Association of Sophian Teachers of English
第53号    2005年9月15日

 目 次

A Comparison of the English Proficiencies of Japanese
(SELHi vs. Non-SELHi), Korean, and Chinese High School Students
ASTE第134回例会 2005年4月23日 吉田研作(上智大学)

ASTE第135回例会 2005年5月21日 高田真希子(上智大学)



ASTE第136回例会 2005年6月18日 金子義隆(育英短期大学)

(ASTE 2005年度後期予定)

A Comparison of the English Proficiencies of Japanese
(SELHi vs. Non-SELHi), Korean, and Chinese High School Students

ASTE第134回例会 2005年4月23日  吉田研作(上智大学)

The survey on which this paper is based was conducted in 2004 in Japan, Korea, and China in collaboration with Benesse Corporation, and the construction of the survey items and analyses were conducted by the present author in collaboration with Negishi (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies), Watanabe (Akita University), Naganuma (Seisen Womens University), Kwon (Seoul National University), and Tei (Beijing Teachers' College). There were overall more than 10,000 students surveyed, along with the teachers teaching at the respective high schools. In order to be as accurate as possible in comparing the results of the students' test1 and survey2 results, only academically high level (college-bound) high schools were selected for the three-nation comparison, along with Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology-(hereafter, Ministry of Education) funded Super English Language High Schools (SELHi's), where special emphasis is placed on conducting innovative and communicative English classes.
The aims of the survey were threefold: 1) to compare the test and survey results of students in the three countries and see what similarities and or differences might exist; 2) to compare the way teachers teach in these three countries and see if the their teaching has any effect on the students' development of their English proficiency3; 3) to compare the students' English proficiency levels and the way teachers teach in the Japanese regular high schools versus the SELHi's

1Benesse Corporation's G-TEC for Students, which is an English proficiency test specifically made for high school students, was used.
2A CAN-DO questionnaire and students' perception of teachers' teaching practice questionnaire were administered. (cf. 東アジア高校英語教育GTEC調査_高校生の意識と行動から見る英語教育の成果と課題, Benesse Corporation, 2005)
3Research Results from the previous year were also referred to. (cf. 東アジア高校英語教育調査−指導と成果の検証、Benesse Corporation, 2004)

The Japanese Ministry of Education in recent years has taken a number of steps to reform English education in Japan through its 'Action Plans' to cultivate Japanese with English abilities (cf. retrieved Sept. 8, 2005 from As a part of the Action Plan, the Ministry proposed a survey of the English education policies of other countries as a means for promoting discussions about concrete ways to reform English education in Japan. The present research was designed to go one step further by actually comparing the English proficiencies of high school students in Japan, Korea, and China, and to see what differences there might be in the students' perceptions of their own English abilities, as well as the way their teachers teach.
The institution of Super English Language High Schools (SELHi) is also one of the Ministry's major projects (cf. retrieved Sept. 8, 2005 from In the 2005 academic year, 101 high schools around the nation have been designated as Super English Language High Schools, and in March, 2005, the first 16 SELHi projects concluded after three years of experimentation with innovative, communicative ways of teaching English. In this paper, I will also refer to the results of these projects and compare them with the results of more traditional English education as evidenced in the regular, albeit academically high level, high schools in our three-nation comparative research.

