New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion

New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion
Volume 2
Editors:
Timothy Doe
Stephen Hurling
Yukiyo Kamada
Matthew Livingston
Takako Moroi
Copyright©2014 Center for English Discussion Class

Table of Contents
SECTION 1 – English Discussion Class

Willingness to Communicate and Confidence in English Discussion Class ......................... 3
Timothy Doe
Japanese University Students' Perceptions of Native

and Non-native Teachers of English ................................................................................. 11
Yukiyo Kamada
Instructors’ Views on EDC Class Size ................................................................................ 21

Takako Moroi
SECTION TWO – Teaching Journals

Unequal Participation and Willingness to Communicate ................................................. 39
Brad Barker
‘You didn’t answer my question!’ – Issues in Performance of All-Male EDC Classes ....... 46
Jonathan Buck
The Communication Skills of “Good Language Learners”

and Classroom Atmosphere ............................................................................................. 52
Jennifer Capouilliez
Strategies to Deal with Reticent Classes ........................................................................... 57

Jianwen Chen
Why Code-switch? An Analysis of EDC Students’ L1 Use during Discussion .................... 64

Amanda Chin
Avoiding Grey Hairs: Exploring Effective Classroom Management Strategies for English
Discussion Teachers .......................................................................................................... 71
Carey Finn
Collaborative Paraphrasing and Willingness to Communicate in English Discussion ...... 76

Jeff Holtzkener
“I don’t care” – the Crossfire in the EDC Classroom ......................................................... 83

Yifeng Hong
Experimenting with Peer Reflection ................................................................................. 89
Ian Hurrell
Can Motivation Be Disruptive? .......................................................................................... 94

Aaron J. James
An Attempt to Help and Introverted Student to Join a Group Discussion ........................ 98

Yurika Kambe
Language Anxiety, Tension, and the Fashioning of L2 Selves ......................................... 103

Nicholas Kasparek
Targeting and Teaching Appropriate Vocabulary:

Considering emergence and context ............................................................................. 110
Robert J. Lowe
Effective Ways to Reduce L1 Usage and Raise L2 Usage ................................................ 115

Matthew McLaughlin
The Effects or Pre-task Planning Activities on Fluency in Group Discussions ................ 122
Brandon Narasaki
Examining for the 3/2/1 Minutes Fluency Activity

for Students with Low Proficiency .................................................................................. 128
Chie Ogawa
Reflections on Willingness to Communicate in an EDC Classroom ................................ 135

Timothy A. Opitz
Japanese L1 Use in a University EFL Communicative Classroom: Purpose, Function and

Intervention Strategies ................................................................................................... 142
François Ouellette
Attempting to Increase Function Phrase Use

in Communicatively Competent Students ...................................................................... 149
Matthew Y. Schaefer
Checking for Understanding: A Reflective Analysis of a Teaching Journal ..................... 155

Ethan Taomae
To What Extent Can We Allow Students to Use L1 in EDC? ............................................ 162

Asca Tsushima
iv
Observing Preparation Task-Types that Enact Ideas Repetition and Retention ............ 167
Matthew W. Turner
Why Do Students Use Japanese? .................................................................................... 174

Hiroaki Umehara
An Examination of Extreme Shyness in EDC Classes ...................................................... 181

Jason Wan
Accounting for Learners’ Positive Behavior Using

a Motivational Strategies Framework ............................................................................ 187
Daniel Warchulski
SECTION THREE – Classroom Activities

Risk-taking with Roles: An activity Designed to Reduce Social Reticence in L2 English
Discussion Groups ........................................................................................................... 197
Simon Aldrich
Using Written Feedback to Facilitate Self-Regulation .................................................... 204

Paul Landichio
Introducing Reaction Phrases to be an Active Listener .................................................. 213

Katsuichiro “Ken” Ohashi
Developing Learner Autonomy through Self-Assessment Activities .............................. 221

Shalvin Singh
From the Bottom, Up: Remodeling Maurice’s 4/3/2 Fluency Technique ....................... 232
Nicholas Smith
Increasing Group Cohesion through the Use of the Learning Circle .............................. 237
David Truxal
Formulaic Language and the 3/2/1 Fluency Development Activity: Scaffolding L2 Fluency
through the Development of Linguistic Complexity ....................................................... 243
Samuel David Warren
Goal-Oriented Self-Checklists: Principles, Practice & Evaluation ................................... 250

Ian Wash
v
Student-Centered Self-Monitoring for Equal Participation ............................................ 258
Kayoko Yamauchi
Using Manipulative to Promote Proper Floor Management in English Discussion ........ 265
Davey Young
SECTION FOUR – Classroom Research

Do EDC Instructors Share Similar Teaching Beliefs? ....................................................... 277
Paul Garside
Collaborative Dialogue in the Form of Language Related Episodes during EDC Students’
Discussions ...................................................................................................................... 285
Paul Landicho
The Effects of Pre-task Planning Time on Japanese L2 Discussion Students’ Learner

Outcomes ........................................................................................................................ 292
Matthew Wilson
vi
SECTION ONE
English Discussion Class
Willingness to Communicate and Confidence in English
Discussion Classes
Timothy Doe
ABSTRACT
This paper describes a study which sought to determine whether students became more positive
toward using English for communication in class during the first semester of a compulsory
English discussion class. Questionnaires of willingness to communicate (WTC) and
communicative confidence using English were administered four times over an academic
semester. 3,185 students completed all four administrations of the questionnaire. Results
indicated that 1) students made significant gains in WTC and confidence over the semester, and
2) while some differences were found, these gains were largely independent of the subject in
which the student was majoring. These results contrasted with other studies conducted in
Japanese educational settings.
INTRODUCTION
The English Discussion Class (EDC) at Rikkyo has been designed to improve students speaking
fluency. In order to maximize the effectiveness of the course, class sizes are small (between
seven to nine members), between 50 to 60 minutes of student-to-student talking time is provided
every class, and topics are based around issues that all high school graduates are able to discuss.
These factors have been selected to help students use English as much as possible during classes.
It is widely accepted that for language learners to develop their speaking skills, it is necessary
for them to use the language that they are learning (MacIntyre and Charos, 1996; Nation and
Newton, 2009). When the EDC was implemented as a compulsory course for all Rikkyo
University first-year students in 2010, these issues were of concern to the curriculum designers.
Specifically, they were worried whether students would be willing to engage in extended
discussions with their peers during class, and whether the novelty of using English might wear
off over the semester.
To investigate these concerns, it was decided to measure student levels of willingness to
communicate (WTC) and communicative confidence over an academic semester. These
constructs were selected based on their hypothesized proximity to actual L2 use in a heuristic
model of the factors which influence a speaker’s communicative behavior (MacIntyre, Clement,
Dornyei, and Noels, 1998). WTC has been defined as “the intention to initiate communication,
given a choice (MacIntyre, Baker, Clement, and Conrad, 2001), and reflects a speaker’s desire to
engage in a particular communicative act. Communicative confidence is closely related to WTC
as speakers must be confident that they have correctly understood both the question and a correct
response to it (MacIntyre et. al., 1998).
There have been several studies that have tracked WTC and related variables over time
in Japanese contexts. Okayama, Nakanishi, Kuwabari, and Sasaki (2005) conducted a semester
long study in which they compared changes in WTC, communicative anxiety, and confidence
between 83 Japanese university students majoring in four different subjects (humanities,
engineering, science, and agriculture). While they did not test for significant differences between
majors, the results, in terms of the average difference between pre- and post-test scores, showed
a great deal of variation. Although the agriculture students showed large gains in WTC, there
were only small gains seen for humanities and engineering students. Furthermore, the students
majoring in science actually became less willing to communicate. Such findings imply that a
3
students’ major may influence the degree to which their attitudes toward using English may
change over the course of a semester.
In a mixed-methods study, Watanabe (2013) found that WTC levels for 190 Japanese
high school students did not significantly increase over three years of English study in high
school. Although the author mentioned that some of the questionnaire items may have been
problematic, he also argues that this lack of growth could be attributed to a lack of opportunity
for students to engage in English, as the students were preparing for university entrance exams
which required them to focus on grammar, reading, and vocabulary, rather than communicative
abilities.
The purpose of this study, therefore, was to investigate whether gains in WTC and
confidence significantly increased for the students in a compulsory English discussion course
which required a large amount of student-to-student interaction in each class. Furthermore, the
study sought to determine whether changes in levels of WTC and communicative confidence
were related to the student majors.
1. To what degree do individual levels of WTC and communicative confidence change over an
academic semester?
2. To what degree are changes in individual levels of WTC and communicative confidence
related to the subject in which the individual is majoring?
METHODOLOGY
The questionnaire used in this study was constructed by compiling a list of the opportunities that
students had to initiate communication within the discussion class, as if students have difficulty
imagining the contexts of the questionnaire items, they may not be able to easily answer the
question (Watanabe, 2013). These items were then translated into Japanese by a native speaker
and then checked by two other Japanese native speakers. The questionnaires were then
informally shown to two classes of EDC students who reported on how easy or difficult each
item was to answer. At the conclusion of this process, 42 items were piloted with a group of 300
students. The results of the pilot study were subjected to two factor analyses (one for the WTC
items and another for the communicative confidence items). From the results of these analyses,
nine items were chosen for the final questionnaire (for a list of the items in each questionnaire
and their translations, see Appendices A - D).
The questionnaires were then administered to all students who were enrolled in full-time
instructors’ classes in the Spring semester of 2012. The questionnaires were administered in
lessons 1, 4, 8, and 12. These lessons were chosen due to the fact that no new language was
presented during these classes, and therefore, the allocation of time to answer the questionnaires
would have a minimal impact on students’ learning outcomes. During the orientation of that year,
instructors attended a session were the purpose of the study was explained and the procedures
for administering questionnaires was outlined. From approximately 4,500 students taking the
course, 3,185 students completed all four questionnaires.
The questionnaire data was then analyzed using WINSTEPS to examine the degree of
item fit and to convert the results into an interval scale with equal and meaningful distance
between the unit intervals (Bond and Fox, 2007). For both the WTC and communicative
confidence questionnaires, the results showed that all items fit the model well (all items were
well within the range of 0.5-1.5), and the results of the principal components analysis met all of
the criteria for good dimensionality outlined in Linacre (2014). Student scores on the
questionnaires were then converted to WITs to make the data more interpretable, as the mean is
set at a value of 500, in addition to negative and decimal numbers being removed from the data.
4
Timothy Doe
RESULTS
The first research question investigated the degree to which WTC and communicative
confidence changed over the course of one semester. As can be seen in Tables 1and 2 below,
there was an increase in average levels of both of these variables throughout the semester. While
this analysis simply removed missing data (students who were absent for one or more
administration of the questionnaires), there were no significant differences between the results
below and the full sample size. However, to meet the assumptions of the general linear model,
the smaller sample size was used in the following analyses.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for WTC
WTC 1 (L1) WTC 2 (L4) WTC 3 (L8) WTC 4 (L12)
M 558.34 582.65 609.30 625.15
SE of the Mean 1.72 1.72 1.84 1.91
95% CI Lower 554.97 579.28 605.69 621.42
95% CI Upper 561.71 586.02 612.91 628.88
SD 96.92 96.96 103.87 107.52
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Communicative Confidence (CC)
CC 1 (L1) CC 2 (L4) CC 3 (L8) CC 4 (L12)
M 572.91 613.17 639.16 667.75
SE of the Mean 1.66 1.56 1.60 1.72
95% CI Lower 554.97 579.28 605.69 621.42
95% CI Upper 561.71 586.02 612.91 628.88
SD 93.52 88.09 90.53 97.03
To determine whether these increases were significant, two repeated measures

ANOVAs were conducted, with time of questionnaire administration (Lesson 1, 4, 8, and 12) as
the factor and WTC and communicative confidence as the dependent variables. Because the
analyses were conducted separately, p values were set at .025 to avoid a Type I error. With
regards to WTC, the results for the ANOVA indicated a significant time effect, Wilks’s Lambda
= .62, F(3, 3182) = 624.71, p < .01, multivariate eta squared = .37. Follow-up polynominal
contrasts indicated a significant linear effect with means increasing over time, F(3, 9952) =
421.97, p < .01, partial eta squared = .12. With regards to communicative confidence, the results
for the ANOVA indicated a significant time effect, Wilks’s Lambda = .47, F(3, 3182) =
1185.12, p < .01, multivariate eta squared = .53. Follow-up polynominal contrasts indicated a
significant linear effect with means increasing over time, F(3, 9952) = 909.23, p < .01, partial
eta squared = .22. These results showed that while students improved on both variables, larger
gains were made for communicative confidence than for WTC.
Two one-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were conducted for both WTC and
communicative confidence. Because the analyses were conducted separately, p values were set
at .025 to avoid a Type I error. For WTC, the independent variable, college, included all ten
colleges that take EDC classes. The dependent variable was the overall gains in WTC over one
academic semester, and the covariate was the baseline level of WTC at the beginning of the
semester. As can be seen in the descriptive statistics in Table 3 below, on average, all colleges
made positive gains in WTC. A preliminary analyses evaluating the homogeneity-of-slopes
assumption indicated that the relationship between the covariates and the dependent variables
5
6 Table 3

Descriptive Statistics for Gains in WTC by College
AR EC SC SO LA BA IC TO CW MP
Mean 68.21 67.67 61.48 57.11 59.68 69.24 72.91 73.85 71.62 74.56
SE of the Mean 3.68 3.77 6.11 4.81 4.63 6.20 9.90 5.84 5.76 6.10
95% CI Upper 60.97 60.26 49.45 47.64 50.58 57.04 53.25 62.36 60.26 62.54
95% CI Lowe 75.44 75.08 73.51 66.56 68.78 81.45 92.57 85.35 82.97 86.59
SD 92.95 82.96 91.78 86.62 94.33 103.19 98.05 93.40 88.52 92.97
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for Gains in Communicative Confidence by College
AR EC SC SO LA BA IC TO CW MP
Mean 92.86 99.03 92.92 85.50 90.83 101.25 113.61 93.11 93.39 101.41
SE of the Mean 3.54 4.39 5.83 5.08 4.51 5.85 10.55 5.89 6.09 6.63
95% CI Upper 85.90 90.41 81.44 75.51 81.97 89.74 92.67 81.51 81.39 88.34
95% CI Lowe 99.81 107.65 104.40 95.48 99.69 112.76 134.56 104.70 105.40 114.48
SD 89.36 96.55 87.57 91.37 91.71 97.30 104.47 94.18 93.62 101.41
Note. AR = Arts; EC = Economics; SC = Science; SO = Sociology; LA = Law; BA = Business Administration; IC = Intercultural
Communication; TO = Tourism; CW = Community Welfare; MP = Modern Psychology
Timothy Doe
did not differ significantly as a function of the independent variable, F(9, 3165) = 1.31, MSE =
7323.85, p = .23, partial eta squared = .004. The ANCOVA was significant, F(9, 3174) = 3.89,
MSE = 7330.19, p < .01, partial eta squared = .011. The strength of the relationship between the
departments and gains in WTC was very weak, as assessed by a partial eta squared, with the
department accounting for only 1.12% of the variance in WTC gains, holding constant the initial
levels of student WTC at the beginning of the program.
The means of gains in WTC adjusted for initial levels of WTC differed slightly across
departments and ranged from 88.97 (Intercultural Communication) to 55.46 (Sociology).
Follow-up tests were conducted to evaluate pairwise differences among these adjusted means.
Based on the Bonferroni procedure, Intercultural Communication and Business Administration
students made significantly more gains than Sociology and Law students. None of the other
adjusted means for colleges differed significantly.
For confidence, the independent variable, college, included all ten colleges that take
EDC classes. The dependent variable was the overall gains in confidence over one academic
semester, and the covariate was the baseline level of confidence at the beginning of the semester.
As can be seen in the descriptive statistics in Table 4 below, on average, all colleges made
positive gains in CC. A preliminary analyses evaluating the homogeneity-of-slopes assumption
indicated that the relationship between the covariates and the dependent variables did not differ
significantly as a function of the independent variable, F(9, 3165) = 1.35, MSE = 6825.16, p
= .20, partial eta squared = .004. The ANCOVA was significant, F(9, 3174) = 4.45, MSE =
6832.00, p < .01, partial eta squared = .012. However, despite the significant finding, the
strength of the relationship between the departments and gains in confidence were very weak, as
assessed by a partial eta squared, with the department accounting for only 1.2% of the variance
in confidence gains, holding constant the initial levels of student confidence at the beginning of
the program.
The means of gains in confidence adjusted for initial levels of WTC differed slightly
across departments and ranged from 126.41 (Business Administration) to 84.98 (Community
Welfare). Follow-up tests were conducted to evaluate pairwise differences among these adjusted
means. Based on the Bonferroni procedure, Intercultural Communication and Business
Administration students made significantly more gains than four colleges (Science, Sociology,
Law, and Community Welfare). Intercultural Communication students also made significantly
more gains than students in the Arts and Economics colleges. None of the other adjusted means
for colleges differed significantly.
DISCUSSION
The results showed that on average, student levels of both WTC and Communicative
Competence significantly increased over the semester. However, when looking more closely at
the gain scores and controlling for initial levels, some colleges made larger gains than others. It
is interesting that the two colleges who made some of the largest gains, Business Administration
and Intercultural Communication, offered their students more English classes than most of the
other colleges. This could be related Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, and Shimizu’s (2004) finding that
the quantity of interaction a student engages in is related to how positively they regard
communicating in that foreign language. While this finding came from students in a study
abroad program, it may also be the case that students who interact with each other more
frequently in EFL classes also become more positive about using English in language classes.
The results of this study also differed from studies of WTC in Japanese contexts. Firstly,
in comparison with Watanabe (2013), levels of WTC did significantly increase over the study.
However, several factors need to be considered when comparing the two studies. Firstly, this
7
study was conducted over a relatively short period of time, one semester, in comparison with
Watanabe’s study which took place over three years. Whether EDC students would maintain
such high levels of WTC over several years remains unclear. Secondly, the students in
Watanabe’s study were taking form-focused classes in contrast to the communicative classes
that are conducted in the EDC. This difference suggests that the large amount of interaction
required in EDC classes may be related to student increases in WTC.
In contrast to Okayama et. al. (2005), there were few differences found between the
colleges in this study, even when taking initial levels of WTC and Communicative Confidence
into consideration. While some colleges in this study made significantly larger gains than others,
Okayama et. al. found a large amount of variation in their results, with some colleges becoming
less willing to communicate, while others made fairly large gains. While it is beyond the scope
of this study to determine the reasons why such a different result was found, it would be
interesting to compare levels of willingness to communicate in small, learner-centered
communicative courses such as the EDC, with that in larger more traditional Japanese university
English classes.
CONCLUSION
While the results of this study suggest that students become more positive about using English
for communication over their first semester in the EDC, one limitation of the study is that there
was no comparison group, so it is unclear to what degree the unique features of the EDC are
related to the increases in WTC and communicative confidence. However, when compared with
the results of other studies, it is interesting that a) there were significant increases in WTC and
communicative confidence, and b) these increases were largely independent of students’ majors.
As the questionnaire items related to using English inside the classroom, an interesting follow-
up study might be to investigate the relationship between student responses to the questionnaires
used in this study with others focused on English use outside of the language class.
REFERENCES
Bond, T. G. & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch Model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K.A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and group
cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44, 417-448.
Linacre, J. M. (2013). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS 3.81.0. Chicago: Winsteps.com.
MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S., Clement, R., and Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate,
social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369-388.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second
language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3-26.
Okayama, Y., Nakanishi, T., Kuwahara, H., & Sasaki, M. (2006). Willingness to communicate
as an assessment? In K. Bradford-Watts, C. Ikeguchi, & M. Swanson (Eds.) JALT2005
Conference Proceedings (pp. 372-378). Tokyo: JALT.
Watanabe, M. (2013). Willingness to Communicate and Japanese High School Learners. JALT
Journal, 35, 153- 170.
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on
willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning,
54(1), 119-152
8
Timothy Doe
APPENDIX A
Willingness to Communicate Questionnaire Items (Japanese)

