreliable.Itisimportanttorememberthatreliabilitycanbemeasuredseveraldif-ferentways,andthatdependenceonasingleapproachcanberisky.Onereasonforthelowfigureshasbeenfoundinotherstudieslookingateitherbeliefsorstrategies(forexampleGaies&Sakui,�999),wherethestudentswerefoundtochangeovertime.Althoughitisdifficulttodeterminetheexactreasonsforchangewithoutconductingextensivepost-administrationinterviews,studentsmayinterpretthequestionsonagivenmeasureinlightoftheircurrentlearningsituationandnotlearn-ingsituationsingeneral.Moreover,theeffectsoftrainingandlearningmustalsobetakenintoaccount.Inaddition,itisimportanttoremem-berthatstrategiesarenotpersonalitytraits,whichhavebeenshowntoremainstableovertimeandacrosssituations(seeAngleitner,�99�).Thus,itishardlysurprisingthatthepercentageofsharedvarianceshouldbesolowbetweenthetwoadministrations.However,thereareotherpossibleexplanationsforthelowlevelsofreliability.Again,theskeweddistributionscouldbeadverselyaffectingtheresults,oritispossiblethatthepopulationsurveyedwastoohomogeneous.Thesubjectsareallfromasinglelanguagebackgroundandculturewithclosesimilaritiesinageandpossiblyeducationalexperience.Theskeweddistributionsarelikelypartoftheexplanation.Nonetheless,theJapaneseversionoftheSILLwasdesignedtoexaminejustthistypeofpopulation.Moreover,theeducationalbackgroundofthisgroupofsubjectsisprobablynotallthathomogeneous.Thestudentsatthewomen’suniversitycomefromawideareanorthandwestofTokyoandattendedbothprivateandpublichighschoolswherethereareeducationaldifferencesfromone

5252

JALT JournAL

schooltothenext.Theco-edschoolsubjectsaresimilarinthisregard.ItalsoseemsreasonabletoexpectthatmostadministratorsorteacherswillusetheSILLundersimilarconditionsinJapan.

ThefactoranalysisresultsdonotconfirmOxford’ssixstrategycat-egoriesevenwhenattempting to force theanalysis intoa six-factorsolution.Infact,theSILLiseithermeasuring�5or�3differenttypesofstrategies,orevenjustoneasindicatedbytheeigenvaluesandscreeplots.Thereareanumberofpotentialreasonsforthis.Thelowreli-abilityisanimportantfactorasisthesizeofthepopulation.HatchandLazaraton(�99�)recommendatleast35subjectspervariableforPCA,whichinthisstudywouldnecessitateannsizeofabout�,750subjects.Withasamplesizeofonly�53,thereisconsiderablelossofstatisticalpower.Nonetheless,other studieswith larger sampleshave shownsimilarresults(Hsiao&Oxford,2000)andbasedonthosefoundhereaswellasinBrownetal.(�996),itwouldseemsafertolimittheSILLtoonegrandlanguagelearningstrategiesfactorinsteadoftryingtobreakitintotheorizedgroups.

Attemptingtolabeleachofthesestrategytypesisverydifficult.Thereseemstobealmostnosystemtothefactorloadings,although,someofthefactorscanbetentativelylabeled.Forexample,TimeOnefactor�4seemstoberelatedtoOxford’sSocialStrategies,whilefactor2con-tainsitemsfromtheAnalyzingandReasoningsubgroupwithinCogni-tiveStrategies.Factor�2seemstobetheMemoryStrategysubgroupApplyingImagesandSounds.ThefactorsolutionforthesecondtimeshowsanevengreatermixingofitemsfromdifferentstrategygroupsalmostnecessitatingacompleteabandonmentofOxford’scategories.However,bylookingatthewording,wecanapplytentativelabels.Forexample,factortwocanbeinterpretedasvariousspeakingstrategies.Inaddition,thereseemtobegroupingsofitemsinbothTimeOneandTimeTwobasedonthetypeofactionexpressedbytheverbinJapa-nese.AnexamplewouldbeTimeOnefactorfour,wherethesubjectsseemtoplaceemphasisonsuchactionsas“review,”“read,”and“plan.”TheattempttoforcetheSILLintosixfactorsforTimeOneresultedinwhatlookslikeaone-factorsolutionincludingsomeitemsfromeachsubsection.IftheseresultshadbeenrepeatedinTimeTwo,therewouldhavebeenanopportunitytosupportaone-factorsolutionbasedonthisdata.Unfortunately,theitemsinthefirstfactordiffer.

Theproblemsstudentshadunderstandingthequestionnairewerepartiallyrevealedbythepost-administrationinterviewsconductedwithaverysmallsample.Thesestudentswereunfamiliarwithsuchexpres-sionsorsituationsaskokoroniegaku(makingamentalpicture)initem4,inotsukau(userhymes)initem5,“flashcards”initem6,andkarada

5353robson & MidorikAwA

dehyｴnshite(physicallyactout) in item7.Forexample,duringtheadministrationofthequestionnaire,themajorityofstudentscouldnotreadthecharacterin,whichmeansrhymeinJapanese,anddidnotknowitsmeaningwhenitwasreadtothem.Moreover,otheritemsthatwereincomprehensiblewereonesthatreflectamoreWesternapproachtolearningstrategiesthanonewithwhichJapanesestudentsarefamiliar,suchaswithitems4and7.Inaddition,studentshaddifficultyrelatingmanyof the situationspresented in thequestionnaire to theirownlearning.First,thequestionnairepresumesanESLlearningsituation,wherethesituationinJapanisclearlyEFL.Thus,thesestudentshavefewopportunitiesfortargetlanguageuseoutsideoftheclassroom.Ofthe�0interviewees,3hadexperiencedstudyinginanEnglish-speak-ingcountryandhadfewcomprehensionproblemswiththelearningsituationspresented.However, for the remaining7 students, targetlanguagestudyandusewaslimitedtotheclassroom,library,home,train,ortheirEnglishSpeakingSociety(ESS)meetingsandtheyfoundmanyofthelearningsituationsinthequestionnaireunimaginableorstrange.Moreover,aswasnotedabove,theintervieweesrespondedtoitemsbasedontheircurrentlearningsituationandnotlearningsitua-tionsingeneral.

Conclusion

Thesimplestconclusiononecandrawfromthisinitialattemptatde-terminingthereliabilityandvalidityoftheJapaneselanguageversionoftheSILListhatitisneitherreliablenorvalidbasedonthisstudentsample.AlthoughtheSILLhasshownahighdegreeofinternalreliabilityfortheentirequestionnaire,itclaimstomeasuresixdifferentstrategiesandthusmustbeanalyzedassixdifferentmeasures.Infact,thehighdegreeofreliabilityfortheentireSILL,asnotedabove,isnotnecessarilyagoodthing.Thesubsectionshaveagenerallylowandunacceptablealphalevel.Moreover,thereareseriousquestionsabouthowreliabletheresultsarewhengiventothesamegroupmorethanonceandhowvalidthecategoriesusedtogrouptheitemsonthequestionnaireare.Inotherwords,whiletheSILLmayindeedbemeasuringlanguage-learn-ingstrategies,itdoesnotseemtobemeasuringgroupsofstrategiesinthemannerOxfordhasclaimed,atleastfortheselearners.Itwouldseemreasonable,basedonthehighreliabilityfortheentireSILL,theeigenvalues,andscreeplots, todescribe theSILLasageneralmea-sureoflanguage-learningstrategiesandnotameasureofsixdifferentstrategytypes.Theresearchersbelievethattheseconclusionscanbedrawnbasedonthesedatainspiteofpotentialproblemswithnsize,

5454

JALT JournAL

thepossiblyhomogeneouspopulation,skeweddistribution,andlowreliability.

Asdiscussedpreviously, themethodsOxfordused tovalidateanearlierversionoftheSILLaresomewhatsuspect.Takentogetherwiththelackofestablishedreliabilityorvalidityforthelaterversions(de-spiteclaimsbyYamato,2000,p.�42,tothecontrary),thoseusingtheEnglishversionoftheSILLwillnotbeabletorelyontheresults.More-over,HsiaoandOxford’s(2000)confirmatoryfactoranalysisdoesnotprovidemuchconfidenceeither.CautionaryusebecomesevenmorenecessarywiththeJapanesetranslation,asitisnowanewquestion-naire thathasnotgone througha rigorous reliabilityandvalidationprocess.Theseissuesandproblemsarenotjustaboutstrategies,butrelatetoanyuseofaself-reportquestionnaire.Itshouldbeclearfromthisanalysisthatsimplytakingaquestionnaire,translatingitintoanotherlanguage,administeringittoagroupofstudentsandthenusingthere-sultsformakingeducationalpolicydecisionsareveryunwisepractices.Moreover,anyquestionnairemustreflecttheactuallearningsituationsofthetargetpopulation,theirstrategyuse,thetypeoflanguagewithwhichtheyarefamiliar,andanyculturaldifferencesthatmightaffecttheoutcome.TheresearchershopethatthroughthisinitialattemptatvalidatingOxford’squestionnaireotherresearchersandlanguage-teach-ingprofessionalswilltakeamorecautiousapproachtoquestionnaireuseandinterpretation.

AcknowledgementsThisisamuchrevisedandexpandedversionofapaperdeliveredatAILA99inTokyo.Theauthorswouldliketothankthetwoanonymousreviewersfortheirsuggestionsandvaluablecomments.

GordonRobsonisProfessoratShowaWomen’sUniversity.Hisresearchinterestsincludereadingstrategiesandindividuallearnerdifferences.

HidekoMidorikawa isProfessor at ShowaWomen’sUniversity.Herresearchinterestsincludereadingstrategiesandteachereducation.

ReferencesAllport,G.W.(�937).Personality:Apsychological interpretation.NewYork:

Holt,Rinehard&Winston.

Angleitner, A. (�99�). Personality psychology: Trends anddevelopments.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,5,�56-�7�.

5555robson & MidorikAwA

Bachman,L.F.(�990).Fundamentalconsiderationsinlanguagetesting.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Brown, J.D. (�988).Understanding research in second language teaching:A teacher’s guide to statistics and researchdesign. London:CambridgeUniversity.

Brown,J.D.(�997).Statisticscorner,questionsandanswersaboutstatistics:Skewnessandkurtosis.Shiken:JALTtesting&evaluationSIGnewsletter,�(�),�6-�8.

Brown,J.D.,Robson,G.,&Rosenkjar,P.(�996).Themotivation,anxiety,learningstylesandproficiencyof Japanesecollege students.UniversityofHawai’iWorkingPapersinESL,�5(�),33-72.

Chapelle,C.(�994).AreC-testsvalidmeasuresforL2strategyresearch?SecondLanguageResearch,�0(2),�57-�87.

Gaies,S.,&Sakui,K.(�999).Symposiumonlearners’beliefsaboutlanguagelearning.Paperpresentedatthe�2thWorldCongressofAppliedLinguistics,Tokyo,Japan.

Gardner,R.C.,&Lambert,W.E.(�972).Attitudesandmotivationinsecond-languagelearning.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

Griffee,D. (�999). Translatingquestionnaires fromEnglish into Japanese:Is itvalid?InA.Barfield,R.Betts, J.Cunningham,N.Dunn,H.Katsura,K.Kobayashi,N.Padden,N.Parry&M.Watanabe(Eds.),OnJALT98:Focusontheclassroom(pp.�76-�80).Tokyo:JapanAssociationforLanguageTeaching.

Guilford,J.P.(�940).AninventoryoffactorsSTDCR,manualofdirectionsandnorms.BeverlyHills:SheridanSupplyCo.

Guilford,J.P.&Fruchter,B.(�973).Fundamentalstatisticsinpsychologyandeducation.NewYork:McGrawHill.

Hatch,E.&Lazaraton,A.(�99�).Theresearchmanual:Designandstatisticsforappliedlinguistics.NewYork:NewburyHousePublishers.

Horwitz,E.K.,Horwitz,M.B.,&Cope,J.(�986).Foreignlanguageclassroomanxiety.TheModernLanguageJournal,70,�25-�32.

Hsiao,T.-Y.,&Oxford,R.L.(2000).Learningstrategyuseandtargetlanguages:confirmatory factor analysis across languages. Paper presented at theannualmeetingoftheTeachersofEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguages,Vancouver,Canada.

McCrae,R.R.(�989).WhyIadvocatethefive-factormodel:JointanalysesoftheNEO-PIandotherinstruments.InD.M.Buss&N.Cantor(Eds.),Personalitypsychology:Recenttrendsandemergingdirections(pp.237-245).NewYork:Springer-Verlag.

Messick,S.(�989).Validity.InR.E.Linn(Ed.),Educationalmeasurement(3rded.,pp.�3-�03).NewYork:Macmillan.

Oxford,R.L.(�990).LanguageLearningStrategies:WhatEveryTeacherShouldKnow.NewYork:NewburyHouse.

5656

JALT JournAL

Oxford,R.L.(�994).Gengogakushusutoratejiiｴgaikokugokyoushigashitteokankerebanaranaikoto[LanguageLearningStrategies:WhatEveryTeacherShouldKnow](M.Shishido&N.Ban,Trans.).Tokyo:Bonjinsha. (originalworkpublished�990)

Oxford,R.L.(�996).Employingaquestionnairetoassesstheuseoflanguagelearningstrategies.AppliedLanguageLearning,7,(�&2),25-45.

Oxford, R. L., Park-Oh,Y., Ito, S.,& Sumrall,M. (�993). Factors affectingachievementinasatellite-deliveredJapaneselanguageprogram.AmericanJournalofDistanceEducation,7,�0-25.

Takeuchi,O.(�993).AstudyoflanguagelearningstrategiesandtheirrelationtoachievementinEFLlisteningcomprehension.BulletinoftheInstituteforInterdisciplinaryStudiesofCulture,�0,�3�-�4�.

Watanabe,Y.(�990).Externalvariablesaffectinglanguagelearningstrategiesof JapaneseEFL learners: Effects of entrance examination, years spentat college/university, and stayingoverseas.Unpublishedmaster’s thesis,LancasterUniversity,Lancaster,U.K.

Yamato,R.(2000).Awarenessandrealuseofreadingstrategies.JALTJournal,22(�),�40-�64.

(ReceivedAugust5,2000;revisedMay3,200�)

Quiet Apprehension: Reading and Classroom Anxieties

SaeMatsuda めJotoSangyo Universiσ PeterGobel めJoto Sangyo Universi砂

Although many studies of foreign language anxiety focus on the difficulties caused by anxiety with 民spect to classroom activities such as speaking and listening, this study investigates the possible relationship between general foreign language classroom anxietyσLCA) and foreign language reading anxiety (FLRA) in the ]apanese classroom. Using previously published measurement scales (the FLCAS and the FLRAS), this study seeks first to determine the reliability and validity of the individual scales across three difたrentgroups 泊 nine intact ftrSt-semester Eng1ish classes (2ラ2studenお)ata]apanese university. Based on this data, the possible relationships between the two theoretical construc臼 offoreign language classroom an:xiety and foreign language reading anxiety, and the variable of cl錨s group are explored. The m凶白 ofthe study sugg白tthat although subcomponents of the two scales are related, overall FLCAS and FLRAS are meas町ing two clearly independent constructs. In addition, anxiety types measured also differed significantly depending on group membership. これまで外国語学習における不安(出立iety) はスピーキングやリスニング

などのクラス活動の分野に重点を置いて研究されてきたが、この研究では、外国語のクラスにおける一般的な不安(F工CA)と外国語のリーディングに対する不安(FL恥生)に相関関係があるかを探った。既存の測定尺度(FLCASとFLRAS) を用い、日本の大学生( 1 年生から 3 年生までの 252 人)を対象に、まず各尺度の信用性と有効性を調べた。そのデータを基に、外国語のクラスに対する不安(FLCA)と外国語のリーディングに対する不安(FLRA)というこつの理論上の構成体には相関関係があるか、そして不安の型には学年による違いが見られるかを分析した。その結果、 FLCASとFLRASは細部では関連が見られるものの、全体としては明確に独立した構成体であること、不安の型には学年によって顕著な違いが見られることがわかった。

官、 esearchers 泊 differentfields have long recogr也edthe existence

I'C of anxiety and its potential for interference with performance ~‘ー(e.g. ， Alpert & Haber, 1960; Eysenck, 1979; Spielberger, 1983).