Approach, Design and Procedure
Richards & Rodgers (2001) note an important distinction between Methods and Approaches. Very often, I hear teachers talk about methods and approaches as if they were the same. People have asked me how to teach the Communicative Approach. However, an approach is not the same as a method. Whereas a method is like a pre-packaged, step-by-step way of teaching a language, an approach constitutes the basic principle of language learning which underlies the method. In other words, a method is developed on the basis of a 'theory' of how languages are learned, and this 'theory' constitutes the approach.
For example, years ago, it was commonly assumed that the learning of the structure (or grammar) of a language was equal to the learning of the language itself. Once a learner had acquired the structure of the language and was able to use it freely, the language was assumed to have been acquired. The grammar-translation methods as well as the audiolingual methods were developed on the basis of this theory. Therefore, the Design, or the curriculum and syllabus, used were based on the so-called structural, or grammatical syllabus, and the Procedure, or actual techniques of teaching, consisted of grammar exercises, translation exercises (in the case of the grammar-translation methods) and mimicry-memorization and pattern practice (in the case of the audiolingual methods). There was very little room for 'actual use of the language' in authentic interaction and communication settings.
However, in the last twenty-five years or so, the teaching of second and foreign languages have centered on the so-called Communicative Approach. Here, the basic 'theory' is based, not simply on knowledge and use of grammatical structures, but on a more comprehensive 'communicative competence,' as seen in the works of Canale and Swain (1980), Savignon (1997) and others, or 'language ability' as seen in the works of Bachman (1990), Bachman & Palmer (1996), McNamara (1996) and others.
According to this approach, learning a language is considered equal to acquiring the ability to use it in real-life communication settings. Not only the knowledge of the structure of the language, but all four competences-grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence-as noted by Canale, Swain, and Savignon (further elaboration of the concepts have been made in Bachman, Bachman and Palmer, and McNamara's works) must all be acquired in order to say that someone has 'acquired' the language. Simply knowing the structure of single sentences does not guarantee success in using the language in real situations. L2 users must be able to express their ideas and feelings in discourse frameworks (both spoken and written). They must be able to use language appropriately in social situations, and they must be able to put their ideas into language in the most effective manner, and to negotiate for meaning whenever communication breaks down.
The Design, therefore, must be based on a combination of, for example, situational, notional-functional, and procedural syllabuses. The Procedures will comprise (pseudo-)authentic communication tasks, speeches, discussions, debates, simulations, as well as actual writing of letters, reports, etc. The teacher will be required to provide as much opportunity for the students to 'use' language meaningfully as possible.

Teachers' beliefs and teaching practice-classroom activities
In order to see what approach teachers follow in their teaching, and to see how much of their beliefs are reflected in their actual teaching, we asked high school teachers to mark on a Lickert scale of 1 to 5, how important they thought the statements in table 1 were as aims (beliefs), and how much they were actually putting them into practice.
The results show that, overall, teachers' aims and beliefs about English education are quite communicative. (figure 1, bars on the left). However, when it comes to practice, teachers are not really practicing what they deem to be important in English education (figure 1, bars on the right). To be more specific, for statements B21, B30 and B33-all of which are communicative activities-the difference between beliefs and practice are quite large, whereas, for statements 47 and 48-which are structure-based activities-there is very little difference between the teachers' beliefs and practice. In fact, especially in the case of the regular Japanese high school teacher, the level of practice is higher than the beliefs for statements B47 and B48. In other words, they seem to be doing more structure and vocabulary-based activities than they themselves believe is necessary.

B21 聞いた内容に対して、内容や自分の考えなどについて、英語で話し合ったり意見の交換をさせたりする。(exchange ideas, opinions)
B30 身近な話題について、自分や聞き手の置かれた状況を考慮し、伝える目的を考えながら英語で情報を伝えたり、会話をさせる。(goal-oriented speaking, interaction)
B33 ペアワークやグループワークを用いて、生徒間で実際に英語を使ったコミュニケーションを行えるようなタスク(課題)を行わせる。(pair work, group work in English)
B47 語句や文型・文法の解説をする。(explaining structures, vocabulary)
B48 英文和訳をさせる。(English to Japanese translation)
Table 1. Selected statements about teachers' beliefs and practice

It is interesting to note that of the three countries, Chinese teachers answer that they are practicing their beliefs to a very high degree, in both communicative and structural activities, whereas the Japanese teachers in regular schools show the largest gap between their beliefs and practice in the communicative activities. Another point to note, however, is that the Japanese SELHi teachers seem to be practicing their beliefs to a greater extent than either the Japanese teachers in the regular schools or Korean teachers. The SELHi teachers also rank the lowest in the use of translation in their classes.

Figure 1. Average ratings of teachers' beliefs and practice
(from left to right in each statement, Japan (regular), Korea, China, SELHi)

As can be seen from figure 1 above, the Chinese and SELHi teachers seem to be doing more communicative activities than the regular Japanese high school teachers or the Korean teachers. In order to see if the teachers' responses are reflected in the way the students perceive the way they are being taught, the same questions were asked of the students studying in these respective schools. A factor analysis showed that the answers to the statements could be divided into four factors.