These items were answered on a 4-point Likert scale (a = 絶対にやりたくない, b = あまり進
んでやりたくない, c = たぶん進んでやりたい, d = 確実に進んでやりたい).
1. 英語の授業の中に、英語でトピックの変更を提案する。
2. 英語の授業の中に、英語で他のスピーカーの経験について質問する。
3. 英語の授業の中に、英語で自分の将来の計画について説明する。
4. 英語の授業の中に、英語で新しいトピックを提案する。
5. 英語の授業の中に、英語でディスカッションで最初に発言する。
6. 英語の授業の中に、英語で他のスピーカーの意見に反対する。
7. 英語の授業の中に、英語で自分の過去の経験について話す。
8. 英語の授業の中に、英語で自分の意見をサポートする為に例を挙げる。
9. 英語の授業の中に、英語で自分が好きな事又は嫌いな事について話す。
APPENDIX B
Willingness to Communicate Questionnaire (English Translation)
These items were answered on a 4-point Likert scale (a = I am definitely unwilling to do, b = I
am generally unwilling to do, c = I am generally willing to do, d = I am definitely willing to do)
1. I’m willing to talk about things I like or I don’t like.
2. I’m willing to talk about my past experiences.
3. I’m willing to talk about my future plans.
4. I’m willing to give reasons to support my opinions.
5. I’m willing to disagree with other speakers.
6. I’m willing to ask questions about other people’s experiences.
7. I’m willing to be the first person to speak.
8. I’m willing to bring up a new topic.
9. I’m willing to suggest a change of topic.
APPENDIX C
Confidence to Communicate in English Questionnaire (Japanese)
These items were answered on a 4-point Likert scale (a = できない, b = たぶんできない, c =
なんとかできる, d = できる).
1. 英語の授業の中に、英語で他のスピーカーが自分の言っている事が分らない時
は、自分のアイデアを説明する。
2. 英語の授業の中に、英語でディスカッションで最初に発言する。
3. 英語の授業の中に、英語で他のスピーカーに「あなたの意見は何ですか？」と
聞く。
4. 英語の授業の中に、英語で新しいトピックを提案する。
5. 英語の授業の中に、英語で他のスピーカーがディスカッションに参加するよう
に働きかける。
6. 英語の授業の中に、英語で発言していない人がいたら、その人に質問をする。
7. 英語の授業の中に、英語で他のスピーカーが、自分の意見を理解しているかど
9
うかを確認する。
8. 英語の授業の中に、英語で他のスピーカーの言っていることが分らない時は、
説明を求める。
9. 英語の授業の中に、英語でメンバー全員が平等にディスカッションに参加する
ようにする。
APPENDIX D
Confidence to Communicate in English Questionnaire (English Translation)

These items were answered on a 4-point Likert scale (a = I am definitely unwilling to do, b = I
am generally unwilling to do, c = I am generally willing to do, d = I am definitely willing to do)
1. I am confident that I can explain my idea when a listener cannot understand what I have
said.
2. I am confident that I can speak first in an in-class group discussion.
3. I am confident that I can ask others to share their opinions.
4. I am confident that I can suggest a new topic during in-class discussions.
5. I am confident that I can encourage others to join the discussion.
6. When somebody is not speaking, I am confident that I can ask them questions to learn
about their opinions.
7. I am confident that I check whether other speakers have understood my opinion.
8. I am confident that I can ask another speaker to explain when I do not understand what they
have said.
9. I am confident that I can be active to keep the discussion balanced between all members of
the group.
10
Japanese University Students’ Perceptions of
Native and Non-native Teachers of English
Yukiyo Kamada
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the similarities or differences in Japanese students’ perceptions of native
and non-native English teachers in the context of the English Discussion Course. Questionnaires
were distributed to students who were taking English discussion classes that were taught by two
native speaker teachers and two Japanese teachers. Compared to previous studies on university
students’ perceptions of their English teachers by other researchers, this study suggests that there
is not a big distinction in terms of students’ perceptions between the two groups of teachers
rather curriculum design and/or the syllabus may have a greater influence on creating students’
impressions of their language teacher in the classroom. Possible changes and improvements in
how to conduct research into Japanese language learners’ perceptions of their teachers are
suggested.
INTRODUCTION
Currently, many Japanese universities exclusively look for and also hire native speakers of
English as language teachers. Such universities must have reasons to hire native English speaker
teachers; however, this current tendency for universities to require applicants to be native
English speakers leads to a question: Do Japanese students see native speaker language teachers
more positively than non-native teachers? In a language classroom, students have to complete
tasks in order to learn the target language, and how they perceive their language teachers is one
key to maximize the effectiveness of language learning. If students see native speaker teachers
more positively than non-native teachers, it would be beneficial to hire native English speaker
teachers for universities; however, if there are no significant differences between the two groups
of teachers, there may be more effective qualities to look for in potential instructors. The
purpose of this research was to investigate any similarities or differences in Japanese students’
perceptions of native and non-native teachers who teach the same subject, namely small group
discussion classes focused on developing student communicative competence. The research
question of this study is: Do Japanese university students see native speaker teachers differently
than non-native speaker teachers in communicative language classes?
LITERATURE REVIEW
During the 1990s, research into non-native speaker (NNS) English teachers increased (Medgyes,
1994; Braine, 1999). Since then, research on NNS teachers has become widely accepted (Llurda,
2006), and a lot of studies have been done in order to create a more effective language
teaching/learning environment in contexts where there are many non-native speaker English
teachers. Although some educators worked on the area of NNS teachers’ perceptions of
themselves as language teachers, fewer studies have been carried out on language learners’
perceptions of their language teachers, i.e. how language learners perceive their native and/or
non-native English speaker teachers. In order to maximize the effectiveness of language teaching
and learning, it may be very important and even more helpful for NNS teachers to understand
how their students see them as language teachers.
There are two studies focused on finding similarities and differences of language learners’
ideas about their NS and NNS teachers. In order to find out any differences in Japanese students’
attitudes towards Japanese (NNS) and foreign (NS) English teachers, Shimizu (1995) carried out
11
a survey among 1088 Japanese college students from multiple colleges and universities. The
survey results show that Japanese students have different impressions of English classes that are
taught by Japanese and foreign English teachers. For instance, many students felt that English
classes taught by Japanese teachers are “very formal”, “dead” and “boring”; on the other hand,
many students characterized foreign teachers’ English classes as being “cheerful”, “humorous”
and “interesting” (Shimizu, 1995).
Although the survey results show that most Japanese students have negative impressions
of English classes which are taught by Japanese teachers and positive impressions of foreign
teachers’ English classes, it is important to note that these teachers are teaching different
subjects in colleges and universities (Shimizu, 1995). Shimizu (1995) presumed that one of the
main reasons for the gap is the nature of the subjects language teachers teach. English
conversation classes, which students usually enjoy, are mostly taught by foreign teachers in
Japanese universities and the subjects of grammar, reading and writing are mostly taught by
Japanese teachers (Shimizu, 1995). In general, language teachers encourage students to speak
out and praise them to increase motivation and encourage more communication. In such
situations, language teachers often aim to create an atmosphere of friendliness, kindness and
encouragement, and this class atmosphere in turn creates a positive image of the teachers. On the
other hand, in classes of English grammar, reading and writing, language teachers usually teach
by lecturing, for example to explain complex structures. By fulfilling their expected in-class
teaching role, teachers who teach grammar, reading and writing are usually seen as serious.
Another study was done by Üstünlüoglu, who conducted questionnaire research among
311 Turkish preparatory students at a private university of Economics in order to identify
Turkish university students’ perceptions of native and non-native teachers of English
(Üstünlüoglu, 2007). Based on the findings, Üstünlüoglu (2007) concluded that: (1) NNS
teachers fulfill in-class teaching roles more effectively than NS teachers do, (2) NNS teachers
are stricter and more in control than NS teachers, (3) NS teachers use a more humanistic
approach and emphasize communication skills more than NNS teachers, and (4) Turkish
teachers (NNS) are perceived as serious while NS teachers are seen as being relaxed and
cheerful. Similar to Shimizu’s study, however, in this study the students evaluated their NS and
NNS teachers who were teaching different English subjects such as grammar and oral
communication. Depending on the subject taught, English teachers may need to adjust the level
of in-class teaching roles, in-class management roles and use of in-class communication skills in
order to create an effective language teaching environment. Thus, it remains unclear if students’
perceptions of NS and NNS teachers are different when both groups of teachers are teaching the
same language course.
METHOD
In order to find out how Japanese university students perceive their English teachers,
questionnaire data collection was used and questionnaires were distributed to first year, Rikkyo
University EDC students at the end of the Spring semester in 2009. In total, 394 students
responded to the questionnaire. Within this group of students, 168 students were taught by two
male NS teachers and 226 students were taught by one male Japanese (NNS) teacher and one
female Japanese (NNS) teacher. Although there was a gap between the groups of NS and NNS
teachers in terms of the student participant number, no significant difference was found in
students’ English levels between NS and NNS teachers (See Table 1 and Table 2).
12
Yukiyo Kamada
Table 1. GTEC Scores* of the Subjects

Level A** Level B** Level C**
EDC students Mean (GTEC score) 269 236 193
(n=394) SD .20 .47 .50
Table 2. GTEC Scores of the Subjects

Average of All Levels
EDC students in NS teachers’ class Mean (GTEC score) 237
(n=168) SD .58
EDC students in NNS teachers’ class Mean (GTEC score) 238
(n=226) SD .76
A questionnaire was developed for this study by assimilating survey questions from Shimizu’s
study and also ideas of what to look for from Üstünlüoglu’s research. The questionnaire contains
47 items that investigate any similarities and/or differences between NS and NNS teachers in
terms of in-class teaching roles, in-class management roles, in-class communication roles and
individual features (Shimizu, 1995; Üstünlüoglu, 2007). The form of each question is a
statement and the participants were asked to choose their answers on a likert scale of 1 to 4 (1:
Strongly Disagree, 2: Disagree, 3: Agree, and 4: Strongly Agree). Each statement was translated
into Japanese so that all EDC students can read the statements and choose their answers without
language proficiency problems (See questionnaire in Appendix). After collecting all responses
from the subjects, response averages of each statement were compared for all EDC teachers to
find any differences and/or similarities between NS teachers and Japanese (NNS) teachers.
RESULTS
Before sharing the findings of the questionnaire research, it must be clearly stated that since the
survey results were highly skewed and non-normally distributed, it is problematic to make a
statistical analysis. Three possible causes of such results are: (1) All students liked their teachers
very much, (2) Fatigue effect occurred because of the high number of questions, and (3) Some
questions were too similar to each other. Because of these possible causes, the following results
should be interpreted cautiously.
As mentioned above, the results were non-normally distributed so the questionnaire data
was not suitable for ANOVA to analyze. Therefore, a non-parametric test was used to analyze
the data, and only four significant differences were found. Those four statements were: Q21.
My teacher is energetic, Q22. My teacher grades consistently, Q34. My teacher is humorous, and
Q37. My teacher does not show favoritism (See Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6; the
highest response average is highlighted and the lowest response average is boxed).
Table 3. Q21. My teacher is energetic.

Teacher A(NNS) Teacher B(NNS) Teacher C(NS) Teacher D(NS)
Response Average 3.71 3.93 3.79 3.64
* In 2009, GTEC listening and reading test scores were used as a placement test.
** In 2009, EDC course was offered only 3 levels. Level A, B and C in 2009 are equivalent to
Book II, Book III and Book IV levels in 2013.
13
Table 4. Q22. My teacher grades consistently.

Table 5. Q34. My teacher is humorous.

Table 6. Q37. My teacher does not show favoritism.

Regarding Q21. “My teacher is energetic.”, although many Japanese students had the impression
of “energetic” much more for NS teachers’ classes rather than Japanese teachers’ classes in
Shimizu’s study (1995), this survey results interestingly show that one of the Japanese (NNS)
teachers gets the highest response average and one of the NS teachers received the lowest
response average.
The survey results of other questions did not indicate any huge gaps between NS and
NNS teachers. Looking more closely, for Q28. “My teacher is strict.” and Q30. “My teacher is
very formal.”, both NS and NNS teachers received disagreement responses (See Table 7 and
Table 8).
Table 7. Q28. My teacher is strict.

Table 8. Q30. My teacher is very formal.

These results show that, irrespective of teachers’ nationality, EDC students do not perceive their
teachers as either strict or very formal, in contrast to the findings of Shimizu’s and
Üstünlüoglu’s research.
The following four items are the questions that EDC students responded with strong
agreements and also do not match with the findings of both Shimizu’s and Üstünlüoglu’s
research (See Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12).
Table 9. Q6. My teacher uses effective teaching methods.

Table 10. Q19. My teacher is cheerful.

14
Yukiyo Kamada
Table 11. Q24. My teacher is interesting.

Table 12. Q31. My teacher is fun.

In her study, Üstünlüoglu concluded that NNS teachers fulfill in-class teaching roles more
effectively than NS teachers do (2007); however, EDC students’ responses to Q6. does not
indicate a huge difference between NS and NNS teachers in their teaching strategies. In addition,
Shimizu (1995) found that many Japanese students perceived their foreign teachers’ English
classes as “cheerful”, “interesting” and “fun”. Nevertheless, this survey results show that both
NS and NNS teachers are perceived as cheerful, interesting and fun in an EDC classroom.
DISCUSSION
Based on the findings of this study, two points can be argued. Firstly, there seems to be very
small differences in EDC students’ perceptions of NS and NNS teachers. Secondly, EDC
students tend to have positive perceptions toward their teachers irrespective of the teachers’
nationality. These two aspects are clearly different from the findings of other studies such as
Shimizu’s and Üstünlüoglu’s on language learners’ perceptions of NS and NNS teachers.
One of the possible reasons for the big gap between the results of the author’s research
and other researchers’ studies is that the survey research was conducted in different contexts.
Both Shimizu and Üstünlüoglu distributed their questionnaires to students who were taking a
variety of English subjects such as grammar, reading, writing and/or oral communication, which
were taught by either NS teachers or NNS teachers. On the other hand, the author distributed the
questionnaire only to EDC students who were in either NS teachers’ class or NNS teachers’
class and asked them to answer questions specifically referring to their EDC teachers. The
participants in Shimizu’s and Üstünlüoglu’s research evaluated their English teachers who were
assuming different types of teacher roles, and all of the responses to the questionnaires were
analyzed together, not being separated by English subjects. Therefore, this way of analyzing the
data may have possibly led to the conclusion that language learners perceive their teachers
differently depending on their nationality.
In order to teach the target language with specific skills effectively, English teachers
need to fulfill different teacher roles in class. According to Reid (1993), for instance, ESL
writing teachers are required to fulfill the responsibility to “provide multiple opportunities for
students to investigate and practice writing processes” and to “respond to and evaluate writing
products” (p. 116). By performing this type of a teacher role, he/she may give impressions of
being well-organized, formal and/or serious to the students. In contrast, when teachers are
engaged in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) to teach oral communication, the
teacher’s role is described as that of facilitator, counselor and group manager to enable the
communication process between students (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). By fulfilling this type of
teacher role, he/she may be considered to be open, approachable, and/or congenial.
When taking on different type of a teacher role and performing different behaviors in
class, it is expected that English teachers will give different impressions to their students when
teaching different subjects. To investigate further on this research topic, therefore, it is
significantly important to specify what English subjects NS and NNS teachers teach when
15
language learners responding to the questionnaire in order to precisely compare their perceptions
of NS and NNS teachers. In other words, in the case of questionnaire data collection, student
participants to answer the questionnaire should be taking the same English subject class to
compare NS and NNS teachers who are performing the same role in classrooms.
The EDC program, in which the study was conducted, is a unified curriculum in Rikkyo
University, and all EDC students learn the same discussion functions and communication skills
and they discuss the same topics throughout the semester, no matter who their teacher is. In
order to keep consistency in teaching, EDC teachers follow the same syllabus and lesson plans,
use the same materials and have weekly meetings to discuss teaching. Within this unified
curriculum, the student participants learn how to have small-group discussions in English over a
period of 13 weeks (In 2009, there were 13 lessons in a semester). Their learning experiences
with either NS or NNS teachers are reflected on the questionnaire. Taking into account such
participants’ learning experience in the unified curriculum, and that the survey results do not
show a big distinction in students’ perceptions of NS and NNS teachers, it is possible to assume
that the curriculum design or syllabus of the English course may play a larger role than the
teacher’s nationality to create students’ impressions of their English teacher.
Since this study was conducted as the first pilot research into Japanese language learners’
perceptions of NS and NNS English teachers, the questionnaire was edited only a few times and
not well-developed and it contains 47 questions which include similar questions in terms of
word meaning (See questionnaire in Appendix). Because of the high number of similar types of
questions, it would have been difficult for the subjects to pay close attention to each question
and answer with their honest feelings. In addition, as this was a pilot study, the scope of the
research was small; questionnaires were distributed to students who were taught by two Japanese
(NNS) EDC teachers and two NS EDC teachers.
Although the EDC program started as a unified curriculum in 2009, the program itself
had much room to develop its framework, and how the program ran was quite different from the
current situation. For example, there were not standardized lesson structures (e.g., no
requirement of a fluency activity, no indication of ideal student talking time in one lesson, no
regulation of what and how to give feedback after group discussions), observations and fixed
and well-developed criteria for discussion tests. Since then, research on and experience within
the program has been accumulated in order to establish a truly unified curriculum. Because the
current EDC program runs more efficiently as a unified curriculum, the assumption that the
curriculum may play a larger role than a teacher’s nationality to create certain impressions of an
English teacher can be tested more accurately by carrying out the survey research in the context
of the current EDC program.
CONCLUSION
Since this research was conducted as a pilot study, there is much room to develop and improve
the ways to investigate Japanese language learners’ perceptions of NS and NNS English teachers.
More specifically, there are two main aspects to develop: (1) the development of a more efficient
questionnaire and (2) increasing the sample size. Regarding the questionnaire, reducing the
number of questions in the questionnaire should be considered as a means to remove possible
fatigue effects. In addition, the statements in the questionnaire should be rewritten because many
of the statements in this survey were of the same levels of agreeability for the participants (e.g.,
Q19. My teacher is cheerful. and Q31. My teacher is fun.). In order to obtain more precise
outcomes, the future questionnaire can include statements that have different levels of
agreeability for example “My teacher makes many jokes throughout the class.” and/or “My
teacher praises the students in class.” Furthermore, obtaining a larger sample size will help the
16
Yukiyo Kamada
researcher to analyze the data more significantly from various perspectives. For example, one
can investigate students’ perceptions of NS and NNS teachers by proficiency levels of student
participants. Another possibility is looking into differences between male and female NS and
NNS teachers. Overall, it can be concluded that this pilot research was successful because the
researcher was able to obtain ideas for future improvements on the study.
Based on the research findings, therefore, it can be argued that there is not a huge
distinction between NS and NNS teachers from the language learners’ perspective within the
context of the EDC program. In addition, rather than English teachers’ nationality, the survey
results suggest that the curriculum design and/or the syllabus of an English course may have a
greater influence on creating students’ impressions of their language teacher in a classroom.
REFERENCES
Braine, G. (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Llurda, E. (2006). Looking at the perceptions, challenges, and contributions… or the importance
of being a non-native teacher. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-Native Language Teachers
Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession (p. 1-9). New York: Springer.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan. (1999) 2nd edition. Ismaning:
Max Hueber Verlag.
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching
(2nd Ed.). Cambridge University Press
Shimizu, K. (1995) The language teacher Japanese college students attitudes towards English
teachers: a survey, The Language Teacher, 19(10), 5-8.
Üstünlüoglu, E. (2007) University students’ perceptions of native and non-native teachers.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(1), 63-67.
17
APPENDIX
Questionnaire Name:
Please answer the questions below as honestly as you can. When thinking about your answers, consider only the English
discussion class that you are taking now. Your answer will have no effect on your grade for this class. Your answers are also
confidential and will be used for research purposes only. Thank you for helping us to learn more about English language
learning.
英語学習に関するアンケートのご協力をお願いします。現在取っている英語ディスカッションクラスのみについて、以下の質問に
答えて下さい。アンケート結果は、リサーチ目的のためだけに使用されます。このアンケートが皆さんの成績に影響することはあ
りませんので、できるだけ正直に答えて下さい。
Please rate how strongly you agree with each of the following statements by drawing a circle around the answer that best
describes you. (SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree, D=Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree)
以下の文章を読んで、該当する回答に○をつけて下さい。
（SA＝大変同感する、A=同感する、D=同意しない、SD=全く同意しない）
1. My teacher stimulates interest at the beginning of each class.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、授業の始めに、学生にその日の授業内容に対して興味を持たせるようにしている。
SA A D SD
2. My teacher relates previous lessons with the current lesson.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、以前の授業内容をその日の授業内容に関連付けている。
SA A D SD
3. My teacher adjusts the difficulty level of the lesson content to the abilities of students in the class.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、学生たちの英語力に合わせて授業内容の難易度を調整している。
SA A D SD
4. My teacher uses materials in an appropriate manner.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、授業のプリントを適切な方法で使用している。
SA A D SD
5. My teacher connects classroom activities in a coherent manner.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、授業内での各アクティビティ（ペア・グループワークなど）首尾一貫して関連付けている。
SA A D SD
6. My teacher uses effective teaching methods.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、効果的な英語の教え方をしている。
SA A D SD
7. My teacher corrects wrong and incomplete answers effectively.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、効果的に間違いを正したり、不完全な文を完全な文へ直したりしている。
SA A D SD
8. My teacher checks whether students have achieved the lesson’s aims.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、学生が授業目的を理解し、その目的を果たしているかを確認している。
SA A D SD
9. My teacher provides the class with opportunities to consolidate what we have learned.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、それまでの授業で学んだことをさらに定着させる機会を与えている。
SA A D SD
10. My teacher is punctual and arrives at the classroom on time.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、時間に厳しく、授業が始まる時間に教室に入っている。
SA A D SD
11. My teacher completes the lesson on time.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、時間通りに授業を終わらせる。
SA A D SD
12. My teacher can maintain order and discipline in the classroom.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、学生へ指示をし、教室内でのルールを守らせることができる。
SA A D SD
13. My teacher speaks clearly and comprehensibly.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、明確に理解しやすく話す。
SA A D SD
14. My teacher is well prepared.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、十分に準備をして授業に臨んでいる。
SA A D SD
18
Yukiyo Kamada
15. My teacher ensures that students actively participate.

