laotesol conference proceedings: selected papers (2016-2017)

LaoTESOL Conference Proceedings: Selected Papers (2016-2017)

2

Table of Contents Opening Addresses in Honour of LaoTESOL Conference Proceedings…. 4-5 1. Latsanyphone Soulignavong, Bouangeune Souvannasy and Soubin Sisavath ………………………………………… 6-14 Know Your Enemy, Win 100 battles: Know Your Students, Teach Better! 2. Sisaath Khaopaseuth …………………………………..………..... 15-22

University Students’ Attitudes toward English Education in Higher Education in Lao PDR

3. Amanda Gillis-Furutaka …………………………………..……. 23-32 Activities to Help Students Learn Vocabulary 4. Fuyuko Takita …………………………………………………… 33-38

Analysis of Intercultural Communication Strategies by International Students in Japan: Implications for Teachers of English in Intercultural Classrooms

5. Terri Anderson………….……………….……………………….. 39-47 Attendance Cards: A Tool for Effective Classroom Management in Communicative English Classes

6. Diana L. Dudzik and Nguyen Thi Lan Huong ………………….. 48-53 EFL Teacher Development for the 21st Century 7. Jason Gold …………………………………………….…………. 54-63 Emotions in the Classroom? Neuroscience Findings on the Importance of Emotion & Student Learning 8. Paul Joyce ……………………………………..……….…………. 64-74 Formative Online Quizzes: An Investigation into L2 English Learners’ Usage 9. Shoji Miyanaga .…………….…………………………..….….…… 75-80 Genre-based Approach to Japanese-to-English Translation Part 1: Genre Theory, Focusing on ESP 10. Shoji Miyanaga and Atsuko Misaki ……………………..………… 81-89 Genre-based Approach to Translation Part 2: Application of Genre Theory in ESP Contexts 11. Richard Mark Nixon …………………..……………….………….… 90-97 Learning in Collaboration - Not in Isolation 12. Monika Szirmai ……………………………………………………… 98-103 Low-Tech Solutions to High-Tech Ideas

13. Alison Kitzman …………………………………………………….. 104-117 Giving Language Learning Its Own Physical and Affective Space:

The Learning Commons [e-cube] 14. Steven Graham……………………………………………………. 118-123


3

Materials Development for Laos Teachers of English: A Journey 15. Joan M. Kuroda ……………………………………………………. 124-128 Teacher Development Through Reflective Practice: Making Connections 16. Simon Capper ……………………………………………………. 129-134 Teaching Culture (and so much more) with PechaKucha Presentations 17. Naomi Fujishima and Susan Meiki ………………………………. 135-150 The Autonomous Learner in a Social Learning Space 18. Joan M. Kuroda ……………………………………………………. 151-153 Using Storytelling to Teach Language Skills 19. Todd Squires ……………………………………………………. 154-163 Vocabulary Activities for the Classroom 20. Donald Patterson ……………………………………………………. 164-171 Vocabulary-Building Activities for the EFL Classroom Editorial Board for LaoTESOL Conference Proceedings…………………. 172-173


4

Opening Addresses in Honour of LaoTESOL Conference Proceedings Associate Professor Dr. Phout Simmalavong LaoTESOL President Vice-President of National University of Laos This is the second publication of the Conference Proceedings and as such is the fruit of the 13th and 14th LaoTESOL Conferences (selected papers from 2016-2017). It is a resource for teachers of English in Laos and other settings in terms of enhancing teaching methods and techniques in relation to the instruction of the English language. It is also a channel for sharing knowledge between teachers of English at all levels in the expanding field of English education. It would not be possible to publish the Proceedings without the contributions of many individuals, first and foremost the authors themselves, who besides making presentations at the conference, then writing papers based on them, also submitted to the process of reviewing and editing in order to prepare their work for publication. It is also important to express sincerest thanks to the various groups who assisted and worked tirelessly to complete this process. Notably the LaoTESOL Committee all of whom who have worked collaboratively and seamlessly, with the presenters, readers, supporters as well as sponsors, and consulting editors, going above and beyond what was expected of them, in order to produce the first and second issues of the Proceedings. Many contributed in more than one area and their professional approach to their task has been deeply appreciated. This issue is believed to provide the reader with a wide variety of teaching experiences and lessons from English teachers experienced in teaching in a variety of settings. The articles in this issue were presented at the 13th and 14th Annual LaoTESOL Conferences from 2016-2017. The theme of the 13th Annual LaoTESOL Conference 2016 (February 4-5) was “Creating Working Opportunity through English Language Education” and the theme of the 14th Annual LaoTESOL Conference 2017 (February 23-24) was “Advancing Excellence in English Language Teaching through ICT”. The themes of the conferences are highly relevant to English language teaching in the new era of globalization. Above all, the Proceedings are the fruits of the LaoTESOL Conference, which is one of the main platforms for the dissemination of knowledge and for sharing and exchanging expertise and experiences in the field of English language instruction in the Lao PDR It is the LaoTESOL Committee’s concerted aim and effort to improve the teaching of the English language in Laos at all levels of the curriculum. The English language plays a significant role in conformity with the socio-economic development policy of the Lao P.D.R. government and the surrounding countries. English is the working language within the ASEAN Community Member States. It has been observed that all participants have gained a lot of new experiences and lessons from both conferences in terms of tactics for teaching and information on teaching methods for the English language. The Proceedings will provide an excellent opportunity for teachers to review, expand on and consolidate their newly gained knowledge. In this Conference Proceedings, you will find information and ideas to support and motivate you in learning, teaching and research. We also hope that this volume and the conference which it supports will encourage cooperation, collaboration and discussion of


5

English language learning and teaching. It is believed that the Proceeding will help the teachers of English in TEFL settings to improve their teaching methods in their own classrooms. It is also believed that the Proceedings provides the readers as well as teachers of English with new ideas and that the newly-learnt techniques gained from the conferences as well as from the Proceedings will be used in creating lessons, in real-life-teaching English contexts, for students in classrooms in the Lao P.D.R. and beyond.


6

Know your enemy, win 100 battles: Know your students, teach better!

Latsanyphone Soulignavong Bouangeune Souvannasy Soubin Sisavath Department of English Faculty of Letters National University of Laos

Biodata Latsanyphone Soulignavong, a lecturer of English, has been teaching English at the Department of English, Faculty of Letters, the National University of Laos for over two decades. Her major is English language teaching, testing, evaluation and school organization and administration. She holds her M.A. in Educational Administration from Flinders University in Australia and M.A. in English Language Education from the Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation (IDEC), Hiroshima University, Japan. She also holds her PhD. in Educational Science, Specialty area in School Organization and Administration from Minho University in Braga, Portugal. Bouangeune Souvannasy, an instructor of English, has been teaching English at the Department of English, Faculty of Letters, the National University of Laos for over two decades. His major is English language teaching, testing and evaluation. He holds an M.A. in English Language Education from the Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation (IDEC), Hiroshima University, Japan. Soubin Sisavath, works as a technical staff member at the International Relations Office of the National University of Laos and as a teacher of English language at an English college. He has been teaching English to college and secondary students since 2009. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in English from the Faculty of Letters, at the National University of Laos. He has received additional training on teaching methodology, textbook assessment and English education in Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, Spain and America. His research interests include language learning strategies, English for Specific Purposes, translation and interpreting, and advancing language proficiency through study abroad.

Abstract Language learning strategies (LLSs) facilitate learning processes, promote self-directed student involvement, develop communicative competence, and make learning easier, more enjoyable, and transferable to new situations. In addition, by helping students gain greater independence and autonomy, LLSs increase their chances of becoming lifelong learners. Besides LLSs, another aspect that helps the teacher to perform well in real classrooms is to understand their students’ expectations. Awareness of these two aspects helps promote more effective teaching. Therefore, gaining information or data from students in the Department of English is a way to help improve teaching and enhance learning experiences. For this report, the data was collected through two sets of


7

questionnaires, one focusing on LLSs and the other focusing on Language Learning Expectations (LLEs). These questionnaires were administered to 50 first-year students in the Department of English in the Faculty of Letters at the National University of Laos. The collected data were statistically analyzed, according to the classifications relating to frequency of use of strategies outlined in Oxford (1990). The results show that the overall use of all strategies was high, with the students most frequently employing metacognitive strategies and least frequently employing affective strategies. Moreover, almost all of the first-year students indicated that they needed to improve all four English language skills. The students’ comments showed that they would like to have a greater range of activities to help them make greater use of the lessons that they learnt and would also like to learn strategies to further facilitate progress in their studies. An examination of these two aspects could help the department be more effective in the task of successfully educating students. Keywords: Language learning Strategy, Expectation, Lao learners of English

Introduction Background During the last decade, the English language has become a language of global communication; English is the language of international trade and relations, business, politics, education, tourism, science, and technology. English is also widely used on internet sites. The English language has become a useful tool for finding a job (Nikolova, 2008). Therefore, the English language has become popular among younger generations as they desire to master the English language in order to be successful in the ever-changing world. During the 1990s, English was the third foreign language to be introduced into the Lao education system after Russian and French. At that time, Laos was preparing to become a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), so the government promoted initiatives to encourage direct foreign investment and to promote programs aimed at developing English skills amongst Lao people. Hence a strong demand for English language skills and a desire to gain access to English education, emerged amongst high-ranking officials, business people, shareholders, and students as they faced the need to upgrade their English skills and gain access to further education. Subsequently, the English language came to be a prerequisite subject in the countries national educational curriculum, being taught as a foreign language from secondary to university level. Recently, in order to fill educational gaps and facilitate educational reforms, English has become a required curricular subject in primary schools. In Laos English language education is provided at higher education levels, at the National University of Laos (NUOL) via the Department of English (DE) and the Faculty of Language Education (FLE). The English learning courses in the department include General English, Grammar, Reading, Writing, English Literature, and English for Business and Economic Studies. Each academic year, gradual increases are being seen in the numbers of students and governmental officials learning English. The graduates are awarded a Bachelor of Arts (B.A) once they have officially completed a four-year program.


8

Problem Statement As the number of enrollments increases at the Department of English, there are some concerns regarding the quality of the language education offered. Many claim that graduates from the department face challenges in finding good jobs and in making practical use of what they have learnt from the curriculum. Moreover, there are frequent complaints from employers about the standards of English language ability of the department’s graduates. Some employers have noted that graduates do not have sufficient competence in the English language to deal with the actual English-language tasks required in their workplaces (Soulignavong, 2007; Chaphichith, 2009). Furthermore, the students in the first year to final years are confronted with experiencing difficulties with course material related to basic vocabulary, reading, writing, and grammar. Several previous studies have examined this issue. The results of Keomany’s work indicate that the first-year students had problems with basic knowledge of vocabulary and grammar structures, indicating they were not able to acquire the basic linguistic items, as well as the patterns of English grammar taught in their courses. Accordingly, Keomany concluded that the curriculum and learning materials were mismatched with the learner’s needs and failed to accommodate the differences in individual needs in terms of differing language backgrounds (Keomany, 2006). Furthermore, a study conducted by Soulignavong (2007) showed that the final-year students had a very low rate of achievement in English and still had difficulties with understanding and using basic vocabulary items. Moreover, the graduates’ employers were dissatisfied with their performance. The results of Chaphichith’s study also confirm that in addition to difficulties in basic knowledge and skills in general English, the students had a very low level of achievement in Business English (BE); they experienced difficulties with specific items and formulaic expressions required for business settings. Furthermore, the employers complained that the graduates were unqualified to perform their work tasks in English (Chaphichith, 2009). Looking at these studies, it is obvious to state that the first-year to final-year students experience difficulties with basic vocabulary which in turn hampers their speaking and writing abilities. Also worrisome is a study conducted by Pasanchay (2008) which focuses on the understanding and achievement of the final-year students in a one-paragraph writing task. Pasanchay found that the students still had some doubts about the theoretical concepts of writing paragraphs and committed a number of errors in terms of paragraph format, word choice, spelling, and unity. As shown through these studies, the students in the department have encountered a number of difficulties in learning English. Levels of achievement are low and negative feedback has been received from employers. Thus, it could be said that there are several major problems with the teaching and learning of English within the Department. The problems uncovered by earlier studies hypothetically stem from various internal and external factors, including inappropriate curriculum, mismatched learning materials, student preferences and learning styles, motivation, the learning environment, and a limited background in basic English skills prior to enrolment. However, the present study aims at addressing these issues by focusing on aspects of language learning strategies (LLSs) and language learning expectations. The study intends to discover if the students have used LLSs in learning English, and what their expectations are when entering the department. This study was conducted with the first-year students who have studied English at the department for a semester and a half. Here, it might be questioned how


9

LLSs are related to the student’s learning. LLSs are tools for facilitating the learning process, promoting self-directed involvement, developing communicative competence; and in making learning easier, more enjoyable, and more transferable to new situations. They also enable students to become more independent, autonomous, lifelong learners (Oxford, 1990). Also in using LLSs the language teaching approach is transferred from a teacher-centered approach to a student-centered one. An approach which greatly encourages students to engage themselves in active language learning in and out of the classroom (Hong, 2006). From this perspective, it seems clear that LLSs play an important role in the process of learning English and lead to improvements in proficiency in the language; therefore, as learning a foreign language is not an easy or a simple task, it is necessary for students to know and frequently use LLSs in order to facilitate their learning. The employment of the appropriate LLSs results in improved language proficiency and greater self-confidence. Hence, the primary objective of the present study is to discover whether students use LLSs, and if so, what types. A secondary objective is to investigate student expectations when learning English. By doing so, the authors hope that students will become autonomous learners who can successfully choose appropriate LLSs in order to smoothly facilitate their learning of English and achieve their personal learning goals. Research Questions The current study aims at answering the two following research questions:

1. What are the first-year student’s expectations for learning English language in the Department of English?

2. What types of language learning strategies are employed by the first-year students in the department?

Research Method Participants Fifty first-year students were randomly selected from two classes in the morning section, namely: classes 1A and 1F. Research Instrument Two questionnaires were employed. The first set, Language Learning Expectations (LLEs) was adapted from a questionnaire by Chia, Johnson, Chia and Olive (1999). This questionnaire consisted of 24 items asking for the students’ opinions about their expectations regarding their ability in English. It was further divided into five main parts: general information, their self- assessed level of English language competence, their perception of the skills they needed in order to improve, areas of learning difficulty, and their concepts about what kind of learning support they needed from the department. The second was a language learning strategy questionnaire, “The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning” (SILL) from Oxford (1990). The SILL questionnaire consisted of 50 items, which were divided into six types: memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social LLSs. In the first stage of the research the SILL questionnaire was piloted with the students in the department. Cronbach Alpha was used to check the reliability of the questionnaire. The results showed that a high level of reliability, .894 had been achieved. This provided an opportunity for researchers to


10

improve the questionnaire in order to gain as much information from the students as possible. Before being distributed, the two sets of questionnaires were translated into Lao in order to assist the prospective participants in understanding and in providing appropriate responses for each question. Each set of questionnaires took approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. During the completion of the questionnaires, the researchers also had an opportunity to provide clarification to the participants in order to ensure that they clearly understood the questions before giving their answers. The data collected were treated confidentially. Data Analysis The focus of this study was to explore the first-year students’ expectations and learning strategies for studying English. After collecting the data from the field, the researchers analysed the data by dividing it into two categories for further analysis – LLEs and LLSs. Category 1: Language Learning Expectations (LLEs) Once the questionnaires were returned, they were manually coded and the given data were input into Excel. In processing, percentages were utilized to indicate the results for all of the items. Then, additional comments which had been given by the participants in Lao were translated into English. Category 2: Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) The answers given for each of the LLSs questionnaire items were input into an SPSS program for analysis. The mean score for each type of LLS was processed and ranged respectively from the highest to the lowest so that the frequency of use could be classified according to the classification criteria set by Oxford (1990). Table 1. Classification of Language Learning Strategies Use (LLSs)

Mean Score Predicate

3.50 - 5.0 High strategy use

2.70 - 3.40 Moderate strategy use

1.00 - 2.60 Low strategy use

Results and Discussion This section will discuss the results from both questionnaires. Language Learning Expectations The results of the LLEs questionnaire were divided into the following main parts: language levels, skills requiring improvement, language difficulties, and expectations. Firstly, the results of the questionnaire showed that the first-year students rated themselves as having various levels of English knowledge. Fifty three percent of the participants answered that they were at the Basic Level, while 40% of the participants identified themselves as being at the Intermediate Level, and only 7% of the participants


11

thought that they were at the Advanced Level. Moreover, the results for the question asking about the levels of specific skills indicated that more than half of the participants agreed that they were at Intermediate Level in writing and reading, whereas their listening and speaking skills were at the Basic Level. Secondly, the results of the questions centering on skills requiring improvement indicated that the first-year students still needed improvement in all four English language skill areas, with nearly 100% of the participants agreeing that they needed to improve all four skills (speaking (100%), reading (99%), writing (99%), and listening (99%). They also agreed that all four skills were essential for their studies. Thirdly, the results of the section on learning difficulty indicated that the first-year students were confronted with several problems with learning the English language. They thought that they were weak in grammar, listening, speaking, and vocabulary skills. Accordingly, they thought that they would be unable to communicate in English through either verbal or written form. Finally, the results of the expectations-related questions indicated that the students have a variety of expectations towards the program in terms of improving their learning. The most common expectations were: (1) having an internship in their final year; (2) receiving an exchange scholarship; (3) having more native English speakers as teachers; (4) receiving regular advice from teachers concerning subject content and assignments; (5) having face-to-face discussions with teachers during both class time and outside of class; (6) having more teaching materials; and (7) having a wider variety of academic activities. Language Learning Strategies After gaining information about the students’ English level, difficulties, and expectations, the researchers, in order to provide useful advice for teachers to improve their teaching, sought to discover more information regarding the learning strategies students currently used. The results of the LLSs questionnaire are discussed below. Overall Results of Language Learning Strategies The data collected were computed and analyzed by SPSS via descriptive statistics. It was found that the frequency of overall strategies used was defined as high strategy use (M=3.53). This finding suggested that the first-year students utilized LLSs in their English learning settings even though LLSs were not taught. In addition, it was found that the most frequently used LLSs were metacognitive strategies (mean score of 4.02), while affective strategies were rarely used (mean score of 3.22) in comparison to other strategies. The other strategies were rated as follows: cognitive (M=3.57), social (M=3.56), memory (M=3.47), and compensation strategies (M=3.39). Regarding the results, it can be concluded that first-year students frequently plan and think about their learning processes. Metacognitive strategies involve controlling learning cognition and providing students with ways of coordinating their own learning processes (via centering, arranging or planning, and evaluating). Furthermore, affective strategies, such as self-motivation and self-monitoring techniques, involve regulating emotions, attitudes, and anxiety during learning. The first-year students appeared to lack motivation towards learning or being exposed to new linguistic sources.


12

Discussion Firstly, the results of the LLSs questionnaire reveal that the rate of reported student use of language learning strategies was high, and that metacognitive strategies were reported as being often used, whereas affective strategies were rarely utilized. These findings indicate that the teachers should encourage students to use other types of strategies such as memory and cognitive strategies. The use of such strategies would help students in processing and dealing with new target language sources. The finding of this study is similar to several previous studies by Radwan (2011), Shmai (2003), and Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006). Secondly, the results of the LLSs questionnaire show that the most highly used strategies were metacognitive strategies (M=4.02). This suggests that the majority of students were aware of their own learning or thinking process. This could mean that they might formulate plans and learn from their previous mistakes; the highest mean score amongst all of the items in the study was item 31 (M=4.40). Then item 38 (M=4.34) and item 30 (M=4.34). The second most frequently used metacognitive strategies, tended to show that students not only regularly checked their English learning progress, but that they also actively sought out ways to use their English in practice. These findings reveal that teachers need to carefully correct students’ mistakes, giving precise comments and explanations in order to help the students to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future. The results of the LLEs questionnaire indicated that the majority of the participants thought that they only had a low level of ability in English so consequently they had a lot of difficulties in all English skills, therefore, they felt that they required opportunities for mastering all English skills. This suggests that it is necessary for the teachers to creatively organize class activities in which students can practice and be exposed to new language sources. It also can be said that student involvement is very crucial for language learning because by utilizing student-centered learning students could have more chances in class to learn the language through different kinds of activities. Thirdly, the most frequently occurring items in terms of other types of strategies also need to be taken into consideration. In detail, item 12 (M=4.14) and item 20 (M=4.14) indicate that when learning English, students most frequently not only practice English sounds, but also study English grammar in order to facilitate their learning. Most of the participants agreed that they were very weak in grammar. Therefore, the teacher should place more focus not only on pronunciation, but also on grammar, if students are to gain more from their English lessons. Meanwhile, the fact that item 45 (M=4.00) was the most frequently occurring item in terms of social strategies suggests that the students tend to ask speakers for clarification or to slow down, whenever they did not understand what was being said. Thus, it could be determined that listening skills and the level of English proficiency are important issues that also need to be taken into account. This view is supported by the results of the LLEs questionnaire as the first-year students indicated that they still experienced significant difficulties in listening to spoken English. Therefore, it would be beneficial for teachers to pay more attention to assisting students to overcome these problems. Looking at memory strategies, analysis of the results for item 6 (M=3.84) indicated that when learning a new English word and remembering it, students not only wrote the particular word on a flashcard, but also spoke it out loud, as well as creating a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used. In addition, the results for


13

item 3 (M=3.62) showed that the students connected the sound of a word together with a mental picture of it (e.g., while studying the sound of the word “school”, students might create a mental picture of a school). Turning to compensation strategies, the students agreed with item 29 (M=3.64) that in order to keep conversations flowing smoothly, they commonly used synonyms as substitutes when having difficulty producing specific words or phrases. However, one item representing affective strategies gained low predicate, that is item 43 (M=2.68). This item indicated that most of the participants did not write about or describe their attitudes to learning in a language diary. The LLE results also showed that the respondents viewed their English writing skills as being weak. Conclusion By combining the results of the two sets of questionnaires (LLEs and LLSs), it can be said that the first-year students do not have a high level of English knowledge and that they are still confronted by several difficulties in learning the language. Fortunately, the respondents expressed a favorable attitude towards learning English. They reported back that they are eager to learn through utilizing various kinds of language learning strategies. It can be seen through the results of the LLSs questionnaire that the students employ a wide variety of language learning strategies when studying English. Amongst these approaches, the metacognitive strategy was the most frequently used (M=4.02), followed by cognitive (M=3.57), social (M=3.56), memory (M=3.47), compensation (M=3.39) and affective strategies (M=3.22). The outcome of the present study is similar to previous studies such as that by Radwan (2011), who found that metacognitive strategies were the most frequently employed by undergraduate university students majoring in English. The results of studies by Shmai (2003) and Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006) support the fact that metacognitive strategies are the most preferred methods, while the least frequently used approaches were affective and memory strategies. Therefore, in order to find the appropriate ways to help improve student learning, the teachers dealing with the first-year students could benefit from paying attention right from the beginning of the course to their students’ language learning expectations and strategies. Such an approach could be expected to help in increasing the quality of the students’ learning experiences in the department as a whole. References Burns, R. B., & Burns, R. A. (2011). Business research methods and statistics using

SPSS. London: SAGE Publications. Chia, H. U., Johnson, R., Chia, H. L. & Olive, F. (1999). English for college students in

Taiwan: A study of perceptions of English needs in a medical context. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 107–119.

Chaphichith, X. (2009). An evaluation of curriculum from the viewpoint of English in business setting in the Department of English, Faculty of Letters, National University of Laos. Dissertation for the Degree of Master of Arts: Hiroshima University, Japan.

Nikolova, D. (2008). English-teaching in elementary echool in Japan: A review of a current government survey. Asian EFL Journal, 10, 259.

Hong, K. (2006). Beliefs about language learning and language learning strategy use in an EFL context: A comparison study of monolingual Korean and bilingual Korean-


14

Chinese university students. Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy: University of North Texas.

Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A. G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an extensive English context. System 34, 399-415.

Keomany, T. (2006). Consensus building for curriculum improvement based on evaluation of student achievement in the Department of English, Faculty of Letters, National University of Laos. Dissertation for the Degree of Master of Arts: Hiroshima University, Japan.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Pasanchay, K. (2008). Analysis of paragraph structure written by students in the Department of English, Faculty of Letters, National University of Laos. Dissertation for the Master of Arts: Hiroshima University, Japan.

Radwan, A. A. (2011). Effects of L2 proficiency and gender on choice of language learning strategies by university students majoring in English. Asian EFL, 115-143.

Shmais, W. A. (2003). Language learning strategy use in Palestine. TESL-EF, 7(2), 1-13. Soulignavong, L. (2007). The evaluation of English achievement in the Department of

English, Faculty of Letters, National University of Laos and its application for curriculum improvement. Dissertation for the Degree of Master of Arts: Hiroshima University, Japan.


15

University Students’ Attitudes toward English Education in Higher Education in Lao PDR Sisaath Khaopaseuth Faculty of Letters National University of Laos Biodata Currently, Sisaath Khaopaseuth is head of the Quality Assurance Unit in the Faculty of Letters at the National University of Laos. He is also an English teacher in the Department of English in the Faculty of Letters. He has more than ten years of English teaching experience. He has taught in both bachelor and master degree programs in various subjects such as reading, writing, grammar, and thesis writing. He received his Masters from Hiroshima University in Japan. He is very interested in doing research particularly focusing on students’ motivation and attitude. Abstract This study aimed to investigate university students’ attitudes toward English education in terms of attitudes toward English language learning, English teachers, and teaching materials. The participants in this study consisted of 980 second-year students studying in different fields from four national universities in Laos. They were selected by using a Multi-Stage Random Sampling technique. The instrument tool was a self-reported questionnaire modified from Garner (1985). The findings reveal that students have moderately positive attitudes toward English education (three dimensions mentioned); however, a small proportion (about 10 -15%) of participants did not show any interest in English. Key words: Attitude, English teachers, teaching material. Background of Study English is considered to be one of the most important subjects in the Lao PDR school system, and all students from first grade in secondary school are required to learn English in their classrooms. When entering university, all students must study English for the first two years before focusing on their major subjects. Although these students have been learning English for many years, their performance is remarkably low, as has been found in previous studies by Souvannasy (2004), Keomany (2006), Soulignavong (2007) and Duangpasert (2008). However, there are no studies or information about students’ attitudes towards English education, despite it being widely believed that attitudes towards language learning play a crucial role in the learning process. This research hopes to provide some useful findings about Lao students’ attitudes towards the English education provided in national universities in the Lao PDR, and help English educators better understand students’ attitudes in order to effectively adapt their teaching to students’ needs. Literature Review Attitude is considered one of the key factors that contributes to learning achievement. Researchers in the field of language education consider several definitions of the word


16

attitude; for instance, Inal, et al. (2003, p. 41) state that “attitude refers to our feelings and shapes our behaviors towards learning”. Similarly, The Oxford Word Power Dictionary (third edition, 2003) defines the meaning of attitude as the way that you think, feel or behave. Al Mamun, et al. (2012) conclude that attitude to language is a construct that explains linguistic behavior in particular. Attitude is one factor among many factors affecting language learning. To date a number of studies on language attitude have been conducted (ZainolAbidin, Pour-Mohammadi & Alzwari, 2012; UgurArslan & Akbarov, 2012; Al-Tamimi & Shuib, 2009; Khajehpour & Ghazvini, 2011). For instance, Ali Alkaff (2013) conducted a study on attitudes and perceptions of Foundation Year students towards learning English, at the English Language Institute of King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The study showed that most students had a positive attitude towards learning English. Al Mamum et al. (2012) examined the attitudes of undergraduate students of the Life Science School of Khulna University towards the English language and found that students had a positive attitude towards the language. Teachers are considered to be the main drivers in the school system, and teachers directly influence students’ learning. Many scholars are interested in finding out students’ attitudes towards their teachers (Mansour Ahmed, Yossatorn & Yossiri, 2012; Lowery, 1920; Gorham & Diane, 1992). It has been widely accepted that textbooks play an essential role in language classrooms (Richards, 2001). Similarly, Ur (1998) points out that textbooks provide an explicit framework which clues teachers and learners into what they have done and what will be done. Rahimi and Hassani (2012) conducted a survey to investigate Iranian high school students’ attitudes towards their EFL textbooks and the role of textbooks in their attitudes towards learning English as a foreign language. The results revealed that Iranian students evaluated their English textbooks as a valuable learning resource, and they also had positive attitudes towards learning English as a foreign language. Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this study is to investigate students’ attitudes towards English education in the higher education system of the Lao PDR in order to provide information from the students’ perspective. By doing this study it will help English educators to provide effective teaching to suit the students’ needs. To achieve this, the following research question needs to be addressed:

1. What are students’ attitudes towards English education in the higher education system of the Lao PDR?

Methodology Participants In order to generalize the findings of this study to the population nationwide, the researcher tried to reach as many participants as he could. One thousand eight hundred sets of questionnaires were distributed to second-year students in all four national universities located in different regions throughout the country. There were 1,631 returned questionnaires. However, 102 questionnaires were discarded as they were incomplete; therefore, 1,529 questionnaires were usable. In an attempt to choose the samples representing each university the researcher randomly selected 980 (407 female


17

students and 573 male students) in line with the proportion and gender of students from each university. Therefore, 50 participants or 5.1% (21 female and 29 male) were from Champasack University located in the southern part of Lao PDR, 79 participants or 8.1 % (40 female and 39 male students) were from Savannaket University located in the middle part of Lao PDR, 733 participants or 74.8% (296 female and 439 male students ) were from the National University of Laos, which is the biggest university and is located in the capital city, Vientiane, and 118 participants or 12.8% (50 female and 68 male students) were from Souphanouvong University located in the northern part of the Lao PDR. Procedure The data collection was conducted from September to October in 2013 by using questionnaires. All necessary permission documents from the Ministry of Education and participating universities were received before conducting the field research. Instrument The measurement instrument was modified from the Attitude and Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) designed by Gardner (1985). The participants were required to choose one of the alternatives: 1: strongly disagree; 2: disagree; 3: neutral; 4: agree; or 5: strongly agree. A pilot study was conducted with 60 students from the National University of Laos before distributing the questionnaires to the real sample of the study. The Cronbach Alpha for the questionnaire was calculated and found to be: r=.82. Results The following section discusses the findings of the study. It includes a descriptive analysis of students’ attitudes towards English education, particularly attitudes toward English language learning, English teachers and teaching materials. Respondents’ attitudes towards the English education provided in the higher education system of the Lao PDR were obtained through the use of a five-point Likert scale questionnaire with 5 = strongly agree (SA), 4 = agree (A), 3 = neutral (N), 2 = disagree (DA), and 1 = strongly disagree (SDA). The participants were asked to provide their opinions of English education after they had participated in programs for at least one full academic year. Attitudes Towards English Language Learning Regarding students’ attitudes towards English language learning, the first five questions were asked to elicit students’ opinions about liking or disliking the English language. The results are shown in Table 1 below. It is clear that about 80% of students show very positive attitudes towards English language learning. 37.9% of respondents strongly agreed and 45.0% of them agreed that they really enjoyed learning English, 13.3% stood in the neutral position and only about 4% felt that they did not enjoy learning English. 55.4% of students strongly agreed and 35.2% agreed that English language is an important part of education, 4.5% chose the middle position and only about 4% did not think so. A large proportion of students plan to learn as much English as possible as it was found that 43.7% of participants strongly agreed and 38.2% of them agreed to do so. 3.7% of them held a neutral position and only 4% of them do not plan to learn very much English. The findings were consistent with questions 4 and 5 as about 80% of participants


18

tend to like the English language in that almost 10% of students showed negative attitudes towards English language learning. It seemed that no matter how important society views learning English, they showed no interest in learning it. Generally, the majority of students showed very positive attitudes towards their English learning. Table 1. Attitude Towards English Language Learning No. Statements SA A N DA SDA 1 2 3

I really enjoy learning English 37.9 45.0 13.3 3.1 0.7 English language is an important part of education 55.4 35.2 4.5 3.0 1.2 I plan to learn as much English as possible 43.7 38.2 13.7 3.2 1.1

4 5

I hate English language 4.3 6.4 8.5 25.1 55.6 Learning English is a waste of time 3.6 5.8 6.5 25.1 59.0

Attitude Towards English Teachers’ Behavior In evaluating students’ attitudes towards their English teachers, three main areas were emphasized: teachers’ behaviors, teachers’ competence, and teachers’ teaching methods. Table 2 shows the results of questions 6, 7, and 8, focusing on attitudes towards teachers’ behaviors. 38.8% of respondents strongly agreed and 37.2% of them agreed that their English teachers always show that he or she cares about students’ learning, 17.0% of them did not have any idea and about 7% of them did not think that their teachers care about their learning. Regarding teachers’ enthusiasm in teaching, participants had slightly diverse answers as 17.1% of them strongly agreed and 38.7% agreed that their English teachers are very enthusiastic about teaching, while 29.6% of students could not give their opinions about this and about 15% of students did not think that their teachers are very enthusiastic about their teaching. Asking about whether English teachers are a great source of inspiration 27.8% of participants strongly agreed and 45.0% of them agreed that their English teachers inspired them to learn English, 18.6% had no idea and about 8% did not think their teachers inspire them to learn English. Observing students’ answers suggests that English teachers behave properly in their classroom, and can be a good example for students to follow. Table 2. Attitude Towards English Teachers’ Behavior No. Statements SA A N DA SDA 6 7 8

My English teachers always show his/ her caring about student learning 38.8 37.2 17.0 5.5 1.5 My English teachers are very enthusiastic in teaching 17.1 38.7 29.6 11.3 3.4 English teachers are a great source of inspiration to me 27.8 45.0 18.6 6.4 2.3

Attitude Towards English Teachers’ Competence Concerning English teachers’ competence, as shown in Table 3, the majority of respondents had positive impressions of their English teachers’ competence, because their teachers could explain the goals and requirements of the course clearly and present the teaching materials in an organized way, helping students understand the lessons. The statistical analysis revealed that about 75% of students thought that course goals and


19

requirements were clearly explained to them. This is helpful to them because they understood the objectives of the course and knew how to prepare themselves to meet the requirements. About 16% of respondents had a neutral opinion about this and about 8% of students thought that the goals and requirements of the course were not clearly explained to them. It is observed from question Number 10 that students had slightly diverse answers when asking about how their teachers presented the lessons. 23.7% of participants strongly agreed and 42.0% of them agreed that their English teachers had prepared lessons and presented them in a well-organized manner, while 21.9% of them stood in the neutral position and about 12% of them did not think their teachers presented the lessons in a well-organized order. 38.4% of respondents strongly agreed and 37.7% agreed that their teachers tried very hard in explaining difficult points by using different approaches and examples to ensure the understanding of students, while 15.2% of them did not express their opinions and 8.7% of participants did not think their teachers used many ways of explaining difficult points if students did not understand. Generally, from the results it can be stated that most English teachers who are teaching in this level are qualified and competent in their teaching because they can prepare, present, explain lessons clearly and deal with students’ difficulties. Table 3. Attitude Towards English Teachers’ Competence No Statements SA A N DA SDA 9 10 11

Course goals and requirements were clearly explained 25.3 50.2 16.2 6.6 1.7 English teachers presented well-organized materials 23.7 42.0 21.9 10.2 2.2 Teachers used many ways of explaining difficult points if students did not understand 38.4 37.7 15.2 6.7 2.0

Attitude Towards English Teachers’ Teaching Methods Students’ attitudes towards teachers’ teaching methods are shown in Table 4. A large majority of respondents agreed that teachers used very effective ways of teaching, such as summarizing important points for students before ending the lessons, and always checking for students’ understanding. 43.0% of students strongly agreed and 32.5% agreed that English teachers effectively reviewed and summarized the lessons; this is very useful for students because they easily understand what each lesson is about, while 15.2 % of students showed neutral opinions, and about 9.3% of students thought that their English teachers did not summarize the lessons for them. Another question which asked about whether or not their teachers always check students’ understanding before going on to the next lesson shows that more than 80% of participants thought their teachers did so, while 12.1% marked neutral and 5% of them did not think that their English teachers checked their understanding before moving to the next point or lesson. Regarding homework and feedback to students, about 90% of students thought their teachers paid attention to students’ homework and gave feedback to their answers; while 7.3% chose not to give their opinions and just 3% of them did not think their teachers gave homework to them. To sum up, the attitudes to teaching methods, it is clear that students believe that English teachers have very good teaching techniques, in relation to summarizing the main points and checking students’ understanding.


20

Table 4. Attitude Towards English Teachers’ Teaching Methods No Statements SA A N DA SDA 12 13 14

English teachers effectively reviewed and summarized the materials 43.0 32.5 15.2 6.0 3.3 English teachers always checked students’ understanding before going to the next lesson 32.2 50.7 12.1 3.5 1.5 English teachers gave homework and gave feedback to students’ answers 50.2 39.5 7.3 2.4 0.6

Attitude Towards Teaching Materials In the context of teaching and learning, teaching materials (textbooks) are very important for both teachers and students because textbooks will guide them on what to teach and what to learn. Students’ attitudes towards textbooks are also very crucial for their learning. If students hold positive attitudes towards textbooks, such as thinking that the textbooks are suitable for their level, they will probably spend more time reading them. On the other hand, if they have negative attitudes towards textbooks because the textbooks are too difficult for them, they might not want to learn, and will probably avoid attending the class. Table 5 shows, the statistical results, of students’ attitudes towards teaching materials, particularly English textbooks. Question 15 asked about general attitudes towards textbooks, such as whether or not textbooks are difficult for them. Questions 16 to 20 focused on each aspect of the contents of the textbooks, such as grammar, reading, and speaking. With regards to the difficulty of textbooks, students have diverse answers as about 35% of students thought that the textbooks are too difficult for them, 35% of them chose the neutral position and just about 30% of them did not think the textbooks are too difficult for them. Besides the general attitudes of students towards the textbooks, the researcher would like to find out what aspect of the textbooks is difficult for students. The reading passages seemed not to be too difficult for the students as 26.6% of students strongly agreed and 49.2% agreed that they enjoy reading the passages in the textbooks, while 18.7% of them did not express their attitude on this point and just about 5.5% of them seemed not to enjoy the reading passages presented in the textbooks. Grammar points are a problem for students, as about 45% of students believed that the grammar points are too difficult for them, 34% of them stood in the middle position, and only about 20% of participants stated that grammar is not too difficult for them. When asked about how they evaluate the writing activities, more than 50% of students loved writing activities, about 31% of them chose a neutral position, while about 10% seemed to not like writing activities. Students had diverse opinions when asked about listening activities, as about 35% of respondents thought that the listening activities were not difficult to understand, 39% stood in the neutral point and about 25% of them thought that listening was a problem for them. The last aspect is speaking activities. A majority of students favored speaking activities, as about 65% of them liked speaking activities, about 22% of students did not give a clear position, while about 11% of students did not like speaking activities at all. Based on the statistical results it is difficult to judge whether the textbooks are suitable for students because their answers are almost equally distributed. However, grammar points and listening seem to be problematic for students.


21

Table 5. Attitude Towards Teaching Materials No Statements SA A N DA SDA 15 16 17 18 19 20

English textbooks are difficult for me 9.1 25.5 35.0 25.2 5.1 I enjoy reading the passages in the textbooks 26.6 49.2 18.7 4.3 1.2 Grammar points are easy to learn 4.2 16.0 32.7 33.5 13.6 I love doing writing activities 14.6 42.8 31.9 8.2 2.5 Listening activities are not difficult to understand 8.7 26.4 38.6 19.8 6.5 I like speaking activities 24.1 41.6 22.3 8.8 3.0

Conclusion To summarize the findings, the descriptive statistical analysis reveals that a majority of students generally have a positive attitude towards English as provided by national universities in the Lao PDR. Students’ attitudes towards English learning and English teachers are more positive than attitudes towards teaching materials. This implies that English textbooks have more space for improvement, especially with regard to grammar points and listening activities. This may in part be because English textbooks are imported from overseas and hence may not directly relate to Lao students. All in all, a low percentage of students find English very difficult and do not have any interest to learn English, which is a most positive outcome to the survey. References Ali Alkaff, A. (2013). Students’ attitudes and perceptions towards learning English. Arab

World English Journal, 4(2), 106-121. Al Mamun, A., Raman, M., Mahbuber Rahman, A., & Hossain, A. (2012). Students’

attitudes towards English: The case of Life Science School of Khulna University. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(1), 200-209.

Al-Tamimi, A., & Shuib, M. (2009). Motivation and attitude towards learning English: A study of petroleum engineering undergraduates at Hadhramout University of Sciences and Technology. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 9(2), 29-55.

Duangpaserth, K. (2008). Errors in English writing by Lao university students. Japan: IDEC, Hiroshima University

Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning. The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gorham, J., & Christophel, D.M. (1992). Student’s perceptions of teacher behaviors as motivating and demotivating factors in college classes. Communication Quarterly, 40(3), 239-252.

İnal, S., Evin, İ., & Saracaloğlu, A. S. (2003). The relation between students’ attitudes toward foreign language and foreign language achievement. Paper presented at Approaches to the Study of Language and Literature, First International Conference Dokuz Eylül University Buca Faculty of Education, İzmir, Turkey. Retrieved from http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/27/754/9618.pdf

Kara, A. (2009). The effect of a ‘learning theories’ unit on students’ attitudes towards learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 100-113. [Online] Retrieved from: http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol34/iss3/5 (August 10, 2011)


22

Keomany, Th. (2006). Consensus building for curriculum improvement based on evaluation of student achievement in the Department of English, Faculty of Letters, National University of Laos. Japan: IDEC, Hiroshima University

Khajehpour, M., & Ghazvini, S. D. (2011) Attitudes and motivation in learning English as second language in high school students. Procedia-Social and Behavior Science,15, 1209-1213.