J必TJournal, Vol. 23, No. 2, November, 2001 ウ

22~ JLU-l JVUru'fAL

刀leirgeneral perspectives on anxiety set the groundwork for the deｭvelopment of Horwitz , Horwitz, and Cope's (1986) definition of forｭeign language anxiety as a complex set of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelｭings, and behaviors related spec泊callyto classroom language learning and the language leaming process. They claim three types of anxiety as their theoretical basis: communication apprehension, test anxíety, and fear of negative evaluation. In an effort to psychometrically assess these three types of anxiety underlying foreign language anxiety, Horwitz et al. developed the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Sαle σLCAS) as a standard instrument (Horwitz et al., 1986). Horwitz also studied student beliefs about language learning (Horwitz, 1988) and stressed that affective consequences of these beliefs must be considｭered. The results of this study, for example, suggest that a significant number of students put stress on grammatical accuracy, which Horwitz identifies as a contributing factor to anxiety 泊 foreign language learnｭmg.

Tobias (1986) created a separate taxonomy of anxiety and suggested a framework containing three distinct subconstructs of anxiety in lanｭguage learr血19: input, processing, and output. Tobias claimed that anxｭious learners have greater difficulty registering information (input), cognitive operations (processing), and production (output) than do less anxio凶 leamers. MacIntyre and Gardner (1989, 1991b) also 泊ves戸

tigated various types of anxiety scales and tried spec泊cally to assess foreign language anxiety. They concluded that foreign language anxiｭety is a situation-specific form of anxiety unrelated to other forms of anxiety. 百leyalso examined the relationship between foreign language anxiety and foreign language proficiency. Although their findings yielded two distinct construcぉ泊 foreignlanguage anxiety凶 support

of Horwitz et al. (1986) , they concluded that test anxiety is a more general problem that is not necessari1y specific to the language classｭroom. They also supported Tobiぉ， (1986) theory by obtaining a negaｭtive correlation between anxiety and the leaming (input) and producｭtion (output) of French vocabulary.

An:xiety and Lan:伊ageLearning

A review of the literature shows the negative relationship between anxiety and foreign language learning. Significant negative correlations between t岱t anxiety, fmal COUIちe grades, and high competitiveness 加class, which leads to anxiety and thus 加pa出 leamers' progress and/ or performance, are often reported (e.g. , Aida , 1994; Bailey, 1983; Chastain, 197ラ; Phillips, 1992). One possible explanation for these re-

MAぉUDA& GoBEL 229

sults may be the negative effect anxiety has on memory and recal1 (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991 b; Mac1ntyre & Gardner, 1994b). Another possible explanation may be the effect embarrassment and anxiety has on classroom performance (Saito & Sam泊ly， 1996; Ely, 1986; Sam加lY& Tabuse , 1992). In addition to negative changes 泊 performance ， reｭsearch suggests that foreign language anxiety affects learners' classｭroom behaviors 泊 general(cf. Horwitz et al., 1986; Young, 1991).

1n contrast, a number of studies have suggested that the effects of foreign language anxiety are not always negative. Bailey (1983) found that facilitative anxiety was one of the keys to success, po泊ting out that although too much anxiety had a negative effect , moderate amounts of anxiety produced positive results. 1n other words, a cerｭtain amount of anxiety, combined with sufficient motivation and enough time, may be beneficial to performance 泊 the target language (e.g. , Gardner & Maclntyre, 1992; Maclntyre & Gardner, 1994b; Tobias, 1986). Research has also suggested that levels of FL anxiety vary according

to instructionallevels, although there is little agreement on where the most or least anxiety 1ies. Gardner, Smythe, Clement, and G1iksman (1976) found that French-class anxiety correlated more strongly with proficiency as the students entered higher grade levels. On the other hand, Gardner, Smythe, and Brunet (1977) found the highest anxiety existed 泊 the beginners' classes while the least anxietywas observed 泊 theadvanced and intermediate classes. Saito and Samimy (1996) obｭtained a somewhat di丘erent result, exploring the 泊lpactof anxiety on leamers of ]apanese at beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels. Their results suggest that advanced leamers display the highest anxiｭety levels , while intermediate students scored the lowest and beginｭning students fell between the two. The conflicting findings of these three studies suggest that influences on anxiety are q凶te dynamic, with factors such as experience with the target language play加ga keyrole.

1t has also been hypothesized that the initiallevel of anxiety could change depending upon learners' experiences and proficiency. Maclntyre and Gardner (1991a) cla泊1 that positive experiences with the target language and observable achievement in the classroom help to reduce anxiet下 Anumber of studies have dealt with the effect of immer・sion or intensive courses and their effect on anxiety (C

230 .I.L"1LJ. JVUnJ'.ru ..

guage, or age. Research points to oral classroom activities as some of the most probｭ

lematic and anxiety-provok凶gactivities for foreign language learnerち(Horwitz et al. , 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994a; Price, 1991; Mejias, Applebaum , Applebaum, & Trotter, 1991; Steinberg & Horwitz, 1986). Students experience sign江ïcantly higher anxiety when responding orally than when doing other learning tasks, and this anxiety is observｭable in oral production. Students in the anxiety-produc泊gsituation of orallanguage production tend to respond less interpretively and atｭtempt more concrete messages than those in relaxed conditions.

Several researchers have attempted to measure apprehension speｭcific to FL reading and writing. Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert (1999) 泊vestigated the relationship between L2 classroom anxiety and L2 writing anxiety of university English majors in Taiwan using translated versions of the Daly-Miller (197ラa ， 197ラb)Writing Apprehension Test (SLWA:ηand the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale σLCAS). They found that while L2 classroom anxiety involves a more general type of anxiety that focuses on spαking apprehension, L2 writing anxiｭety is the more spec泊c type dealing with the language-partic凶arskill of writing. In their detailed factor analysis , they reported a five-comｭponent solution: two components (Low Self-confidence 泊 Speaking

English and General English Classroom Performance Anxiety) from the FLCAS and three components (Low Self-confidence 泊 Writing English, Aversion to Writing in English, and English Writing Evaluation Appreｭhension) from the SLWAT.

Reading anxiety has also been studied in FL sett凶gs. Saito, Garza, and Horwitz (1999) used the FLCAS and the FLRASσ'oreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale, spec泊callydeveloped to assess reading appreｭhension) to 泊vestigate links between general FL anxiety and FL readｭ凶g anxiety. They wanted to see whether learners' FL anxiety 泊f1u­

ences their FL reading anxiety. They found that FL reading anxiety is re1ated to but distinguishable from general FL anxiety and that read凶ganxiety increased as learners' perceptions ofthe diffic凶tyof the readｭing increased. Various leve1s of reading anxiety were found depending on the different target languages studied. In contrast, MacIntyre, Noe1s, and Clement (1997) , in their study of biases in self-ratings of second language proficiency in different skills , found similar leve1s of bias 凶speakin

MA TSUDA & GoBEL 231

Statement of Purpose

Thus far, a large body of research has dealt with communication-reｭlated anxiety凶 the foreign language c1assroom , but it seems that 0凶ya limited number of studies have been conducted to specifically meaｭsure reading anxiety. Is reading such a private task that students are un凶(elyto feel anxious about it as MacIntyre et al. (1997) suggest? We began to question their view when several students in our third-year reading c1ass told us that they often feel nervous and have trouble con・centrating when they have to read 凶 English. They c1aimed that they o丘en end up read泊gthe same sentences repeatedly without compreｭhension. As Saito et al. (1999) put it,“at first glance , read泊g would seem to be the component of FL performance least susceptible to anxiｭety effects" (p. 202). However, it became apparent that some students may be experienc泊g quiet apprehension in their L2 reading c1asses.

The purpose of this study is to explore foreign language classroom anxietyσLCA) and forei伊 lan♂Iager伺d加g創立ietyσ工RA)加 the]apa­

nese EFL classroom. Previous studies and measurement scales were the logical start泊gpo泊t for this undertaking. A1though questionnaires such as the FLCAS and FLRAS had been carefully developed and their reliability reported, the original forms of these questionnaires were developed with a spec江ïc population in mind. Consequently, estabｭlishing the reliab出tyand validity of the forms used in this study was a primary concern. We then attempted to determine what , if any, relaｭtionship exists between these two concepts of anxiety and whether this relationship differs depending on group membership , operationalized as class level. 官官 followingresearch questions were explored 泊 this study:

1. Is there a relationship between general English classroom anxiety and English reading anxiety?

2. Are there differences in types of anxiety based on the school year?

Method

Participants

Atotalof2ラ 2 students majoring in English at a large university泊 Kyoto

partidpated泊 theresearch. Three classes each from the ftrst-year, secｭond-year, and third-year courses were chosen at random to represent theiryear. 官le subjects consisted of 89 f廿st-year， 8ラ second-year， and 78 third-year students. Their proficiency 泊 English ranged from high beginner to high intermediate , with al1 c1asses containing mixed

232 .I.f1L.l .IVUruV.tlL

proficiencies. 百le majority of the high beginners were 凶 theflrst-year classes. Student ages ranged from 18 to 21. As in Cheng et al. (1999), the c1asses of English majors were dominated by female students, with a male-female ratio of ブラ:177 (see Table 1).

Naturally, school curricula vaηT according to the school year. F廿st­year students , following a recently introduced curriculum, met three times a week for what is called “ four skills" classes and also three times for “ content-based" classes in which they study in five different conｭtent areas 泊 English (Environmental Issues, British Culture, Australian Culture , Music , and ]apanese C凶ture) for five weeks each. Secondｭand third-year students are in separate curricula. Second-year students received six distinct classes per week, including intensive reading, exｭtensive reading, grammar, writing, speaking, and 1istening. Third-year students met five times a week for intensive reading, extensive readｭ凶g， business writing, a “ content-based" class, and a seminar.

Table 1: Participant Data

Year Participants Male Female Hours of Englishjweek

ハツラ

8

尖UQU

『/

AU

n1

忠加

スJAYZJ

フ“フ-フ“

U∞umq刀

00

ラ

Oノ

Q/『/

Materials

Two instruments were used in this study: the FLCAS (Horwitz et al., 1986) and the FLRAS (Saito et al., 1999). The instruments were designed to e1icit students' self-reports regarding anxiety, either over various aspec白 ofreading 凶 a foreign language σLRAS) or over general classｭroom anxiety 泊 a foreign language class σLCAS). All items on both instruments were answered on a ラーpo加t Likert scale , rang泊gfrom“strongly agree" to “strongly disagree." The FLCAS contained 33 items, and the FLRAS contained 20 items. In order to ensure that questionｭnaire items were clearly understood , the ]apanese researcher 泊 this

study translated both questionnaires into ]apanese, and the translation was placed underneath each original Eng1ish equivalent. The translaｭtion was then back trans1ated and checked by a bilingual]apanese colｭleague and a bilingual native speaker of Eng1ish to make sure that the original mea凶nghad not been altered. 百le only necessary changes to the wording of the original instruments were cases where the words

九1ATSUDA & GoBEL 233

“foreign language" and “ language ," found in the original FLCAS and FLRAS , were replaced with “ Eng1ish," and "the teacher" was changed to "the Eng1ish teacher."

Procedures

The FLCAS was administered in the 8th week and FLRAS in the 10th week of the Spring semester of 2000. Students were reminded that they were not to answer the items based on the specific class where the questionnaires were administered, but rather based on general English classes or English reading classes. Two ]apanese teachers and a native speaker teacher administered the questionnaires to the firstｭyear students in their “ four skills" c1asses. The questionnaires for the second-year students were administered by]apanese teachers in one reading and two listening c1asses. The third-year students received the questionnaires from two ]apanese and one native speaker teacher in their reading c1asses.

Students who filled out the FLCAS but were absent in the 10th week were asked to fill out the FLRAS 泊 the 11th week. Likewise , students who missed the FLCAS in the 8th week were told to fill it out 泊 the

11 th week. Students who did not complete a questionnaire or could not be located to fill out both questionnaires were eliminated from the study, thus slight1y reducing the number of participants. Data collecｭtion was for the most part successfi� for each target group, with 9ラ.7%ofthe f1fSt-year, 93.4% ofthe second-year, and 92.2 % ofthe third year students' data being collected.

Ana砂sお

Thereliab出tyof the two instruments was determined us加gCronbach's alpha. Construct va1idity, the ability of the questionnaire to measure whatitpu中ortsto measure , and the 泊terre1ationshipamong the items included 泊 the questionnaire was determined bya principal compoｭnent analysis. The principal component analysis was carried out on a Macintosh computer using the STATISTICA (1994) software package. A varimax rotation was used and eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and meetｭ泊gthe scree plot criteria were retained. Significant differences between variables and their interactions were explored using MANOVA and Pearson r, following principal component analysis. An alpha level of .0ラ was set for all statistical procedures.

254 外Ll jOURNAL

Results

ReliabiU砂 oftheFLCAS and the FLRAS

Although reliability of both instruments has been previously reported (Cheng et al, 1999; Horwitz et a1., 1986; Saito et al., 1999), the reliabilｭity in these previous cases is not relevant to 0ぽ translated verちionsnor to the population of this study. Therefore, internal consistency was computed for each of the ]apanese versions of the FLCAS and the FLRAS. Cronbach's alpha for the FLCAS was 0.78 (N = 2ラ2 ， M=100.7ラ， andSD = 11.43) and for the FLRAS it was 0.71 (N = 2ラ 2 ， M = 61.26, and SD =

7.33). 百lese values were lower than expected , and much lower than the values reported in Cheng et al. (1999) and Saito et al. (1999). Kurｭtosis and skewness help determine whether a distribution is normal, and here kurtosis was .037 for FLCAS and .339 for the FLRAS and skewｭness was .140 and .089 for the two tests , respectively, indicating norｭmal distribution.1 See Table 2 for descriptive statistics by test and year.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for FLCAS and FLRAS

Total Year 1 Year2 Year3

FLCAS

Total 2ラ394.000 8894.000 8477.000 8023.000

Mdn 101.000 99.933 102.000 102.000 mode 98.000 11.986 101.000 96.000 M 100.770 100.000 99.729 102.8ラ9

SO 11.428 98.000 10.910 11.192

nun 72.000 73.000 72.000 73.000

max 133.000 128.000 12ラ 000 133.000

kurtosis 0.037 -0.109 0.122 0.087

skewness 0.140 0.221 0.0ラ7 0.082

N 2ラ2 89 8ラ 78

FLRAS

Total 1ラ437.000 ラ 278.000 ラ327.000 4832.000

Mdn 62.000 ラ9.000 63.000 61.000

mode 61.000 ラ4.000 62.000 64.000

M 61. 2ラ8 ラ9.303 62.671 61.949

SO 7.326 7.096 7.493 7.004

nun 41.000 43.000 41.000 43.000

ロlax 89.000 79.000 78.000 89.000

kurtosis 0.339 -0.260 0.28ラ 2.067 skewness 0.089 0.228 -0 . ラ 30 0.722

N 2ラ2 89 8ラ 78

MATS<JDA & GoBEL 23ラ

Structure of the Questionnaires

To explore the component structure of each of the questionn山'es (i.e. , to see whlch items grouped together based on subject response) , an exploratory principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed. Following thls , correlation coefficients (a numerical meaｭsure of the degree of agreement between two sets of scores) were comｭputed to determine the associations among factors in each of the quesｭtionnaires. Principal component analysis is sensitive to the size of the correlation, requiring a rather large sample size. Although there is no total agreement among statisticians regarding what constitutes a large enough sample size, Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) suggest 300 cases as a minimum. Consequently, the sample size for this study (2ラ2) does not meet thls criterion. On the other hand, the assumption of a ratio of 20: 1 for subjects to factors and 2: 1 for subjects to variables (STATISTICA, 1994) was met by the present data.