私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、学生が積極的に授業に参加するよう努めている。
SA A D SD
16. My teacher praises students when they perform well.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、学生が的確に発言したり積極的に発言した時に褒める。
SA A D SD
17. My teacher addresses students by their names.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、学生を下の名前で呼ぶ。
SA A D SD
18. My teacher treats students respectfully.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、学生に敬意をもって接している。
SA A D SD
19. My teacher is cheerful.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、明るく陽気である。
SA A D SD
20. My teacher is trustworthy.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、信頼できる。
SA A D SD
21. My teacher is energetic.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、エネルギッシュである。
SA A D SD
22. My teacher grades consistently.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、一貫して成績をつけている。
SA A D SD
23. My teacher is easygoing.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、おおらかである。
SA A D SD
24. My teacher is interesting.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、興味深く面白い。
SA A D SD
25. I CANNOT hear my teacher well when he/she speaks.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生が話すとき、先生の話し声が聞こえにくい。
SA A D SD
26. My teacher makes a quiet student speak.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、発言していない学生に発言するよう促す。
SA A D SD
27. My teacher stops students when they talk too much.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、話し続けている学生を止めさせる。
SA A D SD
28. My teacher is strict.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、厳しい。
SA A D SD
29. My teacher is kind.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、親切だ。
SA A D SD
30. My teacher is very formal.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、とてもかしこまっている。
SA A D SD
31. My teacher is fun.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、楽しい。
SA A D SD
32. My teacher makes me feel relaxed.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、学生をリラックスさせてくれる。
SA A D SD
33. I feel comfortable to ask my teacher questions.
私は、安心して（何も心配せずに）英語ディスカッションの先生に質問することができる。
SA A D SD
34. My teacher is humorous.
19
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、ユーモラスである。
SA A D SD
35. My teacher is intelligent.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、知性がある。
SA A D SD
36. My teacher is reliable.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、頼りがいがある。
SA A D SD
37. My teacher does NOT show favoritism.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、えこひいきをしない。
SA A D SD
38. My teacher is broadminded.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、寛容である。
SA A D SD
39. I respect my teacher.
私は、英語ディスカッションの先生を尊敬している。
SA A D SD
40. My teacher knows a lot about the English language.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、英語についてたくさんの知識を持っている。
SA A D SD
41. My teacher is entertaining.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、学生を楽しませている。
SA A D SD
42. My teacher is knowledgeable.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、知識が豊富である。
SA A D SD
43. My teacher calls upon a student to answer a question.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、問題・質問に答えるように学生個人を指名する。
SA A D SD
44. My teacher asks for a volunteer to answer a question.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、問題・質問に自発的に答えるように学生に呼びかける。
SA A D SD
45. I can ask a question to my teacher in class easily.
私は、英語ディスカッションの授業中に、先生に簡単に質問することができる。
SA A D SD
46. My teacher assigns the members for each group when we have group activities.
グループワークをする時、私の英語ディスカッションの先生がグループのメンバーを決める。
SA A D SD
47. My teacher walks around the classroom rather than stands in front of the classroom.
私の英語ディスカッションの先生は、いつも教室の前方に立っているのではなく、教室内を歩き回っている。
SA A D SD
20
Instructors’ Views on EDC Class Size
A report on a questionnaire survey
Takako Moroi
ABSTRACT
A questionnaire survey was administered to investigate instructors’ views on the EDC class size.
An analysis of the results suggested that class size seems to be an important factor in CLT
curricula as it affects EDC instructors’ formative assessment approach. This paper will conclude
with a discussion of the implications of instructor views in a curriculum evaluation.
INTRODUCTION
In 2003, Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology released its action plan
to reform English education in order to develop Japanese people’s English abilities. Their stated
goals for junior and senior high school English education are focused on developing basic
English communication skills, and their stated goal for university is developing students’ ability
to use English at work upon their graduation, building onto the basic communication skills
learned in secondary education. The overall goal is to bring Japanese people’s English level to
“average world standards based on objective indicators such as STEP, TOEFL, and TOEIC”
(Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2003). Following this set of
goals, many Japanese universities offer TOEIC or TOEFL courses as well as oral
communication courses employing a Communicative Language Teaching (hereafter CLT)
approach. These courses seem to meet students’ demands. For example, standardized tests,
especially TOEIC, are widely regarded as objective indicators of one’s English level by
companies, thus from students’ perspective having high scores increases their chances to get into
prestigious companies. Students are also interested in taking oral communication classes as they
do not have confidence in their productive skills: while they have learned English grammar and
vocabulary to a certain degree prior to university, there is a gap between their receptive and
productive English skills. In addition, universities are reducing the typical class size of 40
students. New programs, with student numbers ranging from 4 to 20 students, are promoted as
being more effective due to the small class size, thus many universities have introduced their
“small class size” English courses in order to promote their English education curricula to
prospective high school students. Given these trends, Rikkyo University launched an English
oral communications course called English Discussion Class (hereafter EDC), with 8 students
per class, in 2009 as a pilot program, and the course became compulsory for all freshman
students in 2010.
BACKGROUND
Teaching Approach and Class Size
The starting point for developing EDC curriculum was to create a small size compulsory English
oral communication course for all freshman students in an attempt to better help them develop
communicative competence. The first tasks for the initial curriculum developers of EDC were to
decide on the basic structure, namely its teaching approach and class size. CLT was the obvious
choice for them as the method of instruction as numerous theoretical and empirical studies in the
Second Language Acquisition (hereafter SLA) field have shown its effectiveness in teaching
speaking (Brown, 2007, Nunan, 1998; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; and Tsang & Wong, 2002).
However, what proved challenging was to decide on the number of students per class. The
following were the steps taken to decide on the standard class size for EDC.
21
Step 1: Academic Literature – The initial curriculum developers first sought the answer in
academic literature. There is much published research and many textbooks about what to do in
CLT classrooms. There are also many “how to” books for teachers: these books introduce
various CLT tasks to develop students’ communicative competence (Folse, 2006, Lee, 2000;
Willis & Willis, 2007; Willis, 2001). It is often the case that such tasks are explained with
suggested numbers of students for tasks to be carried out to meet the task goals, and class size is,
if at all, dealt in a way to provide advice for adapting such tasks successfully to different class
sizes such as large classes. There are also some teaching communities that offer advice on class
size in ESL/EFL through their websites (American Language Communication Center (ALCC)
and Teach-This.com are some examples among others). However, such discussions are generally
limited to the advantages and disadvantages of small or big class sizes with regard to classroom
management issues. In short, it seemed that the relationship between class size and learning
outcomes is one area that is under-researched in SLA.
Step 2: Visiting Other Universities - As academic literature did not provide any useful
information about class size, the initial curriculum developers visited other universities that
offered small size English courses. They visited two universities, one with 4-student classes and
other with 12-student classes. Listening to hands-on experiences from course developers at these
two universities gave them ideas on which they based their discussion to determine the number
of students per class.
Step 3: Even or Uneven - From the visits to other universities and from their own experiences
and intuition, the initial curriculum developers decided that the standard number of EDC class
size should be an even number. Classes with an even number of students have two major
advantages: 1) students can be put in pairs easily, and 2) students can be put in two groups of an
even number. Therefore, in even-numbered classes, the teacher does not have to be a partner in
pair-work tasks or fill in the missing role in a group.
Step 4: 4, 6, 8, or 10 - Once the decision was made to make the number even, the next step was
to decide on the exact number. The initial curriculum developers had had the idea that the
number should be 10 or below to make the course unique to Rikkyo University and thus
attractive to students; therefore, they looked at possibilities of making EDC a 4-, 6-, or 8- student
course. One issue that the university was concerned with small size classes was the potential to
create unnecessary anxiety for students. Since there had not been such small size English classes
at Rikkyo, (the previous practice was to place 40 to 50 students per English class on average),
the university was worried that students would show a great deal of anxiety and feel pressure to
speak English in small classes, and such a classroom environment might prove
counterproductive to students’ learning. Therefore, the class size needed to be a number that
would achieve the educational goals in addition to alleviating the concern shown by the
university. Four was ruled out first as they thought students’ anxiety would be high. Ten was also
ruled out at an early stage as they felt it would be difficult for teachers to manage and monitor all
10 students at the same time. Then they were left with choices of 6 or 8. They felt that either
would work for teachers, but eight would be more appropriate as it provides more opportunities
for students to work with different partners, and yet there are enough students to keep the
anxiety level low.
Current Class Size

The idea to place eight students per class was approved by the university and it was decided that
22
Takako Moroi
students were to be grouped by levels within the same department. Inevitably, the number of
students in each department is not always divisible by 8 so that eight plus or minus one became
the class size criterion (now every semester, 75 to 80% of the students are placed in 8-student
classes, 10 to 14% in 7-student classes, and 8 to 10% in 9-student classes on average). Then the
succeeding curriculum developers (i.e., EDC program managers in consultation with the deputy
director and senior program managers) designed and developed the syllabus including in-house
textbooks, and provided teacher training sessions so that EDC could take the most advantage of
the class size. In other words, the EDC curriculum was designed around the class size of eight:
in principle, all the activities were designed for pair-work and small group discussions with four
students (see Hurling, 2012 for details of EDC lesson structure).
Why “8” Works

In 2012, as the program matured, the curriculum developers were confident the EDC curriculum
was established at a high level of quality, and that the class size was strongly connected to the
high levels of achievement and satisfaction with EDC. Every semester, attendance and passing
rates have been stable at the high end of the scale, and the student questionnaire conducted at the
end of each semester since EDC’s full implementation in 2010 suggest that the majority of the
students feel that their speaking skills have improved (on average, almost 85% of the
respondents agrees that they can speak English better than before after completing their first
semester, and over 80% after completing their second semester), and that they have appreciated
the learning experience in EDC. At the same time, there was growing interest about the number
of students per class both within and outside the university: people wanted to know why EDC
had set the standard number of students per class to be eight, and why it works. As mentioned
above, lack of academic literature on the relationship between class size and learning outcomes
in CLT classrooms made it difficult for the initial curriculum developers to come up with a class
size that was theoretically and empirically supported. Thus, they had to rely on their experiences
and intuition to make the decision on EDC class size instead. The same problem still existed in
2012, thus as an attempt to provide comprehensive and solid answers to the latter part of the
question, why eight works, the curriculum developers conducted a questionnaire to EDC full-
time instructors. They considered these instructors to be the best source of information when
investigating what actually happens in EDC classrooms as they are the frontline practitioners of
EDC curriculum.
DESIGN
Purpose
The purpose of the questionnaire was to obtain EDC full-time instructors’ views on the class size.
Questionnaire Survey
The questionnaire (Appendix 1) was developed by the curriculum developers. It consists of 6
sections: the first section asks for reasons why instructors think EDC is effective in developing
students’ speaking skills (within EDC, it is a commonly understood that being “effective” means
that students achieve the aims of the course, namely developing fluency in the context of
discussions), and the second section asks for reasons why they think EDC is popular among
students. The aim of these sections were to find out whether or not instructors considered the
small class size to be a major reason for EDC’s educational effectiveness and popularity among
students and to what degree.
The third section onward relates to specific class size. The third section asks about 9- student
classes and 5- student discussion groups. At a glance, these numbers did not suggest any
23
substantial differences from 8-student classes or 4-student group discussions, which are standard
in EDC. Therefore, curriculum developers hoped to find out instructors’ views on these numbers.
The fourth and fifth sections ask about 10-student classes. Currently, EDC does not offer 10-
student classes; however, one specific question asked by the university regarding the class size
was whether or not increasing the standard class size to 10 was feasible. Similar to the previous
section, 10-student classes do not seem to differ greatly from existing 8- or 9- student classes on
the surface, yet curriculum developers hoped to provide commonly held views among instructors
as an answer to the question by the university.
Lastly, the sixth section asks about what instructors considered to be the ideal number of
students per class.
Data Collection
Respondents of the questionnaire were 26 EDC full-time instructors with teaching experience of
four semesters or more at EDC in May, 2012.The questionnaire was sent electronically to the
instructors on May 7, 2012. The deadline was within a week, by May 11, 2012, and all of the
twenty six instructors returned the questionnaire. Of the 26 responses, 2 were incomplete;
therefore, a total of 24 responses were discussed and analyzed.
RESULTS
Section 1: Reasons for effectiveness of EDC
In this section, instructors were asked to choose what they considered to be the top three reasons
for effectiveness of EDC. They were given seven options including an option for “other.” All the
options except for “other” are commonly agreed key aspects of EDC curriculum. The option of
“other” was included in case instructors had other applicable responses for the question. These
options were then followed by a comment section in which instructors were free to comment on
their choices. Figure 1 below summarizes the result in percentages.
In addition to listing their top three choices, all the instructors provided comments for each of
their choices. Fifty-four percent of the instructors chose “Micro class size” as their top reason.
Analyzing their comments, there seem to be two main educational benefits that “Micro size class”
brings to their classroom. They reported that it allows them to monitor their students’
performance closely, and therefore, they are able to provide specific and actionable feedback that
would make positive changes in students’ behaviors. Another benefit that came up in their
discussion often was that it helps create a relaxed learning environment for students because
students get to know each other well and form friendship through discussions in English.
What should be emphasized here is that almost all of the instructors explained how their three
choices were interrelated and complemented one another. Therefore, perhaps equally, if not more,
worth looking at is the total number of responses for each of the choices regardless of the
ranking. Figure 2 below is the summary of the results in percentages.
24
Takako Moroi
Figure 1. Top 3 reasons for effectiveness of EDC. Reason 1 is the first choice. Reason 2 is the
second choice. Reason 3 is the third choice.
% Responses
Figure 2. Total responses for each item.
25
As shown in Figure 2 above, “Micro size class” (92%), “High student speaking time” (79%),
and “Student-centered instruction” (75%) are by far the most commonly agreed reasons for the
effectiveness of EDC among instructors. Fifty-four percent of the instructors chose the
combination of these three as their top three reasons and explained how they are intertwined.
The following comments are examples of this “reciprocal” view.
“Small class size allows us to monitor closely and to maintain an English-only

environment in which there is a lot of student-student interaction. This high student
speaking time means that students have a lot of time to practice the skills and
improve their English ability. Making the classes student-centered is part of
maintaining high student speaking time.”
“The small class size makes ALL the other points possible – the students get to know
their classmates well so that even after 1 or 2 classes they feel very comfortable
taking for a long time and taking risks in English. Due to the small classes, teachers
are able to monitor ALL students at ALL times, so we can spot any difficulties (or
classroom management issues) and tailor our feedback/further activities to address
them. This is also motivating for the students- they know that teachers are listening
(and assessing performance every week), so they try their best to use only English,
stay on-topic and perform the function phrases.”
Section 2: Reasons for EDC’s popularity among students