  • 読んだ/ 聞いた内容に対して、内容や自分の考えについて、英語で話し合っ たり意見の交換をしたりする
  • 読んだ/ 聞いた内容に、概要や要点、自分の考えなどをまとめて英語で書く
  • 自分が考えていることなどについての考えをまとめ、簡単なスピーチ等の発表を行う (Cognitive)
  • 文章の中でポイントとなる語句や文、段落の構成や展開などに注意して読む
  • 英文和訳する
  • 語句や文型・文法の解説を聞く
  • 文法や語法について正しく書くことに留意して書く
  • 教室内の指示などが英語で行われている
  • ペアワークやグループワークで、実際に英語を使ったコミュニケーション活動を行う (Oral/ Interactive)
Figure 2. Statements grouped as the result of factor analysis

Factor 1 consists of statements in which the common factor is that the teachers are making the students think and produce English; factor 2 shows statements related to the teaching of the forms of English; factor 3 consists of statements concerning the use of interactive communicative English in class; and factor 4 is a meaning-based activity, although Japanese (native language) is used in the summarizing process.
From figure 3 it can be seen that whereas the regular Japanese high school students feel very strongly that they are being taught the forms of the language, the SELHi students feel that they are getting a balanced regimen of meaningful, cognitive activities, use of interactive communicative English, as well as knowledge of the forms of English.

Figure 3. Students' perceptions of how teachers teach

Teachers' beliefs and teaching practice-real world activities
In teaching English for the purpose of communication, it is not enough to simply examine classroom activities. The real purpose of teaching a language for communication is in getting the students to use the language for communicative purposes in the 'real world.' In other words, even if the students in China and SELHi's are getting an abundant experience in using English for communication in the classroom, unless this ability can be used in the real world (Open Seas)4, it cannot be said to be truly effective in producing true 'L2 users.'
We, therefore, administered a CAN-DO questionnaire which includes statements about what real world activities teachers are employing in their teaching, and students believe they can actually perform. Table 2 shows the statements which were used for this survey.

B51 英語での電話 (Telephoning)
B52 自分の好きな洋楽アーティスト(歌手、音楽グループ)の英語の歌 (Singing)
B53 英語で書かれたインターネットのホームページ (Home Page)
B54 教科書以外で、自分から進んで読む英語の本や雑誌・新聞 (Books, Newspapers, etc)
B55 英語で書かれたレシピや説明書(例えば、電気製品などの取扱説明書や薬の飲み方)(Reading directions)
B56 テレビ・ラジオでの英語音声のニュース・天気予報 (TV and radio news, weather)
B57 英語音声の映画・ビデオ・DVD (Movies)
B58 英語で書く日記 (Writing diaries)
B59 英語で書く電子メールやカード・手紙 (E-mail, letters)
B60 ホテルや駅の窓口、インフォメーション・センターなどでの英語のやりとり (Information)
B61 買い物やファストフード・レストランでの注文(Shopping)
B62 街の掲示や案内 (Ads, directions)
B63 公共の乗り物やガイドツアーのアナウンス(Announcements)
B64 道を聞かれて答えたり、友だちを遊びや旅行などに誘う時などの時間や場所などの説明(Instructions)
B65 ホームステイ先や寮などで食べ物の好みや約束事などについて自分の希望を伝える(Conveying wishes)
Table 2. Statements about 'real world' activities

The results of selected statements show (Figure 4) that Korean, Chinese, and SELHi teachers are including real world activities in their teaching to a relatively high degree, whereas, again, the regular Japanese high school teachers are not doing it very much.

4 cf. Yoshida (2002) for a discussion on the Fish Bowl Model versus the Open Seas Model of teaching foreign languages.