Principal Component Analysお oftheFLCAS

A principal component analysis with varimax rotation produced seven factors with eigenvalues greater than one. Retaining all seven factors would create a model too complex for our purposes, so a smaller numｭber of factors was extracted. The number of factors to extract in the study was based on two methods: the frrst being that previous research determined a two-factor solution and the second being a standard staｭtistical analysis us泊g a scree plot. If the eigenvalues are plotted on a graph, the place where the smooth decrease of eigenvalues appears to level off is the cutoff point. All eigenvalues to the left of the cutoff point will be retained as factors in the matrix. The scree plot was choｭsen over the more familiar Kaiser criterion based on evidence that the Kaiser criterion sometimes retains too many factors (Kline , 1994; STATlSTICA, 1994) and based on the interpretability of a two-factor versus a seven-factor solution. Looking at a scree plot of the eigenvalｭues for thls study showed that the plot turned right following Factor 2 (see Figure 1). The last five factors were thus discarded. Ifthe cun・ent

model based on two factors is correct, then the two factors will exｭpla加 a substantial amount of variance in all items. The percent of variｭance explained for each factor and the total percent explained can be found in Table 3.

Lj� j~J j V Ul¥.HrlL

;iiH l~

10

1

i斗

Figure 1: Scree Plot of Eigenvalues for FLCAS

II

i¥

i鞠劇V威嚇8i1i!:fÞer柑州VilrI僻陥 E削剖~

'ill 叫川斗

ーーーー『 ト-ーー

…ι在宵唱

ト一一一一一愉

“一

1 必1 , , 5

胤l ' 口小語1 '1..: e ;判1 ，<."-ど 2 3, 4 6

Table 3: Resu1ts of Factor Analysis for FLCAS

Item# Questionnaire items Fl

2.1 don't worry about making mistakes in English class. .547 3. 1 tremble when 1 know 出at I'm go加g to be called on 泊Eng1ishclass. -.6ラ74. It frightens me when 1 don't understand what the teacher is

saying in English. -.546 8.1 am usually at ease during tests in my English class. .384 9.1 start to panic when 1 have to speak without preparation

in English class. -.519 12. In English class, 1 can get so nervous 1 forget things 1 know. ー.67613. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers 凶 myEnglish class. ー.4ラ8

14.1 would not be nervous speaking English with native speakers. う83

16. Even ifI am well prep乱red for Eng1ish class, 1 feel anxious about it. -.6ラ2

19. 1 am afraid that my English teacher is ready to correct eve町mistake 1 make. ・.423

20.1 can feel my heart pounding when 1 am going to be called on in my English class. -.732

22.1 don't feel pressure to prepare very well for English class. .407 24.1 feel very self-conscious about speaking English in

front of other students. -.369 26. 1 feel more tense and nervous in my English class

than in my other classes. -.747 27. 1 get nervous and confused when 1 am speaking

in my English class. ー.779

29.1 get nervous when 1 don't understand every word the English teacher says. ー .684

30.1 feel overwhe1med by the number of rules you have to learn to speak English. -.453

F2 h2

.34ラ

.488

.36ラー 16ラ

.411

.464

.276

.4ラ2

.480

2ラ3

.ラ63

.166

.1ララ

.602

.6ラブ

.492

2ラ6

、昨

MATSUDA & GoBEL 237

Table 3 (Continued)

Item# Questionnaire items F1 F2 h2

25. English class moves so 午Jickly1 wo汀yaboutgett泊g left behind. -.447 .424 .380 33.1 get nervous when the English teacher asks questions

wl昱h 1 haven't prepared 泊 advance . -.623 .4ラ431. 1 am afraid that the other students willlaugh at me

when 1 speak En副ish. -.626 .408 21. The more 1 study for an English test, the more confused 1 get. -.308 .322 .199 1. 1 never feel quite sure of myselfwhen 1 am speak:ing in English. .604 .562 ラ. It wouldn't bother me at all to take more En副ish classes . ー .618 .384 6. During English class, 1 find myselfthinking about things that

have notl佖g to do with the course. 7. 1 keep thinking that the other students are better at English

than 1 am. 10. 1 worry about the consequences of failing my English class. 17. 1 often feellike not going to my English class. 18. 1 feel confident when 1 speak in my English class. 23.1 always feel 出at the other students speak English better

than 1 do. 28. When I'm on my way to English class, 1 feel veη'sure

and relaxed. 32.1 would probably feel comfortable around native speakers

ofEnglish. Eigenvalues Percentage ofvariance Cumulative percentage of total variance

.477 .2ラ6

.573 .420

.511 .3ラ8

.697 .489 ・う77 .444

.560 .388

-.570 .488

-.43ラ .33910.26 2.04

31.09 6.18 31.09 37.28

The communalities shown to the right in Table 3 are the proporｭtions of variance of each item due to the common factors. If the present mode1 is correct, then the values will be generally homogeneous. This twかcomponent solution is similar to Cheng et a1. (1999); however, unlike their study, which exc1uded items with factor loadings less than うoandjor double loadings within .20 of the primary loading, this study inc1uded all items in the analysis with loadings greater than .30, reｭgardless of double load泊gs. These factor loadings represent the co汀e­

lation of a variable with a factor, and loadings of .30 or more are conｭsidered to be significant (K1ine, 1994). Consequently, only items 11 and 1ラ were de1eted based on low factor loadings and communalities.

The ftrst factor, which accountεd for 31.1 % of the variance included items related to anxiety, fear, and pressure re1ated to performance in the English c1assroom. In particular, the two items with the highest load泊gs on Factor 1, items 26 ("1 fee1 more tense and nervous 泊 myEnglish c1ass than in my other c1asses") and 27 ("1 get nervo凶 andconｭfused when 1 am speaking 泊 myEnglish c1ass") reflect students' anxi-

~~ö .J.L.L&....t..L J'""uJ.u....Ia�

ety about classroom performance. Therefore, this component was laｭbeled General English Classroom Performance Anxiety (FLCA1).

The second factor, which accounted for 6.2% of the total variance , included items not specifically related to performance 加 theclassroom. Many of the items that loaded on Factor 2 were concerned with selfｭconfidence in English ability, such as item 1 ("1 never feel quite s町eof

myselfwhen 1 am spea恒ngin English"). In addition to these , the items that loaded the highest on Factor 2 were items perta泊泊gto attending English classes such as items ラ and 17. Since these could be related to general self-confidence , factor 2 was labeled Low Self-Confidence 泊Speaking Eng1ish σLCA2).

Princ厓al Component Analysお oftheFLRAS

Using the same procedure described above , a principal component analysis of FLRAS suggested a three-component solution, which acｭcounted for 40.89% of the total variance (Table 4). Items 1ラ and 16 were deleted based on their low factor loadings and low communa1iｭties , and item 2 , which double loaded on factor 1 and factor 2 , was also deleted for the p町pose of clarity.

Items in factor 1, which accounted for a pproximately 21 % of the total variance, were mainly concerned with grammar and vocabulary. The items that loaded the highest on this factor were item 6 (“1 get upset whenever 1 encounter unknown grammar when reading Enｭglish") and item 8 ("It bothers me to encounterwords 1 can't pronounce whi1e reading Eng1ish"). Therefore, this factor was labeled Familiarity with English Vocab凶aryand Grammar (FLRA 1).

Factor 2, accounting for 11.79% ofthe total variance, was concerned mainly with confidence in reading English and reading enjoyment. Item 12 ("1 enjoy reading 凶 English") and item 13 ("1 feel confident when 1 am reading 泊 English") were representative of factor 2 and so this facｭtor was labeled Reading Confidence/Enjoymentσ工RA2).

Factor 3 accounted for 8. 1 % of the total variance and included a vari・

ety of items, making it diffic凶t to label 出is factor. The highest loading for factor 3 was ite;m 19 (“English culture and ideas seem very foreign to me") but other items with almost equally high loadings were item 9 ("1 usually end up translating word by word when 1 am reading English 泊front of me") and item 11 ("1 am worried about all the new symbols you have to learn in order to read English"). Since these items dealt either with English culture or ideas, as well as the English writ泊g system, this factor was labeled Language Distance σLRA3) (See Table 4).

MA TSUDA & GoBEL 239

Table 4: Results of Factor Analysis for FLRAS

Item# Questionnaire items F1 F2 F3 h2

I get upset when I'm not sure whether I underちtandwhat I'm reading in English. ー . ラ86 .3ブ6

ラ. I am nervous when I am reading a passage in English when I am not familiar with the topic. ー.37ラ .23ラ

6. I get upset whenever I encounter unknown grammar when reading English. -.739 .636

7. When reading English, I get nervous and confused when I don't understand every word. ー.ラララ -ララ1 .610

8. It bothers me to encounter words I can't pronounce while reading English -.6ララ 43ラ

20. You have to know so much about English history and culture in order to read English. '・420 .308

3. When I'm reading English, I get so confused I can 't remember what I'm reading. -.47ラ .381

12. I enjoy reading in English. .740 .633 13. I feel confident when I am reading in English. .84ラ 717 14. Once you get used to it, reading English is not

so difficult.. .627 .ラ41

18. I am satisfied with the 1eve1 of reading abili町田English that I have achieved so far. .629 .468

4 I fee1 intimidated whenev.εr I see a who1e page of English. ー.484 .424

9. I usually end up translating word by word when l' m reading English in front of me. ー.630 .4ララ

10. By the time you get past the funny lette問 and

symbols in English, it's hard to remember what you're reading about ラ10 .367

11. I am worried about all the new symbols you have to 1earn in order to read Eng1ish. -.626 .470

17. I don't mind reading to myself, but I fee1 very uncomfortable when I have to read English aloud. -.472 .2ラ6

19. English culture and ideas seem very foreign to me. -.631 .492

Eigenvalues 4.20 2.36 1.62 Percentage ofvariance 20.99 11.79 8.10 Cumulative percentage of total variance 20.99 32.78 40.88

Correlations among the Questionnaires and 1�eir Subcomponents

Based on the results of the above two principal components analyses, Pearson correlations were computed for the FLCAS and FLRAS and their subcomponents using factor scores derived from the principal comｭponent analyses. Table ラ presents the correlation matrix. FLCAl (Genｭeral English Classroom Performance Anxiety) correlates significantly with FLRAl (Familiarity with Eng1ish Vocabulary and Grammar) and

j./lLl jUU釦'JAL

FLRA3 (Language Distance). This suggests the obvious connection betweenfam出aritywith the FL and perfonnance anxiety. FLCA2 (Low Self-confidence in Speaking English) correlated significantly with two of the factors in FLRAS: Reading Confidence/EnjoymentσLRA2)and Language Distance σLRA3)， suggesting that self-confidence in speakｭ泊g and reading are related and that familiarity with the mechanics of Eng1ish is also related to self-confidence.

240

Table う: Pearson Correlation Matrix

FLCA2 FLCA1 FLRA3 FLRA2 FLRA1

1.000 .2う9*

・.298*

1.000 .000 -.066

.390*

1.000 .002 .000 .413*

・.023

FLRA1 FLRA2 FLRA3 FLCA1 FLCA2

1.000 .000 1.000

Note. * p<.Oラ

MANOκ4

Using the factor scores from both factor analyses, a Multiple Analysis ofVariance (MANOVA) was perfonned to see 江 there was any si伊úfi­

cant effect for the independent variable of school year. The dependent variables in the statistical procedure were the three factors for the FLRAS and the two factors for the FLCAS. A significant effect for the independent variable ofyear was found (p < .008; df = 10,488) and the Wilks' Lamda was .908. Univariate analysis indicated that the sigｭnificant factor in this analysis was FLRA1 (Familiarity with Eng1ish Voｭcabu1ary and Grammar) , as shown in Table 7.

Table 6: MANOVA Resu1ts

p

FLRA1 FLRA2 FLRA3 FLCA1 FLCA2

.0198

.1940

.061ラ

.0792

.6121

F

3.9832 1. 6ラ082.8209 2. ラ6230.4919

M5

0.9824 1.0008 0.993ラ0.9916 1.0081

df

フ臼フ臼フ臼フ-フ臼

55

3.9133 1.6ラ222.8026 2 . ラ408

0.49ラ9

Source

A也TSUDA & GoBEL 241

Table 7: MANOVA Univariate Analysis Results

Effect Wilks' Lambda Rao's R df df 2 p

0.908 2.4 1ラ 10 488 0.008

Discussion

Unlike Saito et al. (1999), who found a significant re1ationship between the overall FLCAS and FLRAS , we found almost no statistically signifiｭcant corre1ation between the two scales. While Saito et a1. c1aim that students with high general FL anxiety tend to have high FL read凶ganxiety, our findings indicate that FL reading anxlety is very specific and independent of more general types of FL anxiety. Items 仕omboth measures loaded on different components except for “!ow self-confiｭdence," which was found to be a significant component of both anxiｭety scales. We found two subcomponents 泊 the FLCAS 出atwe labeled General Classroom Performance AnxietyσLCAl) and Low Self-Confiｭdence in Speaking Eng1ishσLCA2) and three subcomponents in the FLRAS that we labeled Familiarity with Eng1ish Vocabulary and GramｭmarσI及Al)， R，αding ConfidencejEnjoymentσLRA2)， and Lan伊lage

Distance σLRA3). When the items in the two measures were examｭined further based on the factors above, however, there were signifiｭcant re1ationships between the FLCAl and FLRA3, the FLCA2 and the FLRA2, and the FLCA2 and the FLRA3. Although the FLCAS and the FLRAS are independent of each other, they share some latent anxiety e1ements.

Previous research supports the idea that anxiety in foreign language learning is a multi-faceted construct. Those constructs seem to vary depending on target language and different learning sett凶gs. Aida (1994) administered the FLCAS to a c1ass of students of ]apanese and obtained four factors (Speech Anxiety and Fear ofNegative Evaluation, Fear of Fai1ing the Class , Comfortableness in Speaking with Native Speakers ofjapanese, and Negative Attitude towardjapanese Class) , none of which was s也ùlarto any of the factors we found in the FLCAS. On the other hand , Cheng et al. (1999) examincd the FLCAS and the SLWAT and found low self-coIﾛldence as a significant component in bothmロsures . Moreover, their two subcomponents of the FLCAS were similar to the subcomponents we obtained in the FLCAS, although Cheng et a1. found the low confidence dimension as the primary COffiｭponent.

4よl~ )rlLl )VUtl1'1I1L

As for the FLRAS, we cannot compare our findings to other studies because, thus far, onlya few researchers have recognized the possible existence of FL reading anxiety. Mter administering the FLRAS , Saito et al. (1999) also claimed that FL reading is an anxiety-provoking activｭity. Their study, however, was conducted in French, Russian , andJapaｭnese language classrooms. Anticipating that two aspects , a) unfamiliar scripts and writing systems and b) unfamiliar cultural material , would have an impact on learners' anxiety, they simply compared means of the data 企omeach language group. Their participants, however, were in ftrst-semester university classes, that is, relatively new learners of a foreign language. When dea1ing with English majors inJapan , aspect a) above may not be applicable. Most students have studied English since junior high school and are fan�iar with the English a1phabet and symbols. Therefore , some items in the FLRAS may not have been suitｭable. For example , “funny letters and symbols" in item 10 and “new symbols" in item 11 may not have been understood precisely.