In this section, instructors were asked to choose top three reasons for EDC’s popularity among
students. The answer options and the format is the same as the previous section. As mentioned
earlier, EDC receives high ratings from students in the end of the semester questionnaire, but the
questionnaire items are generally related to learning outcomes (e.g., Do you think your speaking
skills have improved by taking EDC?) rather than the structure of EDC. Instructors’ perceptions
of students’ perceptions of EDC obtained in this section, therefore, provided additional useful
information to understand how students feel about the structure of EDC. Figure 3 below
summarizes the results in percentages.
As shown in Figure 3, “Micro class size” and “High student speaking time” are what instructors
perceived to be the most apparent reasons for EDC’s popularity among students. In regards to
these two points, instructors reported that their students often said they rarely had had
opportunities to practice speaking skills nor had they had any experiences in learning English in
such a small class prior to EDC. In addition, many instructors discussed the social benefits of
EDC for students; it is easy for students to form friendship, and it helps create motivating
classroom environment for them. This suggests that students enjoy the new learning experiences
that EDC offers. The comments below reflect instructors’ experiences of hearing students’ actual
voices in their classrooms, and the tone is quite positive, which is representative of other
comments.
“I heard many students saying that they didn’t like their English classes at high
school where they studied passively, didn’t have enough speaking time to practice or
communicate in English. On the other hand, they seem to enjoy our program, which
provides the opposite. Of course is quite effective mainly because students are given
considerable amount of speaking time and this was made possible by student-
centered instruction and its micro class size.”
26
Takako Moroi
“Students often say they have never had the opportunity to speak so much English
before! The micro class size, and student centered instruction, gives them the
opportunity to build close relationships with each other- they aren’t just another
student in a lecture hall.”
Figure 3. Top 3 Reasons for EDC’s popularity among students from instructor perspective.
Reason 1 is the first choice. Reason 2 is the second choice. Reason 3 is the third choice.
Section 3: Effectiveness of 9-student classes

All the instructors had experiences teaching 9-student classes; therefore, 24 responses were
obtained. The two questions asked were as follows: a) in terms of effective teaching and learning,
do you see any differences between 8- and 9- student classes? and b) during group discussions in
9-student classes, students are divided in groups of three in order to maximize student-student
interaction time. If we change this format to two groups of four and five, do you think there
would be any differences in students’ performance and learning outcomes? There were yes or no
answer choices and a comment section for each question.
For the first question, out of 24 instructors, twenty three (96%) chose “yes,” and one chose “no.”
Instructors’ comments suggest that there are three potential disadvantages of 9-student classes.
First is the possible reduction in student speaking time: some activities have to be done in groups
of three rather than in pairs, and this reduces speaking time per student. Second is the possible
reduction in number of opportunities that shy students practice speaking skills: when working in
three, students tend to become less aware of equal participation, thus forgetting to invite quieter
students to join discussions. The one respondent who chose “no” also commented on this point.
He reported that while he had not noticed any extreme differences, he had to be very careful
with his instructions so that all the students in groups of three would have the same amount of
opportunity to speak. Third is in relation to monitoring: because there are three discussion
groups to monitor, instructors’ assessment of students’ performance could become less accurate,
and this might result in providing generic feedback. Below are some examples of comments that
27
are typical of this section:
“By far the biggest problem is monitoring. It is difficult to hear 3 X 3-student

discussions…as they are spread across the room. There is also less variety: 8-
student classes allow pair work and 4-student groups, while 9-student classes are
more repetitive- not everyone can be paired so some students are always in groups of
3 (for preparation activities AND the discussions themselves).”
“On Thursdays I teach two 9 student classes and one group of 8. When I compare
class notes and assessment sheets, it is clear that I have more data, comments and
examples of student speech on my 8 student notes, which allows me to write better
quality feedback and assign grades more accurately. “
For the second question, twenty two instructors (92%) chose “yes,” one chose “no,” and the
other said “unsure.” The instructors all had experiences of teaching 5-student classes due to
student absences; their comments were based on their observation of 5-student discussions. To
summarize the comments from those who chose “yes,” the following five tendencies in students’
behavior during 5-student discussions were found: 1) shy students can hide easily, 2) active
students can dominate discussions easily, 3) unmotivated students can slack off easily, 4) the
discussion becomes more like a presentation with one speaker and four listeners and the speaker
feels nervous, and 5) speaking time per student is reduced. The following comments may serve
as an illustration to these points:
“I think 5 student discussions groups are too large and should only be used as a last
resort. The dynamics of interaction change and often students over compensate for
larger groups and the discussion becomes a turn taking presentation of ideas.”
“In general, 5-student discussions are difficult for both students and teachers. For
students, the added group member makes it more difficult for them to participate
equally, as quieter students find it easier to be passive in the discussion, while
students who tend to dominate find it easier to control the discussions. as a result, 5-
member discussions are marked by poorer speaking and question balance, and they
also tend to impair a smooth flow of ideas within the group. For teachers, it becomes
harder to monitor and provide effective feedback. The result is that students’
performance often suffers, in part due to the fact that teachers’ ability to monitor and
provide feedback is decreased.”
While the majority raised difficulties with 5-student classes, two instructors held different views.
Their opinions were minority, yet hold value for further investigation. One of these with
different views chose “no,” reporting that he had not experienced any problems with 5-student
discussions. It would be interesting to find out why he did not experience any problems. From
other instructors’ comments, it was quite clear that instructors’ experiences with 5-student
classes are different from those with classes with 4-student discussion groups in terms of
teaching and/or learning, yet it does not mean those differences are always problematic.
Therefore exchange of ideas about how to handle 5-student classes may prove useful for
instructors. The other instructor who chose “unsure” said that it was difficult to answer the
question with any accuracy without quantitative data. In fact, the same thing can be said about
answering other questions in this questionnaire survey. For example, formal research has not
28
Takako Moroi
been done to support any of the five claims listed above about 9-student classes or 5-student
discussions. Similarly, differences in levels of student achievement between 9-student and eight-
student classes in terms of test scores and final grades have not been formally examined.
However, what the majority of the instructors’ comments from this section reveal is that their
concerns with 9-student classes or 5-student discussions are real and common across instructors:
they invest time and effort to do their best in their 9-student or 5-student classes to remove any
of the potential disadvantages that they observe through their instructions.
Section 4: 10-student classes under the current curriculum

The questions in this section and the following sections are in regard to 10-student classes. The
question for this section was as follows: If the average size of an EDC classes was changed to 10
students per class, would you be able to maintain the same teaching methodology, quality of
teaching, and achievement of learning outcomes? There were yes or no answer choices and a
comment section for each question. Out of 24 instructors, 22 (92%) chose “no,” 2 chose “yes”
with minor adjustments to teaching.
From the comments of instructors who chose “no,” seven major reasons were drawn out: 1)
there would be less student-student talking time in each class, 2) there would be less individual
attention to students’ needs due to lower student to instructor ratio, 3) there would be less
teaching time in each class, 4) feedback and assessment would be less accurate due to larger
number of students per class, and 5) more students would mean increased classroom
management issues, 6) more students would mean a greater chance of mixed ability classes, and
7) more students would mean increase in teacher-talking time to repeat instructions and
organizing activities.
“If we divide into three groups (3,3,4), this is a problem for teacher monitoring and
it becomes harder to observe each individual student. Students get less quality
feedback, and how can students improve without effective feedback on performance?
If we divide into two groups (5, 5), student talking time is reduced, and this can also
impact the performance of quieter students.”
“A ten student class would maintain the ability to conduct pair work. However, it
would make accurate monitoring on the part of the teacher more difficult, which
would directly impact the effectiveness of the feedback, and therefore student
learning outcomes. In addition, 5-member group discussions have radically different
dynamics from 4-member groups, often suffering poorer interaction and speaking
balance.”
The two instructors who chose “yes” both mentioned that the structure of one lesson, particularly
time devoted to each activity, would need to be adjusted though the same teaching methodology,
quality of teaching, and achievement of learning outcomes could be maintained to some extent.
Section 5: Necessary curriculum adjustments for 10-student classes

The question for this section was what curriculum changes instructors considered necessary in
case the average size of an EDC class was increased to 10 students per class. Instructors were
free to provide multiple choices, and all the instructors provided one or more answers. Figure 4
below summarizes the results in percentages.
There are four competing areas of EDC teaching, “Classroom management” (27% of all
responses), “High student speaking time” (21%), “Assessment methods” (20%), and “Student-
29
centered instruction” (18%), that instructors consider necessary to change from the current
curriculum if the class size went up to 10 students. They felt that there would be a marked
increase in the classroom management issues that they occasionally faced, such as lateness,
absences, use of Japanese, shy students, and dominant students. They also felt that expected
student speaking time would need to be decreased from 50 minutes per class (an average time
spent for student speaking time in regular EDC lessons) as it would be difficult to hold two
extended discussions with 10 students within 90 minutes. Contrary, they expected that teacher-
talking time would increase with 10-student classes as they would need to spend more time on
activity set up and concept checking, which, in turn, means that their instruction would become
less student-centered. In other words, lesson procedure changes would be required if the class
size became 10. Furthermore, as instructors would not be able to monitor and grade the
performance of 10 students as closely, changes would be required to both regular lesson and test
lesson assessment methods with new criteria that would allow instructors to asses students
accurately and fairly. In short, the majority agree that significant changes to the course structure
would need to be made if changing the class size to 10.
30
27
25
21
20
20 18
% Responses
15
10 7
5
5
2
0
0
Figure 4. Areas of adjustments necessary for 10-student classes.
Section 6: Ideal class size under the current curriculum

In this section, there were seven answer options for the ideal number of students per class
ranging from 6 to more than 10. All 24 instructors chose “8.” Among them, four instructors
listed other options together with “8”: two listed “9,” one listed “6,” and the other listed “12.”
The fact that 100% of the instructors said “8” is the ideal class size is hardly surprising as the
entire course was planned around the principle of having eight students per class, for example
activities in the textbook and the teacher’s guide assume students would be mostly working in
30
Takako Moroi
pairs or groups of four and so does the teacher training sessions. Furthermore, various minor
adjustments are made regularly to the course on the same principle and based on instructors’
feedback since EDC started, and as instructors gain more experiences, they become more skilled
to teach “8” students.
DISCUSSION
If any conclusions may be drawn from the results of this questionnaire survey, they are, perhaps,
as follows. The current standard class size of 8 presumably works well both for students and
instructors. There seem to be two major factors why instructors strongly feel that eight is the
ideal number of students per class: monitoring and feedback.
EDC instructors monitor students’ performance closely in each lesson to assign grades to
individual students. In EDC, students receive grades for function use, communication skills, and
participation after each lesson based on their classroom performance. Such grades are made
available to students online so that they have an opportunity to reflect on their performance and
prepare for the succeeding lesson. Many instructors mentioned “accuracy” in their comments for
Section 4 and 5 above when they discussed how monitoring becomes difficult with classes with
9 or 10 students, saying that their notes on student performance would not be as detailed as for
8-student classes. This affects their ability to assign grades that truly reflect students’
performance, thus they worry that in larger classes, grades become meaningless for students’
learning as students might not feel that their grades accurately reflect their performance.
Instructors were equally concerned with the feedback method in larger classes. The present
practice is that instructors provide feedback to students after each task on points well done and
points to improve. Generally instructors provide feedback five times or more in one lesson, and
their feedback includes two types of information: verification and elaboration (Kulhavy and
Stock, 1989). The former type refers to simple judgment and the latter refers to additional
information such as explaining errors, providing examples, introducing new strategies and so
o9DC classrooms, instructors comment on how well students complete each task and explain
what progress (or lack of) they make from task to task and within a course of a 90-minute lesson.
The EDC curriculum is designed in a way that students can achieve goals and objectives of the
course by build on skills in subsequent tasks and lessons; therefore, it is crucial that instructors
gather formative data through monitoring student performance during the lesson. Monitoring,
therefore, goes beyond simply noting down whether or not students used certain expressions or
not; what instructors try to achieve in every lesson is formative feedback that brings a direct and
positive influence in students’ performance and progress. Instructors feel that it is more difficult
to achieve in larger classes.
While formative feedback is regarded to be crucial to improve students’ skills in the educational
field (Heritage, 2010; Ainsworth & Viegut, 2006; Tuttle & Tuttle, 2012), not only EDC
instructors, but also students also consider feedback to be important part of their learning. The
end of semester student questionnaire includes two items related to teacher feedback: 1) my
teacher gave clear instructions and explanations in class, and 2) the teachers’ weekly comments
on the website were helpful. The former item concerns with teacher talk in class. Although the
item does not use the word, formative feedback, specifically, it is certainly part of “instructions
and explanations” from students’ perspective. Every semester, 90 % of the respondents agree
with this item on average. The latter item refers to written comments students receives online
after each lesson along with their grades. Because the web system is not interactive, it is difficult
for EDC to know whether students actually read the comments, or they just checked their grades
without reading the comments. However, the average of 80 % of the respondents agrees with the
item every semester. It is clear that instructor feedback is seen as something useful by both
31
students and instructors to an overwhelming degree.

To the curriculum developers, the results of the questionnaire survey came as no surprise as
other key aspects of the curriculum (i.e., textbook activities, teaching methodologies, and
assessment methods) were developed around the standard class size of eight. In retrospect, the
class size and the educational aims complemented each other in the process of the EDC
curriculum development. Yet, the results provided both the initial and current curriculum
developers with reassurance that the decision on the class size was sensible despite the fact that
there were no obvious supporting evidence from literature in the field.
FURTHER RESEARCH
Class size seems to be a very important factor in CLT, yet further research is necessary to gain
insights about how different class sizes affect students’ learning outcomes. Empirical studies that
compare students’ achievement levels between small size classes (it seems to be the common
practice that universities describe their English classes as small sized when there are fifteen to
twenty students) and bigger size classes with the same or similar educational aims and goals
would shed some light on this topic, providing useful information for all the curriculum
developers in the field. Within EDC, it would be interesting to compare 7-, 8-, and 9- student
classes to see if there are any significant differences in learning outcomes. Hunter (2013)
investigated whether test group size affected individual test performance on the discussion test,
comparing 3-student groups and 4-student groups. The motivation behind this study was the
“anecdotal observation” made by many EDC instructors that 4-student test groups seemed to
perform better than 3-student test groups in the test (p. 143). Similarly, EDC instructors’
observations of student performance with regard to different class sizes or group sizes (i.e. 5-
student discussions) discussed in this paper can be investigated further.
NOTES ON MAKING CHANGES

Once a curriculum is in place, on-going evaluation of the curriculum is necessary to maintain its
relevancy and quality. The EDC curriculum developers operate on the mutual understanding that
“the process of curriculum development is never finished” (Brown, 1995, p. 217). At EDC, it is
not difficult to put this belief into practice since there are numerous opportunities for them to
receive instructor feedback on a day to day basis through regular professional development
sessions and frequent informal communications with instructors. Conducting this questionnaire
survey became another opportunity to hear instructor voices and gain insights about the class
size.
Furthermore, EDC being a newly established compulsory course for all freshman students, ideas
for changes or adjustments to the curriculum were brought up to the curriculum developers at
times by members of the university to ensure that EDC was a sustainable program for years to
come. One of these suggestions, as mentioned earlier, was in regard to the standard class size.
The results of the questionnaire survey provided rich information regarding instructor
perceptions of the importance of class size in CLT classrooms, namely the relationship between
class size and monitoring/feedback, and the relationship between class size and learning
outcomes. Such results convinced members of the university that the standard class size of eight
as the core of the current curriculum would be maintained. In light of Nation and Macalister’s
(2010) suggested steps in introducing changes to a curriculum, this process corresponds to the
first step of assessing the need for change:
If a language course is not achieving the results that it should, or if the nature of the
course causes dissatisfaction for the teachers or learners, then one of the first
32
Takako Moroi
prerequisites for change is present. (p. 174)
In any language curriculum, changes can be made either top-down or bottom-up. Sometimes
changes are made top-down, for example due to administrative reasons (e.g., structural reform to
English courses). Changes are also made bottom-up based on what happens in classrooms (e.g.,
students’ dissatisfaction with a course). Either way, evaluation of a curriculum, as a whole or
some aspects of it, is necessary to determine what needs to be changed or if the need for change
exists. When doing so, it is optimal if the evaluation process becomes cooperative work
(Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004). It is imperative that voices of the key players in a language
curriculum, teachers and students, are not neglected at this evaluation stage (Ornstein & Hunkins,
2004; Nation & Macalister, 2010; Richards, 2001) so that the changes (or no changes) are
relevant. That said, EDC underwent a very healthy and successful process in evaluating the
effectiveness of the standard class size, consulting the student questionnaire results and
instructors’ opinions reported in this paper, in which people concerned are confident with the
conclusion.
CONCLUSION
In the questionnaire survey briefly reported here, EDC instructors willingly shared their
experiences and views on the current EDC curriculum. In doing so, they have made a valuable
contribution to EDC in maintaining its quality. Equally worth emphasizing is that they also
contributed to increased understanding of the importance of teachers’ voices in evaluating any
aspects of a language program. Student voices are often heard through means of student
evaluations; however, only when teachers’ feedback is analyzed together with student
evaluations, curriculum developers and others that oversee the program are able to gain many
more insights into the program. It is hoped that this report will have demonstrated that voices at
different levels of the educational system (e.g., students, teachers, managers, etc.) are essential in
understanding any aspects of any language courses.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Brown, H.D. (2007). Teaching by principles. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Brown, J.D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum. New York, NY: Newbury House.
Folse, K.S. (2006). The art of teaching speaking. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English
Discussion, 1.2-1.10.
Hunter, C. (2013). Group composition and discussion tests: Exploring effects of group size and
gender composition. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 1(2),
143-146.
Kulhavy, R.W., & Stock, W. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response
certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1 (4), 279-308.
Lee, J.F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2003). Action plan to
cultivate
“Japanese with English Abilities”. Retrieved from http://warp.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/286794/
www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/15/03/03033101/001.pdf
33
Nation, I.P.S., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nunan, D. (1998). The Learner-Centered Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ornstein., A.C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum foundations, principles, and issues. (4th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Richards, J.C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd
ed.). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tsang, W.K., & Wong, M. (2002). Conversational English: an interactive, collaborative, and
reflective approach. In J.C. Richards & W.A. Renanyda (Eds.), Methodology in langauge
teaching: an anthology of current practice (212-224). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tuttle, H.G., & Tuttle, A. (2012). Improving Foreign Language Speaking through Formative
Assessment. New York, NY: Routledge.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow, U.K.: Longman.
APPENDIX 1
Questionnaire on Educational Effectiveness

Your Name:
1. Every semester, we conduct a questionnaire to discern students’ opinions about our program,
and our program has been well received thus far. Why do you think our program is effective
in developing students’ speaking skills? Please choose Top 3 reasons.
A Learning function phrases B Micro class size
C Student-centered instruction D High student speaking time (student-