Figure 4. Use of 'real world' activities in the classroom.
(from left to right in each statement, Japan (regular), Korea, China, SELHi)

We next looked at the results of the students' perceptions of how much English they think they can actually use in the real world (CAN-DO). The results, again, show that Korean, Chinese, and SELHi students have more 'confidence' in using English for real world communication purposes than the regular Japanese high school students. (Figure 5) Of course, whether the differences seen between the regular Japanese high school students and the SELHi students are the result of the differences in teaching practice, or the result of other internal factors-such as motivation-needs to be clarified. However, considering the fact that many of the SELHi's were normal public high schools before being designated as SELHi's, the result could very well have come from the changes which accompanied the designation as a SELHi.

Figure 5. CAN-DO results of students in the four groups
(from left to right in each statement, Japan (regular), Korea, China, SELHi)

Differences reflected in GTEC scores.
As can be seen from the data above, there are consistent differences between the regular Japanese high schools and the Korean, Chinese, and the Japanese SELHi's in terms of teaching practice and student perceptions of their confidence in using English. In order to verify whether or not these differences are reflected in objective test scores, Benesse Corporation's GTEC for Students (General Test of English Communication for Students) was administered to all 10,000 students. As the results show (Figure 6), the effects of communicative teaching, with emphasis on communication and 'thinking' activities, can clearly be seen in the results of the GTEC scores when compared with the score of the Japanese national average (based on approximately 200,000 high school students).
Although the regular Japanese high school students in the present research received significantly higher scores than the national average because they were students studying in academically high level, competitive schools, they did not come close to those of the Chinese and Japanese SELHi students. The differences seen in the teaching of English in these schools have been shown consistently throughout this paper-communicative teaching produces students with more confidence in using English in real-life situations, and this is reflected in the results of objective English proficiency tests.

Figure 6. Differences in GTEC scores (same students tested the past 2 a/o 3 years)
(_=Japanese Narional Average, _= Regular Japanese schools (present research), _=Korean schools, _Chinese schools, *SELHi's)

The results of our survey allow us to surmise that teaching practice can have a significant effect on the development of the English proficiency of the students. It has been shown that the Approach adhered to by English teachers in the regular Japanese high schools is not reflected in their teaching, whereas, in the case of the Chinese and SELHi teachers, their Approach is reflected to a great degree in their teaching.
Another interesting finding is that, although it is often assumed that Japanese students fall behind their Korean and Chinese counterparts in English proficiency, the SELHi students are actually doing better than their counterparts as measured by the GTEC. The SELHi students' confidence in using English in real world contexts does not differ as much from those of the Chinese and Korean counterparts either. It is the students studying in the more traditional regular Japanese high schools who register lower test scores and show a weaker confidence in using English.
The Ministry of Education's initiatives in reforming English education is bearing fruit, at least in the SELHi's. There is still much that must be done to truly reform English education in Japan. However, it is my belief that the first steps have been taken in the right direction.

Bachman, L. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford University Press
Bachman, L. and A. Palmer (1996) Language Testing in Practice. Oxford University Press
Canale, M. and M. Swain (1980), Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1:1-47
McNamara, T.F. (1996) Measuring Second Language Performance. London and NewYork: Longman
Richards, J. & T. Rodgers (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, a Description and Analysis, Second Edition. New York: Cambridge
Savignon, S.J., (1997) Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice, Second Edition. New York, NY: McGrawHill
Yoshida, K. (2002) Fish Bowl, Open Seas and the Teaching of English in Japan, in Baker (ed) Language Policy: Lessons from Global Models, Monterey: Monterey Institute, pp.194-205
「東アジア高校英語教育調査−指導と成果の検証」(2004)Benesse Corporation
「東アジア高校英語教育GTEC調査_高校生の意識と行動から見る英語教育の成果と課題」(2005)Benesse Corporation


ASTE第135回例会 2005年5月21日  高田真希子(上智大学)