Lowery, J.G. (1920). The attitude of college students toward teaching. Chicago Journals, 28(5), 379-382.

Mansoor A., Yossatorn, Y., & Yossiri, V. (2012). Students’ attitudes towards teachers using activities in EFL class. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(5), 158-164.

Rahimi, M., &Hassani, M. (2012). Attitude towards EFL textbooks as a predictor of attitude towards learning English as a foreign language. Procedia-Social and Behavior Science, 31, 66-72.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, J., & Harrison, P. (1995). The relationship between individual instructional characteristics and the overall assessment of teaching effectiveness across different instructional contexts. Research in Higher Education, 36(5), 577-594.

Soulignavong, L. (2007). The evaluation of English achievement in the Department of English, Faculty of Letters, National University of Laos and its application for curriculum Improvement. Japan: IDEC, Hiroshima University.

Souvannasy, B. (2004). Factors influencing English achievement in upper secondary schools in Laos. Japan: IDEC, Hiroshima University

UgurArslan, M., & Akbarov. (2012). EFL learners’ perceptions and attitudes towards English for the specific purposes. ACTA DiDaCTicaNaPoceNsiA, 5(4), 25-30.

Ur, P. (1998). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, B.G. (1996). Introduction: What is a constructivist learning environment? In B.G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments (pp. 3-8). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Educational Technology Publications.

Zainol Abidin, M. J., Pour-Mohammadi, M. & Alzwari, H. (2012). EFL students attitudes towards learning English language: The case of Libyan secondary school students. Asian Social Science, 8(2), 119-134.


23

Activities to Help Students Learn Vocabulary Amanda Gillis-Furutaka Kyoto Sangyo University Biodata The author is a tenured professor and has been teaching and researching in Japan since 1988. Before that she taught English in France, Portugal, China and Brazil. She has also worked as a distance tutor and dissertation supervisor for the University of Birmingham MA in TESOL Program for over fifteen years. Her research interests include language education, bilingualism, neuroscience, gender studies, media and cultural studies. Her PhD thesis (Goldsmith College, University of London) focused on YouTube and music video. She has attended LaoTESOL twice and is eager to assist the professional development of English teachers in Laos. Abstract Acquiring a vocabulary of the basic 2,000–3,000 most frequently used words is essential for English language learners to be able to comprehend and communicate effectively. There are many ways that teachers can teach vocabulary. The focus of this paper, however, is on how teachers can help students to learn vocabulary. First, drawing on SLA and neuroscience research, the nature of our L1 and L2 mental lexicons are described and the role of memory in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Next, basic concepts such as receptive and productive vocabulary use, and the difference between increasing vocabulary and establishing vocabulary are explained. The last section introduces activities that high school and university teachers can use and which require minimal extra resources. Used on a regular basis, such activities help students to increase and consolidate their English vocabulary. Introduction Building up vocabulary is of vital importance when learning a second language (L2). It does not matter if the words we use are not in the right order, or are not pronounced or spelled perfectly, or are without the correct grammatical form because the words can still convey the main idea. However, if we do not use the correct words, communication breaks down (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). The linguist David Wilkins summed it up succinctly: “Without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed” (Wilkins, 1972, p. 111).

Educated adult English L1 speakers know about 50,000 words and can use about 90% of them (Zimmerman, 2009). In comparison, everyday conversation in English requires (only) around 2,000 words (Lightbown & Spada, 2013; Thornbury, 2002) but acquiring this basic vocabulary is a tough challenge for learners, especially when their first language (L1) has very few English cognates. For example, a great many English words derive from Latin and German, so learners whose L1 is German or a Latin-based language (such as Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian) have a great advantage over speakers of Lao because many words in their L1 closely resemble their English equivalents.


24

In order to understand 80–90% of most non-technical texts, more advanced learners need to know 2,000–3,000 of the most frequent words in English (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). However, less frequently used words are often crucial to the meaning of many things we see and hear. For example, the meaning of a news report about a court case may be impossible to understand without knowing less frequently used words, such as ‘testimony’, ‘alleged’, or ‘accomplice’. Building up vocabulary is essential for successful L2 learners. Before discussing how learners can achieve the goal of learning the 2,000–3,000 most frequently used words in English, we need to consider what learning a word involves. For example, some people count related words like ‘play, player, replay, and playful’ as four separate words, but others would consider them one word that belongs to the same root from which they are all derived. Regardless of how such words are counted, learners need to recognize and learn the relationships between them. There are six other kinds of knowledge that learners need before they can truly know a word. They have to (1) understand the meaning of the word in a familiar context; (2) be able to provide a translation into their L1; (3) be able to provide another word that is similar in meaning; (4) know a word that has the opposite meaning; (5) know other forms of the word (e.g. the adjective form, the past tense); and (6) be able to pronounce and spell the word correctly. The task of learning vocabulary is far harder for second language learners than it is when learning their first language. The main reason is that they are exposed to much smaller samples of the target language. Another reason is that when they are exposed to new words as teenagers or young adults, especially in textbooks and classrooms, the context may not be as clear or memorable as when they learn new words in their first language. The average L2 learner’s input can be therefore described as “impoverished” (Thornbury, 20012, p. 21). For this reason, every language teacher should be a vocabulary teacher. “Whether the focus of your class is vocabulary, reading, integrated skills, or advanced writing, learners will benefit when you help raise their word consciousness and when you draw attention to the layers of word knowledge” (Zimmerman, 2009, p. 6). How Words are Learned in a L2 Our mental lexicon is a vocabulary network where words are stored in an organized and interconnected way. Words with similar sound structures are closely interconnected as well as words with shared meanings, such as classes of things (colours, fruits, days of the week). The semantic base is reinforced by the form-based system. This explains why learners of English often confuse words like kitchen and chicken. These words share the same sounds, are both nouns and share elements of meaning because they both belong to the same lexical field of food preparation (Thornbury, 2002). Words are stored as ‘double entries’ in our mental lexicon, with one entry containing information about meaning, and the other about form. Individual word entries are linked to other words that share similar characteristics and the number of connections can be enormous. Finding a word involves the activation of multiple pathways through the network because other areas of cognition are linked to this system, such as world knowledge and personal memory. Learning words in our L1 requires categorising and labelling to build a network of associated words and the concepts they encode. L2 learning involves acquiring a new


25

conceptual system, and constructing a new vocabulary network. There are both advantages and disadvantages to having a second network. When learning a new word, it may seem quick and efficient for the learner to avoid the process of constructing a network of associations and simply map the word directly on to its L1 equivalent. In this way, the L1 word can act as a direct path to the target concept. However, it is better to not assume that one word means the same as its equivalent in another language because words in one language do not always map directly on to words in another. Lexical errors, such as false friends can arise. For example, in Japanese the word manshon means an apartment block and not mansion, which in English means a large and elegant private house. There are also words that have no equivalent concept, such as the Lao word heun a taste that is between bitter and spicy and numbs the mouth, but has no equivalent in English. Another example is fard, an astringent taste of banana flowers, which is very pleasant for Lao people. However, “astringent” has unpleasant connotations for English speakers. In such cases the L2 learner has to learn both the concept and the word together. Learning words relies on memory. Researchers in the field of memory distinguish between three systems: the short-term store (STS), working memory, and long-term memory. The STS is the brain’s capacity to hold a limited number of items of information for up to a few seconds. It is the system we use when holding a phone number in our head for as long as it takes to make a call, or when students repeat a word that they have just heard the teacher modelling. For words to be integrated into long-term memory, they need to be subjected to various operations. Working memory (WM) can be thought of as a workspace (like a bench or desk) where information is placed, studied, worked on and then filed away for later retrieval. The information that is being worked on can come from external sources via the senses or downloaded from long-term memory, or from both. Material remains in WM for about 20 seconds. Many cognitive tasks depend on WM, such as reasoning, learning, and understanding. And it is used when focusing on words long enough to perform operations on them. This is achieved through use of the phonological loop, a process of sub-vocal repetition, rather like a loop of audiotape going round and round in our heads. It refreshes the short-term store because if words are not repeated in a timely fashion, they quickly fade from memory (Wen, 2016). Interference in the process of sub-vocal repetition is likely to disrupt the functioning of the loop and impair learning. “Another feature of this sub-vocal loop is that it can hold fewer L2 words than L1 words. This has a bearing on the length of chunk a learner can process at any one time” (Thornbury, 2002, p. 23). Also linked to working memory is a kind of mental sketch pad where images (visual mnemonics or memory prompts) can be placed or scanned in order to elicit words from long-term memory into WM. Long-term memory (LTM) can be thought of as a kind of filing system with an unlimited capacity and contents that last over time and that can be retrieved from storage when needed. However, it takes a lot of work on new words for them to reach and remain in LTM. Research into memory suggests that for words to move into permanent LTM, a number of principles need to be observed. They are summarized below.

1. Repeated encounters over spaced intervals with a new vocabulary item is very important. These encounters should involve working with the new word in a mindful way.


26

2. Retrieval from memory makes it more likely that a learner will be able to recall a word again later because this strengthens the neural pathways. Activities that require learners to use new words assist in this process and using words in interesting ways is the best way to ensure they are added to long-term memory.

3. Spacing memory work over a period of time is more effective than trying to do it all in one block of time. Newly presented vocabulary should be reviewed in the next lesson and then tested regularly after that with the interval between tests gradually increased.

4. The deeper a student thinks about a word, the more likely it is to be committed to LTM. Two activities that require lesser to greater depth of thinking are identifying the part of speech a word is, and using the word to complete a sentence.

5. The more opportunities that learners have to make judgements about and use new words themselves, the better they will recall them. For example, students who read aloud sentences with new words recall the new words better than others who read the sentences silently. However, students who read aloud sentences they have created themselves using the new words will remember the words even better.

6. Making one’s own mental picture of a word can make a word memorable (a self-generated mental picture is far more effective than one provided by someone else).

7. Mnemonics are methods used to retrieve items stored in memory that are not yet automatically retrievable. They can be visual or verbal, but they are most effective when they are created by the learners themselves.

8. Learning cannot happen subconsciously. Attention is essential for learning to take place and a high degree of conscious attention correlates with improved recall. Moreover, words that elicit a stronger emotional response tend to be more easily recalled.

Why do we Forget Words? It is estimated that up to 80% of material is lost in the first 24 hours after a lesson (Ellis & Sinclair, 1989). Without opportunities to use new language introduced in a lesson, rapid forgetting occurs at first, but then slows down, and some new language is retained. Generally, the words that are easy to learn are better remembered. Forgetting may also be caused by interference from later learning, and this happens especially when new words are similar to recently learned words. The new words may overwrite the previously learned words. This is one reason why teaching words in lexical sets is not advised these days. Spaced review of learned material can dramatically reduce the rate of forgetting. But it is not enough simply to repeat the words or review them in their original context. It is far more effective to recycle them in new and different ways with the learners actively making decisions about them and using them. Ways in Which Teachers can Help Their Students Learn and not Forget Vocabulary One of the important factors that help learners acquire new vocabulary is the frequency with which they see, hear and understand a new word. According to some studies, learners need to have meaningful encounters with a new word as many as 16 times before it becomes fixed in their memory (Nation, 2001). More than 16 encounters are needed if


27

a learner is to be able to automatically understand the word when it occurs in a new context or be able to use it when speaking or writing. It is essential to be able to understand the meaning of most words without focused attention in order to be able to read, write, listen and speak fluently. A second factor that influences how easily new vocabulary can be learned is the extent to which words are already familiar to the learners. Lao learners of English are at a disadvantage because there are few cognates with English. However, there are many words that are used internationally these days, such as hamburger, pizza, taxi, and hotel that are already common in Laos and so do not need to be learned. The L2 words which are the hardest to learn are those that are unique to that language. Many such words in English look short and easy to learn (e.g. box, eye, sing), and they are among the most frequent 1,000 words of English, yet they are very hard to learn because students are unlikely to encounter them outside the classroom and cannot derive their meaning from the way the word is written or pronounced. Moreover, the spelling and pronunciation can be problematic (e.g. night, knee, climb). Students need to see and hear such words many times in meaningful situations before they can automatically link the word with its meaning. A third way in which teachers can help students to develop their vocabulary is by engaging them in activities that necessitate careful attention to the new words and require them to use the new words in productive tasks (Hulstijin & Laufer, 2001). Paul Nation also recommends “both receptive use and productive use” for “real” vocabulary learning (1990, p. 6). Receptive knowledge and use mean that a learner is able to recognize a word when it is heard or seen (i.e., know what it sounds like or what it looks like). Receptive knowledge also involves knowing grammatical patterns the word occurs in (e.g. hear + object, listen + to + object) and grammatical forms the word takes (e.g. plural form = +s noodle ànoodles, or no change riceàrice). Another kind of receptive knowledge of a vocabulary item is knowledge of other words that it collocates with. This means the words that it is often used together with. For example, pepper collocates with salt, chili, red, green, but not blue. Learners also need to know how common or rare a word is and where it is used (e.g. student compared with pupil, disciple, apprentice, or sophomore). Productive knowledge and use involve a learner being able to draw on their receptive knowledge to pronounce and write a word correctly, use it in correct grammatical patterns, and in the correct form with words it usually collocates with, and in appropriate situations. Nation (1990) emphasizes that both receptive and productive use of new vocabulary are required for real learning to take place. However, teachers should not only increase their learners’ vocabulary, but also establish it. Introducing learners to new words is the start of the learning process and can be done in a variety of ways, such as through word lists, vocabulary notebooks with translations or illustrations, graphic organizers that help connect new words with words introduced before. The next stage (establishing vocabulary) is to build on and strengthen this initial knowledge through class or homework activities. Reasons for Spending Class Time on Old Material as well as New Most of what we teach in a lesson is not learned in that lesson. Learning a new word can only become established after repeated encounters with that new word. Paul Nation


28

(1990) emphasized this when he said: “An important teaching principle is that the old material in any lesson is the most important” (p. 7). The old material is more important than the new material because teaching and learning time have already been invested in it, but it has probably not yet been fully mastered. If it is not given further attention, it will be forgotten and all the time and effort invested so far will be wasted. Introducing new language is vital in the process of increasing knowledge of the foreign language, but strengthening knowledge of this new language by repeated encounters with the language is essential to establish this language in the repertoire of the learners. Most course books do not build in much repetition and so it is the responsibility of teachers to provide time and opportunities for this by preparing and guiding a variety of activities. Moreover, for real vocabulary learning to take place, students need to be actively engaged in using the vocabulary. We need to ask ourselves at all times “How actively engaged are all the students in my class right now? Some Simple-to-Prepare Activities and Materials More important than presentation is the kind and amount of practice that follows this. A guiding principle when selecting what type of activity to use and when is that the more decisions a learner has to make about a word, the higher the chances that the word will be remembered. The next section will introduce seven easy to prepare types of activity that can be adjusted to the learners’ language level and needs, and which require varying degrees of decision-making about the words being practiced. Dictation from the textbook can be done in many ways. The most common way is for the teacher to select the passage and read it aloud to the whole class. This allows students to draw on their receptive knowledge as they listen and their productive knowledge as they write. However, they are not processing the language at a deep personal level. The students will be more actively engaged if the teacher selects the passage and the students take turns to read aloud in pairs or small groups and to check each other’s work. Students who finish a class assignment ahead of others can be invited to select a short passage, work in pairs, and check their own work while waiting for the rest of the class to finish. ‘Messenger Dictation’ is a team game which requires teacher preparation, but it is very lively and memorable because the students need to run around the room, memorize carefully and then help their teammates to write down as accurately as possible the words and phrases they have memorized. To prepare this, copy and cut into short sections a passage from the textbook. Number the different sections (if you feel this is necessary) and place them around the classroom. One or two team members write what the others run to, read, memorize, and dictate. The winning team is the one that completes the dictation the fastest and with the fewest mistakes. Cloze passages or dialogs can be made by copying passages from the textbook or other class materials and removing target words for students to identify and insert in the gaps. The missing words can be provided in random order for the students to choose from if they have not yet been practiced much. Once the teacher judges that the students probably know the words, they can be given the cloze passage without this support. Teachers can also invite students to remove words to challenge their classmates.


29

Word cards are an excellent way for individual students to actively collect new vocabulary items, record their own information and examples and use for personal review. However, it can be expensive for every student in the class to have their personal set of cards. Student–made word cards can be made for individual use and/or collected in a class bag or box that is kept by the teacher for use in games and other peer teaching, testing and practice activities that will be explained below. When making the word cards, learners should write the L2 word on one side and the L1 translation on the other side. Additional information can be added, such as a synonym and an antonym, grammar information (e.g., plural form, preposition used with the word, help with pronunciation if needed). Learners can use these to test themselves and each other. The word cards should be shuffled regularly to avoid the ‘serial effect’ (remembering words by the order they come in and for no other reason). For individual use a set of 20 -50 cards is recommended and words that have been learned can be replaced by new ones. Recycle vocabulary in new texts if you have the resources to do so. Encountering a word in different contexts increases the associations learners have with that word and builds up neural networks. Listening to songs, poems and stories are effective, especially if students are challenged to count how many times they hear the word, or raise a hand when they hear it. Speaking and writing activities that recycle and repeat vocabulary are very important because actively using the new words strengthens the neural pathways and helps the words move into and remain in long-term memory. A speaking activity that is simple to organize is called ‘3-2-1’. Students prepare a short talk about a topic that should last about 3 minutes. It can be as simple as ‘how I spent last weekend’ or target a lexical set that has been studied, such as ‘foods that are good for us’. They take turns to talk for 3 minutes with a partner. They all change partners and repeat their talk but have only 2 minutes the second time. They repeat this a third time with only one minute speaking time. With the two previous rehearsals, students can usually communicate the same amount of information faster, more fluently, and more effectively. ‘Quick Writing’ can be introduced as a regular class activity or as follow-up to a speaking activity such as 3-2-1. The teacher can set a topic if the aim is to recycle and practice vocabulary from a certain field or allow students to choose their own topic. Depending on their level, they can be given 5–10 minutes to write as much as they can without using dictionaries or any other support. The teacher can choose whether to highlight mistakes or whether to simply comment on the content and make a note of the lexical items that will need more work in class. Games for practicing vocabulary are easy to create and generally require few materials. Word cards can be used for many kinds of game. Here are some suggestions:

1. Word snap: Students work in groups using word cards from the class bag or box. Students take turns to choose two random cards and place them with the L2 word face up on a desk. The first student who can explain a connection between the words keeps the cards. Connections could include same part of speech; synonyms or antonyms; same lexical set; or the player can make a sentence using both


30

words. The teacher acts as judge when connections are challenged. If no connection can be made, the cards are returned to the bag/box and the contents are shaken.

2. Pelmanism (also called Concentration or Memory): This game also uses 5–10 pairs of cards that are face down in random positions and have to be matched. Students take turns to turn over two cards. If they can match or connect them in some way, they keep the cards. If they cannot, they turn the cards back over for the next player to try. This works well with verbs and nouns or verbs and adjectives/adverbs, antonyms, synonyms, collocations, etc.

3. Charades: Students mime the meaning of a word on a word card for others to guess. This game is more effective if played in small groups than as a whole class activity because all students can be more engaged in acting and guessing at the same time.

4. Pictionary: Students draw a picture to illustrate the meaning of a word on a word card for others to guess. This game is also best played in small groups and the winning group is the one with the biggest collection of correct picture/word matches.

5. Hangman: Students work in groups to play hangman using word cards for the target words.

6. Word squares, crossword puzzles, and bingo: These games can all be prepared by students for their classmates using word cards as their source of words. The students are spending valuable processing time when making a word square or crossword puzzle as well as providing practice when they try each other’s puzzle or bingo card.

7. Back writing: This is a wonderful energizer and focuses attention on spelling and correct letter formation. It is especially fun with younger learners, but is enjoyed by students of all ages, especially the more ticklish ones! Teams line up in front of the board. The person at the back takes a word card and spells the word, one letter at a time on, using their finger on the back of the student in front. The letters are passed from student to student in the same way and the student at the front writes each letter on the board. Team members change places after each word, and the team with the most words correctly spelled is the winner. The only rule is that they are not allowed to speak at all. They have to gesture if they don’t understand or want the back writer to repeat the letter.

Vocabulary quizzes prepared by the students are an excellent way for students to process vocabulary when they make the questions and prepare the answers. They also provide opportunities for students to teach their classmates who cannot answer their quiz questions correctly. Teaching reinforces learning. To fully know a word, students need to be able to spell and pronounce it correctly, know its L1 translation and related words in the L2, and be able to use it in a sentence of their own creation. For these reasons, it is a good idea to include the following types of vocabulary question for students to create and to test each other in groups. Quiz preparation can be a regular homework activity using the class textbook and any words already covered in a lesson. Some suggested question types are:

How do you say “_________” in English? How do you say “_________” in Lao?


31

What’s the opposite of “____________”? Give me another word that is close in meaning to/Give me a synonym for “____”. How do you spell “______________________”? Make a sentence using “________________________”.

Conclusion In the 1980s, there was little interest in vocabulary acquisition by major figures in the SLA world. It was widely agreed that there was no point in learning a lot of words until one knew what to do with them and that learning vocabulary did not require any formal instruction (Meara, 2009). Thanks to computerised databases of words (corpora), new approaches to language teaching have developed, such as ‘the lexical approach’ (Willis, 1990), and language teaching has become much more word-centred. A lexical syllabus is based on the words that appear with a high degree of frequency in both spoken and written language. It also recognizes the importance of lexical chunks in the acquisition of language. These are groups of words that function as meaningful units and have a fixed or semi-fixed form (e.g. by the way, day after day). The importance of these features of language have been discovered and highlighted by the new science of corpus linguistics and this has led to an increase in awareness of the key role that vocabulary development plays in language learning. There are now many reliable corpora of both written and spoken language that can aid language researchers and teachers. Vocabulary frequency lists can help teachers identify the first, second and third thousand most frequent words in common use and they can be downloaded free from the Internet (Zimmerman, 2009). Although there is an increased focus on vocabulary in course books, not enough attention is given to the constant need to review and use new vocabulary in order to consolidate it, and to move it into long-term memory so that it becomes part of the learners’ L2 mental lexicon. As Wilga Rivers (1983) said, vocabulary cannot be taught. It can be presented and practiced, but ultimately it has to be learned by the individual learner. Teachers can facilitate this by supplementing the course book with regular review and practice activities. We teachers need to keep in mind the well-known adage: Repeat to remember and remember to repeat! References Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to learn English. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Hulstijin, J., and Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load

hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539-58. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. Meara, P. M. (2009). Connected words: Word associations and second language

vocabulary acquisition. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


32

Rivers, W. (1983). Communicating naturally in a second language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd./Longman.

Wen, Z, E. (2016). Working memory and second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Wilkins, D. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. London: Arnold. Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus: A new approach to language teaching. Collins

COBUILD. Zimmerman, C. B. (2009). Word knowledge: A vocabulary teacher’s handbook. New York: Oxford University Press.


33

Analysis of Intercultural Communication Strategies by International Students in Japan: Implications for Teachers of English in Intercultural Classrooms Fuyuko Takita Hiroshima University, Japan Biodata Fuyuko Takita Ruetenik received a Master of Science degree in Japanese Business Studies, an MBA in International Management from Chaminade University and an MA in Counseling Psychology from Argosy University. Fuyuko also obtained her Ph.D. in International Studies (Sociolinguistics) from Hiroshima City University. She currently teaches as a full-time Associate Professor at Hiroshima University and serves on the Board of Directors at Hiroshima International School. Fuyuko has presented her research findings both in Japan and overseas, and is a co-author of “Global Issues Towards Peace” (Nan’un-do, 2014) and Global Messages from Nobel Peace Laureates (Eihosha, 2017). Abstract In this study undertaken at a university in Japan, Indonesian, Japanese and German students participated in an intercultural interaction exercise. Based on transcribed conversational data, communication strategies including silence, talk distribution, and question asking were identified and analyzed. The findings indicate that Japanese and Indonesian students shared cooperative communication strategies that show relationship-building. On the other hand, the German students used more direct communication strategies in order to be “logical” and “task-oriented”, which were perceived as “powerful” by Japanese observers. These contrasts imply that different communication strategies are likely to be used by communicators from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. This study offers some important implications for English teachers who teach students from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Introduction Different cultural values or expectations can generate differing evaluations and interpretations of what is polite and what is impolite behavior. In this study, a university setting was selected in order to assess different communication strategies used by university students from different cultural linguistic backgrounds. The goal of this study was to investigate the differences of communication strategies among international students in Japan by examining their linguistic strategies of silence, talk distribution, question-asking, and directness/indirectness in recorded data. By analyzing them, this study attempted to show that what are considered good tactics among communicators from one particular background may be inappropriate in another, and enhances our awareness of how cultural background can affect our students’ communication styles and tactics. In order to investigate different styles of communication styles among different groups, the following questions were addressed for this study.


34

1. How do students from different cultures use the particular communication strategies of silence, talk distribution, question-asking, and directness/indirectness in an intercultural setting?

2. What can we suggest for teachers of English who teach students from different cultural backgrounds?

Background of This Study In this study undertaken at a university in Japan, Indonesian students, Japanese students and German students participated in cross-cultural simulation exercises in university classes. Table 1 indicates the background of each participant. Table 1. Participant Background

Nationality Gender Age Major College Grade English Level Native Language German male 21 Management Senior Advanced German German female 20 Finance Junior Advanced German Japanese female 19 Education Sophomore Intermediate Japanese Japanese male 20 Education Sophomore Intermediate Japanese Indonesian female 21 Accounting Junior Advanced Indonesian Indonesian male 22 Finance Senior Advanced Indonesian

The participants were all university students (age range from 19 to 22). While the Indonesian and the German students were business majors, the two Japanese students were education majors. In addition, Japanese students were both second-year students while Indonesian and German students were third-year and fourth-year students. The English proficiency level of the Japanese students was intermediate (TOEIC score 600-700) while the German and Indonesian students’ levels were advanced (TOEFL scores 550-600). All the sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed. In total, there were three 20-minute sessions. Students were given 30 minutes to prepare for the negotiation. Each team consisted of two pairs: two Indonesian students with two Japanese students (Session A), two Japanese students with two German students (Session B) and two Indonesians vs. Germans (Session C). After each session, follow-up interviews were conducted, in which each participant was given five to ten minutes to describe orally their impressions of their negotiation with the other team. All the personal interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Further, after each of the three sessions, a survey was administered to 38 Japanese university students who had observed the sessions. The observers included 16 male and 22 female Japanese students who answered 13 questions (shown in Appendix 2). They were all sophomore students majoring in education. Based on the transcribed conversational data, instances of silence, patterns of distribution of talk and the number of questions as well as the types of questions asked, were identified and analyzed. To analyze silence, the number of silences (of more than 2 seconds), total length of silence, and the average length of silence by each group in the three sessions were identified. In order to analyze talk distribution by each group, the number of turns by each group, and the total amount of talk by each group in seconds and in minutes were identified. Further, the average length of talk time and percentage of talk time by each group in each session were calculated. Third, the total number of questions asked by each group in each session were counted and the types of questions used by


35

each group were analyzed. There were seven categories of questions. The categories that emerged from the data include general information, specific questions, confirmation questions, closed-ending questions, small-talk questions, request questions and suggestion questions. Finally, to explore the use of directness and indirectness, I looked at the data showing relatively clear-cut instances of contrast and decided to focus on refusals used by each group. The number of silences, total length of silence and the average length of silence by each group in three sessions are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Comparison of Silence across Sessions and Negotiation Teams Session A Session B Session C Japanese German German Indonesian Japanese Indonesian # of silence 13 7 6 4 10 12 Total length/S 104.49 29.16 19.34 17.86 61.91 38.29 Average length/S *SD

**8.04 (2.45)

**4.17 (1.07)

3.22 (1.14)

4.47 (1.85)

#6.19 (4.65)

#3.19 (1.13)

Total N of S 20 10 22 Total/L of session 133.65 37.2 100.2 Average/L session 6.68 3.72 4.55 SD** t=4.891 p < .001 t=1.992, p = .075 S=silence, N=number, L=length As Table 2 indicates, the average length of silence by Japanese participants (8.04) in Session A was the longest of all the groups and was almost double the length of silence of the Germans in the same Session A. Table 3 presents a comparison of talk distribution by each group. The number of turns by each group, total seconds of talk by each group in seconds and minutes are listed for each negotiation team by session. Further, the average length of talk and percentage of talk by each group in each session are shown in the last two rows of the table. Table 3. Comparison of Talk Distribution Across Sessions and Participants Session A Session B Session C Japanese German German Indonesian Japanese Indonesian # of turns 34 76 71 39 40 41 total sec. of talk (minutes)

250.8 (4.18mi)

795 (13.25mis)

449 (7.49min)

397.2 (5.12min)

325.2 (8.13min)

389.4 (9.49min)

Average length (sec)

10.46 7.37 6.32 7.87 8.13 9.49

percentage/talk 24% 76% 53% 47% 46 % 54% #=number, T=turns, sec=seconds As Table 3 indicates, in Session A, the German participants took more than twice as many turns as the Japanese students. Additionally, the total length of talk used by aforementioned German participants (13.25mins) was more than three times as long as that of Japanese students (4.18mins). In Session B and C, the amount of talk distributed were almost the same between the two groups. The total number of questions asked by each group in each session is presented in Table 4. Furthermore, the frequency of various types of questions used by each group is shown, for a list of categories of questions with examples.


36

Table 4. Comparison of Questions Asked by Each Group Session A Session B Session C Japanese German German Indonesian Japanese Indonesian Total # of Qs 3 17 25 5 14 15 Types of Qs #of General Qs 1 6 6 - 2 3 # of Specific Qs 2 10 9 - 1 9 #/Confirmation Qs - - 1 1 6 3 # of C/E Qs - 1 8 - 1 - # of small talk Qs - - - 4 - - # of request Qs - - 1 - - - #/suggestive Qs - - - - 4 - #=number, Qs=questions, C/E=closed-ending Table 4 shows that both in Session A (Japanese and German students) and Session B (German and Indonesian students), German students asked far more questions than their counterparts. For instance, in Session A, the number of questions asked by the German participants was 17 while the number of questions asked by Japanese students was only 3. Moreover, in Session B, the number of questions asked by the German students was five times as many as that of Indonesian students. In Session C, the number of questions asked by the Japanese students was almost equal (14) to the number of questions asked by the Indonesian students (15). While the German students showed the tendency to dominate the interaction by asking a large amount of specific questions, the Japanese and Indonesian students tended to show “solidarity” by balancing the number of questions. More details will be discussed in the following section. Results and Discussion As we have seen from the results of the study, different communication strategies were used by university students from different cultural backgrounds. Some of the linguistic strategies demonstrated and identified were silence, distribution of talk, questioning and directness/indirectness. We saw that the Japanese students were using silence to show solidarity in order to build rapport with the opponent in the negotiating team while the German students were using a large amount of “talk” and questions in order to demonstrate power in the negotiation session. The Indonesian students were demonstrating power by giving more direct refusals while at the same time they were accommodating the amount of talk and questions with the Japanese students in order to show “solidarity”. It is possible that the large amount of talk in Session A by the German students made the Japanese observers feel that the German students were strong and skillful negotiators as opposed to the Japanese who appeared to be ‘weak’ negotiators who did not insist on their opinions strongly. In many Western societies, there is a common assumption that powerful people do the talking and powerless people are silenced. As it was pointed out above, it is possible that the use of long silences might have confused the German students and made them talk more in order to fill up the long ‘pauses’. In negotiations, the two sides responded to each other. Therefore the domination pattern is co-constructed not just one-sided. This kind of inequality in talk distribution should be avoided in order to show “mutual respect”, which is crucial for


37

effective negotiation. During the interview, one of the female Indonesian students reported that she felt uncomfortable and uneasy because of the large number of specific questions asked by the German students. The strategy of asking a large number of questions might be another contributor that made the German participant appear more as “powerful” and “competent” negotiators. On the other hand, the number of questions asked by the Japanese and Indonesian students were almost equal. This might suggest that both the Japanese and Indonesian students were attempting to show “solidarity” by balancing the amount of questions without offending the other. Further, these two groups used more confirmation questions with each other whereas the German students used one with the Indonesian students and none with the Japanese students. This could indicate that both the Japanese and Indonesian participants were being ‘considerate’ and ‘respectful’ by repeating what was said by the other group in question form. By analyzing strategies of different communication styles such as silence, talk distribution, asking questions and directness/indirectness used by speakers of different cultural backgrounds, it showed that different participants interact quite differently across cultures. As it has also been pointed out by Holmes (2000), “clearly, rules for polite behavior differ from one speech community to another. Linguistic politeness is culturally determined. Different speech communities emphasize difference functions, and express particular functions differently” (p. 258). While both the Japanese and Indonesian students were showing “solidarity” by having almost the same amount of talk time and sharing a large number of ‘confirmation’ questions, the German students on the other hand were demonstrating “power” by talking significantly more than their counterparts and asking a large amount of questions in negotiation although they attempted to show solidarity by using humor and explicit linguistic strategies. As a result, the Japanese observers perceived the German students who did a large amount of talking and asked a large number of specific questions as ‘logical’, ‘strong’ and’ skillful’ negotiators. On the other hand, the Japanese students who appeared ‘polite’ and to be ‘good-listeners’ were perceived as “weak” negotiators. The Indonesians were perceived as ‘polite’ but also ‘insisted on their opinions’. Conclusion There were valuable suggestions that were generated from this study to promote teaching culture in our university classrooms. We should recognize that increasing awareness about these different communication strategies used by university students help us develop some effective teaching strategies to manage cross-cultural dynamics we face in classrooms. As stated earlier, there are some useful implications that can be suggested for effective intercultural teaching. First, in some cultures, students or teachers may feel uncomfortable with long and frequent silences and fill “uncomfortable” silences in order to ensure the success of conversation while in some cultures, communicators emphasize cooperative listenership (e.g., pauses, confirmation questions) to show respect and build rapport. Secondly, some students may take more direct linguistic strategies in order to be “logical” and “task-oriented”. They could perceive implicit approaches by communicators from different backgrounds as “not being efficient” or “slow in coming to the point”. On the other hand, interlocutors who prefer less direct linguistic approaches could interpret direct linguistic speech acts as somewhat “face-threatening” and “not respecting harmony or rapport”. Thirdly, if one group keeps talking and another group repeatedly gives away its turns, the resulting communication can be said to be


38

unbalanced. Although the intention may not be to dominate the other party, the effect or interpretation can be domination. Lastly, when interacting with students from different backgrounds, we should be encouraged to adapt different strategies in order to overcome perceived cultural differences. Because intercultural interaction is constructed jointly by communicators, all sides need to be aware that different backgrounds can generate differing interpretations and/or evaluations of the same linguistic expressions. In order to avoid potentially disastrous consequences in an intercultural teaching environment, accommodating differences in conversational styles and negotiating tactics may be an emerging strategy for successful global teachers. References Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Speech functions, politeness and cross-cultural communication. Essex: Pearson Education


39

Attendance Cards: A Tool for Effective Classroom Management in Communicative English Classes Terri Anderson Kindai University Biodata Terri Anderson, a native of Los Angeles, has been teaching ESL at universities in Osaka, Japan for over 20 years. Before moving to Japan, she taught in the English Language Program at the University of California, San Diego. In her teaching, she focuses on a communicative approach within a student-centered environment, aiming to lower affective barriers and improve students’ motivation. Her other areas of interest include classroom management techniques, extensive reading, selective listening, using media in the classroom, and TOEFL preparation. In her free time, she enjoys reading history and literature and traveling, particularly in Japan and Southeast Asia. Abstract Good classroom management is a crucial, yet often overlooked, aspect of successful communicative language classes. Attendance cards are a tool that enables teachers to run a controlled learning situation while also allowing for flexibility. At the most basic level, the cards offer a time-efficient way to take attendance and set up a different seating arrangement for every class meeting at the same time. On a deeper level, they function over time as a way to lower affective barriers by creating a relaxed and friendly learning environment. Having the chance to work with all of their classmates over the course of the term, students are encouraged to overcome their shyness and reserve, which, in turn, helps them to build confidence in themselves as well as in their ability to speak English. This paper will introduce how to make these cards and use them to their fullest potential. It will also explain in detail their value to both the teacher and the students and suggest ways to modify them to best suit individual teachers and their needs. Introduction Many teachers of foreign languages face common difficulties such as large classes filled with unmotivated and uninterested students and standardized courses which cover too much material for the allotted time. Classroom management, while always critical, becomes even more so with the need to use class time efficiently and when dealing with challenging students. As teachers strive to motivate, guide and inspire their students, they also need to have control over their classroom. Such control comes through the implementation of rules and procedures (covering issues such as attendance, tardiness, the students’ bringing the required materials to class, and appropriate classroom behaviors) and the immediate handling of disciplinary problems. How well teachers can enforce the rules and manage behavior is connected to the type of relationship they have with their students. Teachers need to be skilled at balancing their role as an authority figure, who upholds the rules, with their role as a guide and facilitator, who works cooperatively with students. Learning students’ names is a useful tool as it contributes to both cooperation and control in the classroom. Not only do students feel valued as individuals when a teacher uses their names, but also the teacher calling out a


40

misbehaving student’s name is much more effective at stopping unwanted behavior than making remarks without clarity as to whom is actually being addressed, which can cause confusion and anxiety in the other students. Students’ remaining anonymous in class has serious disadvantages for the teacher in terms of developing good working relationships with them and maintaining control. Over time and with experience, all teachers develop methods to manage their classrooms but perhaps with varying degrees of success. It is vital that these techniques be employed from the start of the school year and that the classroom be organized in an effective way. The simple card system presented here offers teachers a way to arrange classroom seating from the second class meeting on. A revolving seating chart, one that changes at every class meeting, is created at the same time that attendance is checked. The cards also streamline the tasks of monitoring tardiness and student compliance with rules and procedures. Perhaps the greatest value of this system is how it helps foster teacher-student relationships by making it easier to learn students’ names. This paper will introduce the design of the cards, how to make and use them, and issues that may arise in their use and how to resolve them. Benefits particular to the teacher and to the students will also be discussed. Lastly, variations in card design and use will be suggested so that teachers can modify the cards to suit their individual needs and circumstances. Literature Review According to Marzano (2003), skilled use of classroom management techniques is the foundation for effective teaching, and the primary component of classroom management is the development of teacher-student relationships. These relationships are not dependent on teachers’ personalities or the students’ viewing them as a friend but rather on the teacher demonstrating appropriate levels of control and cooperation. Control here does not mean force but providing strong guidance in classwork and behavior. Cooperation involves teacher-student teamwork and taking appropriate personal interest in students, for example, by learning their names. The other three general components of classroom management are establishing rules and procedures, dealing with disciplinary problems, and developing the “mental set” of the teacher, a notion which basically means that the teacher is aware of what is happening in the classroom on many levels (academic, social, and emotional) and intervenes promptly when problems arise. Studies of effective classroom management have shown that it can dramatically decrease disruptions in class and have a positive impact on student engagement and achievement. Research by Cooper and Haney (2017) shows that more than 85% of the students in their study felt it was important that their teachers knew their names. When teachers learn their names, students say it is easier to talk with the teacher and ask for help. They feel as though the teacher cares. They feel more valued and invested in the course and think their performance improves. It positively affects their attitudes toward and their behavior in the course, and it influences their opinion of the course and the teacher. It also helps to build classroom community. Chambliss (2014, para. 1-3) writes “the best thing I do to improve students’ work in my course…I will learn and use their names…Using those names in class is uniquely powerful.”


41

Design of the Card Any kind or size of paper can be used, but A6 (105mm x 148mm) index cards, blank on one side and lined on the other, are a good choice. These cards are simple to make and use and require no preparation other than to have them, a felt-tip pen, and a highlighter at hand. The front of the card shows the student’s first and family names as well as some useful additions. Large classes often contain more than one student with the same name, so, to avoid the confusion that can follow when calling on these students, underline the repeated students’ names with a colored highlighter. This signals to the teacher to call out both first and family names for that student. An asterisk after the name could indicate graduating students, who may require extra care on the teacher’s part to ensure that they are meeting the class requirements. In the upper righthand corner, the students affix a photo of themselves, both with glue and a stapler for extra durability. In the lower lefthand corner, write an abbreviation either for the day and time of the class or for the course title. This labeling is indispensable for being able to identify where a card belongs should it become separated from its pack. In the lower righthand corner, write the number that corresponds to the student’s position on the class list provided by the school. Students are free to be creative and personalize their cards with art, comments, stickers, or whatever they like over the duration of the course. On the back of the card, keep track of the students’ attendance, noting the dates of absences and tardies. Come the next school term, draw a line down the middle of the card and begin anew on the righthand side. In the lower righthand corner, initials could indicate that the student has obtained the required materials for the course: T for textbook, N for notebook, for example. Making the Cards On the first day of class, after introducing the course and having small groups of students start on getting-to-know-you activities, call individual groups of three or four students to come to the teacher’s desk in turns. Create a separate name list where all attendance and score information will be recorded, and check their names against the official class list, if available. Use this information to make the cards on the spot. Confirm spelling and pronunciation of difficult names as well as learn of any preferred nicknames. This system allows for a short one-on-one interaction with each student. If an official class list is available at this time, make cards for any students absent on that day as this simplifies the procedure for the next class meeting. Wait a few class meetings before adding the number that shows the student’s position on the official class list to the lower righthand corner of the card as it may take some time for the official class list to be finalized. Keep each class set of cards in an individual case color-coded for the day of the class, for example, yellow for Monday, green for Tuesday and so on. Each case has a card on top to identify to which class the pack belongs and to detail important administrative details about the class that the teacher may need at hand, such as the course title, the day and time the class meets, the classroom, the textbook, the class code, and the number of students enrolled. Except when calculating semester grades, keep the cards at school to eliminate the chance of losing them or forgetting them at home.