(teacher presentation, monitoring, student interaction)
and feedback)
E Unified syllabus (within EDC) F Assessment methods
(Weekly assessment and DT)
G Provision of English-only- H Classroom management
environment
I Others (please specify)
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
Why do you think so?
2. Why do you think our program is popular with our students? Please choose Top 3 reasons.
A Learning function phrases B Micro class size

34
Takako Moroi
and feedback)
E Unified syllabus (within EDC) F Assessment methods
G Provision of English-only- H Classroom management
environment
I Others (please specify)
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
Why do you think so?
3. Questions below are specifically about 9-student-classes, and if you have not taught any 9-
student-classes, please do not answer these questions.
a. In terms of effective teaching and learning, do you see any differences between 8- and
9- student classes?
Yes / No:
Please explain your answer with examples.
b. During group discussions in 9-student-classes, students are divided in groups of 3 in

order to maximize student-student interaction time. If we changed this format to two
groups of 4 and 5, do you think there would be any difference in students’ performance
and learning outcomes?
Yes / No:
4. If the average size of an EDC class was changed to 10 students per class, would you be able
to maintain the same teaching methodology, quality of teaching, and achievement of
learning outcomes?
Yes / No:
5. If the average size of an EDC class was changed to 10 students per class, which of the
following would need to change and how?
A Learning function phrases B Assessment methods

and feedback)
E Provision of English-only- F Classroom management
environment
G Unified syllabus (within EDC) H Others (please specify)
35
6. Which of the following do you think would be ideal for our students?
Number of students per class

A Less than 6
B 6 students
C 7 students
D 8 students
E 9 students
F 10 students
G More than 10
Your choice
Please explain your answer.
36
SECTION TWO
Teaching Journals
Unequal Participation and Willingness to Communicate
Brad Barker
ABSTRACT
Students who are reluctant to speak out in the classroom are commonly encountered by language
teachers. As part of a teaching journal project, this paper is a self-refection based on
observations of student behavior and performance during English Discussion Class (EDC)
at a private Japanese university. Two classes were observed during a fourteen-week fall
semester with a focus on four students who did not participate as much as their peers. Possible
causes of unequal participation are discussed using a model of willingness to communicate
(WTC). Instances of teacher intervention to alleviate the problem are described, and changes in
student behavior and performance are noted. Several concrete measures that may be effective for
encouraging equal participation are suggested. This paper concludes by suggesting future
strategies for addressing the issue of students participating less than their peers.
INTRODUCTION
The first four weeks of class were devoted to informal observation of student behavior and
performance. I began writing weekly journal entries in week 5 and continued until week 14. It
was not until week 8 that I settled on the aspect of student behavior I wanted to observe: unequal
participation. Specifically, I was concerned about students who were not participating as much
as their classmates. Overall, consistent unequal participation issues were not widespread in my
classes. The majority of students understood the importance of balanced discussions and
participated well. Students were also generally very patient and supportive of their classmates.
However, I noticed that four students in particular were consistently not participating as much as
their peers. I decided to observe two groups and focus on two students from each group. Both
classes that I decided to observe were level II classes: one made up of science majors and the
other arts majors.
Group 1 - Student A (male) / Student B (female) - Level II - College of Science

TOEIC Scores Ranging 470 – 775 (Listening 285 - 415; Reading 160 - 360)
Group 2 - Student C (male) / Student D (female) - Level II - College of Arts

TOEIC Scores Ranging 465 - 640 (Listening 295 - 310; Reading 165 - 330)
At Rikkyo University, all freshmen are required to take two semesters of EDC. Students
are placed into classes according to their TOEIC listening placement test scores. Students are
assigned one of four different levels (I, II, III, and IV). Level I is the highest and level IV is the
lowest. In addition, students are grouped with classmates from the same college. Some variation
in student ability is expected. The highest score on the TOEIC test is 990: 495 for listening and
495 for reading (ETS, 2013). I noticed that there was considerable difference in students’
TOEIC scores within the two groups that I chose to observe. In Group 1, the combined TOEIC
scores ranged from 470 to 775. Listening scores ranged from 285 to 415. Reading scores ranged
from 160 to 360. Student B had both the lowest total score (470) and the lowest reading score
(160) in the group. Her listening score was about average for the group (310). Student A was
near the top of the class with respect to total score (580), listening (350) and reading (230). In
Group 2, total TOEIC scores ranged from 465 to 640. Listening scores ranged from 295 to 310.
Reading scores ranged from 165 to 330. Student C had both the lowest total score (465) and the
39
lowest reading score (165) in the group. His listening score was very similar to the scores of his
classmates (300). In fact, there was very little variation in this group (295-310). Student D
ranked highly with respect to total score (610). Her listening score was the lowest, but not
significantly different from the scores of her classmates (295). Her reading score was near the
top (315). Some insight regarding participation issues was gained from analyzing students’
placement test scores. Later in this paper, I will discuss the significance of these test scores.
I found that the most serious cases of unequal participation tended to occur in level II
classes. Overall, students in level II classes were highly motivated to participate and share ideas
during discussions. In general, students were proficient enough in the L2 that they consistently
performed well during group discussions. Several students were dominant and, if left unchecked,
could give little opportunity for more passive students to join the discussion and hold the floor.
Students who tend to dominate discussions to the detriment of their peers is another problematic
aspect of unequal participation. Discussions in level II classes were generally fast paced and
little room for thinking time or false starts was tolerated by more dominant students. This
created a high pressure environment for the more passive students, and this was a notable source
of tension during several observed lessons.
One of the primary features of an effective EDC discussion is that it must be balanced and
interactive. Discussions should be equal and constructed by all participants (Hurling, 2012, p. 1-
2). This is communicated to students both verbally by instructors and in written format via the
bilingual Student Handbook. In four-person discussions everyone should speak for roughly 25
percent of the time and listen actively for 75 percent of the time. Active listening entails verbally
reacting to what was said (e.g. I see. / I agree. / Uh-huh.), asking follow-up questions, and
expressing understanding or lack of understanding (I understand / Sorry, I don’t understand.). If
someone is not participating equally, this can have a negative impact on all students involved.
Because discussions are mutually constructed, students must rely on group members in order to
have effective discussions. For example, if students are reluctant to ask questions to classmates,
grades of all participants may suffer. In addition, research has lent empirical support to the
notion that learner-learner interactions can promote L2 acquisition (Adams, 2007). A lack of
learner-learner interaction is troubling within the context of EDC, especially considering that
one of the key features of an EDC lesson is teacher-free discussions. Learners must have
frequent interactions with peers to fully benefit from and pass the course. Concerning
assessment, participation alone amounts to 20 percent of students’ grades for each regular lesson
(nine out of fourteen lessons).
DISCUSSION
After conducting the second discussion test (week 9) I noted in my teaching journal that students
who participated less during regular lessons showed notable improvement in participation during
the discussion test. In Group 1, Student A performed very well and achieved a high score on the
test. Student B still struggled to participate and appeared visibly nervous during the discussion
test. It appears that self-confidence was a factor in her inability to participate fully in the
discussion. In Group 2, both Student C and Student D performed well and achieved high scores
on the discussion test. This can be partially explained by the concepts of extrinsic motivation
and intrinsic motivation. As defined by Ryan and Deci, “extrinsic motivation is a construct that
pertains whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separable outcome” (2000, p. 60).
In contrast, “intrinsic motivation is defined as the doing of an activity for its inherent
satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence” (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p. 56). It is
likely that students feel more extrinsically motivated to perform well during discussion tests.
Students may be motivated to get a good grade, especially considering that for EDC, discussion
40
Brad Barker
tests involve one group discussion that makes up 10 percent of students’ final grades. Regular
lessons involve two or more discussions that make up a total of 6.4 percent of students’ final
grades. Students may also want the satisfaction of doing well on the test, but that would also fall
under the category of extrinsic motivation.
During week 10, it was very beneficial to talk to the prior instructors of the students I
chose to observe. They confirmed that these students did have issues with unequal participation
and WTC during the spring semester as well. Concerning Student B, the instructor believed that
she had some anxiety and confidence issues that may have prevented her from participating fully.
Recommendations included praise and positive feedback, assigning specific roles to students,
and utilizing more pair and small group work. The instructor also noted that pairing this student
with peers that show a tendency to help their classmates can help. One classmate was observed
encouraging his classmates to join discussions and share ideas. He would often ask questions
that helped create more balanced discussions, such as “What’s your opinion (name)?” and
“What do you think?” This student was also observed giving encouragement during a peer
feedback activity. He would clearly say, “Why don’t you join us more in the next discussion?”
Concerning students from Group 2, the instructor from spring semester indicated that these
students may not be participating equally due to shyness and personality. He also noted that
Student D seemed to participate more when grouped with other female students. Based on these
recommendations, I gave more consideration to student pairings and groupings.
Willingness to communicate is defined as a “readiness to enter into discourse at a
particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2” (MacIntyre, Dornyei, Clement, &
Noels, 1998, p. 547). I have included a model of WTC that can shed light on some of the reasons
why students may be reluctant to communicate (See Figure 1). The top three layers (Layers I, II,
and III) represent situational influences on WTC that may vary depending on the situation and
time. The bottom three layers (IV, V, and VI) represent more stable influences on WTC that
would operate independent of the situation (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547). I suspect that one
cause of students participating less is that they lack a real desire to communicate with their peers.
For unknown reasons, they displayed a lack of interest in entering into dialog with their peers
(Layer III, Box 3, Desire to Communicate with a Specific Person). Affiliation is thought to
foster a desire to communicate. Research from the field of social psychology has found that,
“affiliation often occurs with persons who are encountered frequently, physically attractive
persons, and those who are similar to us in a variety of ways” (Lippa, as cited in MacIntrye et al.,
1998, p. 548-549). Even though these variables were often present, it seems that some students
do not have much of a desire to communicate with peers in the classroom setting using the L1 or
the L2. This was evidenced by both in-class behavior, and a lack of interaction before and after
class using the L1. Based on observations, this issue seemed most pronounced with Student A
and Student B. Self-confidence is also a likely cause of unwillingness to communicate among
the observed students (Layer III, Box 4. State Communicative Self-Confidence; Layer IV, Box 7,
Self-Confidence). Some scholars see self-confidence as involving both perceived competence
and a lack of anxiety (Clement, as cited in MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 549). This can be a more
stable matter of personality (Layer IV, Box 7) or more situation specific (Layer III, Box 4).
Student A and Student B both demonstrated a lack of self-confidence evidenced by visible
nervousness and even worried and discouraged comments such as “I can’t speak.” Student C and
Student D appeared to be quite self-confident. It is important to recognize that some aspects of
WTC cannot be affected by how we teach and intervene when issues arise, for example,
personality (Layer VI, Box 12). Some students are simply more introverted and may be
uncomfortable or disinterested in speaking out much during discussions.
41
Figure 1: Heuristic Model of Variables Influencing WTC

(MacIntyre, Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1998)
As mentioned before, due to the imperfect nature of assigning proficiency levels to

students, some variation in proficiency is expected. Based on my observations, I believe
proficiency contributed to some students’ lack of WTC. Both Student B and Student C had
significantly lower TOEIC scores than their classmates. These students were often drowned out
by more dominant and proficient peers. However, this variation in proficiency is only one factor,
and it cannot be used as an explanation for less willingness to communicate for all students.
Some scholars have noted that highly competent individuals can display a strong unwillingness
to communicate in the L2 in some situations. Interestingly, low proficiency students often
display a tendency to communicate in the L2 whenever possible (MacIntyre et al., 1998). Both
Student A and Student D had high TOEIC scores. Student A lived in an English-speaking
country for several years as a child. I suspect that his listening and reading abilities are quite
high compared to his peers due to his time overseas. However, upon returning to Japan his
speaking abilities seem to have suffered due to few opportunities to use the L2. Although his
pronunciation remains quite natural, he was frequently observed struggling to articulate his
opinions and ideas. When observing classes I realized that there are other factors at work as well.
Student D indicated that she had some health issues during the semester which led to her being
fatigued. Despite her high proficiency and the possibility that she was willing to communicate, it
is likely that her health issues affected her performance during the semester.
Drawing Attention to Unbalanced Discussions

One straightforward way to encourage equal participation is simply to draw students’ attention
to the importance of balanced discussions. One method that has been used during EDC is
drawing a simple diagram on the board that illustrates ideal participation during a four-person
42
Brad Barker
discussion (See Figure 2). Similarly, diagrams illustrating balanced three-person and five-person
discussions can be used as well. I have used this strategy to varying degrees of success. During
week 10, students in Group 2 seemed to participate more after simply reminding them of the
need to participate equally, writing the diagram on the whiteboard, and informing them that they
should speak for 4 minutes and listen actively for 12 minutes. Another way to do this is to elicit
how much time each student should speak during a sixteen minute discussion with four students,
for example, by writing 16 minutes on the board and eliciting the answer 4 minutes (Ohashi,
2013, p. 22). Further, this can be followed by questions such as “Is it OK for one student to
speak for more than 8 minutes?” or “Is it OK to speak for 2 minutes?” in order to emphasize the
point (Ohashi, 2013, p. 23).
Figure 2: Diagram Illustrating a Balanced Discussion
Carefully Considering Student Groups and Pairs

Frequently, students who were reluctant to join group discussions performed much better during
pair work activities. Likewise, they showed a tendency to participate more when in smaller
discussion groups. During week 11, I observed that both students in Group 1 participated more
when placed into a three-person discussion group. However, the discussions remained somewhat
unequal at times. Student A tended to simply agree with others’ opinions and contribute little
additional content to discussions. During the same week, when Student C and Student D were
placed together in a pair work activity, the discussion was very balanced. The same students
performed much better when placed into smaller discussion groups of three people during this
lesson. Both students demonstrated superior participation and received the maximum score for
participation. It seems beneficial to place students who participate less into smaller groups when
possible.
Reviewing Function Phrases that Foster Equal Participation

Another method that had some success was to review past function phrases. In week 10, I
reviewed “Joining a Discussion” phrases from semester one by writing them on the white board
(See Figure 3). I instructed students to join discussions and help their group members join the
discussion by using these function phrases. Student A used the function phrases and participated
slightly more than usual. Student B did not take the opportunity to join the discussion. It seems
that personality and self-confidence created an unwillingness to communicate that cannot be
overcome by such teacher intervention. In the same week, I used the same technique with Group
2. Both students participated more and showed noticeable improvement. “Asking for Opinions”
phrases can also be useful for encouraging equal participation. I often instruct students to use
classmates’ names when using this function, for example, “What do you think (name)?”
43
Figure 3: Function Phrases that Foster Equal Participation
Joining a Discussion Asking Others to Join a Discussion
Can I start?
Can I make a comment? Does anyone want to comment?
Can I add something? Does anyone want to add something?
Can I ask a question?
Asking for Opinions
What’s your opinion?

What do you think?
What does everyone think?
Setting Specific and Realistic Goals