 授業では、始める前に1分ぐらいは英語を話すようにしましたが、これはかなり文章を練って中学生レベルの単語だけで話すか、もしくは確認の為おおまかに内容を言ってあげる必要がありました。話しながら全員とアイコンタクトをするように心がけるといいと思います。英語で授業をしたかったのですが、読解ということもあり、日本語が多かったです。ただ、音読やリスニングをさせたりして、なるべく英語に触れられるようにしました。クラスによって進度も理解度も違ったので、ぶつけ本番というか、生徒にその場で好きな言葉を言ってもらって、そこからいろいろな例文を作っていって、生徒と一緒に授業を作っていく感じで、うまくいった時は最高でした。盛り上がりのないクラスでは自分もテンションを上げられなかったのですが、盛り上がりがないだけで皆ちゃんと授業を聞いていたし、支持してくれていた子が多かったことを最後に取ったアンケートで知り、ちょっと驚いたりもしました。だから、自分のテンションというか、皆を巻き込んでいこうと言う気持ちを強く持って、盛り上がりがなくても負けないことが大切だと思います。また、とっさに例文を出そうとすると、文法があっているかどうか不安になったりもします。でも、そういうことよりも私は生徒が出した意見を生かすように文を作って授業を進めようということに重点を置きました。文法は本に載っているけれど、生徒が使いたいと思うような文章は生徒の中にしかなく、それを引き出して使ってみせたかったのです。だから、構造を覚えてくれればいいという例文の中には日本語も混ざっていました。メStudents in 1-9モ など、読み上げるときは「Students in 一の九」と読み上げたり、「もやし」と言われてとっさに単語が出なくて、ローマ字でつづったり、生徒はかなりの子が辞書を持っていますので、必要なときは自分で引いて調べてもらっていいかなという感じで、自分の語彙力だけで対応する事はやめておきました。英語が苦手な生徒にも「やってみよう」と言う気持ちを持ってほしかったので辞書を引いて正確につづってというよりは日本語になる部分があってもいいから辞書なしでもやってみようと思えるように、あえて自分は完璧でいようという考えを捨てたと思います。声に関してですが、うがいをするなど、喉を大切にしてください。私も最後の一週間とても辛く、他の実習生は声が出なくなった人もいました。また、板書は机間巡視の際に後ろまで行ったときに自分で見てみるといいと思います。大きさやバランスがよくわかります。





ASTE第136回例会 2005年6月18日  金子義隆(育英短期大学)


NS:and I have a garage on the side with three little black windows
NNS:three black windows?
NS:you know what a garage is?
NS:um, it's attached to the house. It's a building attached to the house in which you keep your cars and called a garage, OK, so it looks like a big house and a little house, but they're attached
NNS:Oh, it's a small house.
NNS:Uh-huh, and black roof?
NNS:Yeah, oh, maybe, let's see, yeah, I understand.
( Pica, 1994年, p. 511に引用されていた Pica, Young, & 1992a, を引用)

 まず、一つ目のメッセージ理解であるが、Krashen(1985年)が主張するように英語のメッセージを浴びるだけでは英語力向上にはつながらない。メッセージがどんな意味なのか理解する必要があると考えられる。ネゴシエーションは意味のわからなかったメッセージを意味のわかるものにする(Long, 1981年, 1996年; Pica, 1994年)。

NS:There's there's a pair of reading glasses above the plant.
NNS:A what?
NS:Glasses reading glasses to see the newspaper?
NS:You wear them to see with, if you can't see. Reading glasses.
NNS:Ahh ahh glasses to read you say reading glasses.
(Mackey, 1999年, pp.558-559)

例2が示しているように、NNSは初め理解できなかった「reading glasses」をNSとのネゴシエーションを通してできるようになったのである。
 二つ目は目標言語(この研究では英語)のアウトプットである。第二言語学習者は、第二言語に対する仮説を自ら試し、新しい構文や表現を実験し、自身の中間言語力を創造的に向上させるためにアウトプットをする機会を持つ必要がある(Pica, Holliday, Lewis, & Morgenthaler、1989年)。アウトプットは、単に意味が理解できるというステージから、正確な発言ができるためにより完成された文法処理のできるステージに学習者を進めてくれる(Swain, 1995)。
 三つ目は精選された注意力である。「精選された注意力なしに、学習者の文法力の向上は望めない。つまり、文法力の向上の最初のステップは、自分のアウトプットとインプットのミスマッチに気づくことである。」とGassとSelinker(1994年)は主張している(p.307)。(ネゴシエーションを含む)対話の中で学習者は目標とする表現と自分が使っている表現との違いに注意を向けることができるのである(Long, 1996)。次に挙げる例は、ある二人の学生が英語話者にインタビューする課題に取り組んでいるものである。二人の学生のある特定の発言だけを取り上げた。この課題の間に二人で英語の表現を教えあったり、第三者に教えてもらうことはなかった。