42

Using the Cards Before class begins, students come into the room and sit or stand wherever they like. Once class starts, turn the cards upside down and shuffle them in front of the students, which makes the randomness of which student gets called when transparent to the class. Pull out any card from anywhere in the stack and call the name of the student displayed. When that student answers, “Here!”, put that card on the first desk in the front row. The student then moves to the new desk for that day, remembering to carry all belongings. Shuffle the cards again and continue until all the names have been called once, creating working pairs. If a student does not answer, separate that card from the rest to use for a second or even third round of roll call. If there is an odd number of students, allow this last student to choose which pair to join so as to lessen any unease felt about being the third student. If there are still students standing at the end of roll call, that means they came in late after their name was first called or they were simply not listening. If an official class list was not available for the first week of class, a still-standing student may have been absent then or could be a new enrollee in the course. This system enables the teacher to quickly understand what the possibilities are rather than waiting for the student to approach the teacher at some later point to explain the situation, which is what often happens if roll call is simply a verbal procedure based on an unofficial attendance list made by the teacher at the previous class. The cards left in the teacher’s hand at the end are those of the absent students. Take these cards back to the teacher’s desk to deal with later. As soon as the students are seated next to their partner for that day, the lesson can begin. Then, while they are working on their first task, record the absences onto the back of the unclaimed cards and into the official attendance record. This procedure does not waste the students’ class time. Recording the attendance information in two places is an absolute necessity in case the cards are lost, whether due to teacher error or a student’s taking them home. Use this time to write the absent students’ names on any handouts given out on that day, thereby ensuring they can get them at the following class meeting. During class, students keep the cards on their desks, the name and photo side facing up, preferably pointing toward the teacher’s position for easier reading. As the teacher circulates to facilitate and monitor tasks, notes such as “chatting”, “sleeping”, or “no textbook” can be written on the cards as a reminder or warning to students. At the end of class, students must return the cards to the teacher so that they will be ready for use at the beginning of the next class. Students can bring their card along with the day’s classwork to be checked at the end of class. In this way, the teacher is nearly guaranteed to get all the cards back. Students could also put the cards on the teacher’s desk on their way out. In this situation, however, make it a habit to count the cards to double-check that all have been returned as some students may forget to do so. If one is missing, ascertain whose it is and write a note detailing this information to be stored in the case with the other cards. This step is important because, if the student who failed to return the card happens to be absent from the next class, it is easy to overlook and then not record this absence. By being aware of whose card is missing, the teacher will be able to include this student in the seating chart of the next class and can remember to ask the student where the card is. Often it has just been left in the student’s textbook or notebook. Occasionally, the student may claim it is “at home” or “lost”. In this case, make a replacement card immediately. On the front, write “REPLACEMENT”, and, on the back,


43

copy all the attendance information, which should have been recorded in a separate official record. This step circumvents the rare student who takes the card home with the intent of eliminating any negative information written on the card. Issues Sometimes at the start of the term, the first few students whose names are called out do not understand that they are expected to move to the desk where their name card now rests, but they quickly become accustomed to the system. It is possible to encounter a student who grumbles throughout the term about having to move to a new place. However, this moving around allows them to have different conversation partners for every class meeting, an advantage which has consistently ranked as a highly positive aspect of the class on the evaluations submitted by the students who have experienced this system. One recurring problem is that students can be noisy when their names are being called. Point out that quiet must be maintained during roll call in this class as in any other class. Train the students to verbally respond (“Here!”) and physically signal to the teacher when their name is called. Otherwise, it is easy to think they are absent when indeed they are not, and this misunderstanding creates confusion as the students come to a desk that no longer displays their name. Conversely, if the teacher does not require students to respond to their name being called, a student may end up being paired with someone who is actually absent, which may necessitate a further changing of positions. Some students, by and large female, will place their card face down on the desk, presumably to hide photos they do not like. Explain to these students that one of the main purposes of the cards is to help the teacher learn names, and, for that, the names need to be visible. Refrain from making any comments about a student’s photo unless they are clearly positive. A final issue is that students can forget belongings when they move. Collect these items while distributing the cards, and, once the procedure is complete, display them to the class for the owner to claim. Teacher Implications This card system helps the teacher monitor tardiness. Upon arrival, late students must collect their cards from the teacher and find out where to sit. This gives the teacher the opportunity to mark the date, time, and reason both on the card and in the official record. If in the middle of a teaching point, make a mental note of the student and the time of arrival, and then deliver the updated card once the class is involved in a task. It becomes nearly impossible for late students to sneak into the room and pretend that they were there from the beginning of class. It does take a bit of training to get students to remember to collect their cards upon arriving late, however. In the first few weeks of the course, when circulating to ascertain students’ understanding of the current task, use this time to note down on the cards which of the required materials have been obtained. If something is missing, remind the student of what is still needed. After class ends, go through the cards, pull out the ones that are missing an initial from the “BN” notation (or the photo on the front), and separate these cards from the others by placing them vertically in the case for that class. At the next class meeting, before calling roll, announce that students who are missing required


44

materials will be sitting in a “penalty zone” in the first few seats of the front row until they obtain those materials. Do this light-heartedly so there is no chance for students to construe this special seating arrangement as a punishment. It is meant as a reminder, an encouragement, and, indeed, the size of the “penalty zone” reduces at each subsequent class meeting. After a couple of classes of sitting in the very front next to the teacher, even the most reluctant of students will obtain the required materials. Remember to check what materials have been obtained since the last class and add the appropriate initial to the notation so that those students can be moved out of the “penalty zone” at the next class. One time-saver is having students write their card number and class day and time (found in the card’s lower righthand and lefthand corners, respectively) on quizzes, exams, and all other assignments turned in to the teacher. Their doing this streamlines the time teachers need for out-of-class administrative work. Rather than scanning down long official class lists for unfamiliar names or complicated official student numbers, simply match the number on the card with the corresponding number on the official list. Scan all incoming work for this information and immediately return any papers that omit it as a way to train the students to remember this step. For the teacher, one of the most important aspects of the cards is their role in making it easier to learn students’ names. When first requesting student photos, explain that they are an indispensable aid for the teacher to learn their names. (Occasionally, a student may grumble about the cost of providing a photo, so exploring alternative technology to take the photos in class is worthwhile.) How do the cards help in this often-daunting task? The acts of writing down the students’ names when talking to them on the first day of class, of quickly reviewing the cards before and/or after class, of repeatedly looking at the name and the photo that goes with it while calling out names, while circulating around the room and while recording scores into the official record: all contribute to committing these names and faces to memory. Further to this aim, when calling roll from the cards, make eye contact with the students and ask them simple questions (How are you today? Ready to study today? Did you have a good weekend?) or make appropriate, positive comments about a new look, a nice shirt, or a good performance on a quiz. While students are focused on an activity, mentally go around the room silently naming the students. If a student’s name remains elusive, go over and check the card. When the students return their cards at the end of class, look at the name, say “Thank you” or “See you next time”, and use their name. After making progress, turn the retrieval of the cards into a test by trying to use their name before they hand over their card. Although fixed seating charts can also help teachers learn students’ names, they can be rather unsuited to communicative language classes. With a fixed seating chart, reserved students may find themselves uncomfortably locked into the front row whereas naturally reticent students may get locked into the back row, where they will continue to, in effect, “hide” from the class. Students may get “stuck” with uncooperative, excessively shy, otherwise “difficult”, or just simply incompatible partners. Neither situation is ideal in communicative classes, which often depend on a good atmosphere for success. Furthermore, when starting with a fixed seating chart, ensuring students experience a thorough mix of partners throughout the term becomes more of a burden on the teacher, who must come up with ever more complicated and usually time-consuming methods of moving students around the room.


45

On the opposite end of the spectrum, free-seating often leads to inseparable and/or undesirable pairs or clusters of friends who do not actually work efficiently together. When the teacher later wants to break them up, this action can be misunderstood by the students as a punishment. Another problem with free seating is that there is often at least one student who ends up sitting alone at every class. Finding a suitable partner for this student every time can be challenging for the teacher and stressful for the student. The revolving seating chart made possible with the attendance card system avoids all of these pitfalls. Sometimes students will have to sit in the front of the room where they may have to deal with closer scrutiny from the teacher; sometimes they will be able to enjoy the relative anonymity of the back of the room; usually, they will be in the neutral middle ground. The randomness with which the cards are placed clearly demonstrates to the students that getting a seat or a partner they do not like is a matter of chance, not a personal slight or punishment. Once or twice a term they may have to deal with a partner that is difficult for them for whatever reason, but students understand that this situation is temporary, limited to that class period. Rarely, an immature student may exhibit, through body language or facial expressions, dissatisfaction with having to sit with the class loner, for example. Quietly signal to such a student that such behavior will not be tolerated. In extreme cases, an after-class consultation may be necessary. In the end, these seemingly unworkable pairings can be a positive learning experience though as they mirror real life outside the classroom. The teacher may find over time that certain students cannot work together as partners or even when sitting in proximity to each other. Upon becoming aware of such potentially disruptive situations, take more care in arranging the day’s seating chart by invoking “veto power”. When pulling a problematic student’s card from the stack, take quick stock of who is already sitting in the vicinity before calling the name out loud. If there is a potential conflict, quietly return the card to the as-yet-uncalled stack and go on to the next card. Students do not usually notice this action, but occasionally they may question it. Explain with a smile that it is better if certain students do not sit together. More rarely, a student may privately request to never sit with a particular student. If the request is reasonable, doing some “magic” to ensure they do not sit together may be necessary. Remember, though, that there is value in exposing students to situations outside their comfort zone. Student Implications With larger classes, and with minimal work on the teacher’s part, the students will almost always have a new partner every week. Encourage them to say right away if they are paired with the same person as before so that this can be remedied while names are still being called. Sometimes students are hesitant or too shy to say this, so read their facial expressions and body language and ask them directly if they have been partners before. Friends only occasionally get to work together, preventing any problems, but their joy when chance allows them to sit together contributes to a pleasant class atmosphere. (Students lucky enough to discover that they are already sitting at the desk where their card ends up display a similar happiness at not having to move for once.) Any students who would otherwise habitually sit at the fringe can be effortlessly brought into the group, and their working with a constant stream of different classmates can help them overcome their reserve. Over time, they become less afraid of new people and new


46

experiences. In fact, an indirect goal can be to encourage students to develop new friendships as this can lower affective barriers and contribute to more effective communicative language learning. When working with various people, students are often exposed to new language in that different people have learned different vocabulary and grammatical structures, even if they are technically at the same level of language learning. Also, in many classroom settings, it is likely that one partner’s language skills may be weaker or stronger than the other person’s, which is not a negative thing for either partner. Encourage stronger students to help weaker ones. Teach them that explaining things they already understand solidifies that knowledge. It can inspire self confidence in their own skills. Having a peer explain something can be encouraging to the weaker student and perhaps less intimidating than if explained by the teacher. Working intensively with different partners throughout the term gives the students practice with cooperation and peer evaluation, resulting in less reliance on the teacher, who can then focus on being a facilitator and a monitor and on making sure students remain on task. This freedom for the teacher is especially important in large classes where a teacher cannot be everywhere at once and be everything to each student. At schools that have stringent attendance requirements for language classes, student anxiety over their attendance record can be relatively high. The cards give students immediate access to their attendance record whenever they wish as the information is recorded on the back at every class meeting. With this access, students can develop a sense of self-responsibility. They also have the chance to challenge a teacher’s mistake. If a student points out a possible problem, confirm the student’s claim and update the card. Make a habit of cross-checking the cards with the official record at the end of the term to catch any unreported discrepancies. Variations There are many ways to change these attendance cards to suit individual needs. Here are some variations, with potential pluses and minuses, depending on different teaching circumstances. Name tents (paper folded lengthwise, then opened enough to stand, and placed facing front) are easier for the teacher to read than cards lying flat or turned around on the students’ desks. However, if students are also expected to learn and use their classmates’ names, it is easier for them if the cards are lying flat on the desk. Students can make their own cards, thereby giving them extra English practice by listening to directions and writing. These student products are often beautiful to look at with their impressively creative and colorful artwork. Such artistry takes a lot of time, however, time that some teachers may feel they do not have. When teachers make the cards themselves, it is faster, it yields uniform cards with legible writing of the desired size, and it allows for immediate comparison with the official class list. Students can write comments about each lesson on the cards: what they understood, what they did not, and any other questions they may have. This information can provide valuable feedback for the teacher, but a separate questionnaire for this may allow for more detail as the cards are too small for students to write much on a weekly basis. Some teachers may find they need detailed administrative information for each student, such as major, academic department, and official student number. Others may find this


47

information redundant when written on each individual card. As discussed earlier, long student numbers are unwieldy, so it may be simpler to use just the student’s number corresponding to their position on the class list. To learn more about the students, a section for them to write about their family, part-time jobs, hobbies and interests, travel experiences, and dreams for the future can be included. However, student privacy has become an issue, and teachers are requested to guard personal information with great care. It may be best not to have such information displayed on the desks for all to see. Space on the cards may also be used to write down various daily scores and test grades, and having access to this information helps the students keep track of their performance in the class. If teachers would like to record student scores on the cards, keep a duplicate record of all student information. This copy is critical as teachers may encounter a student who alters the scores written on the card. Be sure to check the cards regularly for any such changes. Without such a copy, teachers run the risk of of having no way to retrieve the original scores should their students’ information be willfully doctored or lost, whether accidentally or intentionally. Furthermore, the time required to record this information in two places, in addition to the privacy concerns mentioned above, becomes an issue. Conclusion This attendance card system has evolved over many years into its present form. Many aspects of it were developed in response to particular teaching circumstances: large classes of relatively low-level unmotivated students and a standardized curriculum which puts a premium on efficient use of in-class time. These constraints require the teacher to exercise a high degree of control, which depends in part upon learning students’ names and deciding who sits where and with whom. However, in language classes, teachers will want to create a pleasant atmosphere in which students can build confidence and have the freedom to express themselves. Again, knowing students’ names and having them sit with different partners at each class meeting play a large role in building the desired atmosphere. It can be challenging, and rewarding, to find the right balance between the teacher having control of the classroom and the students feeling empowered in their learning adventure. This attendance card system can help in the quest to meet these challenges. Teachers need to develop their own system to fit their goals and their circumstances and constraints. What is offered here is just the beginning, the first steps down a path which by its nature must be an individual one. References Chambliss, D. F. (2014). Learn your students’ names. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/08/26/essay-calling-faculty-members-learn-their-students-names (accessed on September 18, 2017)

Cooper, K. M., Haney, B., et. al. (2017). What’s in a name? The importance of students perceiving that an instructor knows their names in a high-enrollment biology classroom. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(8), 1-13.

Marzano, R.J., Marzano J.S., et. al. (2003). Classroom management that works: Research-based strategies for every teacher. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.


48

EFL Teacher Development for the 21st Century Diana L. Dudzik International English Education Consultant USA Nguyen Thi Lan Huong University of Languages and International Studies/Vietnam National University Hanoi, Vietnam Biodata Diana Dudzik, PhD is a teacher educator and curriculum consultant from the US who has conducted international research in Africa and Vietnam. She has taught ESL and trained teachers in the US, evaluated curriculum in Vietnam and Djibouti, and led teams to improve curriculum and write textbooks in Djibouti, Laos and Vietnam. As a 2016-2017 Fulbright Scholar, Diana led a national team to design blended English teacher development for Vietnam’s English school teachers. She is the key author of Vietnam’s English Teacher Competencies Framework, and received a Bằng Khen award from Vietnam’s Ministry of Education and Training in 2013. Nguyen Thi Lan Huong is an instructor and a doctoral student in TEFL at the University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University. She has designed and taught both pre- and in-service teacher training courses on using technology in language teaching and learning nation-wide, in face-to-face, blended and online modes. She has also joined in different programs of Vietnam’s National Foreign Languages Project to build English language and teacher development resources. Her research interests now consist of teaching methodology, technology in language teaching and learning, curriculum development and evaluation, and teacher professional development. Abstract The questions addressed in this paper are: (1) What do 21st century English teachers need to know and be able to do? and (2) How can technology help teachers to develop? Two initiatives - the development of teacher competency standards, and a project to create competency-based, blended (online and face-to-face) teacher development for Vietnam’s public school English teachers - are described. Online sources are recommended, and implications for Laos are discussed. Introduction There are an estimated 80,000 public school English teachers in Vietnam, many of them in remote areas. Ongoing teacher professional development is an important concern for the Vietnamese government and its National Foreign Language 2020 Project (NFL2020). In order to address this issue, Vietnam has been asking two questions since 2008. These questions are:

1. What do 21st century English teachers need to know and be able to do? 2. How can technology help teachers to develop?


49

In answer to the first question, the country’s first subject-specific teacher standards, the English Teacher Competencies Framework were developed. In answer to the second, blended (online and face-to-face) teacher development curriculum and courses for the country’s public school English teachers, the Blended Teacher Development Project, were created. In this paper, we will examine these two questions using lessons from Vietnam to explore what Lao English teachers need to know and be able to do, and how technology can help teachers to take charge of their professional development using online resources. What English Teachers Need to Know and Do One of the main answers to the question “What do 21st century English teachers need to know and be able to do?” was the development of Vietnam’s first subject-specific teacher standards, the English Teacher Competencies Framework (ETCF). The ETCF was approved by Vietnam’s Ministry of Education and Training in December 2012. (MOET, NFL2020, 2013). Full copies of both the in-service and preservice ETCF are under the ETCF tab at nfl2020forum.net. The ETCF is a “situated” framework of teacher learning, meaning that teacher learning occurs in the practice and context of teachers’ work. The ETCF is made up of five domains:

- Knowledge of language (subject matter), - Knowledge of teaching (methodology), - Knowledge of learners, - Professional attitudes and values distributed through all the domains, and - Learning in and from practice and being informed by context. (MOET, NFL2020, 2013)

This framework draws upon both general and English language research literature. It was adapted from frameworks in Ball and Cohen (1999) and Bransford, Darling-Hammond and LePage (2005) and used in research on language teacher education and development in Africa (Dudzik, 2008, 2009). The competencies are informed by international and local teacher standards, particularly the TESOL-NCATE Teacher Standards, the American Council of Teachers of Foreign Language Standards (ACTFL, 2002), the Australian Teacher Standards (2009), a Hue University-World Bank English teacher standards project (Hue University & World Bank, 2010), and Vietnam’s general teacher standards. Domain 1, Knowledge of Language, details the kind of subject-matter knowledge EFL teachers need to know and be able to teach. This knowledge includes teachers’ own English proficiency, their understanding and use of the language system (pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar), their understanding of how languages are learned (second language acquisition), and their ability to use cultural and academic knowledge in their teaching (MOET, NFL2020, 2013). Domain 2, Knowledge of Teaching, deals with teaching methodology. This domain includes competencies about teaching the four skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing), assessing language learners, and using technology in the language classroom (MOET, NFL2020, 2013).


50

Domain 3, Knowledge of Learners, has to do with teachers’ knowledge of learner development and motivation. Competencies also include teachers’ understanding of learners’ values and prior learning (which affect how they respond to new classroom activities) and using 21st century soft skills such as creativity and critical thinking in the language classroom (MOET, NFL2020, 2013). Domain 4, Professional Attitudes and Values, is made up of competencies that should be applied across the domains. These competencies include professionalism, life-long learning, collaboration and teamwork (MOET, NFL2020, 2013). Domain 5, Teaching in and from Practice and Being Informed by Context represents the practice and context of language teaching. Competencies include connections to learning beyond the language classroom, and teacher reflection on classroom practice. The “situated” nature of this framework of teacher learning recognizes that effective teacher learning is connected to teachers’ classroom practice and realities and the social and cultural contexts in which they teach (MOET, NFL2020, 2013). Vision of a Well-Equipped Teacher The vision of the ETCF, at the center of the five domains, is a well-equipped teacher. Well-equipped teachers are not “teaching machines” as we say in Vietnam. They are not teachers who use the textbook as a “script”, but teachers who are able to make professional judgements, innovate, apply new knowledge, and adjust their teaching to specific student needs (MOET, NFL2020, 2013). This vision is what Bransford, Darling-Hammond and LePage (2005) call “adaptive expertise” (p.49), the gold standard of teacher development. How Technology can Help Teachers Develop Technology plays the role of a supporter that enhances teacher development in all five domains of the ETCF. In language learning, technology is very much part of this domain throughout the world at different levels. Teachers are not exceptions. Technology can help teachers maintain and develop their English proficiency. In Vietnam, teachers often lose some of their own English proficiency after several years of teaching at K-12 levels. This is especially true in remote areas where teachers do not have many opportunities to use the language. Technology can be a resource for teachers to improve their own listening and reading proficiency. Technology can also help teachers innovate in the classroom and make their jobs more motivating and interesting, and possibly even easier. Various digital resources and tools can help teachers to improve their teaching methodology, lesson planning, conducting language lessons, and assessing students. In order to learn about how to use technology in teaching, we recommend two of the many resources that are available. These are:

1. Centre for Learning & Performance Technologies website. This website reviews online tools and provides a directory that teachers can access via the links. It also ranks the top 100 and top 200 technology tools that are valuable and useful within primary and secondary education, colleges and universities, as well as for as adult education (http://c4lpt.co.uk/); and

2. Microsoft’s Educator Community website. At this site, teachers can find free courses to learn about technology tools and technology-assisted teaching. They


51

can also connect and share with other educators and join Microsoft’s programs to connect their class to the world (https://education.microsoft.com/).

In regard to Domain 3, Knowledge of Learners, teachers now often work with students who are digital natives (Prensky, 2001). This means that our students are often native speakers of the digital language of computers, video games and the internet. With technology, teachers can motivate learners by using digital tools and materials in the classroom, letting students create their own digital works or bringing real-world learning to their classrooms. Some of the resources we recommend that Lao teachers explore include Web 2.0 tools such as:

1. Class Dojo (https://www.classdojo.com) This is a communication app for the classroom that connects teachers, parents, and students who use it to share photos, videos, and messages through the school day;

2. Storybird (https://storybird.com) This a “platform for writers, readers, and artists of all ages” that allows visual stories to be made in a short period of time; and

3. Skype (https://www.skype.com) This is an app with text, voice and video communication functions that make it simple to share experiences with the people wherever they are.

In addition to using technology in their classrooms, teachers can use technology to take charge of their own lifelong learning and professional development through social networking and MOOCs (massive open online courses). With MOOCs such as Coursera, Future Learn, EdX, and Canvas, teachers can study for free or pay to have more courses or to get paper certificates. For example, a search of the Coursera website (https://www.coursera.org/) for “teaching English” shows 414 courses. However, these courses may be written for native speakers of English, so in some settings it may be better to explore one of these courses with the support of a local group of teachers and a local facilitator. In addition to MOOCs, social networking tools such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn can give teachers opportunities to share and learn from one another, forming communities of practice (CoP) based on common interest. A regional example is VietCALL on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/groups/VietCALL/), the CoP of Vietnamese teachers of English who are passionate in applying technology in language teaching. Vietnam’s Blended Teacher Development Nationally, Vietnam has a big challenge to provide ongoing, high-quality professional development for its 80,000 public school English teachers. In 2016-2017, Vietnamese teacher trainers from three universities developed a three-level curriculum for teachers at different levels of competency. In the BTD curriculum, “basic teachers” are still developing competency in different areas, “proficient” teachers are competent in specific areas, and “advanced” level teachers are able to coach other teachers in specific areas (ULIS/VNU, 2016). The vision of the BTD project is to mobilize teacher change through contextual, practical, accessible ETCF-based professional development. Mobilizing teacher change happens through access to professional development online via computers and mobile devices as well as through face-to-face training. This professional development is linked to competency-based curriculum. Teacher change and competency is assessed through performance tasks rather than tests. The goal is to create blended and online short courses


52

that are accessible to teachers in remote areas, that are practical rather than theoretical, and that reflect the realities of Vietnamese teachers’ classroom contexts. Implications for Lao Teacher Development Vietnam and Laos share similar contexts of English teaching and learning, and lessons from one context can be applied to the other. Vietnam’s ETCF can be used as a resource to develop a competency framework for Lao’s English teachers if a framework for teacher competency has not already been developed in Laos. This type of competency framework can be used by the Ministry of Education as well as by teacher education institutions to build teacher development programs, improve preservice teacher training curriculum, identify inservice teachers’ needs, and help teachers take ownership of their own learning. Lao teachers can take charge of their own learning through online resources such as those shared in this paper. Communities of practice among teachers interested in using technology for their own English proficiency and for their teaching can be created. Free and low-cost online courses such as those highlighted in this paper can be a starting place. The VietCALL Facebook site can be a regional resource to Lao teachers and a model for locally-organized online communities of practice around teaching and technology. Conclusion This paper has, to some extent, explored the two questions of (1) what 21st century English teachers need to know and be able to do, and (2) how technology can help teachers to develop within Vietnam’s context, with the hope that answers to these two questions can be shared and applied in the similar context of Laos. We are witnessing advances in information and communication technology that should be utilized in education in general and teacher development, including teachers’ self-development. Learning has never been so easy to access by individuals in the digital era, as Tinio (2003) states, “[technology is] a potentially powerful tool for extending educational opportunities, both formal and non-formal, to previously underserved constituencies” (p.6). Laos, like Vietnam, will continue to serve its teachers and learners as it explores how to harness the potential of technology for both teacher development and student learning. References American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) (2002). Program

standards for the preparation of foreign language teachers (INITIAL LEVEL—Undergraduate & Graduate) (for K-12 and Secondary Certification Programs). Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/publicACTFLNCATEStandardsRevised713.pdf.

Australian Department of Education and Training (2009). School teacher qualifications. Retrieved from

http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/74995/School_Teacher_Qualifications.pdf


53

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In J. Bransford & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1-39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dudzik, D. L. (2008). English policies, curricular reforms, and teacher development in multilingual, postcolonial Djibouti. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69, 1652.

Dudzik, D. L. (2009). Professional practitioners with adaptive expertise: Teacher development in Djibouti. In M. Anderson & A. Lazaraton (Eds.), Bridging contexts, making connections: Selected papers from the Fifth International Conference on Language Teacher Education (pp. 109-135). Minneapolis: CARLA.

Hue University & World Bank. (2010). EFL teacher education standards. Unpublished paper. Hue, Vietnam: Hue University of Foreign Languages.

MOET (2008). Government Decision 1400. Hanoi, Vietnam: Ministry of Education and Training.

MOET/NFL2020 (2013). Competency framework for English language teachers: User’s guide. (K. Tran, Ed.). Hanoi: Vietnam Education Publishing House.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants (part 1). On the horizon 9(5), 1-6. Retrieved from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/1074812011042481 TESOL (2010). TESOL/NCATE standards for the recognition of initial TESOL

programs in p-12 ESL teacher education. Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/bin.asp?CID=219&DID=13040&DOC=FILE.PDF

Tinio, V. L. (2003). ICT in Education. e-ASEAN Task Force. Retrieved February 14, 2017 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/unpan/unpan037270.pdf.

ULIS/VNU. (2016). Blended teacher development curriculum. Unpublished paper. Hanoi, VN: University of Languages and International Studies/Vietnam National University.


54

Emotions in the Classroom? Neuroscience Findings on the Importance of Emotion & Student Learning Jason Gold Kwansei Gakuin University Biodata Jason D. Gold, is from Philadelphia, and has been teaching in Japan for the past seven years. He holds an M.A. in TESOL from Arizona State University and dual B.A. degrees in Economics and International Relations from Drexel University. He currently teaches at Kwansei Gakuin University near Osaka in Japan. His research interests include neuroscience/educational psychology applications and its practical use for classroom teaching. He is an active researcher and presenter, and has recently presented in Laos, Kyrgyzstan, South Korea, Indonesia and Korea. His hobbies include watching NFL football and movies, reading, hiking and travel. Abstract Over the past few decades, thanks largely in part to improvements in brain-imaging technology, the field of neuroscience has made enormous progress in our knowledge of how the brain works and how we learn. Only recently, however, have the implications of these results been gradually incorporated by teachers in actual classroom learning. Drawing from recent research in this field, this paper will explain the surprisingly crucial (and often overlooked) role that emotion plays on student motivation, learning, and retention. First, a brief history of the role of emotion in the classroom from past to present will be given. Next some key terms regarding the structure of the brain and what kind of learning the brain prioritizes will be explained, followed by how and why negative emotions hinder learning, and conversely, why positive emotions help students learn better. To conclude, practical tips will be given that educators of students of any age/ability level can take back and begin to implement in their own classrooms right away. Introduction Over the past few decades, thanks largely in part to improvements in brain-imaging technology, the field of neuroscience has made enormous progress in our knowledge of how the brain works and how we learn. Only recently, however, have the implications of these results gradually begun to be incorporated by teachers in actual classroom learning. Drawing from recent research in this field, I will explain the surprisingly crucial (and often overlooked) role that emotion plays on student motivation, learning, and retention. Part 1: Past to Present - Emotions in the Classroom In the past, acknowledging emotion in the classroom was uncommon. Emotions tended to be viewed as a distraction to education. The classroom was a place of learning, and the teacher’s focus was on covering the vast information in their curriculum, so there was little time (or desire) to deal with students’ emotional development. The general mindset was that students should simply “act like adults” (Sousa, 2010), and the ‘proper’ learning behavior for students was to sit quietly at their desks, do what they were told by the


55

teacher without questioning why, and report back memorized facts on tests (Willis, 2010). Fortunately, this view has been changing over the past several decades as psychologists and researchers have begun to discover the importance of emotion on attention and learning. Too little interest, and students are unmotivated; too much, and they become unable to sit still and pay attention. In the 1980s, linguist and educational researcher Steven Krashen dubbed the term affective filter to explain the higher success rate of learners with low stress compared with the lower language acquisition for learners with high stress. He explained that anxiety and low self-image created a mental block that filtered out new learning, and that “…the best [teaching] methods supply comprehensible input in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear” (Krashen, 1982). Students can get into a stressed state when a lesson is confusing or too difficult, but if students are comfortable in their learning environment their attention and memory are improved. In more recent years, thanks to the advance of brain-imaging technology (fMRI, EEG, etc.) researchers have been able to scientifically discover the physical structure in the brain that correlates to Krashen’s affective filter, the amygdala (Pawlak et al, 2003). Such brain-imaging studies show how stress and pleasure influence the way the brain filters sensory input. For students who are in a stressed state, the information they are learning does not get through their amygdala to the higher thinking and memory centers of the brain, and thus does not get associated with previous knowledge or experience and stored for later recall effectively (Willis, 2006). Neuroscience findings have also shown us how the varying pace of brain development helps explain the emotional behavior (and misbehavior) of children and adolescents. In a longitudinal study of brain growth using imaging technology, Giedd et al. (1999) revealed that the emotional areas of the brain are fully developed by about age ten to 12, but the regions responsible for rational thought and control of those emotions does not mature until the early 20s. In another study, MRIs between people aged 9 to 17 and 20 to 40 years old were compared. Results showed that the younger group processed emotions and instructions more in the amygdala, where we process emotions, whereas the older group processed the same activities more in the frontal lobe, where we process logical reasoning (Hotz, 1998). While these findings do not excuse youth misbehavior, they do explain some biological reasons for it and suggest there are more appropriate interventions than, “You should have known better” (Sousa, 2010, p. 16). These and other neuroscience findings continue to highlight the connection between emotions, social behavior, and decision making, and have the potential to revolutionize our understanding of education. In short, emotions affect how and what students learn, and it is important for instructors to understand and utilize this knowledge to maximize students’ learning. Part 2: Understanding the Brain - Information Priority, Emotions, and Learning We now know that emotional events are remembered with greater accuracy and vividness than events lacking an emotional component, but why is this true? Information enters our brain through our five senses: sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste. At every moment of the day we are immersed with information collected by these senses. “Our brain takes in more information from our environment in a single day than


56

the largest computer does in a year” (Sousa, 2010, p. 45). As amazing as our brain is though, it is not equipped to process all this sensory information. Three major brain elements help control what information the brain takes in: the reticular activating system (RAS), the limbic system (amygdala, hippocampus, etc.), and lastly, chemicals, such as neurotransmitters and hormones. These act as a screening process of filters (the sensory register) which passes along only information the brain believes is necessary, while ignoring everything else collected by our senses. These filters are what protect it from becoming overloaded. Once past this sensory register, the data are then sent to the relevant area(s) of our brain depending on what kind of information it is: data affecting survival, data generating emotions, or data for new learning. The Gatekeeper of Survival: The Reticular Activating System (RAS) The first level for incoming sensory information is the reticular activating system (RAS), which focuses on our survival. The RAS is a primitive network of cells located in the brain stem, the part of the brain we have in common with most other animals. It is always scanning through all the incoming sensory information for threats. If there is one, the RAS releases adrenaline throughout the brain, which shuts down all unnecessary activity in order to direct the brain’s attention to the source of the threat in order to deal with it efficiently (Sousa, 2006). This was an invaluable survival mechanism for our ancestors living out in the wild, who had to constantly be on the lookout for threats in the environment, such as dangerous predators. However, in the classroom environment this is not so ideal. In the classroom, things like physical violence from bullies or classmates, or even an overbearing or strict teacher can cause the RAS to perceive a threat. If this happens, a student’s brain gets flooded with adrenaline, which physically interferes with their focus and learning. During stress or fear, the RAS filter gives preference to sensory input considered relevant to the threat, at the expense of sensory input regarding the lesson (Shim, 2005). This means that unless the perception of threat is reduced, the student’s brain will be focused solely on protecting the individual from harm (at the expense of processing the class content). “Oftentimes students are criticized for not paying attention in class, when in fact they may simply not have their RAS attuned to what their teachers think is important” (Willis, 2010, p. 51). Therefore, for optimal learning, students need to feel physically safe, as well as have their mental well-being fostered.

The Gatekeeper of Emotion: The Amygdala If the sensory information is not an immediate threat, it passes the RAS and is sent to the next gatekeeper, the amygdala. The amygdala is part of our limbic system, located right above the brainstem (RAS). It is also connected to our hippocampus, which is very important because it is the part of the brain that stores information we receive into our long-term memory. The amygdala’s job is to scan the incoming sensory data and process it for emotions. To our ancestors, emotions also played an important part in our survival. Emotionally-charged moments were usually important events that the brain had to ensure it remembered for next time. Depending on the emotion, the amygdala can either help or hinder the learning and retention of new information. If we experience negative emotions like anxiety, stress, or boredom, our amygdala uses excessive amounts of the brain’s available nutrients and


57

oxygen. Similar to the RAS, this puts our brain into survival mode and blocks off entry of any new information, so the brain can focus on the threat causing the negative emotions. “The brain also releases hormones that stimulate the amygdala to signal brain regions to strengthen memory of the emotional event. Strong emotions shut down conscious processing during the event while enhancing our memory of it” (Sousa, 2006, p. 47). This is why when we feel strong emotions they can often completely overcome our rational thought, leaving us feeling frozen in place. Biologically the brain shuts down complex processes for survival-related fight or flight reactions only, which leaves us unable to process higher level thinking quickly. However, if students are in a positive emotional state stress levels are down, and the amygdala can strongly assist in our learning and retention of new information. Researchers believe that the amygdala includes an emotional message (if one is present) whenever a memory is bookmarked for long-term storage. If this happens, whenever the encoded memory is remembered later the amygdala is activated and the emotional content is remembered as well. “The interactions between the amygdala and the hippocampus ensure that we remember for a long time those events that are important and emotional. It is intriguing to realize that the two structures in the brain mainly responsible for long-term remembering are located in the emotional area of the brain (Sousa, 2006, p. 19). Students need a certain amount of comfort when learning. When this occurs, students “show better working memory, improved verbal fluency, better episodic memory for events, and more flexible thinking yielding creative ideas for problem solving. They even show more positive social behaviors” (Willis, 2006, p. 24). Therefore, emotions play a key role in helping or hindering new learning and memory storage. In order for the information being taught to even be considered for processing by students’ brains, it needs to get through their RASs and amygdala. It is not until the brain has determined that there is no danger (physical or emotional) can new information (classroom learning) actually begin to have a chance to be learned. If students feel stressed, effective learning will not occur until their brains have calmed down. However, if stress levels are down and emotion has been attached to the new information, information stands a much stronger chance of being prioritized and remembered by our brain. For these reasons, our students’ mood and emotions are critical for learning. Chemicals and Learning: The Neurotransmitter Dopamine and the Hormone Cortisol Neurotransmitters are brain chemicals that communicate messages throughout our brain and body. They pass signals between nerve cells, called neurons. This transmission is crucial to the brain’s capacity to process new information. The brain can produce around 30 different kinds of neurotransmitters, and depending on which ones are released and in what quantity, they can have helpful or adverse effects on our brain and body. Regarding emotions and learning, the neurotransmitter dopamine plays a key role. Dopamine is one of the brain’s most important neurotransmitters because our brain releases it when an experience is enjoyable. Dopamine not only increases our sense of pleasure, but also increases other helpful neurotransmitters that enhance alertness and memory, as well as motivation. “Engaging students in learning activities that correlate with increased dopamine release will likely get them to respond not only with pleasure, but also with increased focus, memory, and motivation” (Willis, 2010, p. 54).


58

However, a drop in dopamine is associated with negative emotions. Dopamine influences how we feel when we get an answer right or if we make a mistake. There is a physical desire in our brain to get correct answers, since more dopamine is released and we feel better. This relates to the importance of immediate feedback and self-correction after a mistake has been made. Teachers should pursue activities that keep dopamine levels high, and that allow students to feel pleasure and joy at making predictions, fixing their own mistakes, and pursuing self-improvement. While dopamine is released in the body in positive situations, a hormone called cortisol is released in negative situations. Cortisol travels throughout the brain and body and activates defense behaviors, such as fight or flight. In survival mode, and in small amounts, cortisol can be life-saving because it helps regulate body functions in the moment. Frontal lobe activity, where higher thinking occurs, is reduced to allow the brain to focus on the cause of the stress and how to deal with it (Sousa, 2006). However, if the stress is too severe or goes on for too long, the body continues to release cortisol, which adversely affects our hippocampus, the part of the brain involved in many aspects of learning. In such cases, cortisol disconnects our brains neural networks, which stores our memories. It also prevents the hippocampus from creating new neurons, and in extreme cases, it can even kill such brain cells. All of this results in less attention and learning. “Stressed students don’t do math very well, don’t process language very efficiently, they have poorer memories, both short and long forms, and they can’t concentrate well” (Medina, 2008, pp. 177-178). Stress also hurts declarative memory (things you can state) and executive function (problem solving), which are the skills most needed in the classroom. However, having some stress (in the form of moderate challenge) actually allows us to solve problems more effectively and be more likely to retain information, because even slightly stressful experiences get marked as important by our brain for quicker recall if needed. To summarize how our brain prioritizes and processes information,

1. First, the new information enters our body through our senses and goes through a sensory filter.

2. Next, the reticular activating system (RAS) and limbic system (amygdala) scan the incoming data for survival threats and emotions, and get the rest of the brain ready to respond to these sensory inputs.

3. If there is a threat, cortisol and adrenaline are produced, causing the front part of our brain (used for higher thinking and needed for new learning) to shut down so our brain can focus on the threat. New learning is greatly hindered while in ‘threat mode.’

4. However, if there is an ideal amount of comfort and/or stimulation, the new information gets past the filters, memory circuits are engaged, and dopamine and other chemicals are released in ideal quantities.

5. From here, the information is passed along memory circuits and connects with previously stored memories and personal experiences to form relational memories and patterns, which results in what we know as learning and retention (Willis, 2006).


59

Part 3: Practical Advice - Harnessing Emotions in the Classroom Emotions are a powerful and misunderstood force in the classroom. They play an important role in supporting or inhibiting learning, as well as in forming one’s ‘self-concept,’ or the way we view ourselves (positively or negatively) in the world. Our self-concept is shaped by our past experiences, the failures and successes we have experienced and what caused them. Hence it is crucial teachers understand this importance of emotions and stress, because before students can turn their attention to cognitive learning, they need to feel physically safe and emotionally secure (perceive that teachers respect them and care about their success) in their school environment (Sousa, 2006). The following are some ways teachers can effectively harness emotions in the classroom for improved student learning. Avoid high-stress teaching practices and classroom environments Despite good intentions, some teachers use fear of punishment or other high stress teaching methods to achieve desired behavior in their students. Research has shown these methods to not be very effective over time, since a stressed student`s brain goes into ‘survival mode,’ where learning is biologically hindered to focus resources on the perceived threat (in this case the teacher). Too often, teachers deal with student withdrawal in the classroom the wrong way, by re-teaching the material, usually slower and louder. This is rarely successful, since it’s not addressing the problem at the source. The better intervention is to deal with the learner’s emotions in order to convince their brains things are fine, and allow the information to be passed along. The learner must believe that participating in the learning situation will produce new successes rather than repeat past failures... Self-concept determines how the individual will respond to almost any new learning situation. Recognizing this connection gives teachers new insight on how to deal with reluctant learners (Sousa, 2006). Some ways for teachers to help lower student stress are:

• Smile and laugh often. If the teacher is relaxed and stress-free, this goes a long way to helping relax students as well.