As our data analysis suggested , the first subcomponent of FLRAS σLRA1 ， Familiarity with English Vocabulary and Grammar) was the most signi.ficant factor in marking difference by school year. lt seems that first-year students tend to be more concerned about unfamiliar topics , unknown sounds, words, and grammar (displayed in items ラフ

6 , 7, and 8) . 刀leyare likely to focus on details rather than the big picｭture of the reading. As Saito et al. (1999) found， 川lefact that students feel they should understand eveη屯hingand experience anxiety whenｭever they encountεr unfamiliar words and grammar" (p. 214) was most prevalent in the first-year students.

We should, however, po泊tout the limitations ofthis study. The major limitation of this study is the low reliability of both questionnaires, and it is this low reliability that may have had an effect on the findings of the principal component analysis. There are a number of possib出ties

why the reliability for these two scales was low. Possible sources of variance inc1ude variance due to questionnaire administration, variance attributable to the participants , and variance attributable to the quesｭt�nnarre items.

The results need to be interpreted with caution because although students were told to answer about English classes 泊 general ， they may have responded based on the speci白c c1ass they were attendi

九1ATSUDA & GoBEL 243

Variance attributable to the participants and di百erentcurricula could have somehow affected th住 anxietyreactions as well. Third-year stuｭdents do not actually have conversation class , but may be required to speak 凶 a more challenging situation in readinglwrit泊gc1asses. Firstｭyear students learn to read in an integrated “four-sk出s" course, so they were not really exposed to extensive reading yet. We also did not take students' individual experiences or proficiency into consideration.

Another source ofvariance to consider is the sensitivity of responses to item wording. Although the two scales contain sets of items that are intended to measure the same type of anxiety, our participants reｭspondeddi妊erentlyto the items such as F工CASitem 3 ("1 tremblewhen 1 know that I'm go凶gto be ca1led on 凶 Englishclass") (M = 2.72 , SD = 1.10) and item 20 ( “1 can feel my heart pounding when 1 am going to be cal1ed on in my English c1ass") (M = 3. 10, SD = 1.10). Item 4 ( “It frightens me when 1 don't understand what the teacher is saying in Eng1ish") (M = 3.06, SD = 1.21) was also marked differently from its counterpart , item 29 ("1 get nervous when 1 don't understand every word the English teacher says") (M = 3.32 , SD = 1.04). We observed a more noticeable difference 加 the FLRAS, displayed in item 1 ( “1 get upset when I'm not sure whether 1 understand what I'm reading in English") (M = 2.2ラ SD =0.9ラ) anditem7 ( “When reading English, 1 get nervo凶 andconfused when 1 don't understand every word") (M = 3.18, SD = 1. 10). 百1US ， one plausible explanation for our low reliability is a lack of exact agreement among the intended items.

With respect to the two scales used, the FLRAS is not as thoroughly tried and tested as the FLCAS.η1e especially low re1iability displayed by the FLRAS 泊 our study raises the question of the applicabi1ity of this scale , in its present form , to English majors in ]apan. A1so , the wording 泊 the]apanese translation, although carefully constructed , may have somehow affected the reliab出町.

Conclusion

A1though reading is considered a private task and thought to be unsusceptible to anxiety (Maclntyre et a1. , 1997), our findings show the existence of apprehension towards FL reading, which is distinguishｭable from general FL anxiety. When the items were examined further by factor analysis, our five-factor solution indicated a complex feature of FL anxiety. We found some relationships between the subcompoｭnents of the two scales; however, the FLCAS and the FLRAS , being far from identical, can be seen お m伺suringdifferent construc白. Thethree componenぉ we found in the FLRAS are related to anxiety specific to

244 JALl '}OURNAL

FL reading, and they describe important types of anxiety that mayarise 泊 FL reading classrooms.

Regarding our second research question, our data provide tentative suppoロ forthe view that reading anxiety due to lir凶tedfan世iaritywith

Eng1ish grammar and vocabu1ary is greater among first-year students than second-or third-year students. One possible explanation for this may be the attention paid to graロunarand vocabulary when preparing for entrance exams. It could be that this attention to grammar and voｭcabulary lessens as students progress through their four yea.rち ofstudy.

If this is the case, then teachers may wish to spec泊cally address this reading anxiety 泊 thefirst year, possibly by focusing more on fluency activities than on accuracy activities, for example.

Whether or not our加terpretationof our fmdings is co汀ect ， wehope that our study has shown the importance of establishing the va1idity and reliability of a questionna廿efor each new population and translaｭtion. Bぉedon our resu1ts 江 is clear that 血esurveys and the items therein should be redesigned. In addition, more qua1itative research, such as interviews and classroom observation, would help to shed some light on the validity of the models created by this study. By using multiple methods of data collection and data analysis, it may be possible to come to a clearer understanding of FL reading anxiety and its relationship to general FL anxiety.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to our colleagues and their students who devoted their也netoo町resαrchproject. We wo凶dalso like to thank the editor and the two anonymous reviewers of JAL T JO町nal for their insigh凶Ùcomments on the earlier draft of白is paper.

Sae Matsuda teaches Eng1ish and)apanese at Kyoto Sangyo University. Her research interests include affective variables in L2 (English and Japanese), action research, and CALL

Peter Gobel is an Associate Professor at Kyoto Sangyo University. His research interests include communication strョtegytraining and use and narrative discourse s町uctur・e. Questions and comments can be sent to くpgobel@cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp> .

MA TSUDA & GoBEL 24ラ

Note

A1though values c10se to zero are desired for both kurtosis and skewｭ

ness , the standard e汀orof measurement for kurtosis in this study was

.1ラ4 ， and the standard e汀or of measurement for skewness was .308.

Based on these values , the obtained skewness values were compared with zero using a z distribution (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 19%, p. 72). No significant kurtosis or skewness was found at a = .01.

References

Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope's construct of foreign language anxiety:ηle case of studen臼 of]apanese. Modem Language

Journal, 78, 1ララー168.

Alpe口，R.， & Haber, R. N. (1960). Anxiety 血 academic achievement situations. JO町四1 of AbnonnaJ and Social Psychology, 61 , 207-21ラ.

Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: Looking at and through the diary studies. In H. W Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), CJassroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 67-102). Rowley, MA: Newbury Ho凶e.

Chapelle, c., & Roberts , C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36, 27-4ラ.

Chasta血，K. (197ラ). Mfective and ab出町 factorsin second-1anguage acquisition. LanguageLearning， 2ラ， 1ラ3-161.

Cheng, Y., Horwitz , E. K., & Schallert, D. 1. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking componen白 • Language Leaming, 49, 417-446.

Daly,]. A , & Miller, M.D. (197ラa). 百leempirical development of an instrument ofwriting apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 242-249.

Daly, ]. A., & Miller, M.D. (197ラb) . Further studies in writing apprehension: SAT scores, success expectations, willingness to take advanced courses, and sex differences. Research in the Teaching of English, 9 , 2ラ(はう6.

Desrochers, A. M. , & Gardner, R. C. (1981). Second language acquisition: An investigation of a bicultural excursion experience. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-reJated cognition in anxiety and motivation (pp. 3うラ4). Hillsdale , NJ: Erlbaum.

Ely, C. M. (1986). An analysis of discomfort , risk-taking, sociability, and motivation in the L2 classroom. Language Learning 36, 1-2ラ.

Eysenck, M. W. (1979). Anxiety, learning, and memory: A reconceptualization. JOun>al ofResearch in Persona1ity, 13, 363・38ラ.

L4� .I..i..LI....I.... J'-'LI." .. .l....oI...~

Gardner, R. c., & MacIntyre , P. D. (1992). A student's contributions to second language learning.Part 1: Cognitive variables. Language Teaching, 2ラ， 211同

220.

Gardner, R. c., Smythe, P. c., & Brunet, G. R. (197η. Intensive second language study: Effects on attitudes, motivation, and French achievement. Language Leaming, 27, 243-261.

Gardner, R.c., Smythe, P. c., & Clement, R. (1979). Intensive second language study in a bicultural milieu: An investigation of attitudes , motivation, and language proficienqに Lan♂J3.ge Le丘ming， 29, 30ラう20.

Gardner, R. c., Smythe, P. c., Clement , R., & Gliksman, 1. (1976). Second language acquisition: A social psychological perspective. Canadian Modem Language Review, 32, 198・213.

Horwitz , E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning u凶versityforeign language studenぉ. ModemLang凶geJo凶71al， 72, 283・294.

Horwitz, E. K., Ho何itz ， M.B. , & Cope,). A. (198め. Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modem Language Joumal, 70, 12予132.

Kline , P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Rout1edge.

MacIntyre , P. D., & Garl也ler， R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second lan伊泊gelea凶ng:

Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Leaming, 39, 2ラ1-27ラ.

MacIntyre , P. D. , & Gardner, R. C. (1991a). Lang凶ge anxiety: Its relation to other anxieties and to process泊gin native and second languages. Language Leaming, 41 , ラ13・ラ34.

MacIntyre , P. D. , & Gardner, R. C. (1991b). Methods and results 泊 the study of anxiety in language learning: A review of the literatur・e. Language LeaJηing，

41 ， 8ラ-117.

Maclntyre , P. D. , & Gardner, R. C. (1994a). The effec臼 ofinduced anxiety on three stages of cognitive processing in computerized vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 1・17.

Maclntyre, P. D. , & Gardner, R. c., (1994b). The subt1e effects of language anxiety on cognitive process泊g 泊 the second language. Language Lean凶19，

44 ， 283・30ラ.

MacIntyre , P. D. , Noels , K. A., & Clement, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Leaming, 47 ， 26ラ-287.

Mejias , H. , Applebaum, R. 1., Applebaum, S. ). , & Trotter, R. T. (1991). Oral communication apprehension and Hispanics: An exploration of oral communication apprehension among Mexican American students in Texas. In E. K. Horwitz & D.). Youngαds.) ， Language anxiety: From theory and

research to c1assroom implications (pp. 87-97). Englewood Cliffs , NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Phi1lips , E. (1992). The effects of languag

MA TSUDA & GoBEL 247

Price , M. 1. (1991). The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety: Interviews with highly anxious students. In E. K. Horwitz & D.). Young (Eds.), Lang凶tgeanxiety: From theory and researc1】 to c1assvωmimplications

(pp. 101-108). Englewood Cliffs, N]: Prentice-Hall.

Saito, Y., Garza, T., & Horwitz, E. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. Modem LangωgeJo凶7laJ， 83 , 202-218.

Saito , Y., & Samimy, K. (1996). Foreign language anxiety and language performance: A study of learner anxiety in beginning, intermediate, and advanced-level college studen臼 of)apanese. Foreig1】 Lang凶'ge AnnaJs, 29, 239-2ラ1.

Samimy, K. K., & Tabuse , M. (1992). Affective variables and a less commonly taught language: A study in beginning)apanese classes. Language Leaminι 42， 377・398.

Spielberger, C. D. (1983). ManuaJ for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory(Form

Y). Palo Alto , CA: Consulting Psychologis臼 Press.

STATISTICA for the Macintosh, (1994). Volume 11. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft, Inc..

Steinberg, F. S. , & Horwitz E. K. (1986). The effec臼 ofinduced anxiety on the denotative and interpretive content of second language speech. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 131-136

Tabachnick, G. , & Fidell, S. (1996). Using muJtivaJ狙testatistics. Third edition.

NewYork: Harper Collins.

Tobias , S. (1986). Anxiety and cognitive processing of instruction. In R. Schuwarzer (Ed.), Self-reJated cognition in anx.iety and motivation (pp. 3ラー

ラ4). Hillsdale , N): Erlbaum. Young, D.). (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language anxiety research suggest? Modem Language Joumal, 7ラ， 426-439.

(Received February 14, 2001; revised]une 6, 2001)

Perspectives

A Rationale for Ll-to-L2 Literary Translation 泊

College EFL Instruction

James W. Porcaro Toyama Universiり， olInternational Sωdies

Translation is a much-neglected area ofEFL instruction, long shunned by many within the field of ELT. However, there are various kinds of translation and some can be very effective pedagogical instruments. A course in]apanese-toｭEnglish literary translation in EFL college programs in]apan has demonstrated its effectiveness in developing students' written expression in English. A rationale for this approach lies within the relationships across languages and across the modalities of L1 reading and L2 writing. This needs to be unified with an understanding of practice, in partic凶ar， teacher-student conferencing and peer collaboration. It is hoped that a synergism1 will emerge from further study and research on this topic along with more teachers ass凶ning positive views toward this kind of translation instruction and attempting to undertake it in their classrooms. 翻訳はEFLの授業で非常に軽視され、 ELTの分野の多くの教師によって長ら

く避けられてきた領域である。しかし、翻訳には様々な種類があり、使い方によっては大変効果的な教育手段になりうるものである。日本語から英語への文学作品の翻訳演習を行う日本の大学でのある講座は、翻訳演習が学習者の英語での文章表現力を養うのに有効であることを既に示している。このような教授法の理論的根拠は、異なった言語の聞の相互関連性および\第 1 言語の読解力と第 2 言語の文章表現力の問の相互関連性に存するものであり、実践方法の理解、とりわけ教師と学習者の問での相談や学習者同士の共同作業のやり方についての理解が統合される必要がある。このテーマについてのさらなる研究の進展と、この種の翻訳演習の授業に肯定的な見解を持つより多くの教師による教室での実践が相乗効果をあげることが望まれる 。

D… language (ιL 1η) 泊 Eng1ish as a foreign language (αEFLυ) instruc-

tion , including observations ofthe benefits ofL1 use 泊 theL2

jALT journa1, Vol. 23, No. 2, November, 2001

248

PERSPEC11VES 249

(second language) writing process , has been go泊g on for some time 泊 the literature of English language teachlng (EIη. Yet it seems when language teachers hear the word translation in thls context , most reｭcoi1 and think that it is an outdated and ineffective way of teaching. Howatt (1991) has noted that the practice of translation has been deｭnounced so strongly for so long that many teachers stil1 proscribe its use in language learning as a matter of principle. Discussion about how translation might be effectively employed as a teaching methodology in language classes barely registers a blip as one scans the professional field of ELT publications and conference presentations.

Translation is general1y associated with the grammar-translation method, an application of the traditional approach used to teach the c1assicallanguages of 1瓜in and Greek, in which instruction is provided almost ent註elyin the students' native language and the focus is on the explanation of grammar rules , the memorization of native language equivalents of target language vocabulary, and the translation of readｭ凶g passages 泊 thetarget language that are selected without particular regard to content or level of d江ficulty into the native language (see Howatt, 1991).ηlÌs method is believed by advocates and practitioners of communicative approaches to hlnder severely the successful acquiｭsition of functional use of the target language (e.g. , see Brown, 1994; Rivers , 1981).

It is 加lportantto recognize, however, that there are various types of translation and a number of ways in whlch it can be uti1ized as a very productive pedagogic device 泊 language c1asses. Widdowson (1979) has affirmed that in some circumstances certain kinds of translation indeed may provide the most effective means of learning. From 1990 to 2000 , 1 taught a course 加 ]apanese-to-English 1iterary translation , fl.fSt 泊 the intensive English program of a two-year college and later in the EFL program of a u凶versity. The ]apanese students' proficiency levels were gene削除企omlower to upper泊termediate. Although lackｭing the emp廿ical evidence of a control1ed comparative study, my diｭrect experience with the work of mor・ethan 1ラostudents has provided compe随時 supportfor the assertion that the English translation texts that出eyproduced often demonstrated a higher order oflanguage strucｭture and expression than writing products generated from standard assignmenお 泊 compositionand ac

2ラO jALl jOURNAL

gral components of the process and language students who are transｭlating receive considerable practice with them. The involvemeot of speaking and listening will become clear in the discussion of teacherｭstudent confereocing and peer collaboration.