  1. Ana: Can you tell me where is the train station?
  2. Keiko: Can you tell me where the train station is?
  3. Ana: Can you tell me where is the train station?
  4. Keiko: Can you tell me where the train station is?
  5. Ana: Can you tell me where is the train station?
  6. Keiko: Can you tell me where the train station is?
  7. Ana: Can you tell me where the train station is?
  8. Keiko: Can you tell me where the train station is?
  9. Ana: Can you tell me where the train station is?
    (Gass & Varonis, 1994年, p. 289 )


  1. NNS: And they have the chwach there.
  2. NS: The what?
  3. NNS: The chwach - I know someone that -
  4. NS: What does it mean?
  5. NNS: Like um like American people they always go there every Sunday
  6. NS: Yes?
  7. NNS: You kn - every morning that there pr - that - the American people get dressed up to got to um chwach.
  8. NS: Oh to church - I see.
    (Pica, 1987年, p. 6)

 しかし、否定的証拠は相手の発言のどこがどのように間違っているかまでは伝えてくれないのである。それをしてくれるのが矯正的フィードバックである。矯正的フィードバック(corrective feedback)は否定的証拠に肯定的証拠を合わせたものである。それ故、相手に間違っていると伝えるだけでなく、その間違った表現(音声面も含める)に対し、英語話者に受け入れられる正しいアウトプットを提供してくれるのである。
 Brockら(1986年)が矯正的フィードバックが学習者のアウトプットにどれだけ取り込まれているかを調査した。その結果、17.1%(152回中26回)がアウトプットに活かされていたことを見つけた。また、コミュニケーションゲームというコンテキストの中で最も効果が見られたことも報告されている。しかし、このBrockらの研究にはいくつかの問題点がある。その一つは、フィードバックを受けたその場での学習者の習得を観察したことである。なぜなら、新しい情報を処理し、それを使いこなせるようになるにはある程度時間が必要で、すぐには効果が現れないのではないかと考えられるからである(Gass, 1988年; Lin & Hedgcock, 1996年)。

 実験手順としては、二つのセッションで構成されていて、まず第1セッションでHaruka/JohnペアがピクチャーAを使ってPicture-drawing タスクに取り組む。そして、Haruka/YumikoペアがピクチャーBを使って同じタスクに取り組む。1週間後の第2セッションでは、Haruka/JohnペアがピクチャーBを使ってタスクに取り組む。Haruka/YumikoペアがピクチャーAを使ってタスクに取り組む。このPicture-drawingタスクとは、学習者が絵を英語で説明し、対話者が絵を描く。両者は背中合わせに座り、お互いを見ることはできない。私、調査者からは、二人の対話者は学習者の英語が分からないときはネゴシエーションをし、そして学習者の発言の中のエラーに対してできるだけ矯正的フィードバックを与えるように指示をした。調査者は同席し、その様子をビデオに録画した。今回の実験で私が掲げたリサーチ・クエスチョンは以下の通りである。
  1. 第1セッションで、ネゴシエーションの中で受けた矯正的フィードバックを学習者は第2セッションでどのくらい取り込むことができるか?
  2. 対話者がネイティヴ・スピーカーの場合と同じ日本人の英語上級者の場合とでは、同じ実験結果となるのか?

調査者は録音(録画)した発話をすべて文字表記し、そのデータを分析した。第1セッションのHaruka/JohnのデータをData A、Haruka/YumikoのそれをData Bとし、第2セッションのHaruka/JohnをData C、Haruka/YumikoをData Dとした。
1. Data AとData Bの中に学習者のエラーとそれに対する矯正的フィードバックを探した。

<Data A>
3. H: In the museum, uhノthe big picture is there, I meanノthe big picture hanging on the wall.
4. J: There is a big picture on the wall.
63. H: Dress and boy pig wearing a stripe shirt.
64. J: Striped shirt.
<Data B>
21. H: pig looking at the sky.
22. Y: Ok. Pig is looking up into the sky?
61. H: She took..
62. Y: She took off?
63. H: took off her swimsuit.
64. Y: Uh-huh.