• Get to know about your students’ lives and show you care about them and their learning. Learning about your students on a personal level (their interests, hobbies, successes, challenges, and stresses) will show them that you value them as a person and are sincerely interested in their education. This will help lower their stress and affective filter and allow class content to pass unhindered through the brain’s gatekeepers.

• Use scaffolding. Scaffolding is support given during the learning process that is tailored to the specific needs of the students to help them achieve their learning goals. Oftentimes we have classrooms that consist of students of varying backgrounds and ability levels. It is impossible to teach all students one way without having the content be too difficult or too easy for some. Instead, scaffolding offers various ways to adapt learning to each individual student’s level. Some ways to do this include using visuals, graphic organizers, and realia, incorporating more modeling/gesturing, and using students’ L1 to clear up miscommunication or misunderstandings

• Use less ‘cold-calling’. This is every student’s worst fear, being called on by the teacher in front of all their classmates, not knowing the answer, and either getting


60

chastised by the teacher or embarrassed in front of their classmates. Instead, utilize more pair, group, or whole-class activities to reduce stress so students can focus less on how they think others are viewing them and more on the learning. Ask pairs or small groups for the answer instead of individuals to share the burden, or even use whole-class response strategies.

Foster moderate-stress classrooms, and utilize strict but ‘warm’ teaching Studies have shown that the most successful learning is not with activities that are too difficult or too easy, but with those that involve moderate stress and an ‘achievable challenge.’ This kind of stress “stimulates curiosity and engagement in lessons so the amygdala, tuned to just the ideal state of activation, can enhance the speed and efficiency of information flowing through into the memory storage areas of the brain” (Willis, 2006). Teachers should strive for lessons that push and challenge, while still providing scaffolding and comprehensible input to ensure students can successfully complete the tasks. Furthermore, if the teacher is enthusiastic and caring, learning is enhanced. “Neuroscientific evidence shows that warm, responsive relationships and interactions between the teacher and students help them to learn and to self-regulate their emotional behavior” (Rose et al., 2014). This is because learners are assisted in moving their thinking activity into the higher brain regions (the frontal cortex), where reflective activity and abstract thinking take place, and neurotransmitters like dopamine are stimulated. If a teacher is caring, encouraging, and offers enthusiasm balanced with an optimal learning environment, this leads to greater learning (Cozolino, 2002). Yet, teachers should also have high expectations for their students, and be strict about such expectations and established classroom and behavioral rules. However, it is crucial to follow this up with making sure students know it is because we care about them and want to succeed that we are being strict. Use Humor Teachers can also help their students by introducing and using humor when possible, as it offers a wide variety of positive physiological, psychological, sociological, and educational benefits. Laughter provides more oxygen to the bloodstream, which the brain needs for fuel. It releases chemicals called endorphins in the blood, which make us feel good. Finally, humor also helps to decrease stress, blood pressure, relax muscle tension, and it even boosts our immune system, which helps to maintain health. In the classroom as well, humor has many educational benefits. It can help create a positive classroom climate and foster bonding between classmates, and also between students and the teacher. This is conducive to learning, since happy students learn better and tend to listen to and respect their teachers and classmates more. It also increases retention and recall, since the amygdala uses emotions to help the brain remember information. Lastly, it can provide an effective disciplinary tool. Instead of getting angry at students if they do something wrong, some light joking and humor instead can remind them of the rules without raising the tension in the classroom (Sousa, 2006). Introduce novelty as much as possible in the classroom The brain’s gatekeepers focus on incoming information that is a threat to our survival. Those same gatekeepers’ diligence can be harnessed for learning if the incoming


61

information is primed in a positive way. The RAS and amygdala are particularly receptive to novelty (things that are new, original, or unusual) and change associated with pleasure, and to sensory input about things that arouse curiosity. Therefore, teachers should find ways to introduce novelty (things that are new, original, or unusual) into their class and lesson as much as possible.

• Change the classroom environment, such as the layout of the desks or posters on the wall.

• Change classroom routines, such as the activities you do or when you do them. • Change student’s seats on a regular basis. New seats give students practice

working with various students at varying levels of ability, which helps with emotional development, self-reflection and motivation.

• Change student partners often. • Alternate between doing some activities standing and some sitting. In addition

to changing student seats each class, about every 20 to 30 minutes teachers should get students into new pairs/groups and have them work on an activity standing up in some different part of the classroom. This keeps things fresh and novel, and also re-energizes students and keeps them from sitting too long and becoming sleepy.

Some other ways to get students to pay attention to something is to: • Mark key points using different colors (chalk, markers, highlighters,

PowerPoint color). Marking key points in different colors draws both teachers’ and students’ attention to things they should focus on more clearly and easily.

• Vary the font and size of materials. The different font style or size breaks the monotony of what students see, and allows their brains to refocus.

• Ask students to make predictions. Studies have shown that predictions lead to increased student interest, learning and retention. Predictions should be asked before the start of a new lesson (ex. looking at an interesting picture and predicting what is happening or what connection to the lesson), during a lesson (e.g., while reading aloud stop after several paragraphs, pages, etc. and have students predict what they think will happen next), and after a lesson (e.g., ask what will happen to the novel characters in the future or what lesson they think will follow this one)

• Give students choices whenever possible. Choice has survival value, because making choices puts the responsibility on the student to evaluate actions to bring about a desired outcome. Having a choice is empowering and leads to higher student motivation. Student choice can be anything from offering a choice of assignment style, essay questions, seats, partners, novels, etc.

Make Learning Emotional Most important to remember is that events that trigger emotions are better remembered than neutral events. They persist longer in our memories, and are recalled with greater accuracy than neutral memories. “Students are much more likely to remember curriculum content in which they have made an emotional investment” (Sousa, 2006). Hence, whenever possible teachers should find ways to make learning emotional.


62

Some ways to do this are to: • Use emotion-evoking pictures in your lessons. They can be used before a lesson

as a prediction activity for students to figure out what is happening, or they can be embedded throughout a lesson to keep students’ attention or help their understanding. The Internet and Google Images has many pictures for any topic, which make it easy to find relevant and interesting materials for lessons.

• Use intriguing videos related to the class content. Similar to using emotion-evoking pictures, videos are another way to get deeper and more emotionally-invested in a topic. It can be boring to study only using a textbook or PowerPoint lesson, but breaking up the lesson with short, relevant videos is a great way to motivate and interest students. YouTube and various other websites can help with this.

• Find ways to connect the learning to students’ experiences and schemata. Learning is retained and more easily recalled if students make a personal connection to the topic of the learning. Teachers should often include “personal connection” questions that asks students how the assignment topic (e.g., crime, the environment, etc.) connects to them. This can include their own personal experience, that of their family or friends, something they saw in a TV show or movie, or read in a book or newspaper. Connecting the learning topic to students makes it more personal to them, and gives it an emotional element.

Teach students about their own brains Just as it is important for instructors to understand about the RAS, amygdala, and the effect emotions have on learning, it is just as important for our students to know this. Most students have learned little if anything about their brain, how it works, and how learning occurs. By explaining the reasons and science behind why you use certain teaching methods or activities, students will realize the benefit it will have on their learning. This can lead to higher participation and motivation. Conclusion In conclusion, this paper has shown how the brain prioritizes incoming sensory information, and the key role emotions play in this process. When children experience instruction that is founded on brain-based strategies that engage their interests and also reduce stress, they become more successful and happier learners. Superior learning takes place when stress is lowered and learning experiences are relevant to students’ lives, interests, and experiences. Lessons must be stimulating and challenging, without being intimidating … otherwise the stress, anxiety, boredom and alienation that students experience block .... learning (Willis, 2006). Minimizing physical and mental threats, avoiding high-stress teaching methods and environments, and effectively harnessing positive emotions and novelty/curiosity in our students will lead to improved learning, motivation, and retention of information, as well as a happier and smoother running classroom.


63

References Cozolino, L. (2002). The neuroscience of psychotherapy: Building and rebuilding the

human brain (Norton series on interpersonal neurobiology). New York: WW Norton & Company.

Giedd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O., Castellanos, F. X., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., & Rapoport, J. L. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 861-863.

Hotz, R. (1998, June 25). Rebels with a cause. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jun/25/local/me-63475

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon: Oxford.

Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules: 12 principles for surviving and thriving at work, home, and school. Seattle, Washington: Pear Press.

Pawlak, R., Magarinos, A. M., Melchor, J., McEwen, B., & Strickland, S. (2003). Tissue plasminogen activator in the amygdala is critical for stress-induced anxiety-like behavior. Nature Neuroscience, 6(2), 168-174.

Rose, J., Parker, R., Gilbert, L., Gorman, M., & McDonald, J. (2014). An introduction to attachment and the implications for learning and behavior. Nottingham, UK: Queen’s Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Shim, J. (2005). Automatic knowledge configuration by reticular activating system. In L., Wang, K., Chen, & Y. S. Ong (Eds). Advances in Natural Computations (pp. 1170-1178). New York: Springer.

Sousa, D. A. (Ed.). (2006). How the brain learns. California: Sage Publications. Sousa, D. A. (Ed.). (2010). Mind, brain, & education: Neuroscience implications for the

classroom. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press. Willis, J. (2006). Research-based strategies to ignite student learning: Insights from a

neurologist and classroom teacher. Danvers, MA: ASCD Willis, J. (2010). The current impact of neuroscience on teaching and learning. In Mind,

brain, & education: Neuroscience implications for the classroom (pp. 61-62). Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.


64

Formative Online Quizzes: An Investigation into L2 English Learners’ Usage Paul Joyce Associate Professor Department of Law Kinki University Biodata Paul Joyce is an Associate Professor at Kindai University in Osaka, Japan. He is from Britain. He undertook his M.A. (TESL/TEFL) studies at Birmingham University and his Ph.D. (Applied Linguistics) at Surrey University. His research interests include vocabulary acquisition, testing, and second language listening. Abstract This paper describes the introduction of formative e-assessment in a university EFL programme in Japan and explores the resulting patterns of student quiz usage. For this study, 77 Japanese L2 learners of English were provided access to 31 online quizzes over a 15-week period for the purpose of formative assessment. The online quizzes included vocabulary, grammar, conversation, and listening items. The assessments recycled language points covered during the learners’ course of study. The results showed that a large number of quizzes were completed, there was wide variability in student participation, and that while quiz order predicted completion rates, quiz type did not. Furthermore, there was found to be a clear pattern in when the quizzes were completed. This pattern reflected the timing of in-class activities and the grading deadline. The study affirms that the learning benefits and utilization of online learning tools are mediated by course content and student characteristics. As well as providing information on e-assessment in Japan, it is envisaged that the results will be useful to those in Laos wishing to better understand how to implement an online learning programme. Introduction In higher education, the use of online assessment is becoming increasingly prevalent across a wide range of subjects spanning the sciences, social sciences and humanities (Penner, Kreuze, Langsam & Kreuze, 2016). This stems from the belief that computer-based testing can enrich the student learning experience and reduce the administrative burden upon instructors (Gikandi, Morrow & Davis, 2011). However, as the computer-assisted learning context is distinct from that of traditional style study, the way in which students interact with these study materials is also different. Therefore, it is vital that educators carefully consider their approach to online pedagogy so as to support meaningful learning and assessment in the particular circumstances in which they are operating. This point has led to the study reported here on the way in which computer-assisted learning technology was used with a group of Japanese second language (L2) learners of English, and the patterns of student usage that emerged. Assessment is important to the education process because it has a strong impact on learning (Gikandi et al., 2011). Assessment is often divided into two forms: formative and summative. Whilst the aim of summative assessment is to determine whether students have achieved the learning objectives of a course, formative assessment provides


65

information to teachers and students on their progress in reaching these learning objectives. There are a number of benefits that have been ascribed to formative assessment. Firstly, the use of frequent formative testing has been shown to bring about greater continuous study through the duration of a course (Fitch, Drucker & Norton, 1951). Secondly, owing to the feedback received on their homework, formative assessment has been revealed to be an important feedback loop for teachers and students in focusing their efforts upon learning points that have yet to be acquired (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Thirdly, a beneficial testing effect from formative assessment has been revealed. That is, studies have shown that the successful retrieval of information from memory is increased by being tested on learned information in comparison to just restudying it (e.g. McDaniel & Masson, 1985; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). It has been theorised that this is due to effortful retrieval bolstering the strength of the memory trace (Bjork & Bjork, 1992). In recent years, formative assessment and technology have increasingly combined to form what has been termed formative e-assessment (Pachler, Daly, Mor & Mellar, 2010). In comparison to pencil and paper style study, formative e-assessment is considered to have a number of advantages. The first of these relates to feedback. In the educational context, feedback is considered crucial to the development of skills and knowledge acquisition (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik & Morgan, 1991; Corbett & Anderson, 1989). While students traditionally receive information on their homework concurrently, formative e-assessment enables learners to obtain feedback at any time independently. Furthermore, the feedback from e-assessment is immediate. This is important as feedback has been shown to be most beneficial at the time of learning (Wolsey, 2008). Also, since online quizzes can allow multiple fresh attempts, there is a better opportunity for students to learn from their mistakes. This both facilitates acquisition and combats any anxiety that students may feel about having a single opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge (Cassady & Grindley, 2005). In sum, through receiving immediate feedback any time they wish and the opportunity to better learn from their mistakes, online formative assessment has the potential to be more student-centred than traditional methods. Further advantages of formative e-assessment relative to paper-based tasks include its functionality. For instance, digital resources including audio and video can easily be embedded into online materials. For obvious reasons, this is particularly important in the field of L2 learning, the context of this study. In many cases, formative e-assessment can also reduce the opportunity for cheating. As with any form of homework, there is always the prospect of students copying from one another. However, since online quizzes are often accessed through a username and password, and allow the order of test questions and multiple-choice responses to be randomised, they tend to offer enhanced test security in this regard. A further benefit of computerised assessment is its scalability. The same effort is required to deliver online materials for ten students as to develop them for 1000. Lastly, a tremendous advantage of e-assessment to educators lies in automated grading (Candrlic, Katic & Dlab, 2014). As well as eliminating time spent marking homework, student scores can be automatically collated, stored in a single convenient online location, and easily made available to all of the stakeholders in the education process. There are also disadvantages to formative e-assessment. These also need to be taken into account when considering the efficacy and design of online learning materials. Firstly, e-assessment offers the greatest advantages when used with objective questions


66

(Cook & Jenkins, 2010) as this type of item can easily be graded by computers. Thus, online testing is proliferating to the greatest extent in the fields of science, math and languages. Secondly, online learning requires students to have access to computer technology. Thankfully, due to the rapid decrease in the cost of computer equipment, not only is there much greater access to computers facilities on school campuses, but university students can readily connect to the Internet through their smart phones. Thirdly, a lack of computer skills can also hamper e-assessment. However, owing to the growing prevalence of computers, the importance of this drawback is diminishing. Nevertheless, there are clear advantages to introducing e-learning under instructor supervision so as to overcome any initial difficulties. Lastly, for technical reasons, online materials may not always be available to learners. Although web hosts typically provide well over 99.7 percent access to websites on their servers (Labs, 2017), this point may be worth taking into account when considering online resources. Ways to ameliorate this include making the grade weighting for online tasks relatively low, and giving students plenty of time to complete e-assessments. In summary, there are potential advantages to the use of formative assessment in an online environment. However, as has been discussed, the design of the digital resources needs to be considered in light of the course and student characteristics (Oosterhof, Conrad & Ely, 2008; Wolsey, 2008). To provide an example of the application of e-assessment, this study will report on the design and usage of formative online quizzes with Japanese L2 learners of English. Methodology Participants The students in this study were all native Japanese L1 speakers who were enrolled at a university in Japan. All of the 77 participants were second-year non-English majors. At the start of the academic year, the students were routinely placed into three class groups based on their performance on the TOEIC test. They scored between 210 and 535 with an average score of 410.07 (SD = 65.69). As such, the participants could broadly be described as being from a false beginner to an intermediate level. The researcher was the instructor for all of the classes. Course The participants used online formative assessment materials as part of their weekly second semester EFL speaking/listening class. The syllabi and course materials for all of the participants were identical. The course goals included developing the students’ ability to converse fluently about their daily lives, improving their listening skills, and expanding their vocabulary and grammar for communication. The online formative assessment constituted ten percent of the course grading. However, the online quizzes were also excellent preparation for the two mid-term interim assessments which were worth a combined 25 percent, and an end of semester summative assessment that had a 20 percent course weighting. In order to encourage the students to complete the online quizzes, their value as preparation for the above tests was emphasised. It was hoped that this would offset the relatively low proportion of the total grade that the formative quizzes represented. Other components of the course grading were a speaking task (25%), visits to a conversation lounge (10%), and class participation (10%).


67

Materials The content for the formative, interim and summative assessments was drawn from the students’ English language textbook, English Firsthand 2 (Helgesen, Brown & Wiltshier, 2010). During the 15-week study period, the participants covered five units of the textbook. The first interim assessment drew on material from the first two of these units, and the second interim assessment was based on the next two units. The final summative exam was a multiple-choice test that made reference to material from all of the five units and was administered in the last week of the course. The online homework was delivered through the open-source Moodle learning platform (Version 2.8.10, 2016). The students were provided with 31 online quizzes which they accessed through a username and password. For each of the five textbook units that were covered, there were five online quizzes that were based on material from that unit. In addition, there were an additional six quizzes that were derived from material from all five units. In terms of quiz content, there were 13 vocabulary, six grammar, and one conversation quiz. They were each comprised of ten original test items that tested knowledge of the target language in context. There were also 11 listening quizzes which contained between four and eight items. As permission was granted from the publisher, the question content and audio for these questions was drawn from the classroom materials and was available to the students online. All of the quizzes used multiple-choice style questions. The online quiz questions typically had four possible answer choices. There are several advantages to this item format. These include that they can be readily completed on any form of computer device, graded automatically, stabilize access to marginal knowledge (Cantor, Eslick, Marsh, Bjork & Bjork, 2015) and are a favoured technique of assessment by students (Furham, Batey & Martin, 2011). The students could complete each quiz as many times as they wanted. Once a quiz was finished, learners were provided with automated feedback on the answer to each question they had answered. Students were able to complete each test as many times as they wished and were awarded the highest score they attained on each one. There was equal weighting on each of the quizzes. Students were graded based on their average score on all of the 31 quizzes. The online system allowed the students and the teacher to view their overall progress. Procedure The students were notified about the formative assessment in the first week of the course. During the first class meeting, the students were given the opportunity to use their smart phones to access the online materials to ensure they could login to their online accounts and successfully submit their responses. The students were able to complete the homework at any point during the semester. However, aside from the first week of class when they were introduced to the materials and the tenth week when they were given some independent study time, they accessed the quizzes outside of class. The students could access the quizzes on a wide range of Internet-connected devices including PCs, tablets and Macs. However, given that they all had smart phones and this was the device on which they first used the quizzes, it was likely that they mainly accessed the materials through this means. Since the students’ cumulative scores were calculated automatically,


68

minimal administrative effort was required to process the scores. This meant that the deadline for the assignment could be set as the last class of the semester. Results How many quizzes did the students complete? Of the 77 students who had access to the online materials, 75 completed at least one quiz. As can be seen in Table 1, 3371 quizzes were undertaken by the students. The average number of quizzes completed by each student was 43.78 (SD = 19.34) and the number of quizzes completed ranged between 0 and 80. Table 1. Total Number of Quizzes Completed and Repeated Total Mean SD Max. Min. Quizzes completed 3371 43.78 19.34 80 0 Quizzes repeated 1489 21.72 14.67 49 0

In terms of repeating the quizzes, 69 of the students completed an online quiz more than once. Indeed, there were 1489 times when a student repeated a quiz. As shown in Table 1, the participants averaged 21.72 (SD = 14.67) repeated quizzes with a range between 0 and 49. Figure 1 shows how many quizzes each student completed in total and how many of this total were quizzes they had done before. As can be seen below, those students who completed a lot of quizzes in total also appeared to repeat the most quizzes. This trend was confirmed through Pearson correlation analysis (r = .63, p< .001).

Figure 1. Total Number of Quizzes Completed and Repeated by Student How many times were each of the individual quizzes completed? As shown in Table 2, each of the 31 quizzes was attempted 108.74 times on average (SD = 20.12). However, as can be seen by the maximum (166), minimum (74) and standard deviation (20.12) values, there was a wide variation in utilization.

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76

Qui

zzes

com

plet

ed

Student

Total quizzes Repeat quizzes


69

Table 2. Number of Times Each Quiz was Completed Mean SD Max. Min. Quiz completions 108.74 20.12 166 74

What influenced how many times a quiz was completed? Two variables that could explain how many times an individual quiz was completed were hypothesized. The first of these was the order in which a quiz was presented to the students. As mentioned in the methodology section, the learners had access to 31 quizzes. All of these materials were available to the students at the start of the semester. They were displayed in the form of a vertical list and there may have been a tendency for the students to work through them in order. As can be seen in Table 3 and Figure 2, there was some variation in how many times each of these quizzes was attempted.

Figure 2. Number of Times Each Quiz was Completed The second variable that could explain how many times a particular quiz was completed was quiz type. As discussed in the methodology section, the quizzes focused on four different language learning areas. These were vocabulary, grammar, listening, and conversation. It is possible that students could have favoured quiz types that they enjoyed or felt they derived the most benefit from. Table 3. Total Number of Quizzes Completed by Type Mean SD Max. Min. Vocabulary 106.00 18.64 131 74 Grammar 116.67 31.23 166 76 Listening 110.45 12.85 143 92 Conversation 78.00 N/A 78 78

As shown in Table 3, the average usage of the four types of quizzes ranged between 78.00 and 116.67 completions. Within a quiz type, there was the greatest variation in the use of the grammar quizzes which ranged between 76 and 166 (SD = 31.23) submissions.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Tim

es ta

ken

Quiz number


70

To explore this issue further, a multiple linear regression was calculated to predict the number of a times a quiz was taken based on the order in which the quiz was listed and its type. A significant regression equation was found (F(1,28) = 15.07, p < .001), which explained 51.8 percent of the variance (R2 of .52). It was found that while quiz order significantly predicted the number of times a quiz was completed (b = -.73, p < .001), quiz type did not. How did the students perform on the quizzes? As discussed above, 3371 quizzes were taken by the students. The learners averaged 77.53 percent (SD = 29.08) on these tests. As shown in Table 4, on the 1882 occasions when they took a particular test for the first time they averaged 64.18 percent (SD = 31.22). On the 1489 times when a test was repeated, the mean average increased to 94.40 percent (SD = 3.15). Table 4. Quiz Score After First Time and Repeat Completion Mean (%) SD Max. Min. First time 64.18 31.22 100 0 Repeat 94.40 13.15 100 0 Total 77.53 29.08 100 0

What were the students’ overall scores? As discussed above, the students averaged 77.53 percent on the quizzes. However, not all of the students completed all of the quizzes and two of the learners did not attempt any of the online materials. As a result, the students’ average score was 69.61 percent (SD = 33.32). The distribution of the scores is displayed in Figure 3. As shown, there were 31 participants who achieved a perfect score on the homework.

Figure 3. Distribution of Final Scores on Quizzes

0102030405060708090

100

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76

Perc

enta

ge S

core

Students


71

When did the students complete the quizzes? The timing of quiz completion is recorded in Figure 4. As can be clearly seen, participation in the quizzes peaked at the very end of the semester just prior to the summative assessment. In the last two days of the course, the learners collectively completed 883 and 746 quizzes, respectively. There are several other points in the semester when there was a notable uptick in quiz utilization. Firstly, at the first class meeting (day 1), when the students were introduced to the material. On that day, they collectively completed 85 quizzes. The students also engaged in quiz completion in preparation for the interim classes quizzes. On the day before the first class quiz (day 28), they attempted 76 online tests and on the next day they took 253. Similarly, on the day before the second interim classroom quiz (day 56), they did 99 computerized tests and on the day of the classroom test they did 232. There are also peaks in quiz usage when the students were given some class time for free study (day 71), when they submitted 139 quizzes. And they completed 148 quizzes on the day that they were reminded in class that they had one week left to finish their homework (day 92).

Figure 4. Quiz Completion Over Time Discussion As has been discussed, it has been found that the 77 students in the study collectively took 3371 L2 English quizzes with an average of 43.78 completions. Given that the learners were non-English majors and the assignment was only worth ten percent of their total score, usage was considered high. Part of the reason for participation levels could relate to the advantages of online formative assessment that were discussed in the Introduction. These include the opportunity for immediate feedback, the chance to re-attempt quizzes, and their multi-media functionality. However, from investigating when

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99

Qui

zzes

take

n

Course day


72

the students completed the quizzes, it seems likely that usage was also tied to the chance to earn class points. Regarding course content, while the questions in the online quizzes, and the interim and summative tests differed in their form, they overlapped in the material that they assessed. Therefore, as shown in Figure 4, the desire to complete the formative e-assessments in preparation for the interim classroom tests seems the most likely explanation for the spikes in online quiz usage on days 29 and 56. Furthermore, the sudden increase in usage at the very end of the course was likely driven both by wishing to prepare for the summative test and the desire to complete the work before the final deadline. A further notable result from this study was that although the number of quizzes completed was considered high, participation was not evenly distributed. As can be seen in Figure 3, 31 of the 77 students received a perfect score on the homework. Also, as has been discussed, the 31 students who attempted the full range of quizzes were also the ones most likely to repeat quizzes on multiple occasions. In regard to the quizzes that were repeated, the accuracy rate was found to be much higher than the first time that quizzes were taken. This is unsurprising as the students not only naturally learnt from their first encounter with the quiz, but were also provided with the correct answer to the items that they completed incorrectly. The reason for their improved scores on repeated quizzes is thus likely both due to greater knowledge of the target language and simple memorization of the answer. While the former is beneficial to their language acquisition, the latter is likely not. To improve the students’ interaction with the quizzes, consideration will be given to withholding the correct answer to items that are incorrectly completed. A further point that was raised in the results section was the tendency for learners to proceed through the quizzes in the order that they appeared online. Thus, although the learners could have used the e-assessment to focus on their weaknesses or on study material from a particular unit, they tended not to direct their studies in this way. Therefore, quiz selection is an area in which instructors should consider increasing student awareness. Conclusion In summary, formative e-assessment quizzes are becoming increasingly common in higher education. To shed light on the way in which students use such materials, this study has explored how Japanese university L2 learners of English interact with online quiz content. The study has reaffirmed the importance of the relationship between online study materials, and course design and content. Therefore, while online formative quizzes can be a significant tool for educators to help their students learn course content, their effectiveness is mediated by such factors as their overlap with classroom assessment and the opportunity and incentive to submit and resubmit quizzes. Nevertheless, questions remain regarding student affect, the effectiveness of different forms of feedback, and how to encourage greater learner participation. While the research took place at a university in Japan, it is hoped that the results and issues raised in this paper will also have some relevance to teachers and researchers in Laos.


73

References Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The

instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213-238.

Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1992). A new theory of disuse and an old theory of stimulus fluctuation. In A. Healy, S. Kosslyn, & R. Shiffrin (Eds.), From learning processes to cognitive processes: Essays in honor of William K. Estes, Volume 2. (pp. 35- 67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. King’s College, London, United Kingdom.

Čandrlić, S., Katić, M. A., & Dlab, M. H. (2014). Online vs. paper-based testing: A comparison of test results. Proceedings of the 37th International Convention MIPRO 2014, 775-780.

Cantor A. D., Eslick A. N., Marsh E. J., Bjork R. A., & Bjork E. L. (2015). Multiple- choice tests stabilize access to marginal knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 43, 193–205. Cassady, J. C. & Gridley, B. E. (2005). The effects of online formative and summative

assessment on test anxiety and performance. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(1), 1-30.

Cook, J. and Jenkins, V. (2010). Getting started with e-assessment. Project Report. Bath: University of Bath.

Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). Feedback timing and student control in the LISP intelligent tutoring system. In D. Bierman, J. Brueker, & J. Sandberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (pp. 64–72). Springfield, VA: IOS.

Fitch, M., Drucker, A. J., & Norton J. A. Jr. (1951). Frequent testing as a motivating factor in large lecture classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 42, 1-20.

Furnham, A., Batey, M., & Martin, N. (2011). “How would you like to be evaluated? The correlates of students ‘preferences for assessment methods’. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 259-263.

Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of literature. Computers & Education, 57, 2333-2351.

Labs, S. (2017). Is Site5 reliable? Site5 Uptime Stats. Retrieved from http://www.hostbenchmarker.com/site5-stats-uptime-test

McDaniel, M. A., & Masson, M. E. J. (1985). Altering memory representations through retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11, 371-385.

Moodle [Computer software]. (2016). Retrieved from https://moodle.org/ Oosterhof, A., Conrad, R.-M., & Ely, D. P. (2008). Assessing learners online. Upper

Saddle River: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Pachler, N., Daly, C., Mor, Y., & Mellar, H. (2010). Formative e-assessment: practitioner

cases. Computers & Education, 54(3), 715-721. Penner, J., Kreuze, E., Langsam S., & Kreuze, J. (2016). Online homework versus pen

and pencil homework: Do the benefits outweigh the costs? NAAS, 1-9. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests

improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249-255.


74

Wolsey, T. (2008). Efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in an online program. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(2), 311-329.


75

Genre-based Approach to Japanese-to-English Translation Part 1: Genre Theory, Focusing on ESP Shoji Miyanaga Kindai University, Japan Abstract This article provides a brief introduction to genre theory, focusing on English for specific purposes (ESP), and a summary of the first session of my two-part presentation at 2017 LaoTESOL - the second session described the application of genre theory to translation into a non-native language. First, I will introduce the definitions of genre, as well as three schools of genre studies, including ESP. Next, I will discuss how genre theory can aid second language learning in ESP contexts with examples of analysis of authentic academic texts in terms of rhetorical conventions, as well as the genre-based approach that is used in the Japanese-to-English translation course where I teach. Finally, I will explore how genre theory has been and can be applied to research in the fields of applied linguistics and TESOL. Introduction This article gives a brief explanation of the genre theory that underlies the approach to teaching Japanese-to-English translation trainees at a language school in Osaka, Japan. First, I will introduce the definitions of genre, as well as the concepts of three schools of genre studies: Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), New Rhetoric, and English for Specific Purposes (ESP). Next, I will discuss how genre theory can aid second language learning in ESP contexts with examples of analysis of authentic academic texts in terms of rhetorical conventions, as well as the genre-based approach we use in our Japanese-to-English translation course. Finally, I will explore how genre theory has been and can be applied to research in the fields of applied linguistics and TESOL. Definition and Concepts of Genre What is Genre? The term genre is widely used. In applied linguistics, for example, the Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics provides two definitions. One is a definition widely accepted in general: “a category of literary writing, such as tragedy, fiction, comedy, etc.” (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p. 245). The other definition relates to the topic of this paper: “a type of discourse that occurs in a particular setting, that has distinctive and recognizable patterns and norms of organization and structure, and that has particular and distinctive communicative functions” (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p. 245). For the latter definition, the dictionary gives such examples as business reports, news broadcasts, speeches, letters, and advertisements. In applied linguistics, however, “genre” has been a target of research in the following three schools: New Rhetoric, Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), and English for Specific purposes (ESP).


76

Three Schools of Genre Studies The three schools of genre studies evolved during roughly the same period and have dealt with genre in relation to social context, but in different ways. Miller (1984) describes the definition of genre by New Rhetoric as “a rhetorically sound definition of genre must be centered not on the substance or the form of discourse but on the action it is used to accomplish” (p. 151). According to Hyon (1996), New Rhetoric focuses on the situational context and the social purposes rather than on their forms, and therefore research is ethnographic not linguistic, where thick descriptions of academic and professional contexts of the actions are used (p. 696). SFL and ESP focus more attention on language forms than New Rhetoric. SFL posits that register, the central construct for analyzing language, is determined by three key features of the surrounding social context: field (the activity going on), tenor (the relationships between participants), and mode (the channel of communication); and these shape the forms of language (Hyon, 1996). In ESP, which is the concern of this paper, Swales (1990) defined genre as follows: A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes. These purposes are recognized by the expert members of the parent discourse community. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and influences and constrains choice of content and style. Meanwhile, Bhatia (1997) defines genre as follows: Genres are essentially defined in terms of the use of language in conventionalized communicative settings. They are meant to serve the goals of specific discourse communities, and in so doing, they tend to establish relatively stable structural forms and, to some extent, even constrain the use of lexico-grammatical resources in expressing these forms.

Based on these concepts, Noguchi (2003, 2006, 2010) posits that each genre text has its purpose (P) to achieve, audience (A), information (I) to communicate, and language features (L) that are linguistic patterns shared within the same genre. In short, genre is a way of communication, written or spoken, and it is used by a specific discourse community. A genre text has its own social action, substance, or information, and form. Figure 1 illustrates these concepts and PAIL. This idea of PAIL has been used as an approach to Japanese-to-English translation training at the aforementioned language school where my coworkers and I teach and also to teaching writing and reading at some universities in Japan. A genre is a way of communication, by written or spoken texts, that is used by a specific discourse community. A genre text has social action, substance, meaning content, and form. In other words, it has a purpose, audience, information, and language features.


77

Figure 1. The Approach of PAIL to Japanese-to-English Translation. Adapted from Noguchi (2006, 2010). Relation to Second Language Learning Why Genre? Here, I would like to discuss why the concept of genre in the field of ESP is necessary in the teaching and learning of writing and reading. As the world is increasingly globalized, people working after secondary or tertiary education are faced with growth in the amounts of information they must deal with, the need for streamlining operations, and thereby increasing cognitive loads. In such a hectic environment, people lack the time to take lessons to increase their English skills and therefore need to learn by themselves, in other words to become autonomous learners, which requires three elements: attention arousal, or noticing what they are interested in; selective attention, or ignoring what is not needed; and schematic thinking, or using knowledge structures and frameworks to organize information (Noguchi, 2010). Contexts in ESP Lessons in such self-learning for ESP are most likely to happen for non-native speakers of English in university-level education, largely because those students need to master the functions and linguistic conventions of texts that they need to read and write in their disciplines and professions, in other words their future discourse communities (Hyon, 1996). In such ESP classrooms, linguistics is used as a practical tool “to reveal the rhetorical patterning of a genre and its key features” and “to reveal how distinctive patterns of vocabulary, grammar, and cohesion structure texts into stages which, in turn, support the purpose of the genre” (Hyland, 2007, p. 154). Genre-based Approach in ESP ESP researchers suggest that genre serves two pedagogical purposes. One is language program development. For example, Paltridge (2007) explains that it “starts with genre as the overall organizing principle yet still includes other elements, such as grammar, functions, vocabulary, language skills, situation, topics, and communicative tasks, according to the particular genre and the setting in which it occurs”. The other purpose is syllabus design, which “focuses on language at the level of whole text and also takes into

Action

Substance Form

Purpose Audience

Information Language features

Discourse community


78

account the social and cultural context in which the genre is used” (Feez, 1998, as cited in Paltridge, 2007, p. 935). Now let’s look at examples of genre-based approaches to class activities. One is “move analysis” by which the rhetorical structure of a text is identified to help students read, write, and/or translate. This activity provides students with a pattern of ideas that should be put into a text in a specific order and words, phrases, and grammatical usage frequently used to present each idea. Swales (1990) examined introduction sections of science research articles and identified the pattern of their rhetorical structures as follows—Steps of Moves 2 and 3 are omitted for convenience by the author. According to the CARS model, shown below, proposed by Swales (1990), introduction sections of research articles are divided into three moves: establishing a territory, which means identifying the field of the present research; establishing a niche, which means identifying the gap that has not been dealt with in the field and will be examined in the present research; and occupying the niche, which means telling the audience about the present research itself, including presenting the purposes, findings, and structure of the research article.

Figure 2. The CARS Model (Swales, 1990). The other example is “corpus discovery”, which is aimed at helping students discover answers to questions arising during the process of reading, writing and/or translating. A corpus is a collection of texts that belong to a specific genre, and it can be analyzed using a concordance program. By searching a word or phrase with a concordance program in texts of a specific genre, students can help themselves find its meaning, collocation and grammatical usage that are frequently found in the genre (Misaki, Miyanaga, Terui, & Noguchi, 2014). Strengths and Weaknesses of Genre-based Teaching Genre-based approaches to teaching, such as “move analysis” and “corpus analysis”, help learners learn what they need to know, and they are characterized by the explicitness in that they provide a framework for learners to draw on (Paltridge, 2007). Meanwhile, learners may find difficulty identifying the genre’s characteristic features, because genre-based approaches to teaching use authentic texts, which are often of higher levels in vocabulary and grammar than the proficiency levels of students. Another weakness is the schema of teachers. Genre knowledge involves social and cultural knowledge, and teachers, especially non-native speaking ones, are not always familiar with these types of knowledge (Paltridge, 2007). This is not always a weakness, because teachers may not

Introductions of research articles

ò Move 1 Establishing a territory

ò Step 1 Claiming centrality and/or

ò Step 2 Making topic generalization(s) and /or

ò Step 3 Reviewing items of previous research

ò Move 2 Establishing a niche

ò Move 3 Occupying the niche


79

always be an expert in their students’ fields of interests. However, some teachers, especially those who are not familiar with genre-based approaches, feel uncertainty that is caused by the lack of schema in the field. Application to Research Development of academic English courses involves the following steps: identification of a discourse community through ethnographic research; evaluation and validation of instructional materials and advice; discourse analysis of genre texts; and establishing teaching methodology, in other words language-learning tasks (Swales, 1990, p. 69). Among these steps, research on genre-based approaches to teaching can be focused on discourse analysis of genre texts. Such studies include, for example, sales promotion letters, job applications, research article abstracts and introductions, and legal language, which were all examined in Bhatia (1993), audit reports (Flowerdew & Wan, 2010), science review articles (Noguchi, 2006), as well as analyses of students’ writings (Cheng, 2007) and translations (Károly, 2012). Conclusion This article provided a brief introduction to genre theory that underlies genre-based approaches to teaching Japanese-to-English translation, which can also be applied to translation between other languages and second language writing. In second language writing, genre theory enables learners to take part in communication in their own discourse communities. In translation, it enables translators to equip themselves with skills to control linguistic features of the target genre. However, more quantitative and qualitative research is needed to determine the effect of genre-based approaches on teaching and learning, to validate teaching and learning methodology, and to assess learners’ products and achievements (Paltridge, 2007, pp. 938-939). References Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. London:

Longman. Bhatia, V. K. (1997). Genre-mixing in academic introduction. English for Specific

Purposes, 16(3), 181-195. Cheng, A. (2007). Transferring generic features and recontextualizing genre awareness:

Understanding writing performance in the ESP genre-based literacy framework. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 287-307.

Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.

Flowerdew, J., & Wan, A. (2010). The linguistic and the contextual in applied genre analysis: The case of the company audit report. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 78-93.

Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal for Second Language Writing, 16, 148-164.

Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 693-722.


80

Károly, A. (2012). Translation competence and translation performance: Lexical, syntactic and textual patterns in student translations of a specialized EU genre. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 36-46.

Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167. Misaki, A., Miyanaga, S., Terui, M., & Noguchi, J. (2014, March). Corpus Discovery:

Using corpora to raise language awareness in translation training. Paper presentation at the meeting of Second Asian Pacific Corpus Linguistics Conference 2014, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University: Kowloon, Hong Kong.

Noguchi, J. (2003). Teaching ESP writing: OCHA in a CALL class. Cybermedia Forum, 4. Retrieved from http://www.cmc.osaka-u.ac.jp/j/publication/for-2003/index.html

Noguchi, J. (2006). The science review article: An opportune genre in the construction of science. Bern: Peter Lang.

Noguchi, J. (2010). Kogakueigo eno chikamichi [A short-cut to engineering English] ESP with OCHA and PAIL. Retrieved from http://english.fsao.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp/content/ke1/2010/Orientation2010Final040510.ppt

Paltridge, B. (2007). Approaches to genre in ELT. In J. Cummins and C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching, 2, pp. 931–943, New York, NY: Springer.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. (4th ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.


81

Genre-based Approach to Translation Part 2: Application of Genre Theory in ESP Contexts Shoji Miyanaga, Kindai University, Japan Atsuko Misaki Kindai University, Japan Abstract This article describes how we apply genre theory to the Japanese-to-English translation course offered at an English language school in Osaka, Japan. First, we will briefly introduce the basics of the translator trainee course. Next, taking a specific example of e-mail, we will describe the process of our genre-based approach to Japanese-to-English translation. The process involves OCHA (observe, classify, hypothesize, and apply) analysis of the source text in Japanese from the PAIL (purpose, audience, information, and language features) viewpoint, followed by move analysis of target texts of the same genre, corpus analysis using students’ self-created corpora, and in-class discussion with peers and the instructor. Based on the discussion and feedback, students rewrite the assignment. This cycle of genre analysis, move analysis, corpus analysis, in-class discussion, and rewriting of assignment drafts from a variety of genres helps the students develop learner autonomy, which can lead to dealing effectively with real-world translation situations. Introduction For the purpose of presenting some specific examples of how genre theory can be applied to translation to a non-native language, we will describe our Japanese-to-English translation course offered at an English language school in Osaka, Japan. First, we will briefly introduce the student make-up and the class work schedule. Next, taking a specific example of e-mail, which has become one of the essential genres in daily communication, we will describe the process of our genre-based approach to Japanese-to-English translation. The process involves OCHA (observe, classify, hypothesize, and apply) analysis of the source text in Japanese from the PAIL (purpose, audience, information, and language features) viewpoint. This is followed by move analysis of target texts of the same genre and the use of self-created corpora as effective linguistic and learning tools. In addition, in-class discussion with peers and the instructor provides students with an opportunity to address the issues encountered in translating an assignment. Based on the discussion and feedback, students rewrite the assignment in class and later at home. By repeating the cycle of “genre analysis”, “move analysis”, “corpus analysis”, in-class discussion, and rewriting of assignment drafts from a variety of genres, the students develop learner autonomy, which can lead to dealing effectively with real-world translation situations.