TIlis article does not at all contend that such a translation course by itself is sufficient to fully develop students' L2 writing skills. Rather, it presents a basis for the argument 白atLl-to-L2 translatioo entails comｭplexandm凶tiple interrelationships between reading and writing, inｭcluding an impo目antrelationship between Ll reading and L2 writing, which can effectively advance second language writing skills and proficiencies. 百leinstructional methodology for the approach to Japルnese-to・English literary translation that is discussed in this art�c1e has been presented in detail previously by Porcaro (1998), who gives titles and authors of many texts that were used successfully in the translaｭtion course. The summaries of the classroom methodology that follow are derived from that artic1e.

Read泊g/WritingConnections

A number of studies have explored interlingual and intralingual r，白d­泊g and writing relationships , and researchers have considered the pedagogical implications of their findings. 10 a study of Chinese and ]apanese students of English as a second language 覺L) at universities m 出e U.S. , Carson, Carrell, Silberstein‘Kroll l and Kuehn (1990) used writ泊gprompts for essay samples and cloze pぉsagesin both the first languages and English in order to analyze second language 1iteracy in terms of both interlingual transfer and intralingual input. They found that literacy skilIs can transfer across laoguages , but the pattern and strength of this transfer vary according to first language and educaｭtional background and experience. The results also indicated that readｭingab出町transfers more easily企omL 1 to L2 than does wri仙19ab出ty，suggesting 白atLl reading skills can have some impact on L2 reading. However, the weak correlation between L 1 and L2 writing for the ]apaｭnese students aod the absence of a correlatioo for the Chinese learners suggested the possib出町of very limitedヲ 百any， exploitation of L 1 writｭing in ESL wri凶19 pedagogy. The authors conc1uded that L2 literacy development for adult ESL lean】むち is a complex phenomenon 凶volv­

ing multiple variables , and that particularly at higher levels of pro白­

ciency, intralingual input may be veηr 卸】portant for L2 literacy skills devdopment.

Underscoring the complexity of these relationships are the results of other studies of ]apanese students that followed the work of Carson

PERSPECTJVES 2ラ 1

et al. (1990). In their examination of japanese u凶versity students' Enｭglish expositoηT writing, Hirose and Sasaki (1994) investigated several factors that might have influenced the quali町 ofthe writing product. They found that L 1 writ凶gability was highly correlated with L2 writｭ恒gability and formu1ated the hypothesis that “japanese EFL students' compos泊g competence (measured by the quality of Ll writing) and L2 proficiency both influence the quality of their L2 wri白19" (p. 219). Kubota (1998) investigated rhetorical structures injapanese Ll and English L2 essays. The findings of her study indicated that students who wrote well in japanese co凶d beencoぽagedto apply the L 1 writｭing strategies that 出eyused to ESL writing as well. On the other hand, those who wrote poorly injapanese could be expected to need extenｭsive training in how to organize ideas e百ectivelyfor ESL writing. 日sterhold(1990) hi偵lightsthe eni.伊naticre加ionshipbetween readｭ

ing and writing using three mode1s of the reading-writing connection. The directional hypothesis holds that “ reading and writing share strucｭtural components such that the structure of whatever is acquired 泊one modality can 出en be applied in the other" (p. 89). But this transｭfer can proceed 泊 onlyone direction, most common1y from reading to writ泊g . The nondirectional hypothesis is an interactive model 泊which “ reading and writing are said to derive 仕oma single underlying proficiency, the common link being that of the cognitive process of constructing meaning" (p. 90), and transfer can occur 泊 eitherdirecｭtion. 刀le bidirectional hypothesis cIaims that reading and writing are not on1y interactive, but interdependent as well. Gousseva (1998) sucｭcinctly applies the reading-writing connection to 白elanguageleam・

ing process, as follows:

The development of literacy involves development of writｭing and reading as conjoined activities with shared cognitive processes that shape each other, and are affected by (and afｭfect) the context 凶 which they occぽ. (unpaginated)

In the context of secondjforeign language learning , Cummins (as cited in Eisterhold, 1990) cIaims “ there is an underlying cognitivejacaｭdemic proficiency that is common across Ianguages that allows transｭfer of literacy-related skills across languages" (p. 9ラ). Eisterhold adds:

It appearち thatL 1 literacy skills αn transfer to the second lanｭ伊ugeand are a factor in L2 literacy acquisition.. ..百le general process of acq凶ringL2 writing and reading abilities ap戸~...tobe influenced by the transfer ofLlliteracy skills that affect the

乙ラ1. Jf1L A. J V U1¥.1 '.tU-

中Jalityof L2 rロdingand writing quite apart from what can be l白rnedfrom the second language itself. (p. 99)

Ll-to-L2 Translation

The almost ent廿elyneglected area of second lang凶ge learning involvｭ泊gL l-to-L2 translation exposes a reading-writing connection hitherto unexamined, namely, the relationship across languages and across modalities ofLl read加gand L2 writing. Rivers and Temperley (1978) have insightfully described the translation process that 1eads us into this area , as follows:

The production of an acceptable translation 凶o English is [forstuden臼]...a means for developing sensitivity to the meanｭ泊gsexpressed in a stretch of discourse in one's own language and to the different linguistic mechanisms used by the two languages to convey these meanings. Students leam to transｭlate ideas, not words. 官邸 type of exercise is, therefore, an analytic activity. Through a comparative examination of the syntactic and semantic systems of English and the native lanｭguage and the cultural contexts in which they operate, stuｭdents attempt to expand their own potential for expression in the English language. (p. 337)

There are, however, just a few disparate studies that have 加vesti­

gated the element of translation from L 1 in relation to second language writ凶g. Friedlander (1990), for example, reviewed a number of studｭies , which indicated that Ll writing strategies could positively affect L2 composing. He sought to identify the circumstances in which adult ESL writers' Ll could be more helpful than the L2 加 recalling knowlｭedge about a pa口icularsubject. His study of Chinese-speaking ESL stuｭdents at a U.S. university confirmed his hypothesis that ESL writers would be able to plan more effectively and write better English L2 texts when they could plan for their writing in the language of the topic knowledge and白entranslate into English. That is to say, students who planned in Ch.inese for the given topic that related to a Chinese experiｭence generated English essays that were superior in quality to those written by students who planned for that topic 出 English. This kind of task is a long way from 1iterary translation, but perhaps the resu1ts of the study suggest the role played by schemata from student-translaｭtors' Ll background in their engagement with a 1iterary text in the conｭstruction of meaning and in the reconstruction 泊to Eng1ish of that

PERSPEα1VES 2ラ3

text that 泊 its essence is inseparable from its social and cultural oriｭ伊ns.

Kobayashi and Rinnert (1992) compared compositions of the same students that resulted from two different writing processes. One was written directly 泊 L2 English and the other was composed in the first language and then translated by the writer 泊to L2 English. The subｭjects of the study were ]apanese EFL students at a u凶versityin ]apan. Although there are very important differences between translating a text one has written oneself and translat凶g a given Ll text , the findｭings from the research should be considered. 1t was found that the students produced significantly better L2 English compositions , in terms of quality of content, organization, and style, by writing via trans-ｭlation (from]apanese) than by writ泊g directly 泊 L2 ， although the stuｭdents 泊 thelow proficiency group 泊 theirstudy benefited more from translation than the students in the high proficiency group. Syntactic complexity was also greater 泊 the translations , but there were more C汀ors that interfered with intended meaning in the translations of the highe叫evel students than in their direct writing. Some of the 凶p1ica­

tions of these findings relate to those drawn by Friedlander from his study. Kobayashi and Rinnert noted that the use of the first language especially by lower-level students might enable them to explore ideas fully within their own intellectual and cognitive boundaries. Thus, they could benefit 仕omLl use 泊 this way, especial1y 泊 the prewrit泊gand

planning stages. At the same time , they cautioned that the extensive use of translation of one's own L 1 text hinders writing fluency and the development of other L2 writing ski11s. On the other hand, genu泊c

translation from a given L 1 text 泊toL2 English can be an e百ective lanｭguage learning methodology at all proficiency levels.

Uzawa (1996) has confirmed the fact of the scarcity of empirical data on translation in the framework of language learning. Her work was a comparative study of L 1 writing, L2 writing, and translation proｭcesses. The subjects were ]apanese ESL students studying at a Canaｭdian college. The research design included think-aloud protocols , obｭser・vational notes , a questionnaire, and interviews, in addition to the writing samples. The translation task (from Ll ]apanese 泊to L2 Enｭglish) was from a magaz泊e article and expository 凶 nature ， as were 位le topics for Ll and L2 writing. 1t was found that scores on langu

~フせ J~ ・~-J - - ーーーー

marked, however,“the participants were freed from the cognitive acｭtivities of generating and organizing ideas, and [thus] were able to conｭcentrate on linguistic activities" (p. 288). This seems to ignore the conｭsiderable cognitive transaction with the given Ll text in the construcｭtion of meaning that is an integral element of the process of translation and the Ll reading/L2 writ泊gconnection. Nevertheless , she noted that those students in her study whose scores were relatively high in the L2 writing task responded that translation is more helpful for language use than L2 writing. She concluded that translation tasks may be useｭful for second language learning in that the process requires learners to use words , expressions , grammar, and syntax that are a little beｭyond their present level.

Ll Reading/L2 Writing Connection

We need, then , to pursue further these aspects of the integration of reading and writing 泊 theprocess of L 1 ・to-L2 translation. Firちt ， on the nat町e of the processes of reading and writ泊g， Zamel (1992) has stated:

1t has become commonplace to characterize the act of writｭing as a meaning making, purposeful, evolving, recursive , diaｭlogic , tentative, fluid , exploratory process. Recent research and theory in reading have shown us that these terms can be applied as well to the act ofreading. (p. 463)

At the same time , meaning is culture-specific. Readers bring their own schemata to their transaction with a text 泊 order to construct meaning. When reading, Goodman (1994) has noted:

百le reader [constructs] a text parallel and closely related to 出e published text. It stays the same yet is a di百erenttext for each reader. The reader' s text 泊volves inferences, references, and coreferences based on schemata that the reader brings to the transaction. And it is this reader's text that the reader comｭprehends and on which any later retelling is based. (p. 148)

Remarkably, this description re1ates almost literally to the process undertaken in translation as well. The task of translation involves stuｭdents f註st in an understanding of the Ll text, and literary text in parｭticu1ar is inseparable from its social and cu1tural origins. Brannen ( 199乃has made the point as follows:

PERSPEαn宝5 2ララ

All translation is the translation of culture , whether considｭered narrowly as the transfer of meaning expressed in one language into equivalent expressions in another language, or broadly on a socio・semiotic scale embracing a range of semiotic systems. (p. 169)

Students, therefore , consciously apply the schemata from their ]apaｭnese background and go on to reconstruct ( “retell") the Ll text in writｭ泊g 凶 English. In the process of translating a literary text , students attempt to deepen their understanding of its social and cultural backｭground , and to reexamine i臼 essence so that they can apt1y communiｭcate itin En副ish. They are involved 泊 a transaction with the Ll text in order to construct an equivalent L2 English written text that “ reproduce [s] the greatest possib1e degree of the meaning of the origiｭnal [text] " (Newmark, 1988a, p. 66). This is a unique application ofthe interrelationship of the processes of reading and writing, in which the L 1 literary text provides “comprehensible input" (Krashen , 1987) for writing. The resultant English translation text contributes “ compre­hensible 泊put" not only back to the L1 text but also to the students' reading of their own L2 products and the published professional translation(s) that are later read and compared with the texts that they themselves have constructed from the same Ll source text. Studentｭtranslators are involved in acts of reading and writing , as described above by Zamel, with continual re-reading of the liter・ary text along with a writing process that includes drafting, consulting dictionaries, reflecting, conferring, collaborating, revising , and editing that is deｭscribed 泊 detai1 by Porcaro (1998) and discussed below.

Ll Lit白羽ηr Tex白 andMethodology

Very carefully selected extracts from works ofLlliterature for translaｭtion offer ]apanese college and university EFL students a u凶que opｭpo江田lityto explore the dimensions of both languages and to develop written expression 泊 Eng1ishthat is of a nat町eand qua1ity both differｭent from and beyond the products of standard composition 泊 the secｭond language. Duff (1989) has commented on the value of translation:

Translation deve10ps three qua1ities essential to alllanguage lear百ing: flexib山町， accuracy, and c1arity. It trains the learner to従arch (flexib出町)for白emost appropriate words (acclUョcy)to convey what is m，白nt (clarity). 官邸 combinationof freedom and constraint a110ws the students to contribute their own 出ough臼 toa discussion that has a c1ear focus-the text. (p.η

2ラ6 JflL 1 JUUl<1'1IlL

The text requires that 、tudents consider various aspects of meanｭ泊g they have extracted and rethink it in terms of the target language so that as little is added and as little is lost as possible" (Rivers &

Temperley, 1978, p. 329). They need to think 泊~om the meaning to the words and not the other way round" (Duff, 1981 , p. 22) , and let thought shape language , not language structure thought (p. 20). As Newmark (1988a) has noted, accuracy in a communicative translation is basically lexical, and thus students must engage 泊 a mental struggle to choose the words for their translations. The grammar can be treated more flexibly, so they must undertake transpositions and shifts of strucｭtures and changes of word order over a wide range and depth 泊 order

to produce as fluent and as economical a translation as they can. Yet meaning is shaped by sentence structure as well. These language choices are determined by the needs of the target language as “ lan­guage structures reality" (Duff, 1981, p. 111).

Text Selection

百le rationale for using Ll Oapanese) literature is that it more suitably elicits the kind of language encounter 白川 has been described 泊 this

article as compared with essays or newspaper and magaz泊e articles , for example. 1n my teaching experience 1iterature is far more interestｭing to the students. 1t gives them a genuine sense of purpose and achievement to render well a work by a renowned author and to be able to compare their work with professional translations, and it en・

hances their appreciation and enjoyment of good literature 泊 itself.

The teacher's wide reading of Ll 1iterature，泊 仕le orig泊al or good translation, is important for choosing texts that are most suitable for students and the teacher himjherself, and for accumulating a reperｭtoire of texts from which 初 出laginative and effective syllabus can be developed. There is a very wide range of ]apanese 1iterary texts at variｭous levels of diffic叫tythat can be used. Short stories of moderate length are very convenient to work with and excerpts from novels, as well as different forms of poetηT， may be chosen and used successft�y.

The determination of appropriate extracts from the literary works is absolutely critical. 1 generally use a few continuous pages from stoｭries: a scene with the principal characters , a highlight or pivot of the story, or a scene representative of the story as a whole. A combination of narrative and dialog, with minimal description, generally works best, heeding the observation that “ narrative , a sequence of events, is likely to be neater and closer to trans]ate than description, which requires the mental perception of adjectives and 恒国ges" (Newmark, 1988b, p.

PERSPECffi笥 2ラ7

ラ0). The teacher needs to consider with much care the level of lanｭguage structure and vocabulary that w出 be requ廿edto render the L 1 text into the L2. Consultation with a native L1 speakerwith background in the L1literature , high proficiency in 仕le L2 , and ideally some expeｭrience in translation, can be veηT instructive.

Teaching 1ヤ'anslation in EFL

As Newmark (1991) has po泊ted out, teaching translation within lanｭguage teaching needs to be distinguished from teaching translation. The teacher for such a course , or one using 1iterary translation as a component 凶 a general writing course , need not have a high com・

mand of the L1 , nor be a 1iterary scholar or translator, but certainly should have studied the language in some depth and acquired a good understanding of its basic structure and gra紅unar， a functional base of vocabulary, and some reading ability. Ready and reliable access to an L1 consultant is quite important. At the same time , the teacher should be familiar with some fundamental principles and practices of translaｭtion itself, such as the principles of equivalent effect and equivalent frequency of usage , and the treatment of the repetition of words , 、mptywords, " collocations , metaphors , cultural words and allusions, and ambiguity. While endorsing the role of translation as a valuable resource 泊 the foreign language classroom, Stibbard (1998) has cauｭtioned:

[S]uch translation must be grounded in a sound understandｭ凶gof the princip1es that should underline all translation acｭtivity. If there is no such understanding of the many factors that influence the translation process , then translation will not be a usefu1 pedagogical too1. (p. 69)

Research , consultation , careful planning and preparation , and deｭtailed attention to students' work and individual needs make possible the literary translation instruction discussed 加 the present article.