2. Data CとData Dの中に学習者の発言の中にフィードバックが取り込まれている事例を探した。

<Data B>
40. H: And next is..the middle of the left..side.
41. Y: Second picture is in the middle of ノノ.in the middleノ
42. H: Second picture is in the middle of the left hand side?
<Data C>
23. H: I think it's sunny day. Next one, it's in the middle of left hand side. She is standing up.
24. J: All right.
<Data A>
7. H: The picture is uhノ.two ballerina.
8. J: Ok.
9. H: Dancingノthey are wearing a tutu.
10. J: Ok, they are wearing a tutu. Uh-huh. Both ballerinas?
<Data D>
19. H: And this pictureノthere are two ballerinas...
20. Y: Two ballerinas.


<Data B>
25. H: And pig wearing swimsuit.
26. Y: Is pig wearing a swimsuit?
124. H: Son pig is wearing just like pants.
125. Y: Uh-huh.



<Data B>
136. H: And daughter pig is holding swimsuit・・swimball.
137. Y: Beach ball?
<Data A>
53. H: other side of the [seiling]?
54. J: Oh, ceiling.
55. H: Ceiling, ceiling.
<Data A>
70. J: Ok. He is not interested in looking at the picture of the ballerinas.
71. H: Yeah.
72. J: I don't play on.
73. H: Yeah, he is not interesting.
74. J: He is not interested in the ballerinas' picture.
75. H: Yeahノ

 また、学習者一人を扱った単なるケース・スタディーなので、その結果を単純に一般化するのは危険であることは言うまでもない。しかし、ケース・スタディーの有効性は見落とせないことも事実である。Leo van Lier(出版中)は、「それぞれのコンテキストの違いを考慮して考える限り、ケース・スタディーで得られた深い理解は多種多様なケースにも参考になる情報を与えてくれる」と述べている。


(ア) 研究参加者を初級者から上級者まで含める。学習者のレベルによってフィードバックを習得できる量や内容も変わってくる可能性がある。
(イ) Picture-drawingタスク以外にネゴシエーションを生み出すタスクがあれば採用する。
(ウ) 対話者と学習者の性差を考慮する。今回は対話者の性が別であり、学習者とのネゴシエーションに何らかの影響を与えていた可能性がある。
(エ) 対話者(特にネイティヴとノンネイティヴ)間のエラーの扱い方の統一と徹底をする。今回も実験前に対話者に指導を行ったのであるが、エラーに対する扱い方に差が出た。この点を徹底させることは研究の信頼性を高めるために重要である。



ASTE 2005年度後期予定

タイトル:「Learner autonomyを主眼とした英語プレゼンテーションスキルの育成〜Learners' retrospective evaluationの視点から〜」

タイトル:A study on Japanese high school students' beliefs about learning English. 英語学習に関する日本の高校生の考え方の研究(BALLIの日本人学習者、特に高校生に焦点を当てた改訂)
講師:鈴木 栄(神奈川総合高校)熊澤 孝昭 (立教大学)





2)上智大学大学院応用言語学研究会 CALPS HOME PAGE
上智大学の大学院で応用言語学を専攻した卒業生、または現在専攻している学生による HOME PAGE です。言語学、言語教育、応用言語学に関する関連サイト、短い記事や論文などが沢山載っています。興味のある方は是非一度立ち寄ってみてください。

3)上智大学外国語学部英語学科 HOME PAGE

4)上智大学外国語学部言語学副専攻監修 「言語研究のすすめ」






10)吉田研作のHome Page



13)Asia TEFL

14)TESOL International Research Foundation (TIRF)


ASTE 事務局
102-8554 東京都千代田区紀尾井町7-1
TEL: 03-3238-3719
FAX: 03-3238-3910