82

Japanese-to-English Translator Training Course J-E Translation Training Course The Japanese-to-English translator training course is offered at an English language school in Osaka, Japan. The school offers regular six-month courses and three-week intensive courses. These are mainly interpreter and translator training courses in English, Chinese, and French (Tokyo branch only). The period of one term of the Japanese-to-English translator training course is six months (18 to 19 sessions), and the class size ranges from four to twelve students depending on the term. Students can take as many terms as they like. The proficiency level of students is high, with TOEIC® TEST scores ranging from 730 to 985 and TOEFL® TEST (PBT) scores from 500 to 623. Students are mostly adults in their 30’s through 50’s who are employed in government or private businesses. Some students want to become freelance translators or in-house translators, and others take this course to improve their writing skills for their work. Assignments to be translated at home before each class session are selected from a wide variety of genres and fields. Genres selected include e-mails, press releases, news articles, instruction manuals, CEO messages, legal documents, and environmental policy statements. Fields include business, biotechnology, industry, manufacturing, finance, science, fashion, music, and artificial intelligence. The course work schedule for each class session is as follows. Before each class session, students receive an assignment text by e-mail written in Japanese. At home, they find reference materials, in English and Japanese, for the same field and/or genre of the assignment text, observe the language features, translate the assignment text into English, and send the translation to the school office with comments and any questions they encountered when translating. In the class, students discuss the assignment text, reference materials, and issues that came up at home or in class with peers and the instructor. Based on the discussion and feedback from the peers and the instructor, they rewrite some parts of their own translations in a group and receive comments on the rewrites from the instructor. After the class session, they revise their own translation and send their second drafts to the office by e-mail. The second drafts are corrected by the instructor and sent back to students. PAIL and OCHA Here, we would like to present the concept and approach we use for the course. We posit that every genre text has its own purpose (P), audience (A), information (I), and language features (L), and we call these collectively the PAIL viewpoint. In the course, we encourage students to observe (O) reference materials that belong to the genre of the source text, classify (C) the language features that they found, hypothesize (H) the usage of language features of interest, and apply (A) their findings to translation, collectively called the OCHA approach. The significance of the PAIL viewpoint and the OCHA approach in translation into a non-native language can be explained as follows. Here we call the text to be translated the “source text” or ST for short. The text that the ST is translated into, in our case into English, is called the “target text” or TT for short. The author of a ST of a specific genre and the audience of a TT belong to the same discourse community where its members, with different native languages, are in the same profession or share the same interest.


83

Meanwhile, the translator does not always belong to the discourse community. The translator shares the source language with the author as their native language and also should be proficient in the target language that is commonly used for communication in the discourse community. The translator is, however, not always familiar with the terminology, frequently used phrases, and rhetorical conventions of the genre, which are characteristic of the discourse community, because he/she does not belong to the discourse community. For efficient and effective translation from a ST to a TT, the translator needs to understand four factors (PAIL) of the ST and TT: the purpose, the audience, the information, and the language features, which are determined by the first three factors. The translator produces language features of the genre in the target language through the OCHA approach.

Figure 1. A Model of Translation into a Non-native Language. Adapted from Miyanaga, S., Misaki, A., Terui, M., and Noguchi, J. (2012,). Genre-based Approach: Application Assignment: Response E-mail to a Customer To describe our genre-based approach to translation more specifically, we take e-mail as an example of a genre that is one of the most essential genres in business communication today. The source text of the assignment is an e-mail sent from Customer Service of Amazon Japan in response to an inquiry (more specifically a complaint) received by e-mail from a customer about an order which was not delivered by the scheduled delivery date. On the right in Figure 2 is the e-mail written in Japanese from Amazon that needs to be translated. This ST is rather long for an e-mail. On the left is a brief outline of the content. Apologies are expressed throughout the ST.

Source language

Target language

Translator

Author

Audience

Source text

Target text

Discourse community

OCHA

Genre features

PAIL


84

Figure 2. The Assignment Source Text (right) and its Outline in English (left). Move Analysis Observe: PAIL of source text Now let us examine the ST using the PAIL view and the OCHA approach. First, we observe the PAIL of the ST. The purpose of the e-mail is to inform the customer in a polite manner on the current status of information regarding the customer’s order. The audience is an English-speaking customer who has made an inquiry about his overdue product. The information is the current status of the inventory, subsequent actions to be taken by Amazon, and a gift coupon for the inconvenience experienced by the customer. The language features of an e-mail message of the same genre in the target language are that it is concise and to the point; it basically refers to one subject. When this assignment was discussed for the first time in class, students noticed that there were many apology statements and phrases used throughout the ST. Students also expressed concerns about polite expressions the Japanese used in a situation like this between a customer and a seller. We will focus on these two points here. That is, how do we deal with these culturally distinctive expressions of apology and polite expressions in ST when we translate it into English? The analytical approach of OCHA, various analytical methods of move analysis, and corpus analysis help a translator narrow down choices for coming up with an appropriate and acceptable translation. Looking closer at the ST for apology statements, we encounter nine apology statements or phrases in total.

Brief Outline of the Content

Salutation: Mr. Suzuki

Appreciation for contacting

Apology for the delay

Current status and subsequent action

Further action to be taken if the item is not available.

Further explanation about availability


Gift coupon

How to use the gift coupon

Gift coupon as a token of apology


Determination to provide better customer service and meet customer satisfaction

Closing salutations: Customer Service Staff


85

Figure 3. A Close Look at the Source Text’s Nine Apology Statements. Classify: Moves of target text Let us now consider the characteristics of an e-mail in the target language. After observing appropriate reference materials in the same genre (e-mail) and in the same field (response to a complaint or an inquiry from a customer), it is possible to classify the findings into moves in order as follows: salutation, thanking the customer for writing, referring to the problem and apologizing, giving an explanation for the problem or writing how the situation will be resolved, expressing gratitude for understanding and hopes for continued business, and closing salutations (Barnard & Meehan, 2005). Hypothesize: Toward target text Clearly, there are some differences in moves between the ST and a typical TT. Based on the analysis of moves and expressions used in English texts, it is possible to hypothesize reasonable approaches that will lead the translator to come up with a natural-sounding translation acceptable to the audience or the recipient of this e-mail. Possible hypotheses are shown below:

Hypothesis 1: Based on the moves of a typical response e-mail in English, it is advisable NOT to translate all of the frequently expressed apologies found in the ST.

1

23 4

5

6

7

8

9


86

Here arises Question 1: Which apology statements in the ST should remain, and which ones should be taken out in the TT? Hypothesis 2: Instead of directly translating the polite Japanese expressions into English, it is advisable to use polite English expressions typically used in the context of apology. Here arises Question 2: What are frequently used polite expressions in English?

To answer Question 1, we compare moves of the ST and the TT. To answer Question 2, we use corpus analysis to observe the TT closely. Question 1: Which apology statements in the ST should remain? As a result of an observation of reference materials in the target language, it was found that an apology is typically expressed at the beginning and is not repeated in other parts of the text. Now, let’s see how the students applied their findings to their first and second drafts. Apply: Target texts of Student A and Student B As this e-mail is relatively long, it was divided into two parts and given out as two assignments: Part 1 and Part 2. This means that students had a chance to discuss the issues in class and do a re-write of Part 1 before doing the first draft of Part 2. There were two students who submitted rewrites for both of the assignments. Let us look at how each student dealt with the issue of apology statements. Translating this assignment for the first time, Student A translated five out of six apology statements in Part 1 of the e-mail. Student A followed the content of the ST closely, not being aware of language features in the target language. However, after going through the cycle of translating, discussing in class, and rewriting Part I, Student A did not translate the apology statements -- four in the ST, in Part 2 into the target text in his first draft. In his second draft, he reduced the number of apology statements from five down to two in Part 1. This is in keeping with the moves of the target reference texts. However, as for the second draft of Part 2, he brought back two apology phrases into the translation. When we did an in-class rewrite, apology statements/phrases were taken out. So, it seems that he was trying out other ways of translating. He wrote in his comment on the second draft of Part 2, “My rewrite is different from the one done in class, but please look it over.” Phrases he used were, “As our sincerest apology” and “as an apology.” It did come up in the in-class discussion that despite the moves of the target language, some students felt it important to convey the nuances of apology frequently expressed in Japanese culture.

Student B translated three out of six apology statements in Part 1 of the e-mail and one out of six apologies in Part 2. She observed the moves of the target-language e-mail and applied them to her first draft. In her second draft, she reduced the number of apology statements from three to two for Part 1. She did not make any change in Part 2. This is in keeping with the moves of reference materials in the target language. There are altogether three apology statements in the TT compared to nine in the ST. She made quite a reduction, but as an English text, it sounds natural and conveys the main points of the e-mail.


87

There is no right or wrong answer to Question 1, “Which apology statements in the ST should remain, and which ones should be taken out in the TT?” Of five students who submitted the first draft, three students chose to include the ninth apology statement in the ST. As this is the last apology statement located at the end part of the e-mail, the use of the word “again” is seen in some cases to express apology in the end. Table 1. Presence/Absence of the Last Apology Statement in TTs ST このたびは、当初予定していたお届け予定日に商品をお送りするこ

とができず、鈴木様に大変ご迷惑ならびに、ご不快な思いをおかけしておりますことを深くお詫び申し上げます。

Direct Translation of ST

At this time we were unable to deliver the ordered item on the originally scheduled delivery date, and we express our deep apologies for causing great inconvenience and discomfort to Mr. Suzuki.

Student A Apology No. 9 taken out Student B Apology No. 9 taken out Student C Again we truly apologize for your inconvenience caused by the delay of the

shipping schedule Student D We sincerely apologize again for this inconvenience that we could not send

you the item on estimated delivery date. Student E Please accept our sincere apologies for the delay on your purchased items.

Corpus Discovery Question 2: What are frequently-used apology expressions? Corpus analysis can assist students in finding answers to Question 2, “What are frequently used apology expressions?” Corpus analysis requires a computer program called “concordance.” Students of our translation course create their own corpus of the target genre and use AntConc, a freeware corpus analysis toolkit for concordancing and text analysis that is downloadable from Laurence Anthony’s website (Anthony, 2012). Observe: Searching uses of words/phrases For each assignment, students look for appropriate reference materials in the target language. For example, using a self-created corpus of response e-mail messages with AntConc, the search for the word “apologize”, resulted in 18 hits. The following are sample concordance lines for other words such as “accept” and “thank you for.” The verb “accept” is used often with “apology” or “apologies,” the noun form of “apologize.” The expression “thank you for” may sound rather casual for an official e-mail from a company, but the phrase is often used, followed by a gerund, as the opening statement of an e-mail. Examples of research results: Accept

Please accept my sincere apology for … Please accept our sincere apologies for the inconvenience you may have experienced. We acknowledge that the error is from our side and kindly ask you to accept our apology.

Examples of research results: Thank you for Thank you for taking the time to contact Nissan North America.


88

Thank you for contacting Nissan North America and allowing us the opportunity to … Thank you for your understanding. Looking forward to …

Apply: Target texts of Student A and Student B Let us see how students have applied the findings from corpus analysis and move analysis. Student A used the expressions, “thank you for” and “apologize for” in his first draft. After the in-class discussion and in-class rewrite, he submitted his second draft as shown on the right in Table 2. He deleted the underlined part in his first draft, which directly translates some of the Japanese polite expressions in the source text. Then, he added the underlined part, “the result of our investigation” in his second draft. This revision made the sentence shorter and easier to understand. Table 2. Application of Corpus Analysis: Student A

First Draft Second Draft Thank you for inquiring to Amazon.co.jp. Thank you for making an inquiry to

Amazon.co.jp. First, we sincerely apologize for keeping you waiting so long and making you so uncomfortable, regarding the inquiry for the shipping status of “EAGET U66 Full-Metal USB 3.0 High-Speed Flash Drive”

First, we sincerely apologize for keeping you waiting for the result of our investigation on the shipping status of “EAGET U66 Full-Metal USB 3.0 High-Speed Flash Drive”

Like Student A, Student B used expressions, “thank you for” and “sincerely apologize for” in her first draft. However, after reading English reference materials, she tried to use some expressions she came across in her readings. The underlined expressions in her second draft are the parts she changed. Consequently, the e-mail sounds more business-like. Table 3. Application of Corpus Analysis: Student B

First Draft Second Draft Thank you for inquiring to Amazon.co.jp. Thank you for taking the time to

communicate to Amazon.co.jp. At this time, we sincerely apologize for causing you trouble by taking too much time for investigation on shipping status of Eaget U66GB Metal USB Flash Drive, High Speed USB 3.0.

We are sorry to learn of the concern you experienced with shipping status of “EAGET U66 Metal USB 3.0 High Speed Flash Drive” and apologize for any inconvenience the situation may have caused.

In-class discussion Another important aspect of the translator training course is in-class discussion. Active discussion with peers and the instructor during a two-hour, workshop-style class covers topics including PAIL of the assignment (ST), language features of reference materials in the target language, and students’ first drafts (with their names deleted) examined in class. Doing a rewrite of a part of the assignment in small groups gives the students the opportunity to discuss the issues in detail and try to find solutions together. The instructor goes over the in-class rewrites so that students can receive immediate feedback.


89

Conclusion In conclusion, by repeating the cycle of move analysis, corpus analysis, in-class discussion, and re-writing of assignment drafts from a variety of genres, the students in this Japanese-to-English translator training course develop learner autonomy. They are better equipped to deal with real-world translation situations in which things are not always so black and white. References Anthony, L. (2012). AntConc (Version 3.3.2) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan:

Waseda University. Available from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/ Barnard, R., & Meehan, A. (2005). Writing for the real world: An introduction to

business writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Misaki, A., Miyanaga, S., Terui, M., & Noguchi, J. (2016, February). Application of an

ESP approach to Japanese-to-English translator training. Presentation at the meeting of JACET Kansai Chapter ESP SIG, Campus Plaza Kyoto, Kyoto.

Misaki, A., Miyanaga, S., Terui, M., & Noguchi, J. (2014, March). Corpus Discovery: Using corpora to raise language awareness in translation training. Paper presentation at the meeting of Second Asian Pacific Corpus Linguistics Conference 2014, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

Miyanaga, S., Misaki, A., Terui, M., & Noguchi, J. (2012, March). A genre-based approach to translator training in Japan. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific LSP and Professional Communication Association, Los Angeles.


90

Learning in Collaboration - Not in Isolation Richard Mark Nixon Aichi Prefectural University

Biodata Richard Mark Nixon is an Associate Professor in the Department of British and American Studies at Aichi Prefectural University in Nagakute, Japan. He earned his Ph.D. in Second Language Education from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto, Canada. His research interests relate to Sociocultural Theory and specifically how this theory can be successfully applied to collaborative learning and teaching strategies for EFL students. Richard has taught English in elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and at the university level in Canada, South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, and Japan over the past 30 years. Abstract This presentation begins with an outline of the theoretical dimensions that lie behind and justify the use of collaborative writing. A review of prior classic research on sociocultural theory suggests that collaborative writing can promote discussions of ideas and engage second language (L2) students in language-related episodes (LRE) with the potential for scaffolding. The findings of the presenter’s own research with six Thai university students reveals that the likelihood of students working in the zone of proximal development (ZPD) may be related to learners’ pre-existing attitudes toward collaborative learning and is dependent on aspects associated with collaborative writing task design, such as whether the students have sufficient time to complete their compositions, whether they are permitted the freedom to move among the different stages of the writing process, and whether they have received training in how to work together effectively. The presentation concludes with a review of three collaborative writing activities that teachers can implement in their EFL classrooms: 1) Dictogloss; 2) Creative Writing Prompt; and 3) Picture Response. Theoretical Concepts Behind Collaborative Writing Verbal interactions during collaborative writing Hirvela (1999) points out that writing is an activity that is situated in a larger social context; as a result, writers are involved in a continuous dialogue, usually internalized, with their audience and the context in which their writing will be read. Swain (1997) suggested that when this dialogue is externalized, in the form of collaborative negotiations among peers, it becomes possible for researchers to understand the processes of language learning that are occurring. Swain adds that to obtain a full understanding of this phenomena, it is necessary to focus on learners’ output as they attempt to make their communications comprehensible: “[to] produce [speaking or writing], learners need to do something: they need to create linguistic form and meaning and in so doing, discover what they can and cannot do” (Swain, 1997, p. 117). Swain and Lapkin (2002) view output as part of a sociocultural theoretical perspective of learning, that is, output acts not only as a message of communicative intent but simultaneously as a tool for cognitive


91

engagement with the self and others. As such, speaking is an externalization of thought, an utterance that becomes an object, which can be “scrutinized, questioned, reflected upon, disagreed with, changed, or disregarded” (p. 286). Verbalization in the form of collaborative dialogue (Swain, 2000) mediates L2 acquisition, as it is a social as well as a cognitive activity. Swain described collaborative dialogue as “dialogue in which speakers are engaged in problem solving and knowledge building. It heightens the potential for exploration of the product (Swain, 2000, p. 102). According to a sociocultural theory of mind perspective, collaborative dialogue is viewed as an important semiotic tool that mediates cognitive functions “such as voluntary memory, reasoning or attention” (Swain, 2000, p. 103). For example, Swain and Lapkin (1998) showed how through collaborative dialogue learners were able to understand what they know and do not know; it allowed them to focus their attention on problematic language aspects, and it guided them to consolidate existing knowledge and build new knowledge. In conjunction with the Vygotskian sociocultural perspective are the notions of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) and scaffolding. Vygotsky defined the ZPD as the distance between a child’s “actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving” and the higher level of “potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 68). According to Wertsch, Vygotsky felt that is was just as important to measure learners’ potential development, as it was to measure their actual level of development. Lantolf (2000) characterized the ZPD as a useful metaphor for capturing or “observing and understanding how mediational means are appropriated and internalized” (p. 17). Scaffolding refers to the “guided support provided to the less knowledgeable partner (the novice) as s/he collaborates with a more knowledgeable partner (the expert)” (Nassaji & Swain, 2000, p. 36). Nassaji and Swain differentiated scaffolding from the act of one learner merely helping another learner in a unidirectional fashion; rather, they describe scaffolding as a function of the collaboration process involving the expert and the novice, whereby the two operate within the learner’s ZPD. Storch (2001) looked at the nature of ESL dyadic dialogue to determine whether the participants were working together collaboratively or not. Other researchers (Guerrero & Villamil, 1994; McGroarty & Zhu, 1997) have argued that the study of the mediating functions of collaborative dialogue makes it possible to determine the extent of learners’ collaborative orientation. Storch defined collaborative orientation as the degree to which participant pairs or small groups are fully collaborative, fully non-collaborative, or somewhere between the two points on a continuum. Storch (2001) used language-related episodes (LREs) as the unit of analysis, defining an LRE as an episode “where learners talk about or question their own language use or that of the other” (p.40). She analyzed the learners’ LREs for “grammar (e.g., verb tense), lexis (e.g., word choice, word definition), and mechanics (e.g., spelling, punctuation)” (p. 40). Quality of jointly produced written texts From the L2 research that has been done on the effects of collaborative writing on students’ text quality over the entire writing process, Storch (1999) compared short compositions and grammar activities that ESL students in her classroom produced in dyads and alone. She found that the collaboratively produced exercises were more


92

accurate than what the same students could produce independently. Storch (2005) gave 23 of her ESL students a graphic prompt and compared the quality of the short compositions that nine dyads produced with those that five individual students writing alone were able to produce. Storch found that the students working in pairs produced shorter but more linguistically complex and grammatically accurate texts than what the individual students produced. Murray (1992) noted that “If we apply some of the principles of successful collaborative writing in our classrooms, we will help our students write for the real-world contexts in which they must write” (p. 117). Learners’ attitudes toward collaborative writing In collaborative writing, participants have ownership of the text at every stage of its development. This fact may lead them to be more responsive to and welcoming of their peers’ suggestions and feedback (Hirvela, 1999; Storch, 2005). Yang’s (2006) longitudinal case study of three groups of Asian background ESL students enrolled in Commerce programs at two Canadian universities, provided useful insight into how learners perceive collaborative writing and group work over the span of an entire school semester. Yang revealed that the three groups of students varied in terms of their perceptions of the usefulness and level of difficulty of courses that were highly collaborative in structure. For example, members of one group found that the content of the collaborative writing assignments in one of the courses was “remote from their lives and future careers” (p. 217). As a result, these students eventually lost interest and took care not to invest too much time in the course. In addition, members of another group felt that the content in their Economics course was not “useful to enrich their knowledge” (p. 218). Nonetheless, the students in this group viewed the course as an opportunity to prepare further for their exams and practice their group work skills. Storch’s (2005) analysis of students’ feelings about collaborative writing found that students believed that their writing benefited from working with a partner and that together they could write a better product than would be possible when writing alone; however, they also said that they lacked confidence in their language skills and had a fear of hurting their partner’s feelings.

Thai Collaborative Writing Study: The Study A study conducted at a Thai university focused on six undergraduate students who wrote alone and collaboratively in pairs. The study design required six student participants to work in two different writing conditions: independent writing and collaborative writing. In the independent writing condition, each of the six participants worked alone to write her/his argumentative composition on one of two topics. In the collaborative writing condition, each dyad produced an argumentative essay on a second and different topic. Both topics were selected from the TOEFL Test of Written English (TWE). Findings and Discussion The three dyads differed in their collaborative orientations as observed by the extent to which they reached ZPD, by the differences in the quality and length of the compositions produced alone versus in pairs, and in their attitudes toward writing alone and collaboratively. The study found that two of the three dyads reached the ZPD successfully and produced collaborative compositions which received global rating


93

scores (Hamp-Lyons) that were as good as or better than what they were able to produce alone. In the third dyad one of the participants was not able to produce an essay under the collaborative writing condition that was as good as what she wrote alone. Conversely, her partner’s collaborative essay was considerably better than what he was able to write independently. One could argue that in this third dyad the lower proficiency student negatively impacted the more linguistically talented partner, which suggests a negative implication when pairing students together whose gap in L2 proficiency is too great. However, the study noted that the higher proficiency student in this third dyad demonstrated a reluctance to participate in collaborative actives from the outset of her involvement in the study that was based on her prior negative experiences in group work. This prior disposition may have had a negative impact on the pair’s ability to engage in collaborative dialogue. Implications for Teaching Findings from the Thai undergraduate collaborative writing study suggest that L2 teachers should be aware of the nature of each student’s pre-existing attitudes toward collaborative work, as excessive reluctance or negative feelings in this regard may impede progress and the progress of classmates. Teachers should consider collaborative designs that incorporate an appropriate amount of time for the students to complete their writing tasks and also permit their students some freedom to move among different writing stages, when they are involved in full collaborative writing. Without the time they need students can become frustrated and resort to strategies that fall outside of design parameters in order to complete the writing task.

Teachers should also consider whether their students have received collaborative writing training. Students who have been trained in how to work together collaboratively and work effectively in groups have a better chance of being situated in social contexts that promote dialogic activity, which is the critical component necessary if learners are to access their ZPD (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994). Finally, teachers should consider how well acquainted their students are with each other, and when possible allow students to select their own writing partners (Storch, 2005) rather than arbitrarily assigning them into pairs or small groups.

Collaborative Writing Strategies for the EFL Classroom Three collaborative writing strategies that have a history of positively impacting language learning are described in this section: 1) Dictogloss; 2) Creative Writing Prompt; and; 3) Picture Response. Dictogloss A Dictogloss is a short and simple text of one or two paragraphs in length in the target language that is read to students. The passage can be designed with a grammatical form in mind, one that the students are familiar with, but still result in errors of formation in writing. First, a brief review of the grammatical form to be emphasized should be provided to the students prior to the reading of the text. The majority of the vocabulary in the text should be familiar to the students, but if there are any new or difficult words in the passage this vocabulary should also be reviewed with the students prior to the reading. The dictogloss is read at a normal pace and students should listen carefully


94

during the first reading. During the second reading students should be told to take notes, but not to try and capture every word or phrase. After the second reading students should be paired together and asked to reconstruct the passage in terms of grammar and content. The objective of the reconstruction stage is to have the students produce sentences that are as close to the original sentences in terms of grammatical accuracy and meaning without concern given to replicating every word and phrase from the original passage. During the joint reconstruction dyads are likely to form verbal hypotheses and test them in written form. Therefore, resources such as dictionaries and grammar books should be available for learners to use as a reference. Afterwards the student dyads should also be provided the opportunity to compare their co-constructed texts with the original dictogloss. Kowal and Swain (1997) observed instances of noticing, hypothesis testing, and metatalk in a dictogloss activity used with a class of 8th-grade French immersion students. In a follow-up study with the same students, Swain (1998) discovered that grammatical solutions arrived at during the dialogic activity were retained one week later on a post-test. Interestingly, the grammatical solutions were retained regardless of whether the grammatical accuracy of the solutions were correct or not. Swain’s findings suggest that teachers need to review the targeted grammatical structures produced by students a second time after a dictogloss activity is completed in order to ensure that students do not internalize incorrect grammatical forms. From a positive point of view the results of dictogloss research suggest that when L2 learners are given time to reflect on the language they are producing there is a strong possibility for language learning. Dictogloss activities used in the L2 classroom can result in student scaffolding, which occurs as students learn from each other during the joint reconstruction activity. In addition, in their attempts to jointly co-construct a dictogloss passage, students will not only attempt to communicate the message as closely as possible but will also focus on grammatical form. When students discuss grammatical form, and arrive at solutions through hypothesis testing, elements of the target language are learned and remembered (Kowal & Swain, 1997). Creative Writing Prompt A Creative Writing Prompt (CWP) involves students in reading, writing, and something that we as teachers too often ignore, the pure enjoyment for language learning. A CWP allows learners to become involved in authentic language construction that they can share. The strategy is most effective when teachers choose writing topics that are relevant to student ages and interests. First, teachers should hand out a writing prompt to students on which the beginning of a story is already written and a related visual image is provided. The prompt should be within the range of students’ grammatical and lexical knowledge. Students are instructed to read the introduction of the story before being given three to five minutes more to continue writing the story. After the three to five minutes have passed the teacher can tell the students to stop and pass their papers clockwise to the next student in the classroom. Each student reads what has been written by the previous student(s) and is then given another three to five minutes to continue the story. Papers are passed clockwise again and again, with an additional sentence being written by each student, until the students have received their original papers back. Finally, each student can provide his/her own conclusion to the story. This classroom


95

activity should not be confused with a pure collaborative writing activity in which negotiation occurs between/among students over the entire text production. Nonetheless, as a collaborative learning strategy a CWP does reflect the results of a group effort and can be used as an adjunct or warm-up activity leading to more dedicated collaborative writing activities. Picture Response In Picture Response pairs of students are provided with a picture or pictures with things going on, and are asked to describe what they see. Students are encouraged to write down what they see on the blank spaces surrounding the picture(s) and/or on lines below. While they are doing this, teachers have the opportunity to provide feedback to student dyads. The length of writing depends on the age, proficiency level, and image (ten to 30 sentences may be written to describe the images on each sheet). The title can be edited out of the image so that students can first supply their own title, which is helpful for developing the skill of identifying and describing as well activating their schemas. The Picture Response below is an example of such an activity that could be used with intermediate-level proficiency L2 learners.

Describing the Picture: Write as many sentences about these pictures as you can.

Figure 1. Describing the Picture (Source: Gunn, 2016) Picture Response typically leads to a great deal of verbal output among learners working in dyads or small groups and with sentence-level writing practice being the norm. In the example provided above students often write descriptions while shifting back and forth in time using simple past, present perfect, and present continuous grammatical constructions. Students also create writing that utilizes prepositions of place, “there is” expletive constructions, and expressions of cause and effect. Using Picture Response also allows for teachers to introduce select vocabulary in a very meaning-focused way. Conclusion This article described a study of six Thai university undergraduate students who participated in a collaborative writing activity. A comparison of text quality of the compositions these participants wrote individually was made with what they produced together in dyads and a review of their verbal interactions during collaboration was provided along with a report of their attitudes towards writing alone and writing with another person. Implications from the study for the L2 classroom suggest that teachers take care in collaborative task design and consider individual student experiences with group work as well as the preferences each student may have for a writing partner.


96

Finally, the three classroom collaborative writing activities presented show that activities need not be complex in design nor extreme in terms of time consumption to lead to language learning, but they do need to be well thought out in terms of purpose and expected outcome. References Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language

Journal, 78, 465-483. Guerrero, M.C.M. de, & Villamil, O.S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 484-496. Gunn, C. (2007). Describing and captioning a picture. Lanternfish ESL. Retrieved from

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://bogglesworldesl.com/ picture_descriptions.htm&gws_rd=cr&ei=sLvsV5yZPIWb0gTN4IHwDw

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Reconstructing “Academic writing proficiency”. In L. Hamp- Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp.127-53).

Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and

writers. TESOL Journal, 8, 7-12. Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to

promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73-93. Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). Hong Kong: Oxford

University Press. McGroarty, M.E., & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language Learning, 47, 1-43. Murray, D.E. (1992). Collaborative writing as a literacy event: Implications for ESL instruction. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching (pp.

100-117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles.

Language Awareness, 9, 34-51. Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27, 363-374. Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5, 29-53. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173. Swain, M. (1997). Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language learning. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34, 115-132. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second

language learning (pp. 97-114). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.


97

Swain, M. (2006). Verbal protocols: What does it mean for research to use speaking as a data collection tool? In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C.A. Chapelle & P. Duff (Eds.),

Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (pp. 97-113). Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishing.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language

Journal, 83, 320-338 Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285-

304. Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Yang, L. (2006). Writing group project assignments in commerce courses: Case studies of Chinese background ESL students at two Canadian universities. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, OISE/UT.


98

Low-Tech Solutions to High-Tech Ideas Monika Szirmai Hiroshima International University Japan Biodata Monika Szirmai has been teaching English at Japanese universities since 1995. While at Kanda University of International Studies, she joined the Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT) and has been an active member since then. In 1998, she moved to her present job at Hiroshima International University and started teaching part-time at Hiroshima University the same year. She has been teaching at graduate level there and also tutoring for Birmingham University, U.K. since 2001. Her professional interests are manifold: humour, corpus linguistics, plurilingualism, learner development, lexicography, vocabulary, and CALL, just to name a few. Abstract When giving a presentation or teaching, the most difficult thing to do without any feedback is to judge whether the audience has fully understood what has been said. When students cannot grasp the ideas in a class, they will stop thinking actively, so learning will not take place. However, real-time feedback can signal the lack of understanding instantly. This way, the presenter can modify the content, or rephrase key ideas immediately. By doing this, they can recapture the audience’s attention. In high-tech situations, clickers have become popular teaching aids because they can provide the teacher with real-time feedback from the class. This paper will show how the same goals can be achieved with the help of a simple hand-held tool called CAPTUR, which can easily be created by each student using the downloadable template from the website. The ultimate goal of education all over the world is to make students acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to become responsible members of society. The main actors in this process are the teachers and the students. The traditional image of a typical learning situation is where the teacher is standing in front of the blackboard, facing the class and talking to the students, while the students are listening to the teacher in silence. In such a situation, it is difficult or even impossible for the teacher to tell how much the audience has understood from the lecture. Teaching styles have considerably changed, though, in many countries. Specialists in education have constantly been looking for new and better ways of making learning take place. Recent buzzwords in education include the flipped classroom, blended learning, mobile learning, digital literacy, critical thinking, active learning, and audience response systems or clickers, just to name the most popular ones. Even if teachers use the best methods and the latest textbooks and technology, no learning will take place without the active participation of the students. This paper will focus on how a small, inexpensive tool can replace the high-tech clicker that has become a popular tool in promoting and enhancing active learning. Active Learning One might ask whether there exists any other way of learning than active learning? We can argue that the students in the traditional classroom could also learn many things while


99

simply listening to the teacher. Maybe many of us have memories of that kind of education from our childhood. Probably the students who managed to learn that way were active learners because they were motivated and mentally engaged with what the teacher was saying. Not all students were, however, highly motivated and many of them may have been counting the seconds until the bell rang at the end of the class, or daydreaming, or thinking about lunch. Most students could also be nodding their heads in response to the teacher’s explanation, which may have made the teacher believe that all the students understood what he or she was saying. Probably the first time that the teacher could actually see how much the students had really understood was when the students took a test. Moreover, that was probably too late. Maybe several weeks passed before the test, and without the students’ understanding the material they should have learnt. More and more universities require their staff to use certain teaching styles. Teachers are expected to design and use activities for their classes that promote active learning. What is active learning? Let us see some definitions taken from university websites. The Everett Community College (n.d.) defines active learning as:

(...) any instructional method that engages students in the learning process. In short, active learning requires students to do meaningful learning activities and think about what they are doing. While this definition could include traditional activities such as homework, in practice, active learning refers to activities that are introduced into the classroom. The core elements of active learning are student activity and engagement in the learning process. Active learning is often contrasted to the traditional lecture where students passively receive information from the instructor.

The Center for Research on Teaching and Learning, University of Michigan (n.d.) defines it as:

(...) a process whereby students engage in activities, such as reading, writing, discussion, or problem solving that promote analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of class content. Cooperative learning, problem-based learning, and the use of case methods and simulations are some approaches that promote active learning.

Paulson and Faust (1998) define this term simply as “anything that students do in a classroom other than merely passively listening to an instructor’s lecture” (p. 3). Let me add another crucial point made by Ericksen (1984) here: “Students learn what they care about and remember what they understand” (p. 51). Memorizing information is a very difficult task, especially if there is much information, and if there are no links between the pieces of information. If students do not understand what they are supposed to learn, their attempt to memorize everything is very similar to unrelated pieces of information. Thus, checking understanding throughout the learning process is necessary. High-tech Clickers or Audience Response Systems There are many different types of activities that require the students to take an active part, and depending on the type, it may be obvious for the teacher that students are working hard. However, in the case of a lecture, if delivered in the traditional way, the lecturer cannot possibly tell how many students in the lecture hall did actually learn something during the class. Thus, lecturers will need some kind of feedback throughout the lecture. So, teachers might ask the audience to raise their hands if they understood what was


100

being said, or they might even ask a multiple-choice question. The teacher can tell this way, just by looking at the number of hands, whether it is the majority or not. Obviously, asking questions and checking the answers during the lecture can take up a considerable time. The teacher might remember whether a particular student could answer all the questions or none of them, but it would be impossible to remember all the answers. The use of clickers is the answer to this problem. Clickers are small, hand-held devices that enable the users to answer interactive questions in the classroom wirelessly. Figure 1 shows different types of clickers, ranging from a simple one on the left to more advanced ones that look like mobile phones with a keyboard.

Figure 1. Response devices (Source: https://www.turningtechnologies.com/response-options) To give a rather simplified explanation for its use in the classroom, we could say that first, teachers have to create a PowerPoint presentation containing the questions with the answers. Then, during the class, the students can answer the questions using the clickers. Clickers can be used without registering students. In this case, all the answers will be anonymous. Clickers can also be distributed in a way that students can be identified. This way, the clickers could also be used either for tests or for monitoring student progress and understanding constantly. The computer registers all the answers, which means that teachers have a very clear idea of how well students understood a particular part of the lecture. As teachers can see the results straight away, they can make an immediate decision about whether they should go to the next step or spend more time on explaining the material once more in a different way. In the traditional classroom, it is usually just one student who gives the answer, and other students sit quietly, without really having to think about the answer. By using this response system, each student has to give an answer, and as said before, they can also be identified. So, they have to take it seriously, and try to do their best. However, even if they make mistakes, the other students would not know about that. In the traditional classroom, on the other hand, students can be laughed at in public if they give a silly answer. Another advantage of the response system is that saved results can be used in the


101

future to compare what the effects may be if the lecture is modified and delivered differently. Thus teachers can improve their courses every year. One of the problems that teachers may have to face when using clickers is that technology might not always be completely reliable. Also, the school will very likely not buy as many sets as there are teachers or classes. So, it might depend on luck whether teachers have access to the clickers when they need them. Teachers interested in the use of clickers and the networked classroom are advised to consult Banks (2006), Bruff (2009), and the home pages of Turning Technologies (https://www.turningtechnologies.com/) for more information. Low-tech Paddles or Response Cards First, I would like to thank William Pellowe for leading a very successful demonstration of student response systems in Hiroshima in 2013. He introduced both the low-tech and the high-tech versions. At the time, I was teaching Medical English to 120 students in a regular classroom, and I was desperate to find a way to capture the students’ attention during the class. Also, I wanted to make sure that students did not just do their homework by copying answers from the textbook, but they actually learnt what they were supposed to in small instalments every week. Although my university already had the high-tech clickers, there were only 60 of them, which would not have been sufficient for my class. However, the low-tech version CAPTUR paddles, designed by William Pellowe and Paul Shimizu in 2010, seemed very attractive as a solution to the problem. As it was too late to order the plastic paddles before the start of the school year, students used the downloaded version to make their own paddle.

Figure 2. The CAPTUR paddle in use As learning medical terms in English is basically the same as learning vocabulary items, the paddle was very often used to answer multiple-choice quizzes. Students were shown the slides containing the question and the answers, and they had about 20-25 seconds to read the slides and to think about their answers. After that, they were asked to show their choice of answer. The right answer came up immediately after that, and they marked in their notebooks whether they answered the questions correctly or not. This way, the students had a clear idea of their own results. Although I only had a few seconds to check the students’ answers, it was relatively easy to see whether the majority of the students gave the right or the wrong answer. Even if we look at the picture above, it is clear that most of the students show A in a green background as the right answer. What I liked about these quizzes was that it saved a lot of time. Even for a short quiz, I should have made 120 copies each time. It would have been a waste of time, paper, and ink. In the class, I would have had to distribute the sheets, wasting some precious class


102

time. If I wanted to check the students’ results, I would have had to collect the sheets again and check one by one, which would not have given an overall view of the results. In order to have that overview, I would have had to summarize the results either by hand or by using some computer software, which would require inputting the data. Probably, some of the students would not have finished the quiz within the allocated time. In brief, the minimum preparation required, the relatively short time required for the quiz, and having overall visual feedback during the class worked well for me. The only disadvantage was that the students’ answers could not be recorded for a more detailed analysis, which would have been possible if using the high-tech student response system. Response systems can be used in many different ways. As the main differences between the high-tech and the low-tech versions are that the high-tech version can record the data, and some of them have keyboards, which enable them to send text as well. For this reason, teachers who wish to use these paddles in a more varied way, are advised to get acquainted with the techniques and ideas discussed in papers about the use of clickers for active learning.

The CAPTUR Paddle CAPTUR is an acronym for Class Answer Paddle To Understand Responses. The inexpensive plastic paddles can either be bought or a PDF file containing the paddle can be downloaded from the web page http://captur.me/paddle-downloads, and students make their own paddles using that. The paddles can be made smaller or bigger by changing its size at printing. There are three versions of the paddle (see Figure 3). The simplest one, which only shows colours, can be used with young children. The one in the middle has shapes and colours but no letters. The third one has all of them, colours, shapes and letters.

Figure 3. Three versions of the CAPTUR paddle (Source: http://captur.me/paddle-downloads) The most obvious way of using the paddle is for quizzes, as described earlier in this paper. However, it can be used in many different ways, such as student opinion surveys. The easiest way to explore its versatility is to follow the examples available on the CAPTUR web page. Pellowe, Paton and Shimizu (2014) describe the type of activities and class applications the paddle can be used for.


103

Summary Learning can only take place if students are actively involved in the learning process and they are not just listening to the teacher. If students do not understand a lecture, even if they are motivated to learn, they will stop listening. This is why teachers should check throughout the class whether students are following what is being said. If they do that, they will be able to modify the speed of the class, repeat explanations in different ways when they are needed. Audience response systems can help to get the students involved and focused during the class, and understanding can be checked. The low-tech versions can be used mostly in the same way as the high-tech versions except for recording the results or sending text messages. The CAPTUR paddle is an inexpensive hand-held tool that can promote active learning, keeping the students engaged during the class. References Banks, D. A. (2006). Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and

cases. Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub. Bruff, D. (2009). Teaching with classroom response systems: Creating active learning

environments (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan. (n.d.). Active

learning. Retrieved from http://www.crlt.umich.edu/tstrategies/tsal Ericksen, S. (1984). The essence of good teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Everett Community College. (n.d.) Active learning. Retrieved from

https://www.everettcc.edu/files/administration/institutional-effectiveness/institutional-research/outcomeassess-active-learning.pdf

Faust, J. L., & Paulson, D. R. (1998). Active learning in the college classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 9(2), 3-24.