In week 10, in addition to instructing students to use “Joining a Discussion” phrases, I told
students that everyone must use a “Joining a Discussion” phrase two times or more. Setting
easily attainable goals seems most beneficial. As another example, students can be told that
everyone must ask at least two follow-up questions during the discussion. I found that it is also
helpful to have students reflect on whether the goal was attained or not after the discussion. This
can be done in a variety of ways. One simple and effective way is by having students raise their
hands to indicate the number of times the function phrases were used. For example, the teacher
can say, “Raise your hand if you used a ‘Joining a Discussion’ function phrase (two) time(s).”
Additional Observations
During week 12, I observed that both students in Group 2 (Student C and Student D)
participated more during discussions despite the fact that I did not draw attention to equal
participation during this lesson. It is possible that past teacher interventions contributed to this
increased participation. Students may also have taken several weeks to realize the importance of
equal participation and change their own behavior in the classroom.
CONCLUSION
At Rikkyo University, all freshmen are required to complete two semesters of EDC. At the
moment it is not possible to change a student’s level based on performance in semester one. This
is due to institutional constraints in that once students are registered within the university at a
specific level, it is not possible to change levels. This is unfortunate because I think problems of
unequal participation could often be alleviated or even resolved if instructors could recommend
that specific students change levels based on their performance in semester one. I believe that
two of the students I chose to observe would have been much more self-confident and willing to
communicate if they had been placed into a level III class during semester two based on
instructor recommendation (Student A and Student B). Despite Student A’s high listening and
reading proficiency, I feel that a level III class would have been more appropriate. It is likely
that he would feel more self-confident speaking with peers who are equally or less proficient in
speaking ability. However, it is also possible that leveling down students could have a negative
44
Brad Barker
effect on self-confidence and WTC (Layer III, Box 4, State Communicative Self-Confidence;
Layer IV, Box 7, Self-Confidence).
Assigning students specific roles may also be an effective way to encourage equal
participation, although I have not personally experimented much with this strategy beyond
giving one student the role of group leader. Other EDC instructors have had success using roles
to promote balanced discussions (Burgess, 2012; Glover, 2012). As an example, students can be
given cards with simple instructions and helpful phrase starters, for example, “Student 1:
Paraphrase your group members. - Do you mean…? So, what you’re saying is…? / Student 2:
Ask follow-up questions to your group members to get more information. - When…? Why…?
If…?” In future EDC lessons, I would like to experiment with these and other strategies for
encouraging balanced discussions and equal participation by all students.
REFERENCES
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A.
Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 29-51).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burgess, P. (2012). Active listening in group discussions: Encouraging equal participation. New
Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 1, 2.15 – 2.17.
ETS TOEIC Website. Retrieved on February 12, 2014 from
http://www.toeic.or.jp/english/toeic/about/result.html
Glover, S. (2012). Techniques to encourage quieter students in the classroom. New Directions in
Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 1, 2.18 – 2.22.
Discussion, 1, 1.2 – 1.9.
MacIntyre, P. D., Dornyei, Z., Clement, R., Noels, A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to
communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern
Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
Ohashi, K. (2013). Restoring equal participation in group discussions. New Directions in
Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 1(2) 21-25.
Ryan, M. R., Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67. doi:10.1006/ceps.
1999.1020 or http://www.idealibrary.com
45
‘You didn’t answer my question!’ – Issues in Performance of
All-Male EDC Classes
Jonathan Buck
ABSTRACT
This paper examines how issues of all-male EDC discussion classes affect performance. The
general postulation that in groups men assert status through communication was observed in two
all-male EDC classes. I observed two all-male classes and wrote a teaching journal focusing on
their classroom performance. As a response I introduced two activities to the class to deal with
some of the performance issues caused by the intra-gender discussion dynamic. Overall, the
activities had mixed results In conclusion, I speculate on what other variables could have caused
the features observed and speculates how he would approach such classes in the future.
INTRODUCTION
I decided to observe the two all-male classes I taught in the Fall 2014 semester at Rikkyo
because I wanted to see what was different between those classes and the other mixed-gender
classes. This was due to the fact that the students spoke, performed and behaved differently to
the other classes. I felt that it would be useful for any future teacher of such a class as being
aware of such features may influence how they teach the class.
This was not the first time I have taught all-male classes in Japan. Previously, I had
taught a university baseball team at another university. They showed many of the features noted
by previous studies of male communication. The class was used as an opportunity to exert
dominance through the use of language (Leaper, 1991; Leaper & Ayres 2007) the students
avoided talking about the problems that they shared in favor of maintaining statues (Grey, 1992)
they used inappropriate language more, polite language less and used few tag questions (Lakoff,
1975). However, the main difference between that class and the classes observed at Rikkyo was
their English competence. The baseball players’ class was quite low-level speakers and could
not maintain a dialogue for more than two minutes while the Rikkyo class had no problem
performing a 16-minute English-only discussion. As such, I wanted to see how much the Rikkyo
all-male classes reflected popular academic beliefs on male communication and how such
observed behavior affected my classroom methodology.
The two classes in question were both on the same day and usually occurred at the end of
the teaching week. The class were both Level 4 classes (the classes generally considered to have
the lowest English ability), however early observations showed that while grammatical accuracy
and their active vocabulary were comparatively low their fluency i.e. how often and quickly they
spoke, was relatively high.
Consequently I choose to keep a teaching journal and noted any perceived differences
between the two classes and the other class taught that week. 1 The teaching journal was a
paragraph or two of reflection along with some other notes I felt pertinent. After a few weeks of
observations, I made some adjustments to my teaching procedure which I felt would deal with
some of the issues I observed and also to maximize language acquisition.
1
The Rikkyo EDC course is 28-week course over two semesters. Each week has a unique topic
and language target. In this case, I had already taught the week’s topic to other classes with the
all-male classes being the last one of the week.
46
Jonathan Buck
DISCUSSION
The journal I wrote from week 5 of 14 contains anecdotal observations on what was happening
in my all-male class which I felt was different from the other mixed-gender classes I taught at
Rikkyo. As such I will sub-divide this discussion into the particular features of my observations
and changes I initiated. It is important to note that from around week 5 to 8 of the course I tried
to maintain a similar approach as other classes and after week 8, I reflected on my notes and
began implementing changes.
During the observation period of the class, it became apparent that the students were very
comfortable around each other. There was a lack of shyness and hesitance to challenge each
others’ opinions which was not as apparent in other classes. Throughout the EDC course
students are taught a variety of target language with the intention that they can maintain a 16
minute fluent and interactive discussion in English in groups of four. As such, they are
encouraged to use such functions to maintain and develop group discussions. One of the
purposes of some functions is to increase output of other students by asking them to give more
information regarding their opinions. In general, I had previously observed (and taught) that by
using the target the functions, students produced deeper, longer and more interesting discussion.
By the end of an EDC course students should be relatively able to discuss a variety of topics in
depth. It is important to make sure that students can recognize this when being taught functions.
As a result, I have seen in every class students using the target functions to get more information
about other students’ opinions. By using the target functions appropriately they gain more
information. As such, as a teacher it is important that these felicity conditions are met in the
class discussion. Not only should the students understand the ‘how’ but also the ‘why’.
Based on my experience the majority of Rikkyo students understand the target functions’
usage quickly and tend to use them effectively for the purpose of making the discussion ‘better’.
The students are aware of the purpose of the class and what is expected of them thus target
language is often produced. In the case of the observed classes, the students showed similar
understanding of previously taught target functions, however the usage of the target functions
seemed to exhibit other features. The students were using the target functions to in an attempt to
assert status, often by being antagonistic or ignore the felicity conditions of the discussions.
In this example below, one of the students (B) in the group attempts to assert his status
on the group through the use of target functions.2
A: I think that documentaries are the best for information. It is mainly because you can learn
what is happening around the world.
B: Do you watch documentaries?
A: Er….sometimes.
B: When do you watch documentaries?
A: At home?
B: Really? So what you are saying is that you don’t watch documentaries often?
A: Yes
C: Can I make a comment?
B: [ignoring C] What documentaries do you watch?
A: I don’t know…..I saw a documentary about a Japanese man who lived in Africa for twenty
years.
B: If you lived in Africa, what would you do?
2
Due to the anecdotal approach to data collection of this paper, this example cannot be taken
as verbatim but a general representation of what was occurring in the observed classes.
47
A: Eh?
A: Go ahead.
B: You didn’t answer my question!
Note: EDC target functions are in bold.
There are a few examples of assertiveness within this discussion. Firstly, B is trying to
antagonize A by asking him follow-up questions and using paraphrasing to highlight B’s lack of
knowledge of the topic. This reflects previous research on male assertiveness in intra-gender
communication (Mulac 2006; Anderson & Leaper, 1998). Those studies found that men far more
often than women use communication to assert dominance. I noted similar examples throughout
the observations period in the all-male classes. What is more, it was not a particular student who
always asserted themselves in discussion. The role often changed during the discussion; in
general most students were unwilling to concede to others.
This dynamic did have some positive features.. While the mixed-gender classes more
often than not patiently let each participant of the discussion give their opinion and usually
avoided direct disagreement, the all-male class fought to justify their opinions. No one was
expected to get away with just giving an opinion; they were often asked a variety follow-up
questions and others were quick to disagree. This led to shorter speaking turns and a greater
number of questions asked. Moreover, other group members were encouraged to join the
discussion as participants often sought others to agree with their opinions. It created fast,
interesting discussions and students used a variety of functions.
However, there was a negative effect of this dynamic. Often students would go wildly off
topic for a number of minutes. They would be drawn away from the discussion questions due to
the high number of follow-up questions. Secondly, particular target functions were ignored or
forgotten due to the students getting ‘caught up’ in the discussion - they wanted to challenge
each other and forgot the purpose of the EDC course. Finally, a lot of time was spent asking
each about preferences e.g ‘Do you like….?’ ‘Why do you like….?’ Etc. I would speculate that
the students were trying to find way to assert themselves within the discussions; it is easy to
criticize someone’s likes and dislikes.
After noting and considering my observations, I began to make changes to maximize the
effectiveness of discussions from the point of view of the EDC targets and attempt to reduce
some of the issues. Firstly, while it was a positive feature that the students asked lots of follow-
up questions, it often led them off target. As an immediate solution, I would signal to the
students that they had spent too much on a topic, however it lead to them being lost. As a result,
they would just move onto the next question assuming that they had finished the topic. As such I
took another approach which proved more effective. As with all of my classes after each
discussion is a ‘meta-activity’ where students consider their language performance. Usually, it
took the form of a checklist where students would mark how much they used each target
language. It served to remind them of what language they should practice more. It was an
effective tool in raising awareness in students. In the case of the all-male class, I added a short
teacher-led activity to encourage the students to notice the fact that we going off topic. I wrote
the weekly topic title on the board and under it I would write each sub topic the groups discussed.
See overleaf for an example from week 8 Discussion 2.
48
Jonathan Buck
The Globalization of Japanese Culture
 Karaoke
 Printclub
 Ramen
 Restaurants in Ikebukuro
 Karate
 High-school activities
 Anime
 Kyoto
 Hometown
I would go down the checklist and ask the students ‘Is this related to today’s topic?’ The
students would notice what was appropriate and not appropriate. Though it is quite difficult to
say what is a ‘good’ topic and a ‘bad’ topic, it did demonstrate to the students that they should
be aware of the weekly topic. By week 11, the students were almost always on-topic. Thus the
board work took on another purpose: a class topic review. It also helped deal with some of the
issues of extended discussion of preferences.
As noted, the students often spent a lot of time discussing their preferences. Though
useful to a small extend, it offered little as part of a deep discussion. Students were often asked
why they liked something and were expected to explain why, while the other classes preferred to
discuss why something was good or bad. I attempted to shift the students away from such
questions while retaining their propensity to ask lots of follow-up questions. As such from
lesson 8, I banned language of preference from the discussions.
At the end of lesson 7, I made a list of alternative words to use in future discussions to
use instead of ‘I like/love/hate etc.’
Positive Words like Negative Words don’t like
Useful Boring
Important Unhelpful
Special Difficult
Fun Useless
Interesting
Helpful
 Don’t say ‘I like….’ Say ‘I think it is …….?’

 Don’t ask ‘Do you like’ Ask ‘Do you think….. is (important/boring/etc.)?
This list was written on the board for every lesson. I used it as a reference point when the
students started asking each other for personal preferences. During feedback stages of the lesson
I referred back to this list to remind that is important to avoid asking about preference but also
used it to generate useful questions for activities.
The effectiveness of this strategy was initially mixed. Combined with the previously
discussed strategy of keeping students on topic, the amount of follow-up questions dropped
noticeably. Moreover there was more silence in discussions. It seemed that the student needed
more time to formulate ideas. The follow-up questions had become more difficult to answer.
49
There was another unexpected problem. As I had directed the students to ask more opinion
questions and less preferential questions, they started asking inappropriate questions which
seemed to confused other students or, which was especially frustrating, use the questions to
assert status. During week 11, a student asked the group whether they felt that the death penalty
was fun. Despite the restrictions I had placed on them, some students continued to flaunt the
rules in a attempt to disrupt the discussions. In these cases, I had to stress firmly that such
questions were, in essence, counterproductive. Despite this problem, students started to produce
discussion which reflected the targets of EDC. Discussions were deeper, follow-up questions
encouraged deeper analysis and for the most part students avoided preferential language.
Even though I feel I correctly recognized the issues the all-male classes were presenting,
I do not necessarily feel that my approach solved the problem. The strategies I introduced to
solve the problem did solve them to a certain extent but not because the students necessarily
because better at discussing; they just responded to the rules I had set them. As such the
strategies only showed them something they already know but had chosen to ignore. The issue
of asserting status remained. In the final class, students were given a choice of what to discuss. I
distributed a piece of paper where they could write down topics. The all-male students suggested
more superficial topics such as ramen, baseball, idol group members, etc. It seemed that once
they saw that there were no more restrictions on what could be discussed they regressed to topics
where they could assert themselves.
CONCLUSION
In hindsight, I felt that I was successful in dealing with the performance issues of the all-male
classes. However, there are underlying problems with such classes. The fact that the issue of
asserting status, through being direct and less tentative, was both a blessing and a curse. It meant
that the students were fearless in what they said but they also felt that anything goes. It was fine
to argue and to challenge which meant that discussions were interesting and dynamic. The
negative effect was that the students lost sight of the purpose of the EDC. It seemed that if they
wanted to be skilled at discussion they could be however they often chose not to be.
There are a few issues that were left unanswered. Firstly, did they behave in such a way
because I was also male? Secondly, did they behave in such a way because I am a non-Japanese
teacher. Much research into the attitudes of Japanese students (c.f. Sakui & Gaies 1999; Balint
2008) suggest that the latter. Did the students feel that it was fine to behave in such a way
because I am a foreigner? Finally, would these students have behaved differently if they were
mixed-gender class? Of course, but why?
Ultimately, in all-male classes perform differently to mixed-gender classes and as such
should be taught different. I will be a stricter teacher when teaching classes such as this in future
at least from the first week. It is important to set the rules of the discussion not only with regards
to language but also expectations regarding the pragmatics of discussion.
REFERENCES
Anderson, K. J., & Leaper, C. (1998). Meta-analyses of gender effects on conversational
interruption: Who, what, when, where, and how. Sex Roles, 39, 225–252.
Balint, M. (2008). Analyzing and Using Japanese EFL Learner Beliefs.
In K. Bradford Watts, T. Muller, & M. Swanson (Eds.), JALT 2007 Conference Proceedings,
134-145
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars and women are from Venus: A practical guide for
improving communication and getting what you want in your relationship. New York,
NY: Harper Collins.
50
Jonathan Buck
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Women's Place. New York.

Leaper, C. (1987). Agency, communion, and gender as predictors of communication
style and being liked in adult male-female dyads. Sex Roles, 16, 137-149.
Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’
language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 11, 328–363
Mulac, A. (2006). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a
difference? In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in
communication (2nd ed., pp. 219–239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Sakui, K. & Gaies, S. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners’ beliefs about language learning.
System, 27, 473–492.
51
The Communication Skills of “Good Language Learners”
and Classroom Atmosphere
ABSTRACT
I focused on observing two “good language learners” in a class lacking participation and
Communication Skills to see how they influenced their peers throughout the semester. I found
that, while interacting with these “good language learners” other students often outperformed
expected Communication Skills during discussion and pair work. While observing these students,
it became more apparent how important it is to explicitly teach Communication Skills. I was
prompted to reevaluate my own definition of what a “good language learner” is and how we can
empower our students to become “good language learners”, by focusing on these
Communication Skills. I also discuss how to help “good language learners” balance their
contributions in class, so as not to overpower the developing efforts of their peers.
INTRODUCTION
I feel that often problems our students have in communicating stem, not just from a lack of
language knowledge, but from a more general lack of confidence and expressed interest in others
that they carry in their L1s as well. As instructors we lack the time (and skills) to help our
students with personality issues, but we do in fact have the time (and skills!) to teach them the
tools used for improved communication. In the Rikkyo EDC curriculum, these tools are known
as Communication Skills and are typified by skills such as; 1) Reacting when listening (e.g.
hmm.., I see…) in order to demonstrate active listening. 2) Asking follow-up questions (i.e.
How..? Where..? When…? Why…? etc.) to keep the discussion going and 3) Checking
understanding (i.e. Do you follow me?) to maintain clear, comprehensible discussion. Although
it seems natural that these skills are needed in any interaction, their high importance was made
even clearer to me after observing two students in a morning, level III, EDC class. These
students, hereafter known as Ryo and Naoto (pseudonyms), actively utilized Communication
Skills, which helped create, not only a pleasant learning environment, but one that encouraged
their fellow classmates to achieve higher levels of language use. Ryo and Naoto might be
described as “Good Language learners” (Rubin 1975) in that they demonstrate skills that we
would like to see replicated in other students. I found that Ryo and Naoto served as proof that
teaching Communication Skills is essential in any classroom, not just for increased language
development, but also for promoting a positive learning atmosphere.
The importance of teaching and utilizing Communication Skills cannot be understated.
Canale and Swain (1980) note that Communication Skills “may be called into action to
compensate for breakdowns in communication due to performance variables or to insufficient
competence” (p.30). Successful communication is essential in EDC classes and this can be
greatly facilitated by Communication Skill use. However, I am also interested in the social
effects of Communication Skills in class. I believe that successful use of Communication Skills
leads to a class atmosphere that is naturally pleasant and that motivates students to develop their
language skills.
I try to foster a classroom atmosphere in which students feel comfortable developing their
L2. I think that, by focusing on Communication Skills, students are given tools that help them in
high anxiety situations that can occur in language learning classrooms. In short, Communication
Skills can lower students’ Affective Filters (Krashen, 1987). The Affective Filter, as Krashen
52
describes, “is 'that part of the internal processing system that subconsciously screens incoming
language based on... the learner's motives, needs, attitudes, and emotional states' (Dulay, Burt,
and Krashen 1982:46)" (Gregg, 1984). Furthermore, if the affective filter is “high” or, not
permitting successful language comprehension, the learner cannot acquire language. The
strength of the Affective Filter can be linked to three major categories: anxiety, motivation and
self confidence in the learner. So, by helping out students in these areas, we can “lower” the
Affective Filter or assist our students in acquiring language. By explicitly teaching
Communication Skills, we provide our students tools with which to navigate challenging L2
communication and lower their Affective Filters. Tools, such as asking follow-up questions and
asking for clarification, help students to guide the language use to areas where they feel more
self-confident. Investigating the use of Communication Skills is important to me because I seek
to continually develop my own strategies, as an instructor, for promoting positive and low
Affective Filter classroom atmospheres.
DISCUSSION
Defining “Good Language Learners”
Before detailing the effects that Naoto and Ryo had on their classmates throughout the semester,
I will more concretely define what a “good language learner” is in terms of how it will be used
throughout this paper, as well as how this definition changed for me.
Rubin (1975) suggests a myriad of ways a student can be a “good language learner”. One
of the more salient characteristics suggested is lacking inhibitions. Rubin states that the good
language learner “…is often…willing to appear foolish if reasonable communication results. He
is willing to make mistakes in order to communicate” (p. 47). This characteristic was often
demonstrated when I observed Ryo and Naoto. Both students prioritized successful
communication over outward appearances. Naoto and Ryo often utilized grand gestures and
laughter in order to communicate effectively. Their lack of inhibitions created an atmosphere
that allowed their peers to act likewise and take more risks in discussion. Likewise, Ryo and
Naoto exhibited characteristics such as “…[monitoring their] own and the speech of others” (p.
47). As Rubin explains, these “good language learners” are constantly “attending to how well
[their] speech is being perceived…” (p. 47). In general, Ryo and Naoto asked many more
“checking understanding” questions (i.e. Do you understand? Do you follow me?), in order to
confirm that they were being understood. They also asked, “Can you please explain?” more
often than their peers, demonstrating their interest in having real communication, as opposed to
simply using function phrases to take up time or improve their grades. In short, Ryo and Naoto
showed that they were “good language learners” because they valued achieving meaningful
communication with their peers, and this was evidenced through the use of Communication
Skills.
Personality and social situation played a pivotal role in why Ryo and Naoto were “good
language learners” as well. Norton and Toohey (2001) explain that the “good language learner”
does not operate in a classroom vacuum where language output can be neatly monitored. Rather
“the situated experiences of [good language learners]…the dialect between the individuals and
the social; between the human agency…and the social practices of their communities” (p. 308)
are paramount. In brief, the social and psychological should not be forgotten when observing
“good language learners”. Norton and Toohey (2001) examine the use of L2 for the social
success of two “good language learners”. Their study focused on two Polish speaking subjects,
one adult (Eva) and one 5-year old child (Julie) who both resided in British Columbia, Canada.
Julie was observed for 3 years while Eva was observed for 1 year. Data collected for the studies
was drawn from observations, interviews (Eva and Julie) and journals (Eva). Eva and Julie used
53
the L2 as social capital in order to gain power, friends, and other alliances. They used the L2, to
not only achieve simple aims, such as getting a job or complete classwork, but also to thrive
outside of the classroom in other social situations. Likewise, it appeared that Ryo and Naoto
used Communication Skills and other classroom functions to, not only succeed as students, but
to succeed as likeable human beings. The classroom atmosphere, one that prioritized
communicative interaction, became a tool that Ryo and Naoto were able to use in order to attain
the aims they sought, that of making friends and having an enjoyable time. In short, it was the
very social need to entertain themselves (and sometimes their peers) that helped them to be
“good language learners”.
Peer Interaction
The positive energy and skills exhibited by Ryo and Naoto had varying effects on their peers.
Ryo and Naoto operated in a classroom context that can be likened to Vygotsky’s Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD). EDC classrooms naturally provide ZPD contexts or “the
interactional space within which a learner is enabled to perform a task beyond his or her own
current level of competence, through assisted performance” (Ohta, 2000, p. 54). Ryo and Naoto
served positive roles in the ZPD of the classroom. As Ohta explains, “Researchers have applied
Vygostky’s ideas to peer interaction where there is not a clear ‘expert’….differential competence
among peers allows ZDP to emerge in groups…or pairs when no true ‘expert’ is present” (p. 55).
Because in EDC discussions, there is no true “expert” to assist students in communication
negotiation, students must assert themselves in order to help others who are less competent.
Naoto and Ryo often served this purpose of assisting others. Through the use of Communication
Skills, Naoto and Ryo provided their peers with question prompts and opportunities to negotiate
meaning. By taking more “guiding” roles within their groups, they often facilitated improved
communication amongst their peers.
Providing and then withdrawing assistance is also important in small group language
development, according to Lantolf and Aljaafreh (1995). Accordingly, Ryo and Naoto positively
influenced their groups because “the help…[was] graduated and contingent in the sense that it
[moved] from more explicit to more implicit, or strategic levels, and [was] offered only when
needed…” (Lantolf and Aljaafreh, 1995, p. 620). Ryo and Naoto would often offer and then
relinquish assistance by asking their peers helpful follow-up questions (i.e. How about you?
Have you ever seen that movie? Why do you think so?). These questions helped remind their
peers of the importance of their participation and gave them speaking time, which improved
their language skills and grades.
Likewise, Ryo and Naoto assisted their peers by asking graduated follow-up questions that
provided their peers with possible answers. For example, Naoto was particularly good at asking
a general question, such as, “What’s your opinion?” and after observing reticence on the part of
his partner, would begin asking agree/disagree questions (Do you agree?) or answer option
questions (e.g. Is this a good or bad idea?). Through the use of graduated follow-up questions,
Ryo and Naoto were able to gage the readiness of their peers to participate and assist when
necessary. This facilitated the development of their peers in the ZPD context of the classroom.
Their peers were given more ideas and thinking time before answering, so their output was
improved because of Naoto and Ryo’s input.
Ryo and Naoto also positively affected their peers by motivating them to produce more
output in general. It has been purported that output serves an essential role in language
development (Swain 2000). In output centered contexts, such as EDC classrooms, “learners seek
solutions to their linguistic difficulties when the social activity they are engaged in offers them
an incentive to do so, and the means to do so” (Swain, 2000, p 110). Ryo and Naoto frequently
54
provided social motivation, which encouraged their peers to increase their output. Ryo and
Naoto didn’t have higher technical levels of English, but their personalities and frequent use of
Communication Skills, naturally inspired their peers to interact more. By helping to foster a
positive communicative environment, Ryo and Naoto encouraged their peers to increase their
output and develop their L2.
Communication Skill Overuse