Beginning the Translation Process

After the teacher has introduced the literary work and the author to the class, students are assigned the L 1σapanese) text to read carefully several times so that they understand the story and the partic叫ar scene

that they will translate , as well as to examine e1ements such as the structure , vocabulary, style, and tone of the piece. Further discussion of the content of the text and attention to particular translation prob-

2う8 jAL 1 jOURNAL

1ems are taken up as students move through the translation process itself. This is a ho1istic approach in which students' work begins diｭrectly on the texts. Duff (1989) notes: “ Translation, unfortunately, is something you 1eam only by do泊g"(p . 13).

Although literary translation methodology must focus on students' products ヲ it should simultaneously accept the following affirmation by Stibbard (1998):

Translation as a teach泊g activity should be concerned with the process and skill of translation and only with the end prodｭuct in so far as it arises from sound skills development . 百le

general student benefits from merely working toward soluｭtions, understanding the factors that determine decisions and from evaluating these decisions. The final product is for our purposes of less importance than the work that went into producing it. (p. 73)

Teacher-Student Conferencing

Students are assigned appropriate quantities of the Ll literary text to translate 釦 draftform in approximately equa1 portions each week spent on the translation task. Having reviewed the drafts in students' noteｭbooks in advance of the class meetings and made some editorial markｭings and comments, 1 have a brief conference in class with each stuｭdent on hisjher draft while the others are involved 担 peercollaboraｭtion. Usual1ya few points are treated with the class together. The teacher's response to students' d.rafts and the conferencing are crucial parts of the translation writing process as the d.rafts always need a lot of further work, which, of course, is normal even for professional trans戸

lators. In reviewing students' d.rafts , the teach.er may use a good published

professional translation (somet凶les 同TO or three are availab1e) as a guide along with the original L 1 text. To understand how a teacher with limited L 11anguage proficiency can capably deal with the drafts , it is very impo目antto understand that by this point in the instructional process hejshe has already very careful1y studied the assigned text in the manner that has been described, seen the d.rafts of all the students and often had the experience of using the text with past c1asses. That is, hejshe has worked with as many as dozens of translations of the L 1 text , and continues to review various points relevant to the translation with native Ll speakers as well as the cu汀ent students.

In her study of teachers' responses to student writing 泊 ESLinstruc-

PERSPEC11VES 2ラ9

tional settings, Zamel (198ラ) reported a number of implications that apply with as much or more relevance to teacher-student contとrencing泊 Ll-to-L2 translation instruction and its foundations. She advises that teachers respond to students' writing with “ text-specific strategies , directions , guidelines , and recommendations" and that “ the concem [be] with the communicative effectiveness ofthe text" (p. 9ラ). Transｭlation conferencing focuses on elements such as word choice , accuｭracy, grammar, usage , word order, fluency, and style , but the essence of translation , as we have seen , is precisely its “ communicative effecｭtiveness" and this is the principal dimension of students' work that is the focus of conferencing. As Zamel urges teachers to he1p students understand , student-translators especially are sensitive to recognize the need to address meaning-level issues in the text f凶t

Zamel (198ラ) also tells us that students “ must be made to underｭstand that texts evolve, that revision is to be taken literally as a process of re-seeing one's text, and that this re-seeing is an integral and recUfｭ

sive aspect of writing" (p. 96). Throughout their work on a literary text , student-translators 紅e involved 泊 a continual process back and ゐrthbetween re-reading the L 1 text and re-reading and re-writing their L2 translation texts. There is an inherent understanding of the necesｭsity and value of this process. The instructor's facllitative assistance 泊conferencing with students reinforces the essential impo目anceofconｭt泊uaI clarification and exploration of both the L1 literary text and the L2 translation text in order that meaning is c1early and accurately deｭrived.

Zamel (198ラ)concIudes with another statement particularIy relevant to the relationship between student-translators and the native-speaker English teacher 泊 anEFL setting:

To respond by participating in the making of meaning means that we no longer present ourマ;elvesas authorities but act inｭstead as consultants , assistants , and faci1itators. Thus , rather than making assumptions about the text, taking control of it, and offering judgmental commentary...we need to estab1ish a collaborative relationship with 0町 students ， drawing attenｭtion to problems , offering alternatives, and suggesting possiｭbilities. (pp. 96-97)

In the course ofLl-to-L2literary translation , this re1ationship quite naturally occurs in that students in fact are better placed than the teacher to make meaning from their transaction with the L 1 text. Stu-

L� JL1L 1. JUUl¥1'I.I1L

dents are able to impart to the teacher meanings and deeper underｭstanding of that tex:t, while the teacher helps students to improve their L2 translations by point泊g out the merits and insufficiencies therein and guiding them toward solutions to problems. In this way there is a u凶queform of two-way teaching and learning, a special sharing beｭtween the teacher and students with mutual acknowledgement and appreciation of both languages and cultures in a rewarding , interacｭtive foreign language learning experience.

Translation Processing

Ivanova (1998) has reviewed several studies on translation processing and noted that research into language learners' translation strategies has found that students tend to engage primarily in lower-level pro・

cessing during comprehension, translation production , and monitorｭ凶g. This includes focusing on lexical and syntactic problems while disregarding tex:t-level aspects. Seguinot (as cited 泊 Ivanova， 1998) has suggested that potentially good translation students “work back and forth from the translation to the text.. .mo凶toringfor meaning, meanｭ凶g loss , for structure, cohesion, register, and style" and, thus , teachｭing is most effective when iぉ focusis on improving revision strategies (p. 98). These remarks reinforce the necessity of effective teacher-stuｭdent conferencing as discussed above and the conjunction of peer colｭlaboration as outlined below in the methodology ofLl-to・L2 literary translation for EFL students. These operations are essential in order to obtain positive outcomes from the translation process itself and high quality L2 translation products in the end.

Generally most problems with Ianguage use in translations 泊tothe

second language are due to interference, which , according to Newmark (1991), occurs when any feature ofthe so町celanguage is carried over inappropriately into the target language text and falsifies or makes ambiguous the meaning of the text or violates usage. Malmkjaer (1998) has noted that even bilinguals experience interference 泊 onewayor

another, and translation practice develops both awareness and conｭtrol of interference.

Peer Collaboration

At each class meetingヲ studentscollaborate among themselves by comｭparing and discussing partic凶arpo泊ts of their dra丘s-especially those that the teacher has noted as needing correction or change -and alterｭnatives and possible solutions to problems. Some research studies , however, have found peer collaboration problematic in ESL!EFL set-

PERSPEαW日 261

tings. For example，泊 a detailed study of peer response groups of stuｭdents 泊 anESL freshman writing class at a U.S . 山tive~i~， Connorand

Asenavage (1994) found that although students made many revisions 泊 their essays , few were the result of direct peer group response. They stated that the small impact on revisions from pee~' comments in the groups was disa ppoint加gand that they needed to reconsider some of the practices in their ESL writing program. On the other hand，泊 a

study by Lockhart and Ng (1993), after undergoing carefully planned 凶tialtraining sessions, Chinese students enrolled in an L2 writing class at a university in Hong Kong responded positive1y in a questionnaire to their participation加 peerresponse groups. The researchers reported the fol1owing benefits of peer responses , which apply as well to the unique circumstances of the L l-to・L2 literary translation process:

It is useful in helping write~ to receive feedback on ideational aspects of their writing.…lt enables students to become more aware of the impression their writing creates in their readｭers.... It seems to improve the writing abilities of the reader... [and it enables students] to clari行 positions and to negotiate between the meaning conveyed by 白e write~and

the meaning perceived by the readers. (p. 23)

Peer collaboration on L2 (Eng1ish) translation drafts can be highly successful and provide the major 凶put for the revision process that leads to successfully written final products. The teacher's review of 白chstudent's draft and the t伺cher-studentconferences establish what aspec白 ofthe drafts need further work. Since students work from the same L 1 text, each has a shared interest with all the other classmates in both giving and obtaining 泊put to test solutions and resolve the transｭlation problems each faces , though each student, of co~e， is responｭsible for produc泊g 泊 the end his!her own translation.

Peer col1aboration supports and advances the reading-writing conｭnections that have been discussed as the foundations for L l-to-L2 1iterｭary translation 泊 EFLsettings. Although Gousseva (1998) 泊vestigated

an L 1 university freshman composition class, her analysis of peer reｭviews also applies well and perhaps even more aptly to the trans1ation setting. She has noted that the subprocesses of revision in writing and critical reading are highly related and derive from similar thought proｭcesses. Peer reviews, she believes, can be a powerfullearning tool in this regard, providing students with valuable oppo白山tities to deve10p critical reading skills. Indeed, in the process approach to Ll-to-L2 trans-

L� J.ru- ~ JVLJIU.nL.

lation tasks advocated here, peer collaboration involves students in critical reading of others' L2 English texts as well as re-reading their own and the original Llliterary text from which all the drafts are deｭrived. This critical reading is further applied later when they read pubｭlished professional translations of the same L lliterary text that are evaluｭated and compared with their own. Even there they discover that these professional L2 translation tex臼 are not flawless in terms of acc山acy

and construction of meaning. Finally, as Gousseva has po加ted out, peer collaboration also increases students' motivation for writ泊g; assists theminga泊加g confidence 泊 theirwrit加gand in their ab出町to learn from one another and themselves; provides opportu凶ty to develop metalanguage usefu1 for thinking and talking about writ泊g; and enｭcourages an awareness ofwriting as decision making as they reflect on alternatives , make choices, and consider the reasons behind their choices.

Concluding the Translation Process

After each week's work of drafting, reviewing, conferencing, and colｭlaborating on successive portions of the assigned text, students revise and edit their drafts. When work on the entire assigned text is comｭpleted , students submit final copies of their translations. These are evaluated holistically with careful attention to accuracy, fluency, and style. Grammar, syntax, and vocabulary use are also closely examined. 1 correct, change, and reconstruct elements of the text only where necessary, tampering as little as possible in order to maintain the integｭrity and individuality of each translation. Papers 紅e returned to stuｭdents with written comments and copies of published professional translation(s) of the literary text. Students are asked to examine and compare theirown texts with the professional translation(s) alongside the original Ll text in order to see, consider, and discuss altemative ways to render parts of the original L 1 literary text, as well as to idenｭti行 flaws 泊 accuracyand the construction of meaning in the profesｭsional translation(s). This work is discussed in the final class for the particular text and 泊lportantlyadds further to the conviction students have already developed that translation is a process and may involve multiple 泊terpretations as well as uncertainties. It instructs them to hold regard for the integrity of白eirown work . 官邸 brings closure to the translation task.

PERSPEC71VES 263

Conclusion and Research Recommendations

This article has presented a rationale for instruction of L1 (Japanese)ｭto・L2 (English) literary translation in college EFL settings to support the methodologicaI approach described by Porcaro (1998). Theory and practice are interactive and interdependent. While theory informs pracｭtice, what works in practice must be incorporated with theory in the formu1ation of a unified and understandable approach to pedagogy that bears meaningful outcomes that advance the Ianguage development of foreign language learners.

This article has attempted to convey an understanding of the founｭdations that support the practice of one kind of translation that can be a very effective means of language learning. However, much further work in this area of instruction and leaming needs to be done, includｭing empirical research. Yet , one of the factors sti1llimiting further studｭies is the fact that very few EFL teachers are involved in any instruction of this kind. It is hoped that a synergism will emerge in which more and more teachers assume positive views toward translation instrucｭtion and attempt to undertake it in their c1assrooms whi1e research further explores and clarifies the issues involved and thereby strengthｭens its theoretical and methodological foundations.

Perhaps the most fundamental question needing emp廿icaI quantitaｭtive research regards the assertion in this paper that translation develｭops EFL learners' writing abilities 凶 ways different from and beyond usual writing tasks. Specifically, does translation instruction from suitｭable L 1 1iterary texts into L2 English raise the quality of second lanｭguage writing of college EFL learners to any greater degree or in any different manner than the c01uposition '"司itingtasks that are completed directly in English 泊 a general writing course? It must be 泊lplicit 泊 an

empirical investigation 出at integral to the translation task is the judiｭcious selection of literary texts and the employment of the instrucｭtional/learrting methodology of process writ泊gthat includes teacherｭstudent conferencing and peer collaboration as discussed in this paｭper. Within this research, the spec凶caspects of students' writing that may be affected need systematic ìnvestigation , as wel1 as does the naｭture of the process involved in translation. For example , in looking 凶to the translation strategies employed by students , the inclusion of think-aloud protocols

264 Ji1Ll jUUlU'U1L

conviction of the teacher on the outcomes from such a course. The collective translation work of more than 1ラo students over a period of ten years, along with composition and academic writing coursework from a number of the same students for comparison, has provided me with convincing documentation of the effectiveness of translation inｭstruction as described in this article and 泊 Porcaro (1998) for foreign language acquisition and for the development of L2 writing compeｭtence. Nevertheless, emp廿ical evidence based on an appropriate reｭsearch design will be needed to establish the legitimacyand effectiveｭness of this approach.

My experience has been that students find satisfaction, reward, enｭjoyment, and challenge in the task of L1 σapanese }to-L2 (English) liι erary translation. Students working with selected texts from a rich field of L1literature 凶 a translation writing process that includes teacherｭstudent conferencing and peer collaboration has generated remarkｭable English language products. (See the Appendix for a representaｭtive example .) 百le methodology, with an understand泊gof its foundaｭtions , needs to be appreciated and applied on a far greater scale in the wor1d of EFL instruction.

Acknowledgemen飴

The author wou1d like to thank the anonymous reviewers for thcir vaJuｭablecommenぉ， the editor for his enco町'agementand support, Hideo Horibe for his many years of aid as 丘 consu1tanton japanese-to-English translation ， 丘I】d the unnamed student for permission to incJude her translation work.

james W. Porcaro is an associate professor at Toyama U凶versity of Inｭtemational Studies.

1 Synergism, or synergistic effect, refers to the action of two different effects acting together to create a greater effect than the sum of the actions produced byeach acting independently.

PERSPEC17VES 26ラ

References

Brannen, N. S. (1997). Translation: W1Jere cuJtures meet: Translating] -E. Los Angeles: J-E Link, Inc.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles oflanguage Jeaming and teaching(3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs , N]: Prentice Hall Regents.

Carson,]. E. , Carrell, P. 1., Silberstein, S. , Kroll, B., & Kuehn, P. A. (1990). Reading-writing relationships 泊 first and second language. TESOL Qωrterly，

24 (2)， 24ラー266.

Connor, u., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL classes: How much 加pact on revision? ]ournal of Second Language Writ血g， 3 (3) ， 2ラ7-

276.

Duff, A. (1981). The third language. Oxford: pergamon Press.

Duff, A. (1989). Translation. Oxford: Oxford U凶versityPress.

Eisterhold,]. (1990). Reading-writing connections: Toward a description for second language learners. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language W1拍車Research

ins忽htsfor the cJassroom (pp. 88-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in Eng1ish: Effects of a first language on writ加g in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writi1>Ig: Research insighぉ f01・ the cJassroom (pp. 109-12ラ). Cambridge: Cambridge U凶versityPress.

Goodman, K. (1994). Reading, writing, and written texts: A transactional sociopsycholinguistic view. In R. Ruddell (Ed.), Theoretical modeJs and

processes in reading (pp. 141-180). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Gousseva, ]. (1998). Literacy development through peer reviews in a freshman composition classroom. The Intemet TESL]ouma1. Retrieved September 14, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.aitech.ac.jpj-itesljjArticlesj Gousseva-Literacy.html

Hirose , K., & Sasaki, M. (1994). Explanatory variables for ]apanese students' expository writing in English: An exploratory study. ]ournal of Second La1>'f5uage Writing, 3 (3), 203- 229.