Pellowe, W. R., Paton, S. M., & Shimizu, P. (2014). Encouraging active participation with response cards. Paper presented at the The 2014 PanSIG Conference, Miyazaki, Japan.

https://www.everettcc.edu/files/administration/institutional-effectiveness/institutional-research/outcomeassess-active-learning.pdf


104

Giving Language Learning Its Own Physical and Affective Space: The Learning Commons [e-cube] Alison Kitzman Faculty of Business Administration Kindai University, Osaka, Japan Biodata Alison Kitzman received her MA TESOL at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and launched an EFL program in Russia before joining the Faculty of Business at Kindai University in Osaka, Japan in 1997. She serves as Associate Professor, Native Coordinator, E-cube Vice-Mayor, Career Center Advisor, and English Newspaper Advisor. In these positions, she focuses on Business English, curricula development, and the creation of student-centered materials all of which are intended to address learning inhibitions, motivation, and culture differences. Her research interests also include extensive reading and pronunciation. In her limited free time, she does her best to travel the world. Introduction It can be difficult getting English language learners to become language users if they have no interest in the topic or awareness of their needs. For many, the subject remains as dull and lifeless as the words in the textbook. How can teachers and administrators show that foreign languages are active and full of life, literally? The key to successful learning is motivation, so what is the average school to do to get students engaged with the minimal resources they have? The first step must be getting their interest. This is not always easy. Some educators push study like a chore that has to be done whether one likes it or not. Others may have a keen interest in English and are successful learners themselves but lack an understanding or the patience for those who do not find the language so easy or interesting. Still other teachers may argue that grammar, error correction, teaching to the test, and memorization of large amounts of vocabulary are the best or only way to learn. Ignoring the affective needs of the student to focus on the cognitive ones only causes to push unmotivated students to be more disengaged. These students with a strong disinterest likely will not care to discover how English is actively used in the real world and how it could be useful to them personally. Diligent students will study and find English success for themselves independently, but schools have to serve the needs of everyone. Once students become self-motivated, they will take control of their own learning and consider their personal needs and wants. The goal is to get them to understand that English is a widely used communication tool outside of the classroom. In Laos, there are few models of real English in daily life. Therefore, encouraging Lao students to understand that English is an important communication tool necessary for economic growth is vital. By creating a safe space outside of strict classes where even the


105

young and lower-level student can enjoy and use English actively, if not correctly, schools can accomplish one of their hardest tasks – that is to get students to enjoy English, and hopefully raise their interest and awareness of their future English needs. Definition of a Learning Commons and Its Affective Potential Kindai University in Higashiosaka, Japan, has created just such a safe space, called [e-cube] (also known as eigo mura, or English Village, in Japanese). It is a single large open-space English learning commons. While few schools anywhere have the financial resources to create such a comprehensive and physically large facility, it serves here as an example from which to consider the wide range of creative possibilities available to even the smallest programs. According to Karasic (2016), the modern learning commons began in the early 2000s with libraries adapting themselves to suit the changing learning behaviors of their millennial populations. With a greater need for digital tools, libraries are evolving from a place to keep books to interactive ‘spaces’ for learning focused on the students’ needs. They are inherently flexible. Educause, a non-profit organization that improves education through technology, calls the learning commons a “coordinated central unit… where students can meet, study, talk, and use ‘borrowed’ equipment” (2011). They explain it “brings together the functions of the libraries, labs, lounges, and seminar areas in a single community gathering place.” Karasic (2006) points out that libraries are “centrally located and academically neutral campus space[s],” which “encourage interdisciplinary scholarship unbounded by specific academic departments” (p. 53). For smaller schools, a common space can be a place to centralize teaching materials and other resources. This helps to keep things physically organized and saves space, especially if classrooms facilities are limited. Further, it cuts costs by reducing the need for multiple items. For an average school, whether it is a primary school or university, a learning commons can be a valuable multipurpose space for all subjects, and it can be especially useful for meeting language learning needs beyond the cognitive. Across disciplines, successful learning has been shown to reach beyond the cognitive. Van Lier (1994) describes three aspects of (teacher) development that equally relate to language learning: having the knowledge of the subject matter, actively doing the skill, and understanding the need and purpose for its being. Too often the classroom can be teacher-centered, focusing on the having knowledge (cognitive), while the doing and being (need and purpose) aspects are undervalued and underrepresented. At the nascent development of neuro-linguistics, Gross (1992) studying brain function, argued for whole-brain learning, saying, “We can accelerate and enrich our learning, by engaging the senses, emotions, imagination” (p. 139). As for the doing, the ‘father’ of modern progressive education theory, John Dewey, was a proponent of an approach known as pragmatism (Dewey, 1933). A functional psychologist, Dewey argued that learning requires practical manipulation of material in order to test hypotheses. Simply put, by working with the material, one develops an understanding of how it works or does not work – not possible with just passive exposure. As long ago as 1880, Ebbinghaus was also arguing for ‘learning by doing,’ but with an emphasis on repetition. He theorized that repeating something again and again without using it (e.g. in context) is not a productive way to learn. Instead, he proposed regular repetition, but with breaks over time in his now well-known forgetting curve.


106

This forgetting curve posits that about 50 percent of new information is forgotten after one day. Repetition at Day Three, Day 10, Day 30, and Day 90 successively reduce what is forgotten. Van Lier’s third concept, being, is maybe best exemplified by economist, Alfred Maslow. Considered the ‘father’ of needs analysis, he is widely known for hierarchy of need, which posits that motivation is driven by an individual’s needs (Maslow 1968). His theory states that people act to satisfy their needs starting with the most basic before acting on higher level ones –starting with physiological and moving through safety, social, self-esteem to self-actualization. For language learning, this can mean that a student will not progress to personalized (self-actualization level) involvement in their learning if they do not have a sense of connection to it and the community (social level) or feel confidence or competence (self-esteem level) in it. Further, no learner has the same goals and needs. Gardner (1983) introduced the theory of multiple intelligences – that the traditional idea of intelligence goes beyond the cognitive. He suggested eight other intelligences: kinesthetic (body), interpersonal (social), intrapersonal (empathy), logical, musical, naturalistic (nature), linguistic, and visual-spatial. Far more objective research is now being conducted in the field of neuro-linguistics by researchers such as Stevick (1999), which is starting to show the value of the non-cognitive aspect of learning and memory. A learning commons is an ideal place to meet all learner development goals. The flexible face-to-face interactions made possible there complement classroom learning, get students to apply their learning, and are an example of the shift in pedagogical theory toward collaborative and active-learning. In a learning commons students can practice real communicative language repetitively until it becomes automatic. More affective-emotional aspects of developmental needs can also be addressed – by relieving the negative emotions and anxiety potentially found in a classroom full of rules and ‘right’ answers. Optimally, a learning commons provides a positive emotional experience and comfortable atmosphere with stimulating activities that is necessary for optimal brain function and memory.


107

Methods and Purpose of [e-cube] In November 2006 on the main campus of Kindai University in Osaka Prefecture, the doors opened to the first English language learning commons in Japan. Two years in the

making, [e-cube] was the brain child of then university founder’s son and chancellor. The concept was executed by a steering committee comprised of faculty members and staff. The distinctive X-shaped wood and glass building was designed by a professor of the Arts and Literature Department. The name and logo were created in a contest won by a student in the Biological Engineering program because it incorporated the three main principles of [e-cube], English, enjoyment,

and education, and is meant to resemble E3, or “E cubed.” [e-cube’s] main purpose is to enrich the international environment and expand the opportunities for English language exposure and experience on campus. In addition to the one main room where the majority of activities take place, there is a café offering American-style fast food, a half basketball court, a back garden, and a wide front patio.

Open from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday, all activities and events are free for all Kindai University students, staff, and faculty. On occasion, the facility hosts special weekend events, junior high and high school “mini-study abroad” overnight stay programs, and short programs open to the public. Each month [e-cube] has a theme around which all activities are developed. For example, before the summer holiday, July, Travel Month, has activities on study abroad, geography, packing tips, and the like. Due to American holidays, October has many activities for Halloween, and Thanksgiving in November leads to activities about food. June is Science Month. Each day has a Daily Activity, available at three different times, or an Advanced Communicative English (ACE) activity, available twice a day but only to students who pass an interview into that higher level.

Typical Daily Activities cover the broadest range of topics possible to meet the needs of the most students. They include music, food, sports, arts and crafts, travel, culture (Japanese and foreign), science, and more. For example, the Daily Activity may be ‘Guacamole,’ the Mexican side dish. Staff get students to actively participate and encourage speaking English, though that is not required. It may first start out with a quiz about Mexico, avocados, or other Mexican food, in order to get the students thinking about what they already know. Next, they may all read and check the recipe for comprehension. Together, all the students then make the dish. The part they love the most

Exterior and patio of [e-cube]

Daily Activity – Japanese Tea Ceremony


108

is that they get to eat what they have made. Brownies are an especially popular activity, sometimes bringing together as many as 100 students at a time – a little difficult to get a bite for everyone. An arts and crafts activity may be making duct tape wallets, Christmas candles, or greeting cards. For sports, almost anything goes like miniature golf, Capoeira,

and yoga. Students may have a guitar lesson or learn Christmas carols in a music activity. ACE activities practice higher level skills such as presentations, debate, or discussion, but are also aimed at student-friendly topics. Postcard-sized Daily Activity and ACE calendars are passed around to students around campus so they have the information they need to choose activities, times, and staff members they like. Teachers across campus are trained to give sufficient time and flexibility for any assignments at [e-cube] to ensure students can participate in an activity that interests them the most. In keeping with its three main principles, there are no formal classes or instruction. While English is encouraged, it is not required.

There are also several regular, special events held at [e-cube] each year. A Halloween costume contest and parade draws a large crowd and includes the university

brass band and cheerleaders. The petting zoo, with live animals, the ‘Olympics’ with funny sports events and prizes, the Art Market, that sells student-made art, and the Kindai’s Got Talent show have all proven to be very popular. Occasionally, a special guest appears. Local sports figures, movie stars, and musicians, such as Sean Lennon, have visited. Professors from the departments also contribute fun or useful activities like

job interview skills from the Career Center, or experiment science from Engineering. Each year [e-cube] and its café-partner host a Charity Christmas Dinner. This includes a full dinner of turkey, ham, mashed potatoes, and Christmas pudding followed by Christmas carols, the student orchestra, a Christmas Quiz, or a Secret Santa. All proceeds go to aid UNICEF.

Cover and page of Passport

Daily Activity and ACE calendar cards


109

Students are not limited to the pre-set activities. Available for use in the facility are a drum set, a keyboard, several guitars, Wii, a variety of card and board games, many magazines, English manga, and more. A Help Desk offers ten-minute tutoring sessions with reservations for both staff and students who need help with anything English. The café offers seasonal specials, provides a card for ten free coffees to teachers, and has a blackboard with useful expressions to help visitors order in English.

While the Mayor, two Vice-Mayors, and steering committee guide the philosophy and play an administrative role, it is the dedicated staff of about 14 part-time native speakers, two full-time native managers, and three full-time Japanese staff that meet with visitors and work with the students. Teaching to their talent, the native staff create the Daily and ACE activities, and the full-time staff support them administratively. To provide a regular turnover of young staff, and so they will not be confused with ‘teachers’ on campus, the part-time staff are outsourced. Finally, motivated students of all levels can join the [e-cube] Volunteer Club. Members help staff with larger events, take orders at the café, and may help with homework assignments.

While [e-cube] is not a place for overt teaching, it complements classroom lessons by offering a few types of homework. In cooperation with departments, all first-year students ‘apply for’ and receive a Village Passport. The realistic Passport Application is filled out in the first weeks of the required Freshmen Oral English classes and practices the English that travelers would encounter. Once they obtain their Passport, all 6500 freshmen must complete four tasks for that class over the course of the year, two each Spring and Fall semesters. For example, the first task is a Treasure Hunt for information found in and around [e-cube]. The second is a question-answer activity, where students first have to practice making their own questions then interview a staff member. Useful expressions and questions and sentence patterns can be found in the back to help with this. Students receive a Visa stamp in their Passport upon finishing. Most second-year students must participate in activities or events, then summarize or report about the visits in class.

The Passport tasks were created to force potentially reticent students to visit. Once inside, they usually find out quickly how fun and relaxing the experience can be. There are three types of Passport stamps. The first is the Task stamp. The second is the Chat stamp, for a ten-minute discussion with a staff member. The last is the Activity stamp to prove participation in either the Daily or ACE activities. These stamps can be used in many English classes for extra credit, too. Once a Passport is full, students are awarded a ten-free-coffee card like the teachers get.

[e-cube] is not just a place for fun and games. It is a place for active accessible learning with the purpose of automating the language with repetition of simple grammar and vocabulary. The program seeks to lower anxiety and inhibitions, by maximizing communication in any form with little correction. Further, [e-cube] is tasked with raising awareness not only of English, but also different cultures and globalism in the hope that

Café specials card


110

from the ensuing interest, students take their learning out of the classroom and seek independent experiences of their own. But, does it work? Annual [e-cube] Survey Methods Each year in June, near the end of the first semester, [e-cube] staff administer a survey to assess the perceptions of those coming to the facility. A convenience sampling is taken of the students who come to [e-cube] over a two-week period and is stopped after getting approximately 1,000 responses. Due to it being the rainy season and other factors, the sample size varies from year to year. In the more than ten years of conducting the survey, there have been a total of 10,495 respondents (Table 1) for an average of 954 first- through fourth-year students from all departments on the main campus, and a small number of continuing education and public participants.

Since 2007, the survey has evolved to its current ten-section format (Appendix). In addition to demographic information, the survey measures number of visits, average length of stay, TOEIC™ score, which activities students enjoy, which they find useful, and their attitudes to any possible achievements they may have made through use of the facilities. Simple counts are made and compared year-on-year by the steering committee and upper administration to see where improvements could be made. Without access to the individual respondents’ raw data, it is impossible to make accurate correlations. However, by comparing the simple counts over the course of the survey, we can begin to understand how [e-cube] has impacted its visitors.

Results For the purpose this paper, the two achievement-related sections will be addressed. The first is language skill and the second is personal-affective. Since 2011, participants were asked to rate their language skill improvements with the statement: “After coming to [e-cube], your [vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar, reading, speaking, and listening] skills have improved.” Rather than a five-point scale, a four-point Likert scale was used, with (1) being “disagree” and (4) being “agree,” to force the Japanese respondents, who might otherwise gravitate to the cultural norms of neutrality, to make a positive or negative judgment choice. Keeping in mind that [e-cube] is not intended to be an overt teaching environment and that for some it may have been their first visit to [e-cube], overall responses were positive (Table 2). An average of all averages was 2.48, and until this year’s Listening average (1.96), all averages were above (2). Ratings varied from year-to-year, perhaps due to larger numbers of first-time visitors. Somewhat surprisingly, listening (2.18) and speaking (2.27) had the lowest ratings,

Table 1. Number of Participants


111

because all activities at [e-cube] rely on these two skills to some degree. These low scores could be a manifestation of the respondents’ realization of how poor they are at Listening and Speaking, how unprepared for real life communication with native speakers they are, or how far they have improved relative to where they need to be. Pronunciation (2.44) rated higher, possibly due to the wide variety of native and near-native role models. Reading (2.60) and Vocabulary (2.61) were about the same. Self-reported improvement in vocabulary may come from new language in the activities or chat sessions. It may also have come from a new awareness of language or the realization of transitioning from learning to acquiring language. This may be true for Reading, too. However, though there are several reading sources and activities often use presentation slides to reinforce the spoken word, reading is not a common component. Why the ratings for this skill were high is puzzling. Though Grammar (2.76) had the highest rating to begin with, it then had an almost constant decrease. This steady decrease perhaps stems from the philosophy of getting students to communicate comfortably using the skills they have to prepare them for real-life situations instead of pushing new items or pointing out errors that may inhibit reticent learners. To get a sense of the averages over the seven years and to see if there may be any trends, a linear-trendline with a predicted R-squared value (R2) to forecast the next two years was calculated. Regression Analysis is usually used to check for goodness-of-fit – how the data points fit the expected model. However, lacking the individual raw data, the R2 values were instead calculated to get a rough estimate of future trends in the data. Less for research purposes, this helps staff focus on the aspects of education that may need to be addressed. Here, a higher R2 indicates a greater change has occurred or is predicted. For [e-cube] purposes, staff can easily see where they are making an impact.

Table 3 gives a visual representation of reported language skill trends. All skills have decreased their ratings. With an overall decrease of -0.48 since 2011, Grammar (R2 = 0.6809) showed the greatest change and fewest fluctuations from minimum (2.51 in 2016) to maximum (3.02 in 2011) (Table 2). Reading (R2 = 0.195) showed the least. Listening (R2 = 0.1670), Pronunciation (R2 = 0.2532), Vocabulary (R2 = 0.3396), and Speaking (R2 = 0.2190) were also fairly steady. All in all, despite yearly fluctuations, the trends and forecast show continued positive ratings yet little expected change. When proposing a new facility such as [e-cube] at a school, it would be useful to collect data about language skills and attitudes before the facility opened to more fully understand the out-of-class program’s impact.

Table 2. Changes in Language Skills Survey Ratings Over Seven-Years


112

The second set of data aimed to interpret students’ awareness of their needs on an affective level. It was analyzed the same way with the same four-point Likert scale. Although slightly changed from its beginning in 2007, seven sub-questions stayed mostly the same. In 2007, the five-point scale was used, so for consistency, the following data omit that year’s results. Overall, the average ratings and trends for all attitudinal ratings (3.21) were significantly higher than the total language skills ratings (2.48). Indeed, all minimum ratings were observed in the first year of the question (Table 4).

Question Ten-year Average out of 4

Minimum / Year

Maximum / Year

Change since 2008

R2

A Comfort 3.26 3.13 / 2008 3.43 / 2017 +0.30 0.7524 B Study 3.68 3.51 / 2008 3.78 / 2015 +0.16 0.4463 C* Useful 3.32 3.15 / 2009 3.40 / 2017 +0.25 0.6491 D* Fun 3.34 3.17 / 2009 3.47 / 2009 +0.15 0.0146 E Culture 2.93 2.56 / 2008 3.10 / 2017 +0.55 0.6790 F SA 3.04 2.8 / 2008, 2009 3.17 / 2013 +0.34 0.6341 G Used 2.89 2.49 / 2008 3.13 / 2017 +0.64 0.8753

* no data for 2008 Question A (Q-comfort) states: “After coming to [e-cube], I feel more comfortable being around and speaking with native English speakers.” It averaged 3.26 over the ten years and had positive change from minimum to maximum of +0.30 and the second

Table 4. Changes in Personal-affective Survey Ratings Over Ten Years

Table 3. Reported Language Skills Variations over Seven Years with Two-year Forecast


113

highest R2 trend of 0.7524 (Table 5). The highest average rating, at 3.68 with almost no change (+0.16), was for Question B (Q-study), which stated: “I felt I had to study English more.” This supports the notion above related to listening and speaking; the very act of visiting [e-cube] not only may help studied-language become acquired-language, but it may also serve as a platform for students to adjust their expectations and needs when considering future real-life interactions with native speakers. Question C (Q-useful) had steady +0.25 change and R2 forecast of 0.6491 [no data for 2008]. It stated: “I became able to use English as a tool of communication.” Question D (Q-fun), also with no 2008 data, stated: “I felt that English was fun.” It had the lowest forecasted change (R2 = 0.0146) and the least change (+0.15) despite a 2010 bump that never reoccurred. Its average was the second highest (3.34), possibly a manifestation of [e-cube’s] second directive – to get students to stop hating English by making it entertaining.

Question E (Q-culture at 2.93), Question F (Q-SA at 3.04), and Question G (Q-used at 2.89) were rated the lowest, but all had strong positive trend forecasts. Q-culture stated: “I feel I can understand the thinking of overseas culture, customs, and other things.” It had the second highest increase over time at + 0.55, which might be explained by the multi-cultural composition of both the staff and activity topics. However, it also had the second lowest average (2.93), which could be due to the aforementioned expectation adjustments. Q-SA said: “I became interested in foreign countries and studying abroad.” It was unremarkable yet positive (average 3.04) and with strong positive trends predicted (R2 = 0.6341). As with all questions in this subset, it is impossible to attribute change in values only to the respondents’ experiences at [e-cube]. There are many programs, classes, exchange students, and other potential influences both on and off campus that contribute to, or hinder, a student’s desire to travel abroad. The final question, G (Q-used), attempted to be more practical by stating: “I have been able to use what I learned in the activities at [e-cube].” Though it had the lowest average (2.89), it had the largest gains (+0.64) and the highest forecast trend (R2 = 0.8753). Clearly, more practical exposure to real life situations using English is necessary for the respondents, but it appears the opportunities at [e-cube] have at least in some part contributed to that.

Table 5. Reported Personal-affective Variations over Ten Years with Two-year Forecast


114

Further in-depth study is required to determine causality, but generally speaking, an English-practice environment such as [e-cube] can at minimum expose students to native role models and practical applications of English that lowers barriers and inhibitions to learning. Repeated simple learning situations encourage the acquisition of skills, making the language learner a language user.

Implementation for Laos In most places, it is not possible to have a large and expensive learning commons staffed by dedicated teachers, let alone native speakers. However, it is possible to offer a wide range of enjoyable out-of-class experiences that will raise students’ confidence, interest, and awareness of English. The genius of a learning commons is its multi-purpose flexibility and use of whole-brain techniques. One can be started with a shelf or cabinet then be developed into a corner of a library or a whole separate room. There does need to be an open area for students to gather for activities, but it might have as little as mats or nothing on the floor. Tables and chairs can help for arts and crafts activities, board and card games, and individual extensive reading, but they can also seem too much like a classroom, inhibiting reticent students and defeating the purpose of practical heads-up experiential learning. Movable chairs and open spaces make for movable students, which in turn opens students’ minds to new, more realistic experiences. The inherent flexibility means each school can adapt their learning commons to meet their needs. Staffing, on the other hand, is not as easy. While native speakers are not necessary, creativity and experience of those facilitating activities are crucial. Maintaining the facilities and coordinating activities takes time and enthusiasm. Training and a willingness to keep to an “English for fun” mandate is necessary so that activities do not become classroom like. Pens and paper for every student may be expected for some activities, but some of the best ones rely on few if any materials. Cards can be made for Mother’s Day. “Postcards” can be drawn of their hometown. With just one or two dice, or one piece of paper and a pencil per group, students can cooperate to make their own set of board games based on a theme with questions in each box. For the theme “New Year:” “What day of the week was New Year?” “What did you do New Year’s Day?” or “What did you eat on New Year’s Day?” Flipping coins can be used to count moves. These original board games, made by students for students, can then be recycled and shared over time or in different activities. Once too damaged, they can be thrown away and new ones made. Similarly, various numbered sets of questions can be created. Students roll a die and count down the list to ask and answer the next question. Alternatively, each number on the die can be assigned a question word, and with each roll of the die, a question must be asked. For example, (1) can be assigned the word “what.” When a one is rolled, the student has to ask a question with “what,” like “What is your name?” that another student answers. The teacher can also roll the die and ask questions if the students are not at a level to do it themselves. A deck of playing cards can work similarly. The sense of randomness and the fun nervous-tension of these games distracts students from the fact that it is a language lesson. For the lowest level students, using easy English in familiar situations is important to consider. Adding difficult new concepts or rules to an activity can distract students from


115

the main focus – using English. In Laos, every school has a few bamboo balls around. How about a game of kataw with the cheers, “good kick” and “over the net” in English? The easy-to-learn Western card game Go Fish or other card games likewise can offer a chance to use and learn simple English expressions. Pétanque (boules), tee hua pa khor (stickball), or spinning tops are already well-known and require a rather simple and repetitive vocabulary. Young students will focus more on the game and not realize that, through the repetition, they are automatizing their language. Automatized expressions they consolidate through repeated use in the activity may later be used in the classroom and this will build confidence. An older student can be chosen to ensure English is spoken, thereby motivating the student and relieving the teacher. With just a few more resources or for higher level students, the shelf, cabinet, or room can be stocked for more real-life activities. A plastic phone makes a ‘telephone call’ more realistic than reading from a 2D textbook. A set of dishes can be used to enhance “ordering in a restaurant.” Those same dishes can be used to have a ‘tea party’ or to make and serve simple recipes like coleslaw, pumpkin soup, flavored iced tea, or jam sandwiches. A map of the world can be the basis for a travel quiz or activities matching an animal, food, or shape to the country. Important Lao culture, national holidays, sites, fairy tales, and history in simplified English can be a starting point for activities. A teddy bear can become a mascot. Whatever it is, to be effective, it must be fun, non-threatening, repetitive, and regular. A monthly sing-along could practice previous songs and introduce a new one each time. This technique is known as cascading learning material – repeating and building on previous knowledge until it becomes acquired. Friday could be BINGO day with cards that change each week (numbers, animals, colors, money, vocabulary words, etc.). A daily or weekly storytelling or reading from a graded reader could provide extensive listening. Special holiday events could be in English. Like a school Sports Day, have a school-wide Language Day with prizes. It may seem like a lot of work to start, but the benefits are innumerable. The first year needs planning and support from all teaching staff and the administration. Keep in mind that activities that are easiest for the students will often be easiest for the teacher. They can slowly be built on over time, recycled, or developed to more levels and skills. Collaboration amongst teachers not only ensures different students’ needs and levels are being met, but also different types of activities and preparation and time burden can be shared. Getting students to enjoy English in a relaxed setting lowers affective barriers and boredom, while raising awareness of how the language can be used in real life. In turn, students will take control of their learning, discover what motivates them, become independent of the teacher, and understand that learning does not end when they step outside of class.


116

References Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago: Henry Regnery and Co. Ebbinghaus, H. (1880). Urmanuskript. Ueber das Gedächtniß. Passau: Passavia

Universitätsverlag. Educause Learning Initiative. (2011, April). Seven things you should know about™… The

modern learning commons. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/ pdf/ELI7071.pdf

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gross, R. (1992). Lifelong learning in the learning society of the twenty-first century. In C. Collins and J. Mangieri (Eds.), Teaching thinking: An agenda for the twenty-first century (pp. 133-144). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Karasic, V. M. (2006). From commons to classroom: The evolution of learning spaces in academic libraries. Journal of Learning Spaces, 5(2), 53-60.

Kitazume, S. (Ed.). (2010). A mayor’s confession. Tokyo: Kaibunsha. Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Stevick, E. (1999). Affect in learning and memory: From alchemy to chemistry. In J.

Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 218-236). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

van Lier, L. (1994). Forks and hope: Pursuing understanding in different ways. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 328-346.

Acknowledgements Images of the Daily Activity, ACE Activity, and Café News calendars are created by the

[e-cube] and Yodogawa Shokuhin staff. Retrieved from http://www.kindai.ac.jp/e-cube/

The [e-cube] survey was created and has been enhanced over time by a variety of [e-cube] members including the Mayor, Vice-mayors, managers, and staff.

Every year the [e-cube] survey data is input, calculated, and presented by the [e-cube] Japanese staff.

Many thanks and much appreciation to all the [e-cube] staff who dedicate themselves tirelessly and wholeheartedly to our mission – it takes a village.

Find us at [e-cube] homepage (Japanese only): http://www.kindai.ac.jp/e-cube


117

Appendix


118

Materials Development for Laos Teachers of English: A Journey Steven Graham American University of Phnom Penh Cambodia Biodata Steven Graham is the English Preparatory Program Director at the American University of Phnom Penh (AUPP), Cambodia and a founding member of Udon Education Foundation (UEF) in Udon Thani. His main interests are in English for Specific Purposes (ESP), English for Academic Purposes (EAP), teacher training, primary school teaching and learning materials, and speech recognition development and implementation. Steven has published extensively and is a frequent presenter at national seminars and international conferences. He reviews books and has also been a regular contributor to The Bangkok Post in Thailand. Abstract The majority of English language teachers in Laos have had to produce materials for their classrooms at some time. As teachers, we do not usually see ourselves as being professionals at this activity. This is due to teachers frequently being forced into this task in order to help their students with their studies. This paper considers the materials development journey of an EFL teacher and the cyclical effect it can have on our teaching and working lives. Specific examples are illustrated to demonstrate how all teachers can be adept at producing learning materials for their classrooms and their colleagues. Introduction I find it troubling that after more than 20 years in the profession, I cannot find a book that I can use that will satisfy all the outcomes and requirements for the courses that I teach. There seems to be a publishers’ gap between what is available in the marketplace and what we require for our students in the English language classroom. For example, Barron (2016) believes that we require more lexis in course materials because students require vocabulary before we can apply grammar rules. It is because of this gap that I started to make my own materials, first by adapting existing materials and then by making my own, after having shared my materials and experiences and acquiring feedback from my colleagues. The origins of the phrase “Necessity is the mother of invention” are not known; however, it does epitomize the dilemma facing English language teachers, especially provincial teachers in Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam in that it is up to the inventiveness of the teacher to develop materials for their English language classrooms. Now that Laos has moved toward a free market economy and has become part of the ASEAN Economic Community, English has gained importance (Kounnavongsa, 2013). Academics tend to structure their research, allowing them to conduct their investigations within the confines of their chosen framework. For English language teachers, the confines that are faced are the English language classroom and to succeed, they will take an eclectic approach to do whatever it takes to develop their students. In


119

addition, they can collaborate with their colleagues, share their materials, and they can also conduct their own professional development. This paper is going to recount the materials development journey that was taken to overcome the publishers’ gap in the hope it will encourage other teachers to take the leap of faith into providing the materials that their students require and deserve. Materials Development There are plenty of arguments for and against the use of textbooks when teaching English. Walker (2008) explains that those who like to use textbooks believe that they match curriculum goals, as well as current approaches and research, which helps teachers who are not expert materials writers. In addition, he states that students like textbooks (they are normally visually stimulating), and that there is a good choice of materials based on sound pedagogy, not necessarily putting forward a single way of teaching. These books are a constant source of materials for teachers to use, even though they may not be used as the main course book. Walker (2008) also details that there are sound arguments not to augment textbooks into the curriculum since they do not necessarily match the curriculum goals or the approach to language teaching; there is sometimes unnecessary material or not enough of what is required, and they sometimes dictate a prescribed way to teach. More importantly, he states that as the textbooks are expensive, teachers could make better materials themselves and that there are many materials freely available on the Internet. Teachers at the chalk-face have their specific reasons for making their own materials based on their own unique contexts. In Southeast Asia, especially in Laos, textbooks are not readily available and teachers have to take the initiative. So, what are teachers supposed to do? Teachers can reuse digital materials from websites (Grimley, 2016) if they have access to the Internet, or they can take what they have in front of them and adapt for their students. My first significant adaptation of someone else’s materials came after attending a conference in 2003 at Chulalongkorn University Language Institute (CULI) in Thailand. Joseph Cravotta gave a presentation detailing how to teach using intercultural roleplays. I realized that I could use the supporting paperwork that he gave us for one of my courses at my university if I made some adjustments. I was also using roleplays; however, I wanted to focus on language functions and so I made that my focus when adapting his existing materials. A full explanation as to how the material was adapted can be accessed on my website (Graham, 2011a). I tested the new material with my students to see if it would be successful and it worked. I have been using it ever since. This gave me confidence, as I had never done anything like this before and I had not been trained to do this. I wasn’t sure if it would work, but once my students were able to understand what to do, I grew in confidence. After all, there are some common myths surrounding the writing of materials, such as only experts can do it, only experienced teachers can do it, the writer is the most important person in the writing team and the more advanced the design and production of the materials, the better they are (Harrison, 2007). I was motivated to do more. My big break happened when I was giving a presentation at a CamTESOL conference in Cambodia. I was talking about a course I was teaching to Mechanical Technology students, where they had to write their CVs and cover letters and conduct job interviews


120

in English (Graham, 2009). I explained how I used a book about writing CVs and focused the students’ attention on what they can do and what they had done. Their English ability was not very high; however, by engaging the students and motivating them, they were able to do well on the course and complete all the objectives. In the audience, there were two representatives from Macmillan who approached me after the presentation and asked if I was interested in making some online materials to go with a book they had published. What was particularly interesting was that they wanted me to use the materials that I had made for my course and adapt them to fit their requirements. I considered this my introduction to becoming a first-time materials writer (Graham, 2011b). When I returned from the conference, I went about adapting the materials, which was not too difficult because I asked for some guidelines from the publishers. The main problem was the differences between the American and British versions of a CV, meaning I had to adapt my British version to fit the American coursebook I was supplementing. However, after several weeks, I was able to produce five worksheets and teachers’ notes covering understanding job advertisements, identifying your capabilities and achievements, preparing your resume, writing a cover letter, and simulated interview (Graham, 2008). As an added bonus, I was sponsored by Macmillan to present the materials at a conference in Bangkok. Not to miss an opportunity, I wrote a paper explaining what happened and how I created the materials (Graham, 2010a). Sharing Materials By writing a paper explaining how I created the materials, it gave me the opportunity to share what I had accomplished with everyone else. It was not about self-promotion; it was about distributing the materials to as wide an audience as I could. The way to do this is to present at conferences and to write articles explaining how the materials were made and how to use them. In addition, materials can be passed on if you conduct seminars and teacher training sessions. Flush with success, I embarked on a major project to create a set of DVDs for the first six years of primary school in Thailand. It took me two years to create the dialogues in line with the Thai curriculum and to film, sound dub and physically make the DVDs. It started out very innocently, with audio dialogues in the classroom, until one of the teachers asked me to make the DVDs. I used my children as the actors and shot the videos during the summer months. It was a lot of work, but it was worth it (Graham, 2010b). The DVDs were regularly used with primary school children. They worked well in the classrooms and I was able to distribute many sets by conducting training seminars for teachers and giving copies away at conferences. I decided to make some comics to go with the DVD dialogues using MakeBeliefsComix. This website generates comics for you and I based the comics on the dialogues contained on the DVDs. This meant that I could show teachers how to make supplementary materials to go with the DVDs I was giving away (Graham, 2012). At present, I am working with colleagues to use the DVDs and comics in conjunction with speech recognition software. We have been testing our ideas and are hopeful that we can make DVDs, comics and speech recognition work together (Graham, 2011c). Software is expensive, so we are looking at making our own, which is taking much


121

longer than we thought. However, we are committed to making this work and then sharing with teachers and schools out in the provinces, in Thailand, Laos and Cambodia. One word of warning: not everything that you do will be successful. I applied for a grant as I was making my own textbook for a course I was teaching at university and thought that I might qualify. The problem I faced was that the people who give the grants have their own ideas about how things should be done. It is important to design materials at the same time as the curriculum design process if you are starting a new course (Butler, Heslup, & Kurth, 2015). Whereas I wanted the students to search for the information as they completed the tasks in line with the curriculum requirements, the agency providing the grant thought that the information should be contained in the book. I was unsuccessful with my grant application; however, I produced the book the way I wanted to (Graham, 2014). Conclusion When starting out, teachers should create materials for their own classes and if they work well, ask colleagues to give some feedback (Leather, 2010). Moiseenko (2015) believes that creating materials is a good way for students to learn English in a learner-centered way, so it might be a good idea for your students to create the materials as part of their English language learning. As well as being used to develop students, materials writing can be used to improve yourself as a teacher if you try to incorporate it into your professional development, as this is seen as being a better option than teacher education (Tomlinson, 2003). However, Kiely (1996) states that it is still useful for in-service teacher training in specific classroom contexts. If a career in materials writing is something you are considering, then it is important to get noticed by presenting at conferences, doing some work for a small publisher, a website or magazine, or set up your own website to display what you have written (Clandfield, n.d.). Who knows where your career could end up? You might even want to write graded readers (Leather, 2011) or just teach your students at your school or university. The choice is yours. Resources and Handouts Get Ready for Business: http://www.macmillanenglish.com/GetReadyforBusiness/Teachers/TA-Worksheets.htm English for Future Careers: Globalisation for Mechanical Technology Students: https://camtesol.org/Download/Earlier_Publications/Selected_Papers_Vol.5_2009.pdf Developing Materials for English for Future Careers: http://www.steves-english-zone.com/images/Papers/engfut.pdf EIL in the Primary Classroom: Exploration and innovation using DVDs for Communication: http://www.japss.org/upload/5.%20graham.pdf An Example of Materials Adaptation for the EFL Classroom: http://www.steves-english-zone.com/images/Papers/newfocusjune2011.pdf


122

Comics in the Classroom: Something to be Taken Seriously: https://camtesol.org/Download/LEiA_Vol2_Iss1_2011/LEiA_V2_I1_07_Steven_Graham_Comics_in_the_Classroom_Something_to_be_Taken_Seriously.pdf Audio Visual MakeBeliefsComix Lesson for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages: http://mail.steves-english-zone.com/images/stories/new-focus-2012.pdf Developing Materials for the 21st Century: http://mail.steves-english-zone.com/images/Papers/folio.pdf References Barron, K. (2016, January - February). Let’s start again! IATEFL Voices, 8-9. Butler, G., Heslup, S., & Kurth, L. (2015). A ten-step process for developing teaching

units. English Teaching Forum, 53(3), 2-12. Clandfield, L. (n.d.). Lindsay Clandfield. Retrieved August 16, 2017, from ELT Linkup:

http://www.eltlinkup.org/lindsayart.htm Graham, S. (2008). Get ready for business - teachers’ area. Retrieved July 13, 2017,

from Get ready for business: http://www.macmillanenglish.com/GetReadyforBusiness/Teachers/TA-Worksheets.htm

Graham, S. (2009). English for future careers: Globalisation for mechanical technology students. CamTESOL Conference on English Language Teaching: Selected Papers Vol. 5 (pp. 45-54). Phnom Penh: CamTESOL. Retrieved from https://camtesol.org/Download/Earlier_Publications/Selected_Papers_Vol.5_2009.pdf

Graham, S. (2010a). Developing materials for English for future careers. The New English Teacher, 4(2), 155-164.

Graham, S. (2010b). EIL in the primary classroom: Exploration and innovation using DVDs for communication. Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 1(3), 506-523.

Graham, S. (2011a, May). An example of materials adaption for the EFL classroom. Thailand TESOL New Focus(3), 64-73. Retrieved from http://www.steves-english-zone.com/images/Papers/newfocusjune2011.pdf

Graham, S. (2011b, October 27). MWIS Newsletter. Retrieved July 13, 2017, from TESOL International Association: http://www.tesol.org/read-and-publish/newsletters-other-publications/interest-section-newsletters/mwis-newsletter/2011/10/27/mwis-news-volume-23-1-(march-2005)

Graham, S. (2011c). Comics in the classroom: Something to be taken seriously. Language Education in Asia, 2(1), 92-102. doi:10.5746/LEiA/11/V2/l1.A07/Graham

Graham, S. (2012, October). Audio Visual MakeBeliefsComix Lesson for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Thailand TESOL New Focus(3), 20-27. Retrieved August 2017, 16, from http://mail.steves-english-zone.com/images/stories/new-focus-2012.pdf

Graham, S. (2014, January). Developing materials for the 21st century. Folio, 16(1), 28-34. Retrieved August 16, 2017, from http://mail.steves-english-zone.com/images/Papers/folio.pdf


123

Grimley, B. (2016, August). Saving time making ELT materials. Retrieved from TESOL video news: http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolvdmis/issues/2016-07-26/9.html

Harrison, R. (2007, November). Materials writing. English Teaching Professional (53), pp. 49-51.

Kiely, R. (1996). Professional development for teacher trainers: A materials writing approach. ELT Journal, 50(1), 59-66.

Kounnavongsa, S. (2013). An overview of the state of language policy/practice in Lao PDR. Forum on English for ASEAN Integration (pp. 65-66). Bandar Seri Begawan: Universiti Brunei Darussalam.

Leather, S. (2010, July). Teacher plus: Writing for publication. English Teaching Professional, Issue 69, pp. 53-54.

Leather, S. (2011, January). Teacher plus: Writing a graded reader. English Teaching Profesional, Issue 72, pp. 48-49.

Moiseenko, V. (2015). Encouraging learners to create language-learning materials. English Teaching Forum, 53(4), 14-23.

Tomlinson, B. (2003). Developing materials to develop yourself. Humanising Language Teaching, 5(4), http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jul03/mart1.htm.