All the former being said, Ryo and Naoto’s high frequency use of Communication Skills
sometimes overpowered their peers. This is a problem commonly found in language classes,
when students are more fluent or confident and may not give their peers enough processing time.
After 3 weeks of class, it became apparent that Ryo and Naoto were more competently using
English compared to their peers. This resulted in Ryo and Naoto taking too much talk-time in
discussion. Naoto and Ryo would sometimes interpret their peers’ silence to mean they didn’t
want to contribute and would fill the pauses in discussion with more of their own ideas. As an
instructor, I didn’t want to dampen Naoto and Ryo’s enthusiasm in class, but nor did I want
them to steamroll their peers. Therefore, I decided to suggest that someone other than Ryo or
Naoto begin discussion. This one time intervention served to raise the awareness of Ryo and
Naoto in balancing talk-time in their groups. I credit the maturity, social awareness, and general
consideration of Ryo and Naoto to this immediate positive change. Other students in class were
given more talk and thinking time so participation became more balanced during group
discussion in general. Ryo and Naoto continually demonstrated to me that the personality of the
“good language learner” cannot be divorced form his or her Communication Skills and in-class
performance.
If this explicit mention of the need to balance talk-time in discussion had not worked, I
would have considered the “pie chart of participation” activity that has been commonly used in
EDC classes by other instructors. In this exercise, after discussions, students draw a circle on
piece of paper and then divide the circle into sections according to how much they think each
person talked in the previous discussion. Oftentimes, the overly participatory member will draw
a circle with equal parts, but their partners will draw unequal pieces. This raises student
awareness of participation. It would be an illuminating exercise and one that may work in the
future if I encounter this problem again.
CONCLUSION
As previously mentioned, the high importance of teaching Communication Skills was made
clear after observing Ryo and Naoto throughout the semester. Their use of Communication
Skills not only facilitated successful discussion, but also positively affected the atmosphere of
class. Overall, I’ve come to the realization that teachers need not rely solely on students having
“nice” personality traits in order to have an enjoyable classroom atmosphere. Rather, by
promoting Communication Skills, students create a classroom that has all the elements of
positivity. The point is that we need not rely on students to be naturally motivated
communicators based on their personalities. Communication Skills help them to become
motivated communicators, whether they naturally are, or not.
That being said, instructors shouldn’t hope that students will naturally begin using
Communication Skills on their own. Many theorists posit that Communication Skills need to be
explicitly demonstrated (Dornyei 1995). This class was fortunate to have model users of
Communication Skills in Ryo and Naoto. Having models of Communication Skill use is
important according to Dornyei (1995) who advocates L2 model demonstrations and awareness
raising activities. Ryo and Naoto’s model Communication Skill behavior was almost contagious
55
for other students. I often observed that students who interacted with Naoto and Ryo would ask
more follow-up questions, give more reactions, and check understanding more often. The
problem was getting them to replicate this behavior without Ryo or Naoto, which wasn’t always
successful. Still, the immediate influence of Naoto and Ryo as Communication Skill models was
encouraging.
Observing this class prompted me to reevaluate my own definition of what defines a
“good language learner”. Before observing this class I would have defined this idea in terms of
how Rubin, Norton, and Toohey have described it; a language learner who is able to improve
his/her own language to achieve their own aims. I would add to this evolving definition that a
good language learner is also one who motivates the learners around them and this motivation
can be attributed to the high frequency use of Communication Skills. It is the good language
learner who not only uses language well themselves, but is able to successfully communicate
with those around them in a positive way. Happily, this successful interaction need not rely on
the “open” or “extroverted” nature of any individual student, but can be taught through explicit
focus on Communication Skills. By focusing on the use of Communication Skills, we empower
all our students to become “good language learners” as well.
REFERENCES
Canale, M., & Swain, M (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor. Applied Linguistics (1984) 5 (2): 79-
100.
Dornyei, Zoltan. (1995). On the Teachability of Communication Strategies. TESOL Quarterly,
29(1), 55-85.
Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal
development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research,
23(7), 619-632.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing Perspectives on Good Language Learners. TESOL
Quarterly, 35(2), 307-322.
Ohta, Amy S., (2000) Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance
in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 Grammar. J.P Lantolf
(ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford University
Press. 51-78.
Rubin, Joan. (1975) What the “Good Language Learner” Can Teach Us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1),
41-51.
Swain, Merrill. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue. J.P Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language
Learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 97-114.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction Between Learning and Development. Mind and Society.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 79-91.
56
Strategies to Deal with Reticent Classes
Jianwen Chen
INTRODUCTION
According to Richards & Lockhart (1996) reflective teaching goes hand-in-hand with critical
self-examination and reflection that leads to better decision-making, planning and action.
Therefore, I decided to keep a learning journal to document my teaching experience over the
course of my second semester in the EDC. By doing so, it would lead to more effective planning
and strategies through deep self-reflection. In this reflection piece, I will be focusing on one
particularly difficult class of lower level three students. First, I will provide a general
background description of the situation of the class at the beginning of semester two and
chronicle observations of pivotal lessons: Lesson 5 (Initial State); Lesson 7 (Worsening); 8-9
(Remedy Process); and Lesson 10 (Turning Point). The second part of this reflection will
investigate the strategies I have taken to try to modify student behavior and encourage autonomy
and motivation that led to a turning point in Lesson 10. Lastly, based on the lessons learned from
this so-called 'problem class', I will suggest some strategies that could be taken in the future to
improve the quality of my teaching and the learning experience.
DISCUSSION
Background
The group I am observing is from my Thursday 9:00 class. They are from the Science stream
and almost all of them are quite reticent and reserved. They seldom interact with each other
before and after every class, which suggests that there would be many group dynamic issues in
the discussion class. Moreover, there are a few students who constantly absent themselves from
class (i.e. Shoyu, Hichu, Mayo) and when they are present, they could not follow the lesson as
they have not reviewed the textbook or materials from the class they have missed. In addition,
the girls and the boys are painfully shy when put together in a group and sometimes they would
not speak if the opposite gender is present. Furthermore, there is a student (i.e. Azuki) who takes
a long time to put his ideas into words and it always brings down any potential momentum or
excitement built up by the initial discussion. However, there were a few bright sparks in the
class though. Out of the eight students, three students (i.e. Yuzu, Tako, Yokan) always took the
initiative to begin the discussions and also lead the discussions. Despite their efforts, sometimes
they are also exhausted by their less positive classmates and give up trying. When that happens,
the discussions stall.
There are a few issues I have identified in this group: 1) poor group dynamics; 2) shyness
interfering with the willingness to communicate; 3) general lack of communicative ability (even
in Japanese). I have also identified a few positive aspects of this group that I could build upon:
1) stronger students always take the initiative to lead the discussions; 2) students are motivated
to get good grades; 3) with a lot more scaffolding and ‘hand-holding’, weaker students usually
willing to put in an effort to communicate their ideas.
Observations
The following are four pivotal observations I have made. The first lesson (Lesson 5) describes
the initial state of the class and problems encountered. As I did not take much action to rectify
the problems in class, the problems exacerbated in Lesson 7 (Worsening). Lesson 8-9 (Remedy
Process) shows how student behavior changes while I introduced some new strategies to counter
57
some problems I have identified. Finally, in Lesson 10, there was a turning point as the results of
my strategies bore fruit.
Lesson 5 (Initial State)

Mayo did not talk at all for both discussions. Shoyu came to class after missing or being late for
a few classes and he does not know which functions to use and does not make an effort to
contribute to the discussions. He is the first one to always say “No”, whenever someone asks
“Does anyone have a question or comment?”. To make matters worse, Azuki takes a painfully
long time to put his ideas into words and it drains the energy from the discussions. The more
proactive students, Yuzu, Tako and Yokan tried to contribute ideas but were constantly rebuffed
by the weaker students who do not comment whenever someone asks for a comment or question.
Lesson 7 (Worsening)
This class was an exhausting one to teach. The weak students continued to shut down the
discussions with a summary ‘No’, every time they were asked for a comment or question and
simply sat in silence until someone speaks. For example,
A: I read in a book that some sports stars work very hard to be good players.
B:…
C:…
D:…
A: …Does anyone have a question or comment?

B: No.
C: …No.
D: …
(Discussion stalls)
There were no questions or agree/disagreeing with different ideas. Despite that, the stronger
students still tried their best to contribute ideas but eventually, they got tired because they were
the only ones doing the discussions.
After this class, I consulted my PM and we came up with a new way to approach the
students. I would make cards that students could discard when they use a particular function.
This is will give them a focus and also generate a sense of accomplishment when they manage to
use all the functions. Moreover, I will make it a rule that students do not say ‘No’ every time
someone asks for a question or comment. In other words, they have to ask a question or
agree/disagree with their classmates opinions. In particular, I would focus on the basics, such as
agreeing and disagreeing and supporting their ideas with reasons, examples and experiences.
Lesson 8-9 (Remedy Process)

Over the two lessons, I have implemented the function card game and also encouraged agreeing
and disagreeing in the lessons. Feedback was based on the card game as usually most students
have difficulty using a particular function or communication skill. I would do a formative
feedback and make students use the function again and again till they are familiar with it.
58
Jianwen Chen
For example, in Lesson 8, they were not reporting enough information in Discussion 1.
Therefore, I gave formative feedback asking them to report information they heard about some
popular Japanese pop and traditional culture in other countries, using the question, “What did
you hear about Japanese pop/traditional culture overseas?” And I also provided them with a
sentence structure to help them report information.
A: (Question)
B: I heard/read/saw that (karate is very popular in America, there are many famous karate
masters there).
A: Where did you hear that?/ How do you know about that?
B: I heard/read/saw it (from a friend).
By giving them this formative feedback practice, students later recycled their ideas and
successfully integrated the function use of reporting information in Discussion 2.
Lesson 10 (Turning Point)

Best lesson so far. I have implemented the function card activity from Lesson 8 and students
enjoyed it as it gives them a sense of accomplishment after they use the cards. I can also give
them formative feedback when I see that a particular function is not being used. Moreover, my
feedback focus getting students to agree and disagree was successful as students keep agreeing
and disagreeing and there were no longer awkward silences.
Here is an excerpt from the lesson when everyone took turns to agree and disagree:
A: From smoker’s point of view, it is okay because they want to relax.
B: I partly agree with you. If smokers want to relax, they can play sports like basketball or
soccer.”
C: I agree with you. Smoking is bad for health…from other people’s point of view.
D: I partly agree with you. In my opinion, smoking is bad for health, but it’s their choice to
smoke…from my point of view.”
By agreeing or disagreeing, students could find a way to connect their ideas with each others’
ideas and have a meaningful and extended discussion. In my feedback, I praised the students to
reinforce the point that their discussion was successful because they were agreeing and
disagreeing consistently.
STRATEGIES TAKEN
Function Cards
I made use of function cards, basically small cards with the names of functions printed on them
e.g. “paraphrase”, “possibilities” etc and whenever students use the function, and they turn the
cards face down on the table to indicate that they have used the function. These cards worked
better than I expected as they give students a visual indicator on what functions they have used
and what functions they need to use. Moreover, some students treated the activity as a race so
59
they competed against each other to use all the functions so it turned out to be a fun but also
meaningful activity. For example,
A: I think I want to introduce karaoke to foreign people. I heard (turns over "report information"
card) in other countries, they sing karaoke but they sing on stage.
B: Do you mean, in other countries, other people look at you when you sing karaoke? (turn over
"paraphrase" card)
A & B: Sure.
C: I agree with you (turns over "agree/disagree" card). I think singing is fun all over the world.
Foreign people will enjoy singing karaoke.
As students compete to use all the cards, a sense of competition makes the discussions fun and
the students are also unconsciously reviewing the functions by trying to integrate them in their
speech. Which, I believe, could have same the same effect as "self-check" sheets.
Mixing group members