Howatt, A.P.R. (1991). A hist01ア ofEnglish language teaching. Oxford: Oxford U凶versityPress.

Ivanova, A. (1998). Educating the ‘ language e1ite': Teaching translation for translator training. In K. Malmkjaer (Edよ Translation and language teach的g:Language teach血Igand translation (pp. 91-109). Manchester, u.K.: St. ]erome.

Kobayashi, H. , & Rinne抗， C. (1992). Effects of fir坑 languageon second language writing: Translation vers凶 direct composition. Lan♂Jage Leaming, 42 (2), 183-21ラ.

Krashen, S. (1987). PrincipJes and practice in second language acq凶sition.

New York: Prentice Hall Intemational.

266 Jf1L..I. JVUl¥.1..n.L

Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L 1・L2 位制sferin writing among]apanese university students: Implications for contrastive analysis. Jo凶刃alofSecondLanguage Writing, 7 (1), 69-100.

Lockhart , c. , & Ng , P. (1993). How useful is peer response? Perspect咩es:

Working papers of the Department of English， ラ(1)， 17-29. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic ofHong Kong.

Malmkjaer, K. αd . ). (1998). TransJation and language teaching:・ Language

teaching and translation. Manchester, U.K.: St. ]erome Publishing.

Newmark, P. (1988a). Approaches to translat卲n. London: Prentice Hall.

Newmark, P. (1988b). A textbook of translat�on. London: Prentice Hall.

Newmark, P. (1991). About translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Porcaro,]. (1998). ]apanese literary translation in an English language program. The Language Teacher , 22 (1 2)， ラ・9.

Rivers, W.M. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rivers, W. M. , & Temperley, M. S. (1978). A practiα1 gu�de to the teaching of Eng1ish as a second or fore~伊 Janguage. Oxford: Oxford U凶versityPress.

Stibbard , R. (1998). The principled use of translation in foreign language teaching. In K. Malmkjaer (Edふ TransJationand Janguage teachh事:Lang回ge

teaching and transJation (pp. 69-76). Manchester, u.K.: St. ]erome.

Uzawa, K. (1996). Second language leamers' process ofLl writing, L2 writing, and translation from Ll into 12. Joumal ofSecond Language Writ.却'g， ラ (3) ，

271 ・294.

Widdowson, H. G. (979). Explorations 的丘!ppliedlingu�stics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zamel, V. (198め. Responding to student wri出19. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (1), 79-101.

Zamel , V. (1992). Writing one's way into reading. TESOL Q凶rterly， 26 (3) , 463-48ヲ

(Rece�ved]anuary 23 , 2001; revised]une 4 , 2001)

PERSPEαn邪 267

Appendix

Following is the fmal copy of a translation of the delicate and challengｭing text ofthe short story, Am丘~gasa ， by Yasunari Kawabata , written by a second-year university student in the translation course described in this article. The student's errors remain intact.

Umbrella

lt was a spring rain , 1ike a nùst , which didn't get one wet, but someｭhow dampened the skin . 百le girl who rushed outside noticed 仕le rain for the first time. “lt 's ra註1ing?"官官 boyhad opened his umbrella to cover his shyness as he passed

in front of the shop where the girl was sitting rather than to protect himself from the rain.

But the boy held the umbrel1a over the girl in silence. She came under his umbrella in only her one shoulder. Though he was gett泊gwet, he co凶dn't come closer to her and ask her to come in. While she wanted to hold the handle of the umbrella with him, she looked as 江she was about to get away from his umbrella.

Theywent 泊to a photo shop. His father, who was a government official , planned to transfer far away. This was a farewell photograph.

“ Please sit side by side over 出ere." The photographer pointed to a sofa, but the boy couldn't sit with her side by side. The boy stood beｭh凶d the girl and his finger, which he put on the sofa , touched her haori lightly because he wanted to believe that their bodies were someｭwhere connected. It was the frrst time he touched her body. His fmger felt her faint temperature and he felt a warmth as if he hugged her naked body.

As long as he 1ived , whenever he looked at this photograph , he would remember her body temperature.

“ May 1 take another photograph? Sitting side by side. 1 want to take the upper half ofyo町 bodies . "

百le boy only nodded and whispered to her. “Your hair?" 百le girllookec,l up at the boy, blushed , and then ran to the makeup

room gently like a child with her eyes shining with bright joy. When she had seen him passing in front of the shop, she had rushed

outside and had had no time to arrange her hair. She always was worｭried about her disheve1ed hair that looked as if she had just taken off a bathing cap. But she was a shy girl who couldn't do up her hair in front of a man. The boyalso had thought that what he had told her to do up her hair would have embarrassed her.

L.UO J.L 且.I..J.L J'"-'U .l:t....L...J.昼~

The brightness that she went to the makeup room brightened him also. With this brightness , the boy and the girl sat close together on the sofa as a natural act.

As the boy was go泊g out of the photo shop , he looked for his umｭbrella. As he looked casually, he noticed that the girl , who had gone out before him, had brought the unlbrel1a and stood outside. She didn't rea1ize that she had brought his umbrella and gone out until she was seen by him. And then she was surprised. With her casual behavior, might she have indicated that she felt that she was his?

The boy couldn't ask her to hold the umbrella. The girl also couldn 't hand the umbrella to him. But it was a different way from which they had come to the photo shop. Sudden1y they had become grown-ups , and they went back with a feeling 1ike a married couple. That was caused on1y bya thing about an umbrella.

Reviews

WSLA研究と外国語教育一文献紹介-~ JACET SLA 研究会編.東京;リーベル出版. 2000. 198頁.(Literature in SLA Research and Foreign Language Teaching -Reviewed by Sumio Tsuchiya)

評者:土屋澄男文教大学

百出 bookwas produced 俗 aresult of the collaboration of the )apan Association of College English Teachers OACED SLA study group members. 1白 general

a泊1 is to provide information on recent SLA literature for those )apanese studen白 andteachers who are interested or engaged in second/foreign language teaching. Twenty-three college teachers participated in the project, cove凶19

21 topics in SLA research. The topics are grouped into three domains: (1) a general survey of research, (2) theories and methodology, and (3) foreign language teaching. In each topic, 10 to 12 books and articles written in English or 凶)apanese have been selected out of those published over the past dozen years. Each topic covers most, though not all, of the important books and articles published, and the readers of the book will certainly be satisfied with the selection of publications. Not only students and practicing teachers but also even scholars engaged in this field will gain useful information concen出19

recent literature in SLA research and foreign language teaching. 最近のSLA研究を21の領域に分け、 JACET (大学英語教育学会)

SL生研究会の23名のメンバーが手分けして主要な文献を紹介している本である 。 大学および大学院でSL生または外国語教育を専攻している学生にとってはたいへん便利である。研究者にとっても、自分の専門以外の領域についてちょっと調べたいときなどに役に立つ。 評者自身もさっそく利用させてもらっている 。 また評者の勤める大学院の学生研究室にも数冊常備し、いつでも利用できるようにしている 。この本の必要性は、近年のSL生研究が量的に猛烈な勢いで拡大してい

ることから必然的に生じたものである。世界で発行されるSL生関係の書

籍の数は膨大なもので=、毎年どころか毎月発行されるものですら、その完全なリストを作ることは難しいであろう 。 またSL生関係のジャーナルも、個人でそのすべてに目を通すことが困難なほど数多く発刊されている 。 本書には19種類の主要ジャーナルについてそのホームページを掲げており、この情報も非常に役に立つ。ただしそれらはすべて英語を主

270 .J.J.........,.a J........-".........-.. ・ー

要言語とするジャーナルなので、他の言語によるジャーナルを加えることも今後検討する必要があるだろう。それらはその言語を解する人たちだけのものだから、どうしてもローカルなものになる。ローカルなものであっても貴重な文献があるに違いない。そういうものをインターナショナルな情報網に掬い上げるにはどうしたらよいか。これはこれからの大きな課題である。それはともかく、本書が日本語の文献を積極的に取り上げたことは大いに評価したい。さてSし生の研究は、その理論的研究と外国語教育への応用の 2 つの分

野に分けられる。本書はこれにSし生研究の概観を加え、大きく 3 つの部門に分けている。最初のSし生研究の概観では、本書はまず7点の包括的文献を紹介し、その後に 3 点の教室への応用に役立つ文献を取り上げている。 1点を除いてはすべて1990年代に出たもので、英語の文献が8点、日本語のものが2点で、英語の文献8点のうち4点は日本語訳(抄訳を含む)がある。包括的文献として何を選ぶかはこの種の本として重要な問題であるが、日本人の英語教師として知っておくべきものとしては無難な選定であろう。観点をすこし変えればこんな本、あんな本ときりがないことになる。ただ評者としてはもう 1 点、山岡俊比古『第 2言語習得研究』を入れてほしかったと思う。これは日本人研究者によって90年代に書かれた本格的概説書としてほとんど唯一のものである。ついでにもうひとつ、翻訳本があることを紹介してくれることはありがたいが、それらの中には誤訳に満ちた信用できないものもあるので、学生に使用させるときには注意する必要がある。第 2 部の「理論と研究」では、まず第 2言語習得の基本的な問題が4つの領域に分類されて、それぞれに 12点ずつの文献が紹介されている。インプットとアウトプットの役割、学習ストラテジ一、学習者要因という領域が選ばれたことは当然であるが、ここに暗示的・明示的学習のトピックが入っていることに興味をもった。これはSchmidt (1990) のSL生における意識の役割に関する論文によって提起されたトピックであるが、ウィリアム・ジェイムズの心理学以来100年近く撲をかぶっていた「意識」という概念が、認知科学の視点から再び光が当てられることになったのは感慨ぶかい。このトピックの解説者は最近10年間に発表された文献を手ぎわよく紹介している。さらにこの第 2 部は、社会言語学的アブローチとして語用論、談話分

析、社会言語学、コミュニケーション能力の 4つの領域を取り上げ、最後にSLAの研究方法に関する文献を紹介している。しかしながら、1980年代以降のUGとSL生が関わる領域の研究は本書では取り上げていない。むろん取り上げていないから駄目だというわけではないが、評者としては入れてほしかったと思う。なぜならUGは抽象度が高くなったとはいえ、英語教師のまだまだ自の離せない分野だからである。第 3 部はSL生が外国語教育と関わる領域を扱っている。取り上げられた領域は、まずリスニング、スピーキング、リーディング、ライティン

REvIEWS 271

グの研究と指導に始まり、ついで音声、語葉、文法の指導、およびテスティングの研究に及んでいる。これらの領域の中で注目すべきことは、リーディングの領域で紹介されている文献11点のうち4点が日本語の文献だということである。 日本における英語教育は、環境的にESLではなくてEFLである。 SL生研究においてはこれまでESLが主流を占めていたことはやむを得ないとしても、世界における英語の需要からして、これからはEFL研究がもっと主体性を発揮すべきである。 日本は国家的事業としてEFLを長年にわたって熱心に実践してきた国である。その意味でリーディングの領域で優れた研究が出てきたことは喜ばしい。これが他の領域、特にライティングや語葉、文法の領域にまで拡大することを期待したい。また第3部の最後にCALL、バイリンガル教育、児童英語教育の 3 つ

の領域についての文献を取り上げていることに注目したい。 英語指導におけるインターネットの利用はもはや必須のものとなりつつあり、遅ればせながらこれから CALLに取り組もうとしている人も多いと思われる。そのような人には本書のCALL関係の文献紹介はありがたい。 バイリンガル教育は日本でも注目されている研究領域であり、このトピックで日本語でもすでにいくつかの図書や論文が発表されている。本書に紹介されている文献を見るかぎりでは、日本におけるパイリンガル教育の研究はこれからだという気がする。 同じことが児童英語教育についても言える。 公立小学校における英語教育が現実のものになろうとしているにもかかわらず、この領域における本格的研究はまだあまりにも寡少であり、貧弱だ、と言ってよいくらいである 。 この状態で実践が先行するとすれば、大方が予想するように、試行錯誤にならざるを得ないであろう 。 そこから大きな混乱が生じる危険は十分に予測される。 この分野に関連した幅広い研究が早急に開始されることを期待したい。最後に、多くの研究者の協力を必要とするこの種の仕事を継続することはなかなか骨の折れることであるが、このSLA文献紹介を 10年くらいの単位で今後も出していただけるとありがたい。

参考文献

山岡俊比古(1995) ~第2言語習得研究』東京:桐原ユニSchmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Appliedμnguistics， 11, 129-158.

272 )fU.JJ. )vuruVf1.L

The Practice of Eng1ish Language Teaching 。:rdedition). Jeremy Harmer. Harlow, UK: Pearson-Longman, 2001. 371 pp.

Reviewedby ]oseph Tomei

Kumamoto Gakuen University

Considering the multitude of paths people take to become ESL teachｭers, one would think that a book that tries to answer the question “What do 1 need to know to teach ESL!EFL?" would be an 加possib出町・ How­ever, ]eremy Harmer has taken these difficulties 泊 stride and updated a remarkable volume that not on1y answers the question, but puts readｭers on the path to learning more about a specぜic topic or concem.

An Internet search reveals that this book is a required or recomｭmended text not on1y for a number of certification and degree proｭgrams, but also as a recommendation for people about to embark on a variety of actual ESL programs. 1bis achievement is not simply by deｭfault because the book addresses such a wide range of concerns that 1 would feel comfortable recommending it to almost anyone.

The text has been revised 泊 ten-year intervals, with the first edition published in 1983 , the second in 1991 , and this third edition. It is useｭful and yet frightening to step back for a moment and see the changes thattenYI伺rshave brought. For example, when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, he noted that there were only flfty sites on the Intemet. Howｭever, Harmer has not fallen prey to the temptation of simply tacking on a final computer section for a “new" edition. Indeed, what impressed me about this new edition was the integration of computer-and techｭnology-based ideas within the framework of the book, showing how the Intemet and the computer represent an extension ofteach泊gtechｭ凶quesrather than a new world 泊 whichthe old rules don't apply. The book also eschews long lists of URLs, a choice that 1 believe is quite defensible given the change and turnover we continue to see in the Internet.

A comparison between the tables of contents in the first and third editions is en1ightening. The first edition has eleven chapters placed 泊to three broad categories: Theory, Practice, and Management and Planning. 1bis reflects a certa泊tyabout how things fit together. You leam the theory, you teach the class , and then you figure out how to tum in your grades. The third edition has 同renty-fo町 chapters ， bro-

REvrEWS 273

ken up 泊to nine broad sections, which are: Language, Learners and Teachers; Theories , Methods , and Techniques; Managing Classes; Foｭcus泊g on Languagei Receptive and Productive Skills; Design and Planｭning; Evaluation; and Looking Further. WhHe not as neat as the triparｭtite division , this is much more realistic and reflects an awareness that eveηTtrung is related.

One should note that some of the section titles are misleading when viewed without a context. For example , the Focusing on Language section puts together study skills, using dictionaries and corpora , and teaching pronunciation while Evaluation examines only test-related issues. A discussion of assessment falls 加 the Theories , Methods , and Techniques section.

The book's usefulness as a text for teacher training is evident in the follow-up tasks given , the chapter notes and further reading section, and in the listing offollow-up tasks. However, one caveat is that it preｭsumes university (or at least sophisticated high school) leamers. One imag泊es that a future edition wil1 have to devote space to teaching children. In addition , Harmer does not assume that the learner is alｭwaysgo泊g to be motivated to learn the language, and thus there is a chapter (albeit briet) about problematic behavior 泊 theclassroom.