Walker, B. (2008, February). Why use textbooks? Retrieved July 7, 2017, from TESOL International Association MWIS Newsletter: https://www.tesol.org/read-and-publish/newsletters-other-publications/interest-section-newsletters/mwis-newsletter/2011/10/27/mwis-news-volume-21-1-(february-2008)


124

Teacher Development Through Reflective Practice: Making Connections Joan M. Kuroda Kwansei Gakuin University Japan Biodata Joan Kuroda is a full-time lecturer at Kwansei Gakuin University in Nishinomiya, Japan. Holding an MBA specializing in Japanese management systems from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and a MEd focusing on English language education from Hyogo University of Teacher Education, she has practical and theoretical experiences in cross-cultural communication spanning 25 years, beginning with her stint as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Thailand. Her research interests include reflective practice, teacher beliefs, storytelling and phonetics. Abstract Investigating current teaching beliefs through reflective practice helps teachers make connections between their classrooms and their teaching practices. It can also help teachers assimilate new information gained through training and conferences into their own unique teaching situations. Focusing on description rather than interpretation leads to insights about the classroom previously unnoticed as teachers learn to view their teaching through the eyes of their students. With descriptive feedback, teachers collect data from the perspective of their students and combine it with data from their own observations. What follows is the process of making meaning of their previous experiences to better inform their decision making in the future. Participating in reflective practice shows teachers how to make connections between their past, present and future. Reflection “Reflection” is defined by Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary as (1) an image seen in a mirror or on a shiny surface, and (2) something that shows the effect, existence or character of something else. Using a mirror as a metaphor for the classroom, the behaviors, actions and attitudes of the students are reflected back to the teacher to reveal the effects of teaching and character of the teacher. By looking closely at this mirror, teachers can make adjustments to their own behaviors as well as their teaching practices, and see things they have never seen before. Teachers should be cautioned against turning reflection into a “magic mirror”. That is, using reflection to seek only validation for their practices much as the Evil Queen in Snow White uses her mirror for the sole purpose of making it tell her how beautiful she is, only to find out that Snow White is in fact, the most beautiful in the land. Engaging in reflective practice means teachers come face-to-face with their flaws. Rodgers (2002) conceptualizes the first of John Dewey’s four criteria for reflection as, “Reflection is a meaning-making process that moves a learner from one experience to the next with deeper understanding of its relationships with and connections to other experiences and ideas” (p. 845). Teachers bring a myriad of experiences with them when they enter a classroom. Memories of favorite, and not-so-favorite teachers from their youth, good and bad encounters with students, teaching skills and theories all have some


125

kind of effect on their teaching practices in their classrooms whether they are aware of them or not. Reflective practice seeks to bring this awareness to the forefront and by doing so brings the past into the present. Types of Reflection The second criteria, Rodgers explains, is “Reflection is a systematic, rigorous, disciplined way of thinking with its roots in scientific inquiry” (p. 845). There are many types of reflective frameworks that have different purposes. Frameworks that focus on performative reflection aim to provide guidelines for teaching practices and checklists may often be used to make sure teachers are following protocols to enhance or validate performance. Reflection for further inquiry is more exploratory in nature. This type of reflection provides space for teachers to select their own inquiry and aims for a better understanding, not solutions, and is an ongoing practice (Tan, 2008). Exploratory reflection allows teachers to discover how their students are experiencing their teaching. It gives them the opportunity to learn about their students and about themselves. Focusing only on results-driven, quantifiable, positivist research may result in losing the connection between research and practice in the classroom, and teachers blaming themselves for failure to implement a proven method. Exploratory reflection can be the buffer or the glue, depending on the situation, that connects the theory to the classroom. The classroom is in a constant state of action even when students appear to be quietly sitting at their desks. There is the dynamic between teachers and students, students and their schoolwork, and the external environment that is affecting the classroom, all of which are not clearly visible. When embarking on an inquiry the stimuli can be overwhelming and much like the Invisible Gorilla (Chabris and Simons, 1999), and having an overly narrow focus during the inquiry can cause the teacher-researcher to miss the obvious. During an exploratory investigation, it is important for teachers to keep an open mind to see what is revealed to them rather than to go looking for something specific. The Reflective Cycle The reflective cycle starts with an experience and some kind of curiosity or sense of discomfort about the experience. This requires teachers to be present during the experience. Rodgers and Raiders-Roth (2006), describe presence as “a state of alert awareness, receptivity, and connectedness to the mental, emotional and physical workings of both the individual and the group” (p.265). As teachers observe their classrooms they are actually collecting ongoing feedback from their students. Teachers may observe whether or not students are following instructions, how they are participating in tasks, and how the students are scoring on their tests among other observations. The purpose of developing presence in the classroom and collecting ongoing data is to try to see the classroom from the students’ point of view. Teachers also collect structured feedback through reflection papers that ask questions of the students such as: List the things you learned today. What went well today? What helped you learn?


126

Write your questions, comments or your frustrations about the class. Weekly reflection papers can guide teachers in their inquiry and in their teaching as they follow the needs of their students. A final written reflection elicited from the students also provides descriptive feedback about their classes. Asking students to respond to teachers’ own reflections or asking a simple question such as, “write about what you learned in this class” or “what is something you accomplished this semester that you are proud of” or any number of prompts can facilitate these descriptions. The third of Dewey’s four criteria conceptualized by Rodgers (2002) is “Reflection needs to happen in a community, in interaction with others” (p. 845). An important part of the reflective cycle is gathering teacher reflections. Exploratory reflective practice is unique in that teachers’ subjectivity is an important part of the study. Teachers’ observations, musings and emotional reactions to situations in the classrooms and student feedback are recorded in reflection journals. It is important for teachers to concentrate on describing the situation at hand and not jump to interpretation. For example, “Student A was sleeping in my class today” as opposed to “Student A is lazy, he is always sleeping my class.” Describing a student sleeping is far different from labeling a student as lazy. It is not known why the student is sleeping and jumping to the conclusion that the student is sleeping because he is lazy excludes other possibilities for the student’s behavior. Writing and exchanging reflection journals with a trusted peer or peers allows teacher-researchers investigating their classrooms to gather perspectives other than their own to see the same situation from other angles as their fellow teachers write comments in each other’s journals. A simple, but often difficult rule to follow when making comments in journals is “do not give advice”, even when the journal-writer is asking for it. Comments should begin with “I notice” or “I wonder”. Teachers need the opportunity to think through their difficulties on their own, using outside perspectives to enhance their thought processes. An experienced and sensitive facilitator can guide the teachers on their respective reflective journeys and add a new dimension to the situation. It may seem daunting to gather a group of trusted peers together and expose vulnerabilities, but as trust develops and relationships deepen, teacher growth can occur as light is brought to dark burdens. Exchanging journals with others, not only allows for other perspectives, but also prevents teachers from engaging in rumination, a negative cycle of regret and self-blame as teachers review difficult situations without the insight of others over and over again. Student or learner reflections, both ongoing and structured provide the descriptive feedback portion of the collected. Teacher reflections provide the descriptive review. Together, the two perspectives become the descriptive inquiry or data for the study (Rodgers, 2010). The fourth of Dewey’s criteria for reflection is “Reflection requires attitudes that value the personal and intellectual growth of oneself and of others” (Rogers, 2002, p. 845). Again, the focus of the inquiry is not a short-term solution to a problem or to validate performance, but to learn more about the moving forces, or dynamics, of the classroom. After teachers have collected the information for the descriptive inquiry, they are ready to move on to analysis. As teachers reflect on their students’ experiences in their classrooms, and review their own responses, past experiences rise up to inform them of their current beliefs and behaviors. Ironically, as teachers focus more on the perspective


127

of their students, the more they learn about themselves and the mirror metaphor becomes clearer. Looking closely into the mirror of the classroom reveals previously unnoticed details as students’ behavior is reflected back onto the teacher to uncover hidden teacher beliefs. This is where teachers make meaning of their experiences in the classroom. Through the process of reviewing the data gathered from students, viewing their own responses to them, and looking into why they reacted the way they did, teachers start to make connections among the various parts of the experience (Rodgers, 2002). As teachers learn about their students and consequently about themselves, connect past experiences to present ones, and gain greater understanding about their classrooms, they can now make more informed decisions in the future. Their previously hidden teacher beliefs come to light and they can understand more clearly why they teach the way they do. Teacher Beliefs The sense of discomfort that propels teachers into a reflective inquiry often stems from the misalignment of teaching practices and teacher beliefs. Teachers may feel dissatisfied with their students’ response to their teaching; they may feel uncomfortable using a new teaching method required by their school, or with any number of circumstances that may cause confusion, but go unrecognized unless they are challenged. The importance of identifying and then challenging teacher beliefs often goes unrecognized. Pajares (1992) explains the importance of exploring teacher beliefs when he states, "Beliefs are unlikely to be replaced unless they prove unsatisfactory, and they are unlikely to prove unsatisfactory unless they are challenged and one is unable to assimilate them into existing conceptions" (p. 321). This may help explain why teachers may still feel uncomfortable after learning new theories. Without recognizing their own teacher beliefs first, they cannot make true connections to new ideas and theories. Brown and Rodgers (2001) make a clear connection between the alignment of teacher beliefs and practices and successful students in their statement, "Teachers whose beliefs and behaviors are in accord will be well-matched, will be more effective teachers, and will have more successful students than those teachers for whom beliefs and behaviors are in conflict" (p.152). In fact, according to their research, they find that teacher beliefs have a stronger influence on their practices than teacher training, texts or methods. Conclusion By engaging in exploratory reflective practice, teachers are given the opportunity to make connections among their past and present experiences, their teaching beliefs and practices, and their relationships with their students as they look into the mirror of their classrooms. It is hoped that by describing their situations and focusing on the process of reflection, that not only will teachers be able to make more informed decisions about their future situations, but also form communities of peers to support this ongoing practice of reflection.


128

References Brown, J.D., & Rodgers, T.S. (2002). Doing language research: An introduction to the

theory and practice of second language research for graduate/master’s students in TESOL and applied linguistics, and others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. doi:10.3102/00346543062003307

Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–66.

Rodgers, C., & Raider-Roth, M. (2006). Presence in teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 265–287.

Rodgers, C. (2010). The role of descriptive inquiry in building presence and civic capacity. In N. Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for professional reflective inquiry (pp. 45-61). New York, NY: Springer.

Simons, D. (2010, March 10). Selective attention test[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo&t=1s

Tan, K. (2011). Reflection: Some critical issues for educators. In C. Tan (Ed.), Philosophical reflections for educators [Kindle version]. Retrieved from amazon.co.jp


129

Teaching Culture (and so much more) with PechaKucha Presentations Simon Capper Japanese Red Cross Hiroshima College of Nursing Japan Biodata Simon Capper, of the Japanese Red Cross Hiroshima College of Nursing, has been teaching in universities and colleges in Hiroshima for 29 years, and served as President of Hiroshima JALT (Japan Association for Language Teaching) from 2011-2015. His main areas of interest are materials development, intercultural communication, and nursing English. He has authored and co-authored several ELT course books and is the co-founder of JANET (Japan Association for Nursing English Teaching). Abstract Making a PowerPoint presentation in class is a challenge for many students, who struggle to apply the ‘KISS’ principle (“Keep It Simple, Stupid!”). Finding the correct balance between textual and visual display and creating a natural flow in the presentation ‘narrative’ while at the same time determining the relative weight of the presentation content can leave presenters dispirited and confused, and the audience frustrated and bored. One way to help students to overcome these challenges and produce presentations that are lean, succinct and focused, is to train them in the use of a 20-slide, 20-seconds per slide presentation format known as PechaKucha. This paper outlines the key stages of such a presentation – Planning, Design and Delivery – and provides guidelines with which to support students to plan their work and avoid potential pitfalls. It also includes templates for progress report submission and peer evaluation forms. Background The PechaKucha presentation format was created in 2003 by two Tokyo-based architects, Astrid Klein and Mark Dytham. Frustrated by having to endure countless ‘death by PowerPoint’ presentations, they created a simple format that would compel presenters to get their message across in a concise yet entertaining manner. The name they chose for this presentation style – PechaKucha – means ‘chat’ or ‘chit-chat’ in Japanese. The format comprises of exactly 20 slides, each lasting exactly 20 seconds, with the slides changing automatically. From start to finish, a PechaKucha presentation takes six minutes and 40 seconds, with no interruptions, no restarts, and no going back.

The first stage in creating a presentation is to find a topic that interests the student and that has the potential to interest others. A PechaKucha presentation should aim to entertain AND educate the audience, so obviously, some topics are more appropriate than others. Teachers may wish to restrict students to a group of thematic topics, based on the goals of the class. For example, students expecting to interact with foreign tourists or talk about aspects of Lao culture might consider topics such as “Top 10 things to do and see in Vientiane”, “A Brief History of Laos”, “An Introduction to Lao Cuisine” or “Things you might not know about a Buddhist temple”.


130

Alternatively, students may wish to communicate something from their own personal experience. What stories do they want to tell? What messages do they want to communicate? Students may invest more in the presentation if they are allowed to choose a topic that is familiar to them and that they are passionate about. Whichever approach is followed, students should be encouraged to keep it simple. Once this most important decision has been taken, students are ready to move to the next stages, using the guidelines for Planning, Design, and Delivery. A. Planning: Organization and Flow

1. Write your outline on paper and consider the natural flow of the slides. You will need to plan 20 slides, no more, no less, so list 20 points and start writing sentences to communicate your main points for each slide.

2. Edit carefully. Be ready to cut out what you don’t need. Make sure the content and language isn’t too difficult for your audience or too hard for you to communicate.

B. Design: Keep it Visually Simple

1. Make your slides. Start each slide’s text with your main, key point/idea. The text in your slide should be no more than a title. Too much text will encourage people to read, instead of listening to you.

2. Avoid fancy fonts. Use a sans serif font, as they are easier to read. 3. Ask yourself, “Do the slides have a natural flow? Is the progress smooth, and is

the information in the correct order?” 4. Avoid using animations, since they can be distracting and can use up precious

time. Avoid sound files and video for the same reason. Avoid using side transitions such as ‘fade in’ or ‘swirl’. They will distract listeners’ attention.

5. Add images. Your slides should illustrate and add emphasis to your key points. Choose your pictures carefully. They should be clear and simple, interesting and appropriate. Don’t use more than three images on one slide. Too many images can be confusing. Overall, be consistent with your slide design and fonts.

6. Graphics are widely available on websites such as Creative Commons, Flickr, etc. Be sure to cite sources or attribute where appropriate. Photos of 72 dpi should be enough, but avoid using images that require a huge amount of memory. Or why not use your own photos, or create your own graphics? This can be an enjoyable creative challenge.

C. Delivery – Practice & Rehearsal

1. Write a text and use it at the practice stage. Practice until you can deliver the talk without looking at the text. The language should reflect informal spoken, not written English.

2. Practice as much as you can, and then practice some more. Practice in front of your friends and get their feedback. It is essential that you are smooth and


131

confident and that your speech is not too fast, and not too slow. There is only one way to achieve this. Practice. Memorize. Rehearse.

3. Think carefully about your voice and body language, and try to create a good rapport with your audience. Make eye contact. Show them that you are happy to communicate with them, and encourage them to participate actively in your talk. Share your passion for your topic.

4. Are there any words that your audience won’t understand? Try to anticipate possible difficulties. Make difficult parts simpler, perhaps by including one or two translated key words for each slide. Try not to look at the screen, but do interact with it if you need to make a point.

Advice for Teachers and Options for Using PechaKucha in Class

1. A solo PechaKucha is challenging for most students. It’s easier for students to create and present the presentation in pairs, researching and writing together, and presenting alternate slides.

2. Match the topic to the proficiency level of your students. You may or may not wish to correct students’ final texts before the practice and presentation stage.

3. Students’ delivery will benefit from a teacher audio recording a model of their presentation.

4. Consider requiring students to submit a voiced version of their Powerpoint for final evaluation. Students can use software such as Moxtra, VoiceThread or Screen Cast’o’matic to add voices to a PowerPoint.

5. Ensure that information is factually accurate and that illustrations are appropriate, i.e. don’t illustrate a PechaKucha on the Indian caste system with a photo of a Sikh (Sikhs do not recognise caste), or illustrate inappropriately (one eccentric with a huge turban is not typical of all Sikhs).

6. Reciprocal practice with another pair is very useful as part of a peer review. PK1 speaker should read the text to PK2 listener, and at the end of each slide, PK2 listener should reiterate the content in L1. This is great for checking possible vocabulary and pronunciation problems.

7. Students can practice their pronunciation by using the dictation function on later versions of Microsoft Word. Challenge the students to read the text into the microphone and see how accurately Word can transcribe it.

8. Why not start a PechaKucha club in your university? They’re a great chance to share your ideas and share your lives. More information can be found at www.PechaKucha.org

Conclusion A PechaKucha presentation will not be a panacea for all classroom presentation problems. However, this format does offer a simple and effective framework that is easily understandable to students. Unlike less constrained presentation formats, PechaKucha allows for more frequent, more concentrated practice while also developing skills in key areas of editing, layout, flow design and delivery. When it works well, students will find it stimulating, entertaining and informative. And if, in the unlikely event that things go


132

horribly wrong, they will only go horribly wrong for six minutes and 40 seconds. At the very least, your audience will thank you for that. Appendix 1: PechaKucha: A Sample Submission Checklist for Students Document Layout and Submission: Please follow these guidelines when you submit your PechaKucha text:

• Complete the "Progress Checklist parts 1, 2 & 3" before submitting your work. • Send it as an MS Word document. Use English Calibri 11-point font (not

Japanese). Use 1.5 line spacing, with 2 cm margins all around the page. • Use one presentation key word and your own names as the name as your file

name, and have the topic name [title?] and your names at the top of the page. Use English font for your file title.

• Both partners should check the entire 20-point document before submission. Be sure to use the spelling checker.

• Make sure your points have a clear introduction, a natural flow from one point to another and that the language is not too difficult for your classmates.

• If you are not sure about anything, please ask the teacher for advice.

Progress Checklist part 1: Planning: Organization and flow

Yes Not yet 1. Does our PowerPoint file name follow the correct format? 2. Have we checked all the facts and kept a record of our sources? 3. Have we collaborated equally on the creation of the text and

slides? 4. Have we used Word spelling checker or dictionary to check

spelling? 5. Does the content include everything that we want to

communicate? 6. Does our opening slide introduce the topic and in a natural way? 7. Does our closing slide summarize and end the talk in a natural

way? Progress Checklist part 2: Design: Keep it visually simple

Yes Not yet 1. Is our title on the first slide? (optional) 2. Do our photos appear sharp and clear on the big screen? 3. Is our photo attribution correct and in a small enough font? 4. Are our photos and illustrations accurate portrayals of our

meaning? 5. Have we limited our slide text to the minimum number of words? 6. Have all our slides been corrected? Is this the most up-to-date

version? Progress Checklist part 3: Delivery: Practice & rehearsal


133

Yes Not yet 1. Is the PowerPoint automatic timer set for 20 seconds per slide? 2. Can we say our sentences within 20 seconds? 3. Have we both memorized the presentation? 4. Can we make good eye contact with the audience? 5. Are our voices loud enough?

Self-evaluation and feedback. " ______________________________________________________is a problem for us." "Next, we’ll improve______________________________________________________." Appendix 2: PechaKucha Stage 1: Preliminary Peer Evaluation Evaluation by ....................................................................................................................... Speakers: ............................................................................................................................... Topic: .................................................................................................................................... What words were difficult to understand? What did you think of the PK design and layout? Any other comments?


134

Appendix 3: PechaKucha Stage 2: Final Peer Evaluation Evaluation by ................................................................................................................... Speakers: .......................................................................................................................... Topic: ................................................................................................................................

Speaking / Delivery Poor Needs work

OK Good Excellent

Pronunciation? (Stress, rhythm & intonation) Fluency, speed, loudness & voice clarity?

Memorization? Body language & eye contact? Confidence, enthusiasm & audience connection?

Slide timing? Content: Interesting and informative?

Notes ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


135

The Autonomous Learner in a Social Learning Space Naomi Fujishima and Susan Meiki Okayama University Japan

Biodata Naomi Fujishima has been teaching at the university level in Japan since 1992. Currently, she is a full-time professor at Okayama University. Her research areas include student motivation and learner autonomy. In 2011, she and two of her colleagues received a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science to conduct a four-year research project on a social learning space called the English Café. The culmination of this project led to a book edited by Garold Murray and Naomi Fujishima in 2016 called Social Spaces for Language Learning: Stories from the L-café. Susan Meiki (Okayama University) has been teaching in Japan since 1989 and at Japanese universities since 2002. Along with her teaching activities and research, she is Director General of Hiroshima International School and recently was Educational Materials Exhibition coordinator at the JALT2016 international conference. Her professional interests are: cross cultural cognitive linguistics, learner development, movie analysis, cross cultural communication and CALL.

Abstract Interacting in a social learning space has been shown to help second language learners overcome their weaknesses in speaking English. Van Lier stated that “the autonomous learner should be able to answer the three issues of what, how and when to learn” (1996, p. 13). The “what” is determined by the student. The “how” is by talking to others, and the “when” is determined by their schedule. In this project, students were given an assignment to visit the L-café, a social learning space, and perform 15-minute conversations with foreign students. Students completed a self-evaluation task, designed to promote awareness of learning another language. Afterward, it was observed that students showed increased motivation by staying in the L-café over their allotted time. The researchers will introduce the L-café, the survey and an analysis of the data. They will conclude with implications on how a social learning space can affect learner motivation.

Introduction For most students in Japan, English language education starts in junior high school. English communication lessons start in the 5th and 6th year of elementary school, but grammar, spelling and the learning of a required nationally approved vocabulary list starts at the secondary level. From this point on, the educational goals are geared to passing tests, which include high school entrance exams and university entrance exams. Communicative principles and creative use of English are sparingly touched upon because the national curriculum is geared toward passing the university entrance exam. Students come to university fresh from memorizing grammar rules and vocabulary. It


136

could be said that learner autonomy is measured by how much a student studies at home for these exams. Holec (1981) defines learner autonomy as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning” (p. 3). Taking charge is the ultimate goal, but in a first-year university course, students need to be made aware of the process and principles to achieve this goal. The course goal ultimately is for students to have intrinsic motivation so they continue to learn English outside of the structured classroom environment. Little (1994) states that “learner autonomy solves the problem of learner motivation” (p. 2).

Background All first- and second-year Japanese students at the university where this study took place are required to take a certain number of general English courses in order to graduate. During the year that the study was conducted, the English curriculum included separate classes for each skill -- writing, reading, speaking, and listening. Each skill had carefully outlined descriptions and goals for the students to achieve, according to their level. Students were streamed into the classes based on their score on the TOEIC test, which all first-year students sat for in April at the beginning of the academic year.

The L-café The study was conducted in a social learning space called the L-café, which was established in May, 2009. It was originally meant to be a place where Japanese students could practice English by interacting with international students in a relaxed atmosphere. By talking to people from other countries, students could learn about other cultures from each other. Today, it has expanded its focus, so there are conversations in English and Japanese, as well as other languages such as French, Chinese, Korean, Serbian, or German to name just a few. You might see first-year college students talking to 3rd or 4th year students, or even graduate students. At the time of this writing, there were four types of activities that students could choose from. The first one is called “Free talk”. Most Japanese students are rather shy in general so it is difficult for them to talk casually with international students or with teachers even in their native language. It is a big obstacle for them to overcome their shyness to talk. However, once students pass the first hurdle, they quickly find that speaking in English is rewarding and fun. They find that it is different from learning English by themselves or in a classroom setting. The second type of activity is the small-sized, non-credited lessons. At the L-café, students can take lessons taught by fellow students. Some lessons are taught by international students and others are taught by older, more experienced students who have spent time studying abroad. Students don’t get university credit for taking the classes, but they’re popular because the classes are taught by their peers and are small in class size with usually between two and seven students attending. Each semester there have been about 25 kinds of lessons and about 1,300 students taking them. The third type of activity is the events. In the past, most of the events were organized by the students themselves, but after a new manager replaced the former one in 2013, the manager took more control of the planning. However, in October of 2016, an assistant was hired, who, with the guidance of the manager, started organizing most of the events. Between October 2016 and February 2017, there were 12 events put on, which were open


137

to Japanese and international students alike. Some of these events included a Halloween Costume Contest, Yakage (a small town in Okayama) Welcome Party, Autumn Leaves viewing tour in Shodoshima, and a Tamachi Hot Springs Tour. All in all, there are usually about ten to 17 events each semester, depending on the season and students’ interests. The final type of activity at the L-café is providing language workshops for interested students. In the past, there have been intensive pronunciation workshops for English, French and Chinese for 40-minutes every day during the lunch period. This seemed to be popular because students in one workshop could see how other language workshop participants were learning pronunciation, too. There are plans for the upcoming academic years to have more pronunciation workshops and a new workshop on studying abroad. The L-café has quickly expanded and evolved over the past eight years. In 2009, when it was the English Café, the space was only 39 square meters, but now, as the L-café, it has grown to 334 square meters, almost eight times bigger than before. As for the visitors, the number has increased from 30 students per day to 150, which is five times as many. Also, the number of students who sign up for the lessons has more than doubled. Why has the L-café been so successful? Why has it grown this much in such a short time? To pursue these questions, Murray and Fujishima (2013), conducted a research project just one year after the English Café (EC) opened in 2009. They wanted to find out why students, both international and Japanese, were drawn to this small space. What they discovered was that students came to the EC (now the L-café) basically to make friends. Students wanted a place to be able to talk freely with each other, and learn about the English language and other cultures without the constraints of a classroom. At that time, there were not many places for international students to meet other students, except for their lab groups, especially for those attending the university to do research and work on their PhDs. There were not as many events or lessons that were planned or scheduled, so most students came to either study, eat lunch (it was next to a luncheon café) or just talk. More recently, though, as the L-café has grown and become more well-known, Japanese students who visit are interested in learning English, other cultures, and especially learning about study abroad programs. For some students, it is the first time for them to meet and get to know international students. It is a special opportunity for them to be able to sit next to someone from another country and eat lunch together. If one Japanese student has this experience, the next time he or she might bring another friend, and then their friends will bring other friends. In this way, a circle of friends is created and a community is formed. However, if we just let students do what they want to do in a disorganized way, it may not be easy to form a lasting community. With this in mind, the L-café manager hired student workers, who are now the secret behind the smooth running of the café. There are basically two categories of student workers – assistant managers and student teachers. The assistant manager’s job is to welcome students and guide them to whatever activity they want to do, whether it be to study, meet new people, attend a lesson, or watch news in English. The student teachers conduct the small group lessons. Currently, there are lessons for test preparation, such as the TOEIC, TOEFL, and IELTS, and several conversation courses.


138

The study It is in this social learning space where the current study took place. The Integrated English-1 (IE-1) course was a speaking course for first-year students enrolled in a public national university. The general education English curriculum required four courses to be taught, each one addressing a skill. Students were streamed according to their scores on the TOEIC test, which was given in April at the start of the students’ university career. The course objectives were already predetermined by each faculty (Appendix 1). The listening and reading components were utilized for measuring the students’ level for streaming. At the beginning of the course, students given the CEFR-J list of language levels for speaking and were asked to self-assess their ability. Then they are asked to make a practical goal for the term. Each student made an achievable personal goal, such as moving up only one or two levels of the CEFR-J scale. Next, students were required to visit the L-café once a week and have a conversation with a native English speaker for ten to fifteen minutes on a topic of their choosing. The purpose of this weekly visit was to:

• give chances to use ‘real’ language situations • push students to go to the L-café • have the students teach Japanese • meet foreign students • reflect about their experiences • make students aware that mistakes are part of learning

In the classroom setting, strategies for speaking and listening were taught with the goal in mind that students would use some or all of these strategies in the L-café. Also, the students were to spend 10-15 minutes speaking Japanese to a native English speaker. This switching of roles helped the Japanese student become aware of the difficulties that others face in learning another language. In this way, it was hoped that students would be able to build upon their language learning strategies. After having their conversations in the L-café, the students filled out a self-assessment form (Appendix 2). This form included questions to get the student to think about the conversation and evaluate their performance, the strategies used, their confidence level and the ability to connect class topics to the conversations. The conversation partner was also asked to comment on the performance of the student and give positive or constructive criticism. During the semester, at the halfway mark after eight weeks of classes, students were given back their CEFR-J form and asked to reevaluate the goal they had made at the beginning of the semester. The results of this comparison showed that some students kept the same goal, but some felt it was too difficult and lowered their expectations. Others made higher goals because they felt they had already achieved what they had written. The forms were collected again and given back to the students in the last class for a final evaluation of their performance and goal making for after the course ended. The self-reflection form was designed as a Likert scale questionnaire, with a ranking of 1 to 5 points. A score of five points meant yes/good, three meant OK/so-so and one


139

represented no/bad (Appendix 2). There were also two additional open-ended questions: “What did I actually say that I felt good about?” and “What did I wish I could have said?” These questions were asked to make the student reflect deeply on the conversation. Students were encouraged to fill in this reflection sheet immediately after the conversation session to better recall the conversations.

The CEFR-J The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) was developed by the Council of Europe (2001). It was developed with two aims--first, to have language learners reflect, and, second, to make it easier for educators to have distinct goals for language learning. According to Figueras (2012), the CEFR was developed to “link language learning, language teaching and language assessment to a more real-life oriented approach” (p. 478). The CEFR has changed how we design courses to be more “outcome based”, drawing attention to what students “can-do” rather than what they cannot. The original CEFR includes three basic user groups, A-basic User, B-Independent User and C-Proficient User. In addition, there is a breakdown of each group into components. For example, B1 is defined as a threshold level and B2 a vantage level. Each describes what a user can do with a language. This breakdown gives achievable language steps and, as Little (2006) points out, the CEFR may be used to “define a learner target”. Table 1. Common Reference Levels: Global Scale (Reference: Council of Europe)

Basic User (A)

A1 (Breakthrough)

Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he / she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.

A2 (Waystage)

Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his / her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.

Independent User (B)

B1 (Threshold)

Can understand the main point of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arrive whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.

B2 (Vantage)

Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract text, including technical discussions in his / her field of specialization. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without any strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.

Proficient User (C)

C1 (Effective Operational User)

Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts and recognize implicit meaning. Can express his / herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organizational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.

C2 (Mastery)

Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarize information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express him / herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating fine shades of meaning even in more complex situations.


140

The impact of the CEFR in Japan has been slightly different than that of Europe. Nagai and O’Dwyer (2011) stated that the CEFR in Japan was mainly used in the “promotion of the transparency and coherence in development of English language curriculum as well as autonomous learning” (p. 142). The can-do descriptors, which some felt were concrete explanations, were not considered precise enough for use in Japan. Negishi (2012) found that over 80% of Japanese speakers of English fell within the A1-A2 level. This led to a Grant-In-Aid research grant to begin a scientific study of the adaptation of the CEFR in Japan (Runnels, 2014). The original CEFR was not designed for any particular context or language. To fit the needs of foreign language education in Japan, the CEFR-J was developed. This new format broke down the original levels even further and added a pre-A1 level. For example, A1 now is broken down to A1.1, A1.2 and A1.3. (See http://www.cefr-j.org/ for CEFR-J Can-Do statements per language activity). Each sub-level includes specific tasks, themes and conditions. To be more specific, the CEFR-J was broken down even further concerning five language activities: listening, reading, spoken production (making a speech), spoken interaction (conversation) and writing. Pre-Basic Basic Independent Proficient User User User User

Pre-A1 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 CEFR: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A2.1 A2.2 B1.1 B1.2 B2.1 B2.2 CEFR-J: Pre-A1, A1.1~1.3, A2.1- 2.2, B1.1-1.2, B2.2~2.1, C1, C2

Figure 1. CEFR and CEFR-J Level Comparisons (Source: Fennelly 2016, p. 114) For this research, the CEFR-J speaking interaction (conversation) was utilized for self-evaluation and goal setting.

Learner Autonomy and the Study Background All first-year Japanese students at the university where this study took place were between the ages of 19 and 29. This intermediate-level course was streamed to have all of


141

the students in the same level of English as measured by the TOEIC test. This class had an average student TOEIC score of 512 (listening and reading score components). The maximum score of the TOEIC test is 990. All students were Japanese natives and were enrolled in Law (13 students), Economics (14 students) and Matching Program (one student) Departments as full-time Okayama University students. As stated previously, this is a required course in English Speaking. All freshmen students must take this course to graduate. The goal of this study is to measure the effects of motivation and language ability from regular visits to the L-cafe. The L-café was designed as a social learning space, but the authors were curious to see if there were measurable effects of these visits and if the first step of the teacher requiring visits lead to continued use of this space. Many times, the first step to walk into an unfamiliar environment is the hardest. The authors felt that this “pushing” of the students to go to the L-café and having them reflect on their experiences helped them become more aware of the benefits they can experience with their English language ability from having casual conversations and joining in activities. The principles of learner autonomy in course design are best detailed by Cotterall (2000) and Lee (2017). They state that there are six principles: goals, process, tasks, strategies, reflection and evaluation. We adopted this approach to measure these language learning benefits. Goals. Students need to be able to make their own goals for language learning. For this study, the teacher provided students with a copy of the CEFR-J levels for speaking. By reading the level descriptors, the students made practical goals that could be achieved during the 15-week term of the course. The teacher offered minimal guidance to give students the chance to take control of their own learning and goal making. Process. Having a regular schedule for the term allowed students to make a habit of the weekly visits to the L-café, and make it part of their weekly routine. The process of speaking at regular intervals can become a welcome routine, and a time that the student looks forward to. This increases motivation to learn and prepare for the 30-minute weekly sessions. Tasks. Students needed to come prepared with conversation topics to their L-café weekly sessions. This process of relating content introduced and studied in class could easily be introduced in their conversation, and thus initiating a process of learning. The flow can be seen as first studying in class and learning strategies, then student preparation for conversation at the L-café, and finally self-assessment of the conversation. From time to time, in class, students got into groups and discussed how their conversation sessions were proceeding. This gave students a chance to get advice from their peers and to feel connected because everyone was experiencing the same hardships and successes. The discussions also gave them a chance to think about how to make their sessions more productive and eventually enjoyable. Students sometimes went in pairs or groups to the L-café to talk together and share their strategies. All of this made the process of learning become a habit for the 15 weeks of this term. From time to time, the teacher gave the students tasks for the conversation sessions and asked them to share their experiences in class. Some tasks included asking about some cultural practices, holiday celebrations, birthday celebrations or age-related interests, such as a typical date or music tastes. Students would then get into groups and discuss the information collected to compare or contrast different countries’ practices or tastes.


142

Strategies. Regular classes were held for 90 minutes, once a week for 15 weeks. During the class time, a textbook was used to introduce strategies for conversation. Students would learn the strategy then practice in pairs or groups. Vocabulary building was also important to the course material, and students were given content-related words to learn each week, thus preparing them for their weekly conversations. They also utilized strategies with this vocabulary in their sessions with the native speaker. The textbook, Conversation Strategies (Kehe & Kehe 2014), was a great source of activities to use in the classroom and was met with positive responses from the students. Reflection. The key to learner autonomy is awareness of self. Through the weekly reflections, students began to take these more seriously by writing more about themselves and how they performed or wanted to perform in the next session. This evaluation, as Cotterall (2000) states, “refers to the metacognitive activity of reviewing past and future learning experiences in order to enhance learning… the potential for learner autonomy increases as an individual’s learning awareness grows” (p. 112). Evaluation. Lee (2017) added the principle of evaluation for Language Learning Autonomy. Students need to stop and evaluate their learning and outcomes and adjust them when necessary. Sometimes, learning goals are accomplished and new ones need to be made thus continuing the learning cycle. The students in this study were freshmen in university and just starting to feel their independence in life. Especially for second language learning, before entering university, students totally relied on their teachers to plan for, monitor, and evaluate the entire course of their learning. In this course, the goal was to provide ways of becoming autonomous learners by offering opportunities, teaching strategies and provide a slightly structured environment for learning. To completely let students choose their learning goals might confuse or be too overwhelming to first-year students. Introducing and advising rather than dictating or lecturing, means that students can gradually break free of the past system of language education and embrace their own control of what to learn, why to learn and how much to learn of a second language. Results Initial self-evaluations: On the first day of class, the students had to self-evaluate their spoken production of language using the CEFR-J. Then, students made a realistic language goal for the end of the 15-week, 90-minute class, course. The instructor collected these evaluation/goal handouts.

Referring to the CEFR-J levels, the students self-evaluated themselves as between a A1.2 - B1.1. The results of the evaluations are shown in Diagram 2. As we can see, the majority of the students evaluated themselves at the A2.1 level (See Appendix 3). Out of 28 data sets, only 18 were completed and used for this study.

CEFR-J Level A1.2 A1.3 A2.1 B1.1

# Students 2 5 10 1 Figure 2. Initial Self-evaluation of students English Speaking CEFR-J Level Mid-Term Self-Evaluations (Week 7 of the course, 6 visits to the L-café) During the seventh week of the course, students were given back their self-evaluation/goals for the course CEFR-J handout. All but one of the students who


143

answered this Midterm Self-Evaluation (Appendix 3) said they had improved. Of the 23 students that stated they had improved, 13 students mentioned the L-café as part of their improvement. The students used positive descriptors that the L-café helped them build confidence, made them continue talking, made them enjoy talking in English, gave them more chances to speak English and chances to speak with foreigners. The one student that stated he did not improve, blamed himself and stated, “I didn’t work hard.” The Midterm Self -Evaluation also asked the students what they can do every week to achieve to their goal. Their answers included: study English songs, study English vocabulary, watch English movies, read English books and a majority wrote “go to the L-café” (17 of 23 students wrote this). End of Term Self-Reflection (Week 15, 11 visits to the L-café) On the last day of the course, the students were given back their CEFR-J self-evaluations/goals and were asked to complete a final evaluation. (Appendix 4).

Diagram 3 shows how dramatically the students perceived levels improved in the short span of 15 weeks. Students were able to self-evaluate their levels and notice an improvement in their ability. By analyzing the weekly reflection reports, we observed that students were more confident in their English conversation abilities. These weekly reflections could be attributed to the students being aware of the improvements in their English ability, in addition to the CEFR-J charts being reviewed in the middle of the term and at the end of the course. Writing the reports helped students think more deeply about their L-café sessions and how they performed during their conversations with other students.


144

CEFR-J Level

A1.2 A1.3 A2.1 A2.2 B1.1 B1.2 B2.1 B2.1

1st Class 2 5 10 1 Last Class 1 6 9 5 2 1

Figure 3. Comparing First Class CEFR-J Self Evaluations to Last Class Self-Evaluations

In addition to this improvement in self-evaluation, we also noted from the last class evaluation that out of 24 students that completed the survey, 15 accomplished and reached their personal goals stated in their first class CEFR-J evaluation / goals handout. The last question on the Final-Term Survey asked the students what they will do now to keep up with their English goals. Some comments included: read English books, listen to English songs, go drinking with the foreign students and continue to go to the L-café. Analyzing the weekly conversation reflections (Appendix 2), we also observed from the results that students started to have increased levels of confidence in their English ability. They also became used to and learned from their mistakes and eventually become autonomous learners by continuing these conversations over the time limit, attended activities organized by the L-café and made friends with the foreign students, and continued to increase their language learning by experiencing English in social situations. The instructor also works at the L-café and observed that three of her students from this class were in the L-café more than the required 15 minutes a week. From this observation, she interviewed these students at the end of the term to record their experiences and effects from going to the L-café more than the required time. Observation #1: Saori is a first-year female, 19-year-old, full-time university student studying economics. She told me that she went to the L-café every day since I assigned her this homework. She went abroad when she was a high school student and felt, at that time, that she couldn’t speak English. This experience motivated her to go to the L-café.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

A1.2 A1.3 A2.1 A2.2 B1.1 B1.2 B2.1 B2.2

Diagram 3: Comparing First Class CEFR-J Self Evaluations to Last Class Self-Evaluations


145

She feels that being in the social learning space atmosphere motivates people to learn more English to communicate with everyone. Observation #2: Yuta is a first-year male, 29-year-old, full time university student studying economics. He is more mature than the average freshman and, at first, found making friends in class difficult. He has been abroad three times and likes the experiences he has had. He first went to the L-café because of this required homework and now goes every day. He has taken five L-café classes per week and has made many foreign and Japanese friends. He thanked the instructor for leading him to a place where he feels relaxed. He is now very self-motivated, previously he did not go to school for five years. Yuta’s TOEIC score improved by 120 points from April to December of this year. Observation #3: Natsumi is a first-year, 19-year-old, full-time university student studying education. She wants to be an English teacher. She goes to the L-café twice a week and has been abroad for her course work. She believes that understanding different perspectives will make her a better teacher, so she continues to go to the L-café on her own. She is a very motivated student. Natsumi’s TOEIC score improved by 100 points from April to December of this year, and, as of this writing, now works part-time at the L-café. Other observations from these interviews revealed the same pattern of responses. All three students stated that by going to the L-café, they could make friends with students from other faculties. They felt this was a huge benefit to widening their circle of friends. Also, when the question was asked about what instructors could do to improve the L-café, all three students responded by saying that, to make the L-café better, teachers need to push Japanese students to go and visit. Having a variety of students makes the social learning space better. If other students go to the L-café, they will come to like it as much as they do.

Conclusion After compiling and analyzing the data from the student self-evaluations taken before and after the L-café visits, as well as the interview data from the three students, it is clear that giving students the opportunity to interact with their peers in English has many positive advantages. First of all, it helps to increase their motivation to study English further. Having these interactions in a relaxed environment such as a social learning space also increases this motivation to learn and builds confidence as students realize that their English is actually being understood by their conversation partners. As their confidence grows, students can feel better about themselves overall and improve their self-esteem at the same time. Finally, students can realize that it is possible to reach their learning goals as long as they make short-term realistic goals that they can work towards and achieve.


146

References Cotterall, S. (2000). Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: Principles for designing language courses. ELT journal, 54(2), 109-117. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fennelly, M. (2016). The influence of CEFR on English language education in Japan. Bulletin of Shikoku University, 46, 109-122. Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66(4), 477-485. Holec, H. (1981) Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Kehe, D., & Kehe, P. (2014). Conversation strategies (3rd ed.). Brattleboro, Vt.: Pro

Lingua Associates. Lee, M.K. (2017). To be autonomous or not to be: Issues of subsuming self-

determination theory into research on language learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly, 51(1), 220-228.

Little, D. (2006). Learner autonomy: Drawing together the threads of self-assessment, goal-setting and reflection. European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML, Hrsg.),

Training teachers to use the European Language Portfolio. Murray, G., & Fujishima, N. (2013). Social language learning spaces: Affordances in a community of learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 140-156. Nagai, N., and O’Dwyer, F. (2011). The actual and potential impacts of the CEFR on

language education in Japan. Synergies Europe, 6, 141-152. Negishi, M. (2012). The development of the CEFR-J: Where we are, where we are going. Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research Project Report: 105-116. Retrieved from

http://www.tufs.ac.jp/common/fs/ilr/EU_kaken/_userdata//Negishi2.pdf Runnels, J. (2014). An exploratory reliability and content analysis of the CEFR-Japan’s A-Level can-do statements. JALT Journal, 36(1), 69-89. Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language classroom: Awareness, autonomy and

authenticity. London: Longman.


147

Appendix 1: YEAR ONE SPEAKING SYLLABUS Summary

Classes are organized around topics and tasks to practice oral skills for

conversations and to introduce basic discussion skills. The course includes skills training,

language practice and various communicative activities such as tasks and games, role

plays and model dialogues, group discussions and presentations.

Objectives

By taking the course students will:

1. improve their fluency in oral communication

2. improve their accuracy in oral communication

3. be able to take part more effectively in conversations

4. be able to offer their opinions and support them in discussions

5. have a positive attitude towards learning English

Grading

Speaking Assessment (20%), Presentations and Short Speeches (20%), Poster

Presentations (20%), Interviews (20%), Participation (20%)*

*You get full participation points by attending all classes, coming on time,

completing in class assignments, and speaking up in class. You may lose points by

being absent, coming late, off-task behavior (e.g. sleeping, or texting on your phone),

or non-participation in discussions.


148

Appendix 2: Okayama University L-café Homework Journal Date:

Conversation Members/ Class Name (circle one)

Topics of Conversation/ Studied Topics

Self-Evaluation:

Yes So-so No Good Bad Did I contribute all of my ideas? 5 4 3 2 1 Was I embarrassed of my pronunciation? 5 4 3 2 1 Did I forget some English words? 5 4 3 2 1 Did I use my dictionary? 5 4 3 2 1 How was my confidence level? 5 4 3 2 1 How did I feel after my conversation / class? 5 4 3 2 1 Did I use any new words or strategies that I learned in my English classes? 5 4 3 2 1

What did I actually say that I felt good about?

What did I wish I could have said?

Teacher Comment:


149

Appendix 3: Mid-Term Self Evaluation Look at your CEFR-J statements.

Did you improve? If yes: If no: Did you reach your goal? Are you close to your Why do you think you did not

improve? goal? What level are you now? Why do you think you did improve? What do you think is your weakness in English? What do you think is your weakness in English? What are your strengths in English? What are your strengths in English? What can you do every week, to get

to your goal between now and the last class?

What can you do every week, to get to your How can this class help you get to your goal between now and the last class? your English goal? How can this class help you get to your English goal?


150

Appendix 4: Final-Term Self Evaluation Look at your CEFR-J statements.

Did you improve? If yes: If no: Did you reach your goal? Are you close to your Why do you think you did not goal? What level are you now? improve? Why do you think you improved? What do you think is your weakness in English? What do you think is your weakness in English? What are your strengths in English? What are your strengths in English? What can you do after this class, to

get to your goal between now and the last class?

What can you do after this class, to get to your How did this class help you get to your goal? your English goal? How did this class help you get to your English goal?


151

Using Storytelling to Teach Language Skills Joan M. Kuroda Kwansei Gakuin University Japan Biodata Joan Kuroda is a full-time lecturer at Kwansei Gakuin University in Nishinomiya, Japan. Holding an MBA specializing in Japanese management systems from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and a MEd focusing on English language education from Hyogo University of Teacher Education, she has practical and theoretical experiences in cross-cultural communication spanning 25 years, beginning with her stint as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Thailand. Her research interests include reflective practice, teacher beliefs, storytelling and phonetics. Abstract Storytelling can be an effective and enjoyable way to teach and learn language skills. It provides a platform for meaningful communication by focusing on conveying a message to an audience. The success of this communication is dependent both on the message of the story and on the telling. Oral skills, including prosody, are necessary to keep the listener engaged with the story. Prosody is the musicality of the language and is how we share meaning. Many communicative activities focus solely on swapping information and ignoring prosody resulting in empty exchanges. When storytelling is interactive or used as a group activity, it engages active listening skills. This paper will provide the practical advice and teaching strategies needed to implement this type of communicative activity in the classroom. Storytelling vs. Picture Book Reading Storytelling and picture book reading are often thought of as belonging in the domain of young learners. Though this may be true for reading picture books, storytelling is an oral skill that benefits both children and adults. The National Storytelling Network describes storytelling as interactive and a joint product created by the teller and the audience with no barrier between them. As the teller proceeds with the story a symbiotic relationship starts to take place as the teller pays attention to the reactions of the audience and adjusts the telling to best suit them. In this way, the audience becomes part of the storytelling experience. There are many ways for stories to be told such as through art and dance, but storytelling uses words, voice, movement and gesture. The teller guides the audience through a story that has a beginning, middle and end as the listener imagines the story through the colorful words the teller uses. The audience focuses its attention on the teller’s tale; the teller focuses their attention on the audience and together they make their way through the twists and turns of the story plot. Picture book reading, on the other hand, though utilizing many of the same oral skills as storytelling, uses the words provided by the author without change and most importantly,


152

the focus of the audience remains fixed on the pictures in the book. The reader remains in the background and the pictures carry the story. Voice and Prosody Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) suggest using drama techniques to build pronunciation skills and explain that “the context and emotional involvement provided by the dramatic situation foster communicative competence, which is the ultimate goal of the language classroom” (p. 339). In drama, the actors use voice, movement and gesture to convey the story for the audience, much like storytelling, however the stage acts as a barrier between the actors and the audience. The difference is made clear when interactive storytelling takes place. The audience must listen carefully to the teller and respond appropriately for the story to keep continuity and remain alive. Speech sounds, or phonology is often divided into segmentals, which are consonantal or vocalic segments of words called phonemes, and suprasegmentals or prosody which consists of speech features such as intonation, stress, and rhythm. Attention is often given to segmentals during pronunciation practice as students practice individual speech sounds (phonemes) in an effort to improve their speaking skills. However, prosody practice improves communication skills as prosody is used to convey and interpret meaning in speech. This musicality of language is how we sound human, how we convey feeling, and how we share meaning. Communicative activities that do not include prosody may lack the warmth central to communication resulting in empty exchanges of information swapping. Storytelling provides the context and the purpose for teaching pronunciation for communication. Since English is a stress-timed language, it makes sense to begin with the rhythm of the language and storytelling has many rhythmic phrases in traditional storytelling language such as “once upon a time”, “long, long ago in a land far away”, and “they lived happily ever after”. Not only do these phrases provide rhythm practice, they guide the listener throughout the story much like signposting does in oral presentations. Teachers can prepare their students for these rhythmic phrases by engaging in rhythm drills such as Celce-Murcia, et al.’s (2010, p. 215) “mice eat cheese” or Kelly’s (2000) “they LIVE in an OLD HOUSE” (p. 70). As the number of words increase in the drill, the students must practice connected speech to keep up with the rhythm. Connected speech requires speakers “to squeeze syllables between stressed elements and facilitate their articulation so that regular timing can be maintained” (Celce-Murcia, et al., 2010, p. 164). In other words, individual phonemes, or sounds, lose their integrity to match the rhythm of English. Sentence stress also guides the listener to keywords within the sentence. For example, as a general rule, content words such as nouns and verbs are stressed and function words such as “and” and “the” are unstressed. Prosodic prominence and intonation guide the listener toward key information in the story and without sufficient mastery of this the teller(s) cannot convey the message. The teller employs pitch, or the highness or lowness of the voice to indicate prominence. There are four levels of phonetic pitch in English like musical notes. Intonation is the act of rising and falling pitch, similar to the melodic line in music. This movement in voice is how attitude and emotion are conveyed and also how the grammatical function of an utterance is reflected in speech. There are many interesting and fun activities for students to participate in as they practice prosody. A simple Internet search will turn up an activity


153

such as this one from busyteacher.org which suggests students say “hello” to people in a variety of contexts such as someone they dislike, a baby, or on the telephone. Many more contexts can certainly be created by students and teachers, who try to guess the situation from the use of intonation. Story Map An essential skill for communication, in addition to prosody, is organizing content. Storytelling is organized into three main parts: the beginning, the middle, and the end. This simple structure has roots going back to Aristotle. Students can use a story map to help them outline and organize the main components of their story (Grove, 2009). In the beginning, they create the setting that tells where and when the story happens, and describe the characters who are in the story. In the middle, the actions and reactions of the characters, otherwise known as plot occur, and in the end the moral or the message of the story is made clear in the resolution. Rather than write out the story, students can visualize the progression of the story and draw the setting first, then include the action of the characters on the map (Ramsden & Hollingsworth, 2013). After the students have a good grasp of the setting, characters and plot, they can next include traditional story language and practice telling their stories while using their story maps as an aid to memory. Story maps can be recycled as other students tell the stories created by their classmates, or groups can be made and each group can tell a part of the story. Students will add their own interpretations of the story and new stories are born from each telling. Conclusion Storytelling can be an imaginative and enjoyable way to teach organizational and pronunciation skills for the purpose of intelligible communication. It is a holistic method that gives purpose to pronunciation drills that may have been taken out of context and brings life back into communicative activities that may have lost their meaningfulness. References Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A

course book and reference guide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Grove, N. (2009). Learning to tell: A handbook for inclusive storytelling. Glasgow: BILD

Publications. Intonation, stress and voice tonality. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://busyteacher.org/19055-

intonation-stress-and-voice-tonality.html Kelly, G. (2000). How to teach pronunciation. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education

Limited. Ramsden, A., & Hollingsworth, S. (2013). The storyteller’s way. Stroud, Gloucestershire:

Hawthorn Press.


154

Vocabulary Activities for the Classroom Todd Squires Faculty of International Studies Kindai University Japan Abstract Language students spend much of their time out of class memorizing lists of words. This is not surprising since one of the fundamental predictors of foreign or second language proficiency is having a large vocabulary. However, given the current understanding of how the lexicon is represented in the mind and how L2 vocabulary acquisition contrasts with L1 acquisition, it is clear that merely mastering a superficial knowledge of L2 words is not sufficient for constructing a rich L2 mental lexicon that can support the learner in his/her use of the target language. In this paper, the current understanding of the L2 lexicon and acquisition are briefly reviewed. Following this, the most common vocabulary activities in L2 reading textbooks are critiqued. In the final section, this paper presents a number of vocabulary learning activities and games that can be easily implemented in the classroom. Introduction In this era of globalization, the goal of many English language programs at the secondary level is to provide students with marketable language skills. To provide the necessary English language skills for students to succeed, communicative learning techniques are increasingly being introduced at many universities. However, many teachers still do not know how to integrate vocabulary learning into the communicative classroom. Thus, if language instructors wish to make vocabulary learning more communicative, they need a better understanding of how L2 language is represented in the mental lexicon and how L2 vocabulary is processed when it is being used for communicative tasks. This paper is divided into three parts. First, there is a presentation of the current understanding of how L2 vocabulary is represented in the minds of learners and how words are accessed when engaged in communicative activities. This is followed by a critique of commonly used vocabulary activities most often featured in L2 textbooks. Finally, there is a list of 13 basic communicative vocabulary learning activities for the classroom with directions for their use. The Mental Lexicon and L2 Vocabulary Acquisition The Mental Dictionary: Representations The theory of language acquisition that this paper assumes is based in universal grammar (UG) which argues that language is innate, and languages are limited in “finitely many possible core grammars” (Chomsky, 1982, p. 17). UG posits that language has a structural dependency, and knowledge of language relies on underlying fundamental structural relationships rather than on the surface phenomena of a sequence of a string of words. The former is, in UG terminology, the principles—abstract rules that are common to all languages—and the latter, the parameters—structural variability found in specific languages. Thus, there are two distinct types of language knowledge: natural or universal


155

knowledge that is acquired through the faculty of language on the one hand, and knowledge of language learned by other faculties of the mind. In applying UG theory to second language learning, Cook (1991) argues that “grammar provides the overall patterns, vocabulary the material to put in the patterns” (p. 37). Acquisition involves not only learning the meaning of words, but also developing a knowledge of the word’s various grammatical aspects. Learning of vocabulary is the acquisition of lexical entries that over time come to approximate the complexity of the lexical entries of the native speakers. Moreover, having a well-developed mental representation of any one vocabulary item entails a wide range of knowledge covering morphology, grammar and pragmatic uses. Nation (2001) provides us with the most exhaustive list of what is entailed in knowing items of vocabulary. These areas of knowledge include:

1. Spoken form 2. Written form 3. Word parts 4. Connection of form and meaning 5. Concept and referents 6. Associations 7. Grammatical functions 8. Collocations 9. Constraints on use

L2 Vocabulary Processing For the purposes of this paper, it will be assumed that lexical entries make up a core of the conceptual structures of language (Jackendoff, 2003). Each lexical entry in the mental dictionary is made up of all of the things that were introduced in the previous section, and each entry is interconnected with other lexical entries. Levelt (1989) provides a concise visualization of this in the following diagram: Figure 1: Lexical Entry (taken from Jiang (2000)) Here each lexical entry is divided in to the lemma (its conventional or dictionary form) that includes information about the word’s semantic and syntactic properties, and the lexeme (its variant or surface forms) that includes information about the word’s morphology, phonology and orthography. As one learns his/her native language, experience with and exposure to language input develops this lexical entry. For the L2

lemma

lexeme

syntax

phon/orth morphology

semantics


156

learner, development of the L2 lexical entry is similar to that of the native speaker; however, because of the existence of the L1 mental dictionary, the learner—for better or worse—needs to rely upon the preexisting entries when developing his/her new L2 dictionary. Jiang (2000) posits three stages in the lexical development of the L2 learner. In Stage 1, the learner activates the L1 entry when engaged in using the L2. This may best be understood as the translation phase: the L2 lexical entry in the mind of the learner consists merely of a pointer to the L1 lexical entry. Stage 2, or the L1 mediation phase, consists of the strengthening of the associations with the L1 entry and increased automaticity. In addition, relevant information from the L1 lexical entry is copied into the new and developing L2 entry. Finally, in Stage 3—the L2 integration phase—the learner has developed complete lexical competence when all the information from the L1 entry has been copied and L2 specific information has been added. Thus, Jiang would imply that while there are some similarities between the development of the mental lexicon of one’s first and second language, the existence of L1 lexical entries can both facilitate and can hinder the development of L2 acquisition. Jiang (2004) simplifies his earlier work when describing the vocabulary development for the adult L2 learner. Learning, he argues, develops from understanding a word’s meaning (lexical) through gradual elaboration and modification of meanings (semantic). From this, Jiang concludes that there are two stages in vocabulary development. First, the comprehension stage involves the initial mapping of an L2 word onto pre-existing L1 conceptual meanings or L1 translation: in other words, the learner fits the L2 word into a “correct” slot in his/her mental dictionary. Second, in the development stage, accurate and idiomatic use of the L2 word takes place which requires a restructuring of the semantic content that was originally transferred from the learner’s L1. Nation (2001) also discusses three psychological conditions that are necessary for meaningful vocabulary learning. Underlying each of the three conditions is the assumption that learners need to actively engage in learning of vocabulary in a second language, unlike learning in the first language, which is to a large extent implicit. The first of these conditions is noticing which, in short, involves various features of the target vocabulary being brought to the forefront of the learner’s attention for extended periods of time. The second psychological condition is retrieval. Learners must retrieve the vocabulary from memory in order to build strong connections between the word and its meaning. The final psychological condition is generation. This, Nation explains, is when the learner uses vocabulary items in ways that are different from the ways in which the learner has previously used them. Typical Textbook Vocabulary Learning Activities In this section, the most common types of vocabulary learning activities found in EFL reading textbooks are analyzed in light of the foregoing discussion of the development of L2 lexical entries and lexical processing in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Multiple-choice and Gap-filling Multiple-choice activities frequently ask the learner to complete a sentence or match a vocabulary item with a definition from limited set of alternatives. In general, multiple choice tasks require that the student know the meaning of the word. Of course, being able


157

to give definitions of words is an important skill that needs to be learned and mastered. Furthermore, Nation (2001) argues that definition is one way in which noticing can occur in learning situations. Therefore, multiple choice can potentially be an excellent learning opportunity for students to focus attention on the target words. Unfortunately, based on a survey of a number of popular EFL reading textbooks, it is doubtful that most multiple-choice exercises lead to learning of the defined terms or help learners to improve their skill of learning from definitions. In actual practice, cognitive processing of multiple choice activities are likely limited to one or two scenarios. The student may already know the word; thus he/she only has to retrieve the word from memory. Or if the student is using a dictionary, he/she simply needs to look up the correct answer. Gap-filling activities are also quite common in EFL reading textbooks. Unlike activities that require the student only to know the definition of a word, the sentence stem in the gap-filling activity can provide a natural context in which the target vocabulary item commonly occurs. Thus, the student will be exposed to collocations while working through each of the items in the activity. In practice, however, do these activities lead to rich learning of the vocabulary? In the textbooks reviewed for this paper, the gap-filling activities simply required the students to choose the correct vocabulary item from the list. Many times, students—even those at lower levels of proficiency—could easily complete the exercises by a process of elimination without having to pay much attention to any aspects of the words’ collocations. Both multiple-choice and gap-filling types of activities often lead to learners using a very limited range of cognitive processes. At best, they may reinforce the connection between the L1 and L2 lexical entries, and thus students may be better able to retrieve word meanings from memory and thereby strengthen the connections between the words and their meanings (i.e., increasing automaticity). Matching Another type of commonly used vocabulary learning activity in EFL reading textbooks is matching. This type of exercise often involves matching a definition with target vocabulary, but it is commonly used for learning of both meaning-related and grammar-related aspects of words. Like the multiple-choice activity discussed above, this type of activity would appear to provide an excellent opportunity for students to learn or practice important topic-related vocabulary as well as practice their skills at learning from definitions. However, in the majority of EFL reading textbooks reviewed for this paper, this type of activity fails to provide much opportunity for learning. For example, often the hints are given in the definitions such that students can narrow down the answers due to grammar or closely related words in the definitions. These activities, therefore, may only engage students for one to two minutes at most. Table Completion The final type of activity that most commonly appears in EFL reading textbooks is table completion. Most textbooks use this type of activity to either teach grammar or morphological aspects of words or to divide words into semantic sets. While this activity appears to have the potential for rich vocabulary learning, in practice it can be completed relatively quickly without much effort. Students only need to look at the ending of the word, refer back to the pre-taught grammar point, and then write the word in the correct


158

column. The purpose of spending time on learning word parts, as Nation argues, is to quickly allow learners to be able to increase the size of their vocabulary. If the student knows the root word and then learns suffixes and the rules for their application, he/she can quickly expand the total number of words in his/her mental lexicon. The way in which this activity is carried out by the students will only do so if teachers modify its implementation. Summary The vocabulary activity types that have been discussed above clearly limit the ways in which learners interact with the target vocabulary because they are constructed following standard testing principles based on standard discrete-point methods for testing vocabulary knowledge that are intended to measure the learner’s mastery or proficiency in a single aspect of language (Bachman, 1990). As learning activities, they display a number of drawbacks. First, as they are designed to be completed quickly, they do not encourage complex cognitive processing. Second, because students are familiar with these activity types from encountering them in testing situations, they tend to treat the activities as tests rather than as carefully designed opportunities for learning. Third, all three activity types implicitly suggest that vocabulary knowledge is limited to word forms, parts of speech, and/or definitions. They ignore all of the other aspects of what it means to know a word. Communicative Activities for Vocabulary Learning in the Classroom1 Based upon the foregoing discussion about what we currently understand about vocabulary processing and acquisition, it would appear to be vital that teachers make vocabulary a mainstay of the daily lesson. In addition to having students working on vocabulary exercises in the textbook and memorize word lists for subsequent assessments, teachers should also have students work with vocabulary to communicate in a variety of ways. Below, 13 core activities are introduced that teachers can use to encourage the learning of vocabulary. 1 Activity: “Charades” Materials: none Configuration: class, group, pair Instructions: (1) Choose a set of vocabulary. (2) Divide the class into teams

(3) One student comes to the front of the class and acts out the vocabulary with gestures.

(4) The other students guess. (5) The team that guesses correctly gets one point.

(6) Continue with the next word with a student from a different team doing the gestures.

***

1 These activities have been compiled from various books and internet resources.


159

2 Activity: “Pictionary” Configuration: class, group, pair Instructions: (1) Choose a set of vocabulary. (2) Divide the class into teams. (3) One student comes to the front of the class and show him/her the word. Give some time for the student to think about what to draw. (4) Set a time limit, and say, “Start!”

(5) As the student draws (no speaking or gestures allowed!) his/her teammates guess.

(6) If the student’s teammates fail to guess, allow other teams to guess. (7) Give a point to the team who guesses correctly.

(8) Continue with the next word with a student from a different team drawing.

***

3 Activity: “Last One Standing” Configuration: class Instructions: (1) Choose several categories. (2) Say a category. (3) Students stand up in a large circle and throw a ball around while saying

words in a category. (Students can throw the ball in a circle, or randomly.) (4) If the student holding the ball cannot think of a word or says a word that has already been said, he/she must sit down.

(5) Start a new category. Continue steps (3) and (4) several times. (6) The last student standing is the winner. Note: If set to a tapping rhythm, it can move much more quickly.

*** 4 Activity: “Taboo” Configuration: class, group, pair

Instructions: (1) Choose a set of vocabulary. (2) Get some small cards or cut up paper to serve as cards. (3) Write the target word at the top of each card and draw a like under it.

(4) Under the target word, write five words that would commonly be associated with the word. (5) Divide the class into teams. (6) One student comes to the front of the class and show him/her the word. Give some time for the student to think about what to say. (7) Tell the students the rule that the person explaining the target word cannot use the five words underneath it on the card, nor can they use gestures. (4) Set a time limit, and say, “Start!” (5) As the student explains the target word his/her teammates guess.


160

(6) If the student’s teammates fail to guess, allow other teams to guess. (7) Give a point to the team who guesses correctly. (8) continue with the next word with a student from a different team.

*** 5 Activity: “Outburst” Configuration: class, group, pair Instructions: (1) Choose a set of topics or categories. (2) On a small piece of paper write the topic and 8 to 10 words under that

topic. (3) Divide the class into groups. (4) A student from one group comes to the front of the class. (5) Say the topic. (6) Set a time limit, and say, “Start!”

(7) The student says as many words as he/she can on that topic within the time limit.

(8) The team gets a point for each guessed word. (9) Continue with the next word with a different student coming to the

front. Note: Most easily done with the full class.

*** 6 Activity: “20 Questions” Configuration: class, group, pair Instructions: (1) Choose a set of vocabulary. (2) One student comes to the front of the class and show him/her the word.

(3) Students from the class ask Yes-No questions to the student at the front. He/She can only respond with “Yes” or “No”.

(4) The student in the class who guesses the word correctly gets a point. (5) Continue with the next word with a different student coming to the

front.

*** 7 Activity: “Categories” Configuration: class, group, pair Instructions: (1) Choose a list a several vocabulary categories. (2) Divide the class into groups. (3) Say the category and then choose a letter at random. (4) The first student to name a word in that category that begins with the

chosen letter wins a point for their group. (5) Continue with the next category.


161

Note: An alternative would be to give a set of words and the group tries to guess the category. Conversely, the student could name a category then give hints as to words that belong to that category while the others guess.

***

8 Activity: “Back to the Board” Configuration: class, group, pair Instructions: (1) Choose a set of vocabulary. (2) Divide the class into teams. (3) One student comes to the front of the class and sits with his/her back to the board. (4) Write a word on the board. (5) Set at time limit, and say “Start!” (6) Students from the same group give hints. (7) If the student guesses correctly, give that team a point.

(8) Continue with the next word with a different student coming to the front.

Note: This is best done with a full class.

*** 9 Activity: “Password” Configuration: class, group, pair Instructions: (1) Choose a set of vocabulary. (2) Divide the class into teams. (3) One student comes to the front of the class. (4) Show his/her teammates the word. (5) His/Her teammates give one-word clues. The student at the front must

guess after each clue word is given. Set a limit to the number of words that can be given as clues, 4 or 5.

(6) If the student guesses correctly, give that team a point. (7) Continue with the next word with a student from the next team coming

to the front.

*** 10 Activity: “Shiritori” Configuration: class, group, pair Instructions: (1) Choose a set of categories. (2) One student begins by saying a word in that category. (3) The next student must say a word in the same category that begins with

the last letter of the word which was said by the student before him/her. (4) Continue until a student cannot think of a word or says a word that has

already been said, that student has to sit down. (5) Continue with a new category.


162

***

11 Activity: “Lucky Word” Configuration: class, group, pair Instructions: (1) Choose a set of vocabulary. (2) Divide the class into teams. (3) One student comes to the front of the class. (4) Show his/her teammates the word. (5) His/Her teammates give one-word clues. The student at the front must

guess after each clue word is given. Set a limit to the number of words that can be given as clues, 4 or 5.

(6) If the student guesses correctly, give that team a point. (7) Continue with the next word with a student from the next team coming

to the front. Note: Best done as a group.

*** 12 Activity: “Hangman” Configuration: class, group, pair Instructions: (1) Choose a set of vocabulary. (2) Divide the class into teams. (3) Choose the first word, and write underlines on the board, one for each

letter of the word. (4) Have students guess letters. If they guess correctly, write the letter above the corresponding underline. If the letter doesn’t appear in the word, write it on the board to the side.

(5) When a team guesses the word, give them a point. (6) Continue with the next word.

*** 13 Activity: “Vocabulary Grid” Configuration: class, group, pair Instructions: (1) Draw a grid on the board with a letter in each box.

(2) Teams have to guess words to capture a box and move across or down the grid.

(3) Teams take turns ask for a clue to a word in a box. (4) If they guess correctly from the clue, they capture that box. (5) Continue with the next team. (6) The first team to get across the board is the winner. Note: Best done with a full class.


163

References Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and

binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cook, E. (1991). Second language learning and second language teaching. Oxford:

Blackwell. Jacobs, G. M., Power, M. A., & Inn, L. W. (2002). The teacher’s sourcebook for

cooperative learning: Practical techniques, basic principles, and frequently asked questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representations and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics. 21(1), 47-77.

Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic transfer and development in adult L2 vocabulary acquisition. In P. Bogaards and B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language (pp. 101-126). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


164

Vocabulary-Building Activities for the EFL Classroom Donald Patterson Seirei Christopher University Hamamatsu, Japan Biodata Donald Patterson has been teaching English in Japan for over 15 years and is an associate professor at Seirei Christopher University. He holds an MA in Japanese language and society and is currently pursuing a doctorate in education. Abstract Learning vocabulary is an essential element of acquiring a language. However, the sheer number of words in the English language can be overwhelming for a student. Moreover, traditional vocabulary study can be monotonous and demotivating. This paper describes a workshop, conducted at LaoTESOL 2017, that discussed various vocabulary learning strategies to help students improve the effectiveness of their study, and introduced several fun activities for practicing vocabulary that: provide variety; require little time and few materials; are adaptable to different levels; and increase student motivation. Background Vocabulary learning is one of the building blocks of language acquisition. It has been suggested that vocabulary size may even be a fairly reliable predictor of one’s overall linguistic competence (Thornbury, 2010). Some estimates put the size of the English language at approximately one million words, which is a massive number of potential learning blocks for an individual to consider (McCarten, 2007). Thankfully, English as a foreign language (EFL) students do not need to learn close to that number, as native speakers almost certainly do not know that many words. Estimates vary, but native English speakers typically may know between 12,000 to 20,000 words (McCarten, 2007). This still represents a large number and EFL learners’ attention can be focused on a smaller subset of words in order to achieve functional conversational and literary ability. How many words are needed to converse? Typical telephone conversations in English, for example, are estimated to make use of only about 2,000 words (Richards, 1976). This is not enough for a learner to become a fluent reader of the language though. The 2,000 most frequent words in the English language only provide approximately 80% coverage of an average written text (McCarten, 2007). If a learner had to guess at the meaning or consult a dictionary for every fifth word, he or she would soon become frustrated. For this reason, students learning to read need to aim much higher. How high depends on the learner’s objectives. For example, a learner striving to be able to read a novel, such as The Great Gatsby in its original form, needs an understanding of approximately 8,000 words for 98% coverage (Nation, 2006). A target of 95% coverage of typical texts, which entails a knowledge of approximately 5,000 words, may be a more reasonable goal for beginning to intermediate students (Schmitt & Carter, 2000).


165

Strategies Having reduced the study load from a million words to under 10,000, teachers and students are still left with an ambitious task. As Johnson and Steele (1996) express it, there are “so many words, so little time” (p. 348). Classroom time is often limited and attention must also be devoted to other areas of language development. Because there are more words than can be learned in class, teachers need to expose students to words that will be useful and help the students to identify such words on their own. Helpful word lists include the New General Service List (Browne, Culligan, & Phillips, n.d.), which consists of approximately 2,800 high frequency words, and the Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000), which goes beyond this by focusing on 570 word families common to academic texts. The teacher can also source or tailor more specialized lists for students studying English for specific purposes, such as travel, business, or healthcare. Word lists can be used in various ways. Harmer (2007) suggests three main categories: personal engagement, word formation, and word games. Personal engagement activities include asking students questions about which words are their favourites, which ones have positive or negative connotations, which ones are similar to words in their native language, and so on. Word formation activities focus on how words are constructed. For example, the teacher can ask students to arrange words in various categories, such as the parts of speech (e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives), or the number of syllables. Students can manipulate the words, changing them with the addition or removal of affixes. Word lists can also be used as the basis of countless word games. Harmer (2007) suggests several, including word bingo, competitions to make the longest sentence using as many words from a list, and guessing games in which players write true and false definitions of words to try to trick their opponents. The limitations of lists include: the lack of tailoring to the individual student’s level, a lack of context for the words, the neglect of multiple meanings and collocations, and a tendency to rely on translation. These limitations do not mean that lists, or for that matter using translation as a tool, should be avoided. Lists are an efficient way of studying a large volume of words in a short time (Nation, 1980). Ishii (2017) makes a similar point about the usefulness of translation as a part of list learning. Teachers need to help students go beyond lists and translation though, by addressing other aspects of vocabulary knowledge (Ishii, 2017). This includes knowledge of meaning (e.g. dictionary definitions, translations), form (e.g. spelling, pronunciation, roots), and use (e.g. grammatical usage, collocations). Students can create personal vocabulary journals to record the new words they learn and information about these aspects (Johnson & Steele, 1996; McCarten, 2007). For example, in addition to the meaning of the words, they may add the word’s part of speech, pronunciation, and sample sentences showing how to use the words in context. In their studies, students may occasionally come across archaic words or jargon from fields unrelated to their studies. Rather than attempting to learn every unknown word they encounter, students should be encouraged to put their effort towards learning more useful words. To this end, students can ask themselves cost-benefit questions such as “Will I meet or want to use this word (again)?” or “Would I use the translation of this word in my language?” (Barker, 2007). Once students have found the words to study, they should be reminded that the words they learn need to be maintained. As with mathematics, advancement to higher levels


166

depends on a strong, continuing ability with the fundamentals. As the building blocks of language, this is particularly true of vocabulary knowledge. This means, students should be encouraged to periodically review words they have previously studied, and testing should be done cumulatively rather than in isolated units. Self-made tests, in which students choose the words they will be tested on, is another good way of encouraging learner autonomy (see Patterson, 2016). So far, this paper has discussed the deliberate study of vocabulary, but it should be noted that the ideal language course balances deliberate study with contextual exposure. As Hunt and Beglar (2005) argue, the most efficient way to learn vocabulary is through a combination of explicit and implicit means. Extensive reading can be a valuable method of providing implicit vocabulary instruction. Graded reader programs are particularly suited to this purpose because reading materials can be matched to students’ current vocabulary levels. When running an extensive reading program, Krashen (2004) recommends “narrow reading”, in which the learner reads many books about a single topic or by a single author (p. 1). One of the rationales is that by focusing on one topic or author, the likelihood of repeated vocabulary increases (Krashen, 2004). Learning vocabulary through reading is essential, but it takes time to allow repeated encounters with words to take on their cumulative effect. Each time the learner reads a certain word in context, he or she develops a fuller picture of that word’s meaning, form, and use. Narrow reading speeds up this process. Activities The paper now turns to describing several vocabulary activities that the author introduced in a workshop format at LaoTESOL 2017. These activities can be used as warm ups, review, or fun fillers. They require few resources and can be adapted to any level. 1. Flashcard Pyramid Practice This activity gives students the opportunity to test their word knowledge and increase their fluency through repetition. It includes an element of self-challenge that students may find more motivating than straight flash card use. 1) Students make flashcards for the words they are studying as above.

(FRONT) (BACK)

CULTURE ວັດທະນະທໍາ

(vadthanathoa) In Lao culture, food is very important.

New vocabulary word Example sentence

Lao translation


167

2) The student selects 6-8 flashcards he/she wishes to study and puts them in a pile. 3) First round: The student takes one card from the pile. If the student can remember the

translation of the word without looking, the card is place in position #1. If the student cannot remember, he/she checks the meaning and puts the card back in the pile, and starts again.

4) Second round: If there is a card in position #1, the student reviews it and moves it to position #2 if he/she can still remember it. The student selects a new card. If he/she can remember the translation, the card is placed in position #1.

5) Third round: The student reviews the card in positions #2 and #1. If he/she can remember, he shifts them one space. If he cannot remember a card, it goes back into the pile.

6) Repeat until all of the cards have graduated from the top, position #6. 2. Snowman (A Kinder, Gentler “Hangman”) This classic game requires no preparation and can either be used as a vocabulary review or to introduce new topics. However, the morbid nature of drawing a hanging man in the traditional version of the game can be a turnoff for some. A simple alternative is to draw a picture of a snowman, a popular character (e.g. Doraemon or Mickey Mouse’s face), a shape (e.g. star), or any other object (e.g. a car, a tree, an animal). 1) The teacher chooses a secret word, counts the number of letters, and writes the appropriate number of blank lines on the board. 2) If the class is large, you can put the students into small groups and number them as teams (#1, 2, 3, 4, etc.). 3) Team #1 guesses one letter of the alphabet that they think is in the word. If they are correct, the teacher writes the letter in the appropriate space. If they are not correct, the teacher draws one part of the picture. For example, if the teacher chose to draw a snowman he/she could begin by drawing the first ball. One team can continue guessing letters until they do not guess correctly.

1 2 3

4 5

6


168

4) If the class is able to guess all the letters in the word or guess the word before the teacher completes the drawing, the class wins. The teacher may award points to the team that guessed correctly. Example: Secret Word = FANTASTIC A) The teacher writes on the board: ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ B) The students guess the letter “E”. There is no “E” in the word so the teacher begins to draw the snowman: C) The students guess the letter “R”. There is no “R”, so the teacher draws the next part of the snowman: D) The students guess the letter “A”. It appears twice, so the teacher fills it in:

___ A ___ ___ A ___ ___ ___ ___ 3. Vocabulary Race This activity, adapted from Cover (2009), is a fun warm up and helps to activate the vocabulary that students already know. 1) Students are put into teams and have a piece of chalk or a board marker to share. 2) The teams line up in front of their space on the board with the first member holding the chalk or marker. 3) The teacher calls out a word category and the students have 60 seconds to write as many words as they can in that category on the board. Each student takes a turn racing to the board with the chalk or marker to write one word. When a student has written a word he/she passes the chalk or marker to the next person in line like a baton and returns to the end of the line. 4) After 60 seconds, the teacher changes the category and the students have 60 seconds to write a new list of words. 5) This continues for three categories (i.e. three minutes) or as many as the teacher decides is appropriate. 6) Finally, the students count the total number of words for all of the categories. The team with the most words is the winner.


169

Note: The teacher can be the judge of whether a word is a good example of the category. Additionally, the teacher can decide whether to deduct points for spelling or not. Example: Category --- 1) Colours: blue, green, yellow, red… 2) 3-syllable words: banana, wonderful, Canada… 3) Verbs: jump, run, eat, talk, improve, … 4. Crazy Story This activity is useful for bringing attention to the parts of speech and inevitably produces humorous results. 1) Prepare a short text such as a letter or a story. Blank out several words, taking note of

the parts of speech (e.g. noun, verb, adjective, adverb) or category (e.g. names, places, numbers, foods, animals) of the missing words.

2) Without showing the text to the students, ask the students to write down random words that correspond to the parts of speech of the missing words. For example, if the first missing word from the text was “delicious”, ask students to write an adjective for number 1. If the second missing words was “ate”, ask students to write a “past tense verb” for number two, and so on.

3) Give the students the text and ask them to write in their words in the corresponding blanks.

4) This will produce a crazy story. Students can take turns reading their stories to their classmates and can vote on their favourites.

Example: Dear 1)___________________, I am writing you from the 2)________________ Hotel in 3)_______________. The weather is 4)_______________ and the temperature is 5)______________ degrees. My hotel room looks out onto a garden filled with 6)_________________ trees. The local food is really 7)_______________. People mostly eat 8)___________________ sandwiches. My hotel room only costs 9)_____________ kip a day. I am going to spend the week 10)___________________ and then come home. Wish you were here. Sincerely, ___________________ (your name) Teacher’s key: 1. famous person 2. adjective 3. city 4. adjective 5. Number 6. type of food 7. adjective 8. type of food 9. number 10. verb ending in -ing


170

Conclusion Vocabulary study is an essential part of any EFL program. This paper has discussed how achieving daily conversational fluency requires a knowledge of around 2,000 words, and literary fluency more than 5,000 words. To help learners achieve their goals, the paper presented several strategies and recommended a balance of deliberate study and contextual exposure, particularly through extensive reading. It is crucial that teachers introduce students to words that will be useful and help them learn how to identify such words on their own. Moreover, it is important for students to consider what it means to fully know a word, beyond straight translation. The importance of repetition in language acquisition is not to be overlooked owing to its role in developing fluent retrieval of words and comprehensive knowledge of words. Finally, the paper presented several fun activities designed to engage students with vocabulary. These activities were presented at the LaoTESOL 2017 conference and appeared to be well received by workshop participants. It is hoped that they will prove to be of interest and use to the reader and to his or her students. References Barker, D. (2007). A personalized approach to analyzing ‘cost’ and ‘benefit’ in

vocabulary selection. System, 35(4), 523-533. doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.09.001 Browne, C., Culligan, B., & Phillips, J. (n.d.). A new general service list (1.01). Retrieved

from <http://www.newgeneralservicelist.org> Cover, D. (2009). Using warm-ups to get students talking: Sample activities.

Unpublished workshop handout, Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba, Japan.

Coxhead, A. (2000). The academic word list. Retrieved from <https://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/resources/academicwordlist/>

Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.

Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (2005). A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(1), 23.

Ishii, T. (2017). Bridging research and secondary school classrooms: A case of vocabulary learning. The Language Teacher, 41(4), 14-18.

Johnson, D., & Steele, V. (1996). So many words, so little time: Helping college ESL learners acquire vocabulary-building strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(5), 348-357.

Krashen, S. (2004). The case for narrow reading. Language Magazine, 3(5), 17-19. Retrieved from <https://www.psd1.org/cms/lib4/WA01001055/centricity/domain/34/admin/narrow.pdf>

McCarten, J. (2007). Teaching vocabulary: Lessons from the corpus, lessons for the classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nation, I. S. P. (1980). Strategies for receptive vocabulary learning. Guidelines, 3(1), 23. Nation, I. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian

Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59-82.


171

Patterson, D. (2016). Student-created vocabulary tests. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), JALT2015 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.

Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10(1), 77-89. Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2000). The lexical advantages of narrow reading for second

language learners. TESOL Journal, 9(1), 4-9. Thornbury, S. (2010, October 3). V is for vocabulary size [Blog post]. Retrieved from

<https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/v-is-for-vocabulary-size/>


172

Editorial Board

Lao TESOL Conference Proceedings: Selected Papers (2016-2017)

Overall Charge of Publication, Selection, and Editing

Professor Dr. Somsy Gnorphanxay President of the National University of Laos

Associate Professor Dr. Phout Simmalavong

Vice-President of National University of Laos LaoTESOL President

Associate Professor Aloun Silattanakoun

Dean of the Faculty of Letters, National University of Laos Proceedings Chair

Associate Professor Dr. Bouasavanh Keovilay

Former Dean of the Faculty of Letters, National University of Laos Proceedings Consultant

The Lao TESOL Committee

Supervision of the Project Mr. Thongsouk Keomany

Deputy-Head of Department of English National University of Laos

Mr. Sisamout Saenbouttaraj

Deputy-Head of Academic Division/Lao TESOL Coordinator Faculty of Letters, National University of Laos

Associate Professor Thavisack Phasathanh

National University of Laos

Consulting Editor Chris Ruddenklau

Kindai University, Japan

Consulting Editor/Journal Production Editor Darren Lingley

Kochi University, Japan


173

Readers

Donna Fujimoto Temple University, Japan

Paul Joyce

Kindai University, Japan Richard Mark Nixon

Aichi Prefectural University, Japan

Todd Squires Kindai University, Japan

Amanda Gillis-Furutaka Kyoto Sangyo University, Japan

Sandra Healey Kyoto Institute of Technology, Japan

Mark Holst Otaru University, Japan

Alison Kitzman Kindai University, Japan

James Kobes Editor, Hong Kong

Donald Patterson

Seirei Christopher University, Japan

Fuyuko Takita Hiroshima University, Japan

Kathy Yamane Nara University, Japan

Cover Design Judy Namchaythip Souvannavong

Freelance Communication Consultant


174

laotesol conference proceedings: selected papers (2016-2017)

Documents