The bibliography is a treasure trove , with over 4ラo different referｭences to actual published texts with a smattering of presentation and plenary speeches that are often impossible to obtain, especially 江 you

work overseas. Also revealing is the fact that no author (including Harmer himselt) has more than five references, so this is truly a wideｭranging bibliography of the field. Also adding to the value of this book is the wide range of activities and exercises that are given as examples. Though 1 was familiar with many of them, their juxtaposition gave me new uses for such exercises.

As a final note, the volume is pub1ished as a paperback, keeping it affordable. 1 feel that both the newcomer and the veteran teacher will find this book of benefit.

274 J.J.~~ J'"""U.J.¥..J.".L.I..I ....

A DictionaηT ofLoanword US~穆e.

Prem Motwani. To匂'0: Maruzen Co. , L札， 1991. xvii + 2ラ9pp.

Tuttle New DictionaηT of Loanwords in]apanese.

Taeko Kal凶.ya. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle PublishｭingCompan事 Inc. ， 1994. xxxiii + 382 pp.

Reviewed by Frank E. Daulton

Ryukoku U凶versity

ln ]apan there are dozens of thick gairaigo dictionaries, containing tens of thousands of mostly obscure loanwords. Researchers cannot easily use them to know the universe ofbasic loanwords, nor can students of ]apanese study them for must-know vocablﾙary. By contrast，同TO useｭful dictionaries for non-native speakers do describe the common gairaigo lexicon. They are: A Dictionaη' ofLoanword Usage(l991) by Prem Motwani, a profe岱orof ]apanese and chairman of the Center for East Asia Languages at ]awaharlal Nehru U凶versityin New Delhi; and Tuttle New Dictionalァ ofLoanwords in ]apanese (1994) by Taeko Kamiya, author of textbooks such as S.戸海k]apaneseTodayand recent1y retired from the Defense Language lnstitute 泊 Monterey， California.

These two simi1arly claim to prl岱entthe common, or high 仕equency，

loanwords 泊 ]apanese. Yet these works are certainly as different as their authors' techniques and sources. F:出t， Motwani explains his apｭproach. "Four-thousand-odd entries have been selected in a methodiｭcal way from the Japanese-]apanese dictionaries , books, artic1es and research papers on loanwords by]apanese, TV, radio, posters , ad, conｭversational]apanese andJapanese informants" (p. v).

This approach-as described~ws on a broad spec町田nof sources, including academic ones. Whether corpus-based frequency data were involved is not clear, however.

ln contrast, Kamiya describes her dictionary as containing “approxi­mately 4000 loanwords strict1y sdected for their frequency-those used most often in dai1y conversation, radio , television, newspapers, and magaz泊es" (p. v出). Notwithstanding ， 泊 an interview , Kamiya c1ariｭfied her approach, saying she had actually used her native-speaker "com-

REvIEWS 27う

mon sense" to pick out the most common words from a comprehenｭsive ga叝a刕o dictionary-whose sources, presumably, were those listed above.

In sum, Motwani's approach might be characterized as more objecｭtive and academic and Kamiya's as subjective and intuitive. This 1eads to the intriguing question of which distinctly different approach betｭter capt町es today's cOffiffion gaira刕o.

A Yes!No comprehension test-inc1uding nonsense words as a validｭity check-measured the rate at which 31 ]apanese university students comprehended a total of 92 loanwords in these two dictionaries. Words were sampled in the valid way described by Nation (199ヨ) . The results indicated that Kamiya's dictionary, whose items were known at a rate of 86 percent, better captures today's common gairai.go出anMotwani' s dictionary at 80.8 percent.

There is a surpris凶g lack of overlap between the two dictionaries. Byas恒lple count of headwords, about 30 percent of the words in the "A" section of Motwani's dictionary are not in Kamiya' “ A" section. Meanwhile , about 39 percent of Kamiya 's “ A" words are not in Motwa凶's.

It is not c1ear, however, which dictionary contains more loanwords. Publishers' c1aims are notoriously inaccurate about the number of words contained , and not verifying this number 1eads to various fatal errors in one's research (see Nation , 1993). wl世e Motwani c1aims "4 ,000 odd entries ," a manual count found only ラ ， 019 headwords. Kamiya's publisher's description and her own preface di百er-theformer say凶g “over 3 ,000" and the latter saying “appro足mately 4 ， 000. " 官官

actual number was 3 ,427. If one includes the 211 place names 加 theappendix, the total is 3,638. However, many of these were also listed in the body of the dictionary.

As one can begin to see, such raw counts are deceptive. Dictionaηr

makers have various approaches concerning what deserves an indiｭviduallisting , and Motwani's and Kamiya's dictionaries di圧ered 泊 their

treatment of compound words, proper nouns , abbreviations, and so on. Kamiya's overall approach would have resulted 泊 a greater (artifiｭcial) inflation ofher total word count than would have Motwani's.

These dictionaries are actualJy quite di百erent ， and this has interestｭ泊g 凶plications. Considering their sources, Kamiya's dictionary probｭably has a greater “everyday]apanese" focus but a na汀ower breadth, overall, than Motwani's. While both dictionaries mostly contain comｭmon loanwords, the over 2,000 loanwords that app

276 ]AL T ]OURNAL

exhaustive. And the fact that a sizeable portion of the words in both dictionaries is now unfarr叫iarto native speakers could reflect the dicｭtionaries' respective ages and the ever-changing loanword lexicon. Therefore , researchers and students needing a fairly complete and acｭcessible listing of today's common gairaigo might best obtain both dicｭtionaries , at least until a newer and better one is available.

Reference

Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Using dictionaries to estimate vocab凶arysize: Essential but rarely followed procedures. Langu丘'ge Testing, 10, pp. 27-40.

Critical Applied LinguistiCS: A CriticalIntroduction. Alastair Pennycook. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001. 206 pp.

Reviewedby Robert Mahon

Osaka ]ogakuin ]unior College

With the publication of his artic1e ,“Towards a critical applied 1泊guis­

tics for the 1990s" in 1990, Alastair Pennycook sowed a seed that has borne much fruit over the past decade. Throughout the 1990s , Pennycook published extensively in various language jo町nals ， in what he refers to as "ten years of try凶g to relate critical work 凶 manydo­

mains to my own fields of practice 泊 applied linguistics" (p. 21). He acted as special editor for the 1999 TESOL Quarterly special issue on critical theoηT.

Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critiα1 Introduction is a much awaited publication, which serves as a synthesis of Pennycook's diverse and challenging insights and as a lucid introduction into the wor1d of critiｭcal applied linguistics. The introductory chapter provides an overview of different approaches to critical work and the domains of critical

REvIEWS 277

applied ling凶stics. Pennycook rejects the notion of applied linguistics as the application of one domain of knowledge (1inguistics) to a parｭticular context (usually language teaching). Critical applied linguistics is interdisciplinary, semi-autonomous and open to a whole a汀ay of isｭsues , such as identity, sexuality and the reproduction of Otherness. Characteristics include an awareness of the limits of our know泊g， a

constant questio凶ngofall pre叫existing categories, and an ethical con・

cern for overcoming凶equitable power relations in society. Along with an exposition of the concems of “ CALx," chapter one also outlines its donlains, such as critica1 approaches to discourse analysis, translation, language teaching and language rights. ln this chapter alone , then, the researcher or educator will find not only much food for thought, but also a wealth of perspectives and insights which challenge previously held positions. This is as it shou1d be; Pennycook makes clear that CALx is a problemati姐ngpractice that rejects the idea of producing a model to be applied or an orthodoxy to be be1ieved and does this in favor of the endeavor to 出lagine and bring into existence a new way of thinkｭing and doing that integrates thoughtフ des廿e ， and action (cf. Simon , 1992). The author乍 understanding of concepts such as praxis, heterosis,

and politics is clearly explained here. The book itself is organized around poJitics, understood as that which concerns the workings of power. Thus we have “ The Politics of Power," covering various sociolinguistic concerns, such as language planning, the global spread of Eng1ish, and postcolonialism.

A problematiz加g practice with a poststructura1ist theoretical base has discursive mapp泊g as 江sgoal; chapter four,“The Politics of Text, " shows how this discursive mapping can be developed 泊 criticallit­

eracy and critical discourse analysis. Educators will be partic凶arlyinｭterested 泊 thefollowing chapter on “The Politics of Pedagogy," which provides a clear account offorms of capital in the writings ofBourdieu, along with an assessment of streng白s and weaknesses in the influenｭtial French writer. The use of charts throughout the book to provide overviews of various domains is partic凶arlyhelpful.

Notions of identity and language learning have gained increasing prominence in TESOL rεsearch in recent years (e.g. , Norton, 2000); and 仕lese are amply explored in “ The Politics of Difference ," which prl

278 )i¥Ll }UUKNAL

Without a doubt , Pennycook offers the reader “ Applied Linguistics with an Attitude" (to use the eloquent title of the final chapter). Not only does his work subvert the validity of SLA research based on essentialized identities , it also provides a cohesive vision of how key domains fit together 凶 theworld of critical applied linguistics.

References

Norton, B. (2000). ldentity and language learning: Gender, ethnicityand educational change. London: Longman-Pearson Education.

Pennycook, A. (1990). Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. lssues 的 AppliedL加伊lÍstics， 1, 8-28.

S泊lon ， R. (1992). Teaching against the gra加: Essays towards a pedagogy of possib泊・ty. London: Bergin & Garvey.

Make sure that you don't miss any fu加re issues of The

Language Teacher and JALT Journal: consider taking

advantage of our 5 years for the 阿ce of 4

membership. Simply pay 40,000 yen and write '5 for 4'

on the ¥ / ¥J postal cash transfer form (furikae). For more V informa1ion, contact 村、eJAL T Central 0何ce， Urban Edge Bldg

5F, 1-37-9 Tai• 0, Tai↑Cトku ， Tokyo 11 0-0016. 花L: 03-3837・1630; FAX: -1631. E-mai : 担l盟虫LÇ_Qffi Vi si什heJALTwebsite @hffpJ/WWN. jalt珂

Information for Contributors

Al1 submissions must conform to]AL T ]ournaJ Editorial Policy and Guidelines.

Editorial Policy

]AL T ]oumaJ, the refereed research jo町nal of the ]apan Association for Language Teachｭing (Zenkoku Gogaku Kyoiku GakJal1) , invites practical and theoretical articles and reｭsearch reports on second/foreign language teaching and learning 凶 ]apanese and Asian contexts. Submissions from other international contexts are accepted if applicable to language teaching in ]apan. Areas of particular interest are:

1. curriculum design and teaching methods ヲ teachertraining 2. classroom-centered research 6.1anguage learning and acquisition 3. cross-cultural studies 7. overviews of research and practice 4. testing and evaluation in related fields

The editors encourage submissions in five categories: (1) full-length articles , (2) short research reports (Research Forum), (3) essays on language education or reports of peda・gogical techniques which are framed in theory and supported by descriptive or emp甘i­cal data (Perspectives) , (4) book and media reviews (Reviews) , and (ラ) comments on previously published]AL T ]oumaJ articles (Point to Point). Articles should be written for a general audience of language educators; therefore statistical techniques and speｭcialized terms must be clearly explained.

Guidelines

StyJe The]AL T ]oumaJ follows the Publication ManuaJ of the American PsychoJogicaJ Associaｭtion ， ラ thedition (available from APA Order Department, P.O. Box 2710, Hyattsv出e ， MD20784 , USA; by e-mail: <order@apa.org>; from the website: http://www.apa.org/ books.ordering.html). Consult recent copies of ]ALT ]oumaJ or TESOL QuarterJyfor examples of documentation and references. A downloadable copy of the ]ALT ]oumal style sheet is also available on our website at http :j川晴晴r伊lt.org/jj/.

Fom>atFull-Jength artic1es must not be more than 20 pages 回 length (6 ,000 words), including references , notes , tables , and figures. Research Forum submissions should be not more than 10 pages in length. Perspectives submissions should be not more than 1ラ pagesinlength. Point to Point comments on previously published articles should not be more than 67ラ words in length , and Reviews should generally be no longer than ラ00 to ブラowords. Al1 submissions must be typed and double-spaced on A4 or 8.5"xl1" paper. The author's name and ident的ring references should appear 0凶y on the cover sheet. Auｭthors are responsible for the accuracy of references and reference citations.

MateriaJs to be submitted 1. Three (3) copies ofthe manuscript, with no reference to the author. Do not use runｭ

ningheads 2. Cover sheet with the title and the author name(s) 3. Contact information, including the author's full address and , where available, a fax

number and e-mail address 4. Abstract (no more than 1ラo words) ラ . ]apanese translation of the title and abstract, if possible Oess than 400的6. Biographical sketch(es) (no more than お words each) 7. Authors of accepted manuscripts must supply camera-ready copies of any diagrams

or figures and a disk copy of the manuscript (RTF or ASCID

Ev瓦luation Procedures Submissions will be acknowledged within one month of their receipt. Al1 manuscripts are first reviewed by the editorial board to insure they comply with]AL T ]oumaJ g凶de-

280 J~ .L JVU1\.1 、rlL

lines. Those considered for publication are subject to blind review by at least two readｭers , with special attention given to: (1) compliance with]ALT ]oumal Editorial Policy, (2) the significance and originality of the submission, and (3) the use of appropriate research design and methodology. Evaluation is usually completed within three months. Published authors will receive five copies of the journal and 20 0仔prints. Review auｭthors will receive five copies of the journal

Restrictions Papers submitted to]AL T ]oumaJ must not have been previously published, nor should they be under consideration for publication elsewhere. ]ALT ]oumal has F�rst World Publication Rights , as de白ledby International Copyright Conventions, for all manuscripts published. We regret that manuscripts or computer disks cannot be returned. In the interests of facilitating clarity, the editors reserve the right to make editorial changes to accepted manuscripts.

Full-Length Submissions, Research Forum, and Point to Point Submissions

Please send submissions in these categories or general inqu廿ies to ・

Nicholas O. ]unghe出1， ]AL T ]ourr】丘1Editor Faculty of Law, Aoyama Gakuin U凶versity

4-4-2ラ Shibuya， Shibuya-ku , Tokyo 1ラ0-8366 ， ]apan

Perspectives

Please send submissions in this category (0:

Donna Tatsuki, ]AL T ]oumal Associate Editor Kobe University of Commerce

8-2-1 Gakuen Nishimachi , #B307, Nishi-ku , Kobe 6ラ1-2197， ]apan

Reviews

The editors invite reviews of books , tests , teaching systems, and other publications in the field of language education. A list of publications which have been sent to ]Al.T for review is published monthly inη】e Langu唱e '[，ωcher. Please send submissions, queｭries , or requests for books , materials , and review 伊lidelines to:

Patrick Rosenkjar, ]ALT ]oumalReviews Editor Temple University ]apan

2・8-12 Minami Azabu , MinatひkU ， To旬TO 106-0047, ]apan

]apan回e-Lan伊lage Manuscripts

]ALT]o山刀丘1welcomes]a panese-language manuscripts on second/foreign language teachｭing and learning as well as ]apanese-language reviews of publications. Submissions must conform to the Editorial Policy and Guidelines given above. Authors must provide a deｭtailed abstract in English，ラ00 to フラowords in length , for full-length manuscripts and a 100-word abstract of reviews. Refer to the]apanese-language Guidelines for details. Please send ]apanese-language manuscripts to:

Sayoko Yamashita, ]ALT ]oumaJ]apanese Language Editor Tokyo Med�al and Dental Unjvers i町， International Student Center

2う引 Kanda-Surugadai， Chiyoda-ku , Tokyo 101 ・0062 ， ]apan

Address for Inquiries about Subscriptions or Adve口ising

]Al.T Central Office Urban Edge Building ラF， 1う7・9 Taito , Taito-ku , Tokyo 100-0016 , ]apan

Tel.: 03司3837-1630; Fax: 03-3837-1631; jalt@gol.com (From overseas: Tel.: 81うう837-1630; Fax: 81 ・3-3837-1631)