At the beginning of the semester, I made a mistake of not mixing the boys and girls because they
were painfully shy when I put them together in pairs or groups. Therefore, they continue to
remain reserved and unable to participate in the discussions whenever they are put together.
However, I realised that if I continue to put them together, they would have no choice but to
open up and speak to each other. This is something fundamental that I should do but I did not
trust the students’ ability to adapt. Therefore, during the first half of the semester, the discussions
are painfully slow and sometimes students did not even speak at all. That changed after Lesson 8
when I started mixing students in groups and pairs. There were initial bouts of shyness but
eventually they started to warm up to each other and conversation started to flow. Hence, I
learned a valuable lesson. That is, to trust the students’ ability to adapt to new situations and be
less protective of them. Ultimately, they will go out to society to work in the future and being
shy cannot be an excuse to not communicate well.
Feedback
At the beginning of the semester, I was giving a lot of feedback, mostly teacher-fronted. The
feedback was disorganized because I tried to give feedback on too many aspects of the lesson.
Therefore, after a really bad Lesson 7, I decided to focus on two or three points and then go
straight into a formative feedback exercise if time allows. By doing so, I have noticed that
students are more focused and they could concentrate better. For example, a typical function
focused feedback with a formative practice would be like:
Me: Ok, you reported information from your classmates a lot. For example, Yuki
said "I heard that Obama done many good things for the American people"..."I
heard that Lady Gaga, gave money to the Tohoku earthquake victims...". Good, but
I want listeners to ask the speakers "Where did you hear that?". Ask the speakers to
report information, where they heard the information. Now, I want you to talk to a
partner, partner A, please report information about Ichiro with "I heard that Lady
60
Jianwen Chen
Gaga..." and partner B ask partner A "Where did you hear that?". Partner A will
say "I heard from...".
However, after Lesson 10, I realised that students are getting bored with the function focus as
the feedback was predictable and repetitive. Therefore, in future lessons, I need to think of a way
to make feedback more varied but still retain a focus on function usage.
CONCLUSION
I will continue to make use of function cards in the future as it has been successful in my other
classes. Through my use of the function cards from Lesson 8 - 14, I have noted that the cards
works best during the review lessons because the cards enable students to visualise all the
functions they need to use and helps them focus on function usage. In other lessons, the goal is
for them to automatize the use of a particular function so the function cards might serve as a
distraction rather than a tool if we were to use the function cards in non-review lessons.
Moreover, introducing the function cards during the review also makes the function card activity
as reinforces their learning and gives them a sense of achievement. For example, in one of the
higher level 3 classes, I introduced the function cards in the second review. Here is a short
excerpt from the class:
A: In my opinion, if (turns 'if' card over) I have a foreign friend, I would introduce Japanese
traditional culture to them. For example, calligraphy, I heard from TV (turns over 'report
information' card, Japanese kanji is interesting to foreigners. Do you have a question or
comment?
B: Do you mean that foreign people like kanji because it is beautiful? (turns over 'paraphrase'
card)
A: Yes, I mean (turns over 'paraphrase' card) kanji is art to foreign people. Can I ask a question?
B: Go ahead.
A: If you have a foreign friend, do you introduce kanji or another culture to them? (turns over
'follow-up question' card and exclaims 'よし！' he has used 4 functions within the space of 1-
2 minutes).
C: Can I make a comment? (eager to speak and use the functions faster than A)
A: 待って, Wait, me first! (cuts in and tries to speak first)
The activity unexpectedly became a friendly competition that is both fun and meaningful to help
students review the functions. The fun happens because the students have automatised the
functions, not struggling to use them. Therefore, this function card activity is best used as a
review activity
I will continue to mix students together and probably also develop a system that could
maximise interactions by getting students to sit with a different partner in every activity. I also
find that constant movement prevents students from spacing out and movement keeps them alert
and attentive. Movement is also good for students who have a more kinesthetic learning style.
61
Feedback is the area I need to improve upon the most. In my classes, my feedback was
probably overtly focused on function use. This could be detrimental because the feedback is
repetitive and it serves more as a reminder than something that expands their knowledge or some
aspect of their English to improve upon. Therefore, sometimes it is quite natural that students
start to tune out whenever I give a function feedback. In the future, feedback should be still
focus on function usage but it should be focused on how they used it well and in the right
contexts as a form of positive reinforcement. Moreover, the lack of function use could also
indicate that the students do not understand how to apply them in the right contexts.
Feedback focusing on other aspects of language such as proper word usage and useful
expressions are also quite interesting to some students because this is something they cannot
learn from a textbook. For example, a student mentioned "I am a quit person." In my feedback, I
mentioned the slight spelling differences leading to a big meaning difference "I am a quiet
person" versus "I am a quit person" (I am a person who quits easily). There was clear interest in
the feedback as it was something new, interesting and also something they can apply in their
lives.
Moreover, giving feedback on something extra-curricular also adds variety to the lesson.
I experimented with giving extra feedback on top of the normal function focused feedback in a
few different classes and students showed interest in the correction of their errors and also useful
expressions they could use.
However, from my experience, such feedback is more practical in the higher-level
classes because they quickly automatized the function usage and there is spare time for
additional feedback. Hence, in the coming semester, I would also like to experiment with giving
feedback on other aspects of language as long as the students have grasped the function usage.
Probably, I would be able to find out what other feedback students are interested when I do so.
In the lower-level classes, although function usage can be encouraged through feedback,
an overt focus on the lessons function could also have a negative effect. Therefore, the focus
could turn to what functions they have not automatized from the previous lessons that would be
crucial to help them have better discussions. For example, in Lesson 7 (Media), some students
did not agree and disagree and a formative feedback on agreeing and disagreeing after D1
actually led to a more successful D2.
On a final note, my second semester revealed a few major aspects of my teaching that
could be further improved, notably in the area of feedback and also improving classroom
dynamics. In particular, I have learned that the more student-centered our feedback is (i.e.
function cards and feedback backed by formative practice and varied feedback that are useful to
students' general communication abilities) the more effective the feedback is compared to
teacher-centered feedback. Therefore in the coming semester, I will continue to work on the
future strategies I have developed to ensure that all feedback is learner-centered as possible and
group dynamics is ensured through constant movement by mixing students up. Moreover, as my
limiting belief in students’ potential to adapt to new classmates is removed, I found that adapting
two maxims actually would improve my teaching - ‘to believe in the students’ ability to adapt
and to always make feedback student-centered. As Richards (1996:294) suggests, ‘if teachers are
guided by their teaching both by personal maxims as well as by general instructional
considerations…personal maxims might provide a useful perspective for teachers to examine in
the course of their own professional preparation, as they explore both their own thinking-in-
action as well as that of other teachers”.
62
Jianwen Chen
REFERENCES
Richards, J.C. & Lockhart, C. (1996) Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms.
Cambridge: CUP
Richards, J.C. (1996) Teachers’ Maxims in Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2):
Summer 1996.
63
Why Code-switch? An Analysis of EDC Students’ L1 Use
During Discussion
Amanda Chin
ABSTRACT
This reflective paper addresses the issue of students frequently using Japanese, and straying
from the 100% English goal during EDC discussion tasks. However, unlike most students who
code-switch during class time, usually students who are low level learners and cannot express
themselves fully in English, the students observed in this journal were capable of keeping to
100% English easily. Their tendency to use Japanese was for purposes other than basic
communication. As research suggests, there are many reasons behind why learners code-switch
between their L1 and L2 during L2 activities. This journal examines the variety of reasons for
using Japanese during the main discussion tasks in the EDC, and analyzes the effectiveness of
several strategies for managing learner L1 use.
INTRODUCTION
In language classes worldwide, the general belief is that learners acquire an L2 by using the L2.
In the English language class, this means reading, listening, writing, and speaking – in English.
This belief is so ingrained in our idea of language learning and teaching that we do not question
the implication that comes with emphasizing the L2, which is avoiding the L1. In the CLT
classroom, where the goal is to encourage students to successfully communicate in their L2 in a
variety of contexts, the idea of maximizing L2 use is certainly presumed. Indeed, Cook (2001)
points out that, though CLT and task-based teaching methodologies do not often directly
comment on how the learner’s L1 relates to L2 acquisition, when the L1 is mentioned it is
generally on how to minimize its use.
Because of this widespread belief, the trend of “English-Only” classrooms has become
the standard in most communicative ESL or EFL contexts. The effectiveness and necessity of an
English-Only policy in classrooms has been up for extensive debate by many language
researchers. Those who are against such a policy call to attention the political agenda and
linguistic imperialism of such a rule (Auerbach, 1993; Ford, 2009) or lament the potential of
using the L1 as a resource in learning the L2 (Cook, 2001). Those who argue for the
continuation of this tenet suggest strategies in encouraging L2 use among students or teachers
(Mori, 2004) or mention that increased L2 use can help to reduce a learner’s language anxiety
(Levine, 2003). Then there are those who advocate various strategies that involve both, using the
L1 as a resource, or encouraging maximum L2 output (Meyer, 2008; Nation, 2001). This on-
going discussion has influenced a number of language policies in classrooms around the globe.
The EDC is one such context that has incorporated an English-Only rule – designing
lessons and classes around a “100% English” goal. As the objective of the course is to encourage
students in sharing opinions on a variety of topics in two sustained discussion tasks, all in
English, the natural assumption has been to establish a classroom atmosphere that encourages
students to continually strive for communicating in English for lengthy periods of time. Though
not enforced through a strict grade, EDC instructors are asked to support students and constantly
encourage them to operate in 100% English throughout each class period. This goal is taken up
and practiced by students from the first day of their first semester in the EDC. Indeed, in the first
few weeks of the first semester I was kept on my toes, listening for Japanese being used in the
classroom. Though at first difficult, being consistent in how I reminded students, with questions
of “is that Japanese I hear?” or “English?”, helped my students internalize this rule. In-between,
64
Amanda Chin
and during class activities, a quick reminder question would get an immediate response from
most students. This usually efficient tactic allowed for me to focus on the main goal of the
course – introducing functional language and communication skills, and allowing students
plenty of chances to practice discussing complex ideas.
Despite the general success of 100% English, however, there are some class groups who
have a harder time of maintaining 100% English than other classes. As Nation (2001) points out,
the tendency of classes who share the same L1, to use that L1 in activities meant to encourage
L2 use, is high. Most of us EDC instructors have encountered numerous students who are
constantly switching into Japanese during class time, particularly students who are very low
level and may struggle with using English to express basic ideas. Though low level learners
using frequent Japanese has been a common issue in the past, the two classes that I had chosen
to observe for my teaching journal in Fall 2013 were unique because they were not low level,
and yet they continually used excessive Japanese both during and outside of discussions. In
addition, these two classes fell on the same day, highlighting the issue of unnecessary L1 use to
me.
From the beginning of the semester, the students from these two classes all showed their
ease of using L2 in discussion, their skill at communicating complex ideas, and sometimes even
their ability to joke or socialize in English in-between activities. Yet, despite this capability, the
majority of both classes had a difficult time sticking to English throughout the class – quickly
switching to Japanese between activities, easily code-switching during activities, and generally
chatting in Japanese so often that it hindered upon their ability to sustain a lengthy English
discussion by the end of the class.
I chose to observe these classes, their constant use of L1, and my ability to affect change
in their behavior. However, realizing that trying for a 100% English class atmosphere for a full
90-minutes might be slightly taxing on several of the students, I narrowed my focus down to
observing my ways of handling L1 use in the two discussion tasks of each class period –
“Discussion 1” (D1) and “Discussion 2” (D2). My reason for solely analyzing the two
discussion tasks was because the two discussions were the times in each lesson in which the
instructor has the least amount of presence and control of student action. As opposed to
wandering around and closely monitoring function practice or discussion preparation time, the
discussions are meant to be the space in which students can communicate freely without teacher
presence, limiting my ability to physically remind students to remain in English. Furthermore, as
Mori (2004) states, the “successful implementation of a staying-in-English rule involves more
than simply telling the students to talk in English” (p. 234). In this way, I was motivated to
develop some successful strategies to get students to use 100% English in a sustained and
complex discussion, without the concrete presence of the teacher as incentive – the ultimate goal
of the EDC.
Working from that goal, from lessons 6 through 12 (between the first and third discussion
tests) I noted all instances of L1 use during either D1 or D2 in the two class groups. In addition,
I made careful observations on how I handled these instances of L1 use, and what effect certain
techniques I tried had on my students. In the following discussion section I will comment on the
two classes that I observed, and note particular strategies that were effective for each class. In
addition, I will speculate on the reasons for the success of certain strategies for each class group,
using several empirical studies that examine student L1 use during collaborative tasks in the L2
as a reference point. These studies were on a range of tasks – spoken (Hancock, 1997; Leeming,
2011), written (Anton & DiCamilla, 1998; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003, Swain & Lapkin,
2000), and even grammar-focused (Scott & de la Fuente, 2008). However, despite the
differences in task design, the purpose of all studies was to investigate the differing reasons
65
behind a learner’s use of L1 during an L2 task. The findings in these studies proved to be
insightful to why my own students slipped into Japanese often, and why some strategies I ended
up taking demonstrated more effectiveness than others.
DISCUSSION
Class One: Striving to Continue Negotiating Meaning
The first class I observed was a Level 3 class from the College of Arts, in the middle of the
spectrum of Level 3 classes in that college. Overall, the atmosphere of this class was good, and
the students enjoyed sharing ideas in discussion. However, because many of them enjoyed
reading literature, they often had ideas that were very deep, and difficult to express. Thus, due to
their limited L2 proficiency, many students struggled to talk about these complex ideas in
English. A few weeks into Fall 2013, I began noticing a pattern of students who would often
begin their idea in English, get stuck on a particularly difficult vocabulary word or concept, then
switch quickly into their L1 to fill in the gap before continuing on in English. Other times they
would explain their idea successfully in English, but because their group mates might not know
some of the vocabulary the speaker used, the speaker would add “in Japanese, I mean ____” and
translate their idea. Despite my frequent feedback that this counts as using Japanese in
discussion, and encouraging students to continue to try and use only English when giving ideas,
this pattern continued up until the first test.
During Lessons 6 and 7, I gained some insight into how I might focus my feedback for
this class. In Lesson 6, a student had tried to talk about classical Japanese literature, and started
using the word koten. However, after using this word, she gave it some more thought and came
up with the phrase “old books.” In my feedback I asked the class how they would explain koten
in English, and then praised the student who gave that idea for being able to use easy English to
explain what she meant, instead of relying on Japanese. In Lesson 7 I had a similar situation,
where another student tried to talk about celebrity role models as liars. When one listener
attempted to paraphrase (“do you mean they should be honest?”), the speaker instead switched to
Japanese to explain his idea. In this case, I mentally noted that their attempt at paraphrasing
could have continued in order to negotiate meaning. However, I did not comment on this
opportunity to negotiate meaning as I had other points of feedback I wanted to address instead.
In Lesson 8, though, I had a second chance at addressing this issue of continuing to
negotiate meaning. During D1, one student tried to ask her group how to say jimaku (subtitles)
in English. When her group mates did not understand, she continued with “for example, Naruto
speaks Japanese and foreign people need translate English.” This was a great start to check
understand among the group mates. However, when the rest of the group still did not understand
her, she gave up that point and motioned for the group to continue the discussion. Because this
situation had happened in the previous lesson, I made a point to comment on this issue during
feedback. I pointed out that this was a great start, and that the speaker had given a good example
to try and negotiate meaning. I added that one strategy students could try was to paraphrase their
own ideas in order to continue explaining the same idea in English. Furthermore, listeners could
then participate by trying to paraphrase that idea again in order to check understanding. While
the class was familiar with the paraphrasing function, this idea of connecting it to explain
difficult vocabulary seemed to hit home for them. In Discussion 2 I noted that everyone tried to
paraphrase a lot more, both their own ideas and each other’s ideas, to practice using easy English.
This can easily be seen in the following exchange:
A: Do you mean traditional culture is declining?

B: I want to say traditional culture is more weak than pop culture.
66
Amanda Chin
From Lesson 8 onwards, I noticed remarkable improvement in the class’s ability to

continue to negotiate meaning, despite difficult concepts and English. For instance:
A: I heard other countries make criminals wear kigurumi…outer wear? They walk on the
street and say “I am criminal.”
B: Do you mean criminal who wear animal uniform says I am criminal? What country?
In this example is it clear that not only did the speaker check herself and tried simply
paraphrasing her own Japanese, but the listener also paraphrased in order to check that she
understood the idea. Additionally, because she could fully understand after paraphrasing, she
was able to continue on to ask follow-up questions to the speaker about the idea. Other signs of
success included students checking each other when they began slipping into L1, such as during
D2 of Lesson 11 (topic: death penalty) where the ideas were very heavy. When students began
using Japanese to express a complex idea, other students began to comment with “don’t use
Japanese, use English!” to encourage one another. By Lesson 12 not only were students
supporting one another in using English, they were also much more active in inviting moments
of checking understanding, using “one more time please” to continue trying to understand each
other’s ideas, and paraphrasing in order to express their ideas fully in English.
What turned out to be the most effective strategy in encouraging 100% English amongst
this class was highlighting paraphrasing as a way of sticking to easy English to continue
negotiating meaning, using examples from discussion to explicitly show students how to
paraphrase and when is a good time to do so. From their use of paraphrasing came a stronger
awareness of their ability to stay in English for complex ideas, and an increase in their
willingness to try harder at negotiating meaning. Several researchers have pointed out that
students at lower-levels of L2 can sometimes feel frustrated by their inability to communicate
their thoughts with their limited language. When doing communicative tasks, some learners end
up using their L1 in order to keep the task going (Leeming 2011; Scott & de la Fuente, 2008) –
meaning that the students’ desire to keep the communication moving fluidly along overrode their
desire to stay in the L2. Many researchers comment on how the L1 can be a resource in
communication breakdowns: learners being able to talk about the metalanguage of a task (asking
“how do you say ____?” in their L1) as a way of quickly getting scaffolded help before
continuing with the L2 communication (Hancock, 1997; Leeming, 2011; Anton & DiCamilla,
1998; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003; Swain & Lapskin, 2000). However, because the EDC goal
is for students to strive to negotiate meaning in English in order to sustain discussion, an
alternative strategy for EDC instructors to incorporate is to emphasize paraphrasing as a method
of negotiating difficult English ideas, not just as a way of checking understanding of each
other’s ideas.
Class Two: Striving to Limit One’s Private and Social Comments

The second class I observed was a Level 2 class from the College of Economics, also in the
middle of the spectrum of Level 2 classes in that college. This group was a very social class –
often starting discussions in English, before one person would comment or make a joke in
Japanese about an idea. This would lead to others joining in, straying off task for a bit before
getting back on task. During discussions, these students would make side comments about the
discussion content, or sometimes simply talk to themselves in Japanese while working out what
they wanted to say. Often times their desire to communicate with each other – both about the
discussion topic or just social comments – overrode their desire to practice expressing ideas in
67
English. Thus, without teacher support many students would switch into Japanese almost
impulsively.
Because some of the Japanese being used during discussions was for social purposes and
off task, I tried curbing this by challenging their grades for Lessons 6 and 7. If I heard a lot of
Japanese before discussions started, or during Discussion 1, I would stipulate that any Japanese
idea in the next discussion would count off for students’ participation grade. I had thought of
trying this strategy because I had tried using this with a group of Level 4, mainly sports, students
who enjoyed the challenge of staying in English when they knew points were on the line.
However, this strategy backfired with this particular class. Students would initially attempt to
stay in English during discussion, but at one point or another, a student would slip into social
Japanese accidentally. This would lead to another student reacting, and then the whole group
would start commenting off task before getting back on track. Though the class knew they were
meant to stick to English, it seemed that that Japanese use spread almost instinctively. My
feedback after D2 only de-motivated students because they were oftentimes unaware that they
had been code-switching, and my constantly pressing them to use 100% English seemed to break
the social atmosphere of the group.
Around Lesson 8, during D1 it was very clear that my students would continue on with
this pattern of side Japanese. One student began to comment to herself, or to the group in general
– little reactions to ideas such as “sou sou sou” or “uchi shiranai.” Others sometimes joined in
by briefly reacting to her side comments in Japanese as well. After D1, I asked the class if they
were aware of the frequent use of Japanese reactions and comments, and gave a few examples
from the discussion as a whole. The student who had used the most Japanese was amazed at the
examples I gave, completely unaware that she had been commenting in her L1 that entire time.
We did a quick brainstorming of good English reactions to use, as a class. In D2, I noticed a
significant decrease in her L1 use, and an increase in her attempts to use “okay” or “yes” as a
reaction instead. Based on the effectiveness of raising her awareness of Japanese, I asked around
to other EDC instructors to see how else I might get students to reflect on their L1 usage.
In Lesson 10 I had the perfect opportunity to use some questions I had learned from other
EDC instructors. Two students who frequently chatted in Japanese in class were in top form
during D1, using English to express an idea before slipping into Japanese to comment further,
mostly to themselves but also affecting the group as a whole. After D1, I asked students to
discuss, in pairs, how much English they thought they used during discussion (i.e. “I used ___%
English”). As expected, I got a range of 55% to 98%, with students who knew they used a lot of
Japanese articulating as much. Once everyone was conscious of their level of L1 use during
discussion, I explained to the class that using Japanese seemed natural because everyone could
speak it much more easily than English, but because our goal is 100% English, we need to work
as a team to reach that goal in discussion.
However, not only that, I also encouraged listeners to help speakers stay on track by
asking questions if speakers were struggling to continue in English with their ideas. Then, out of
the two D2 goals I normally write on the board, one of them was simply “100% English.”
Because of the simplicity of the goal, and because the onnis of the goal was on everyone
involved, not just the speakers who struggled to stay in English, D2 showed vast improvement.
Using a simple reflection question between D1 and D2 seemed to make everyone in the class
much more aware of the switch between L1 and L2 during discussion. On top of that,
encouraging students to help one another out with this 100% English goal, and providing
strategies for them to do so (i.e. follow-up questions), promoted these discussion tasks as a form
of teamwork. This seemed to reach the class as a whole, because their group dynamics were so
close.
68
Amanda Chin
Lesson 11 showed marked improvement, with D1 having almost no Japanese, not even
remarks to oneself. However, because the D2 topic, the death penalty, was so heavy, again I
noticed many students switching to Japanese when the pressure to communicate ideas became
too tough. The two students who were inclined to use their L1 again began making little
comments in Japanese, which influenced the rest of their groups. Yet I did not want to have
students reflect on their L1 percentage after D2, because I felt that that feedback might not be so
actionable if they can’t remember it for next week. Instead, after D2, I gave my positive
feedback, then made one comment about the amount of Japanese I heard in D2. Many students
laughed sheepishly, fully aware of how much L1 they had been using. Thus, I pointed out that
when one student begins to use Japanese, even just simple reactions, Japanese can easily spread
among the whole group. Because discussions were about collaborating together as a group, again
emphasizing the idea of teamwork, it was vital that everyone played their role to keep
maintaining 100% English. This was, in essence, the same feedback I provided between D1 and
D2 in the last lesson. However this time I directly articulated the two feedback points I had been
going for in the previous lesson – self-awareness of L1 use, and supporting each other in the
100% English goal. I noted that this comment seemed to drive the previous lesson’s feedback
home, as all students were nodding vigorously and keen on the idea.
Whether this remark had the desired effect or not, my notes about Lesson 12 were that
both D1 and D2 were almost entirely in English. Though the two students who often use
Japanese did make side comments here and there, almost reflexively, these comments were kept
to a minimum and did not distract the groups from sustaining two full discussions in English.
While not a total success, I am encouraged by the potential of these awareness-raising and team-
building strategies. As Hancock (1997) concedes:
For the teacher who is worried about the quantity of the target language that
learners use in group work, it is significant that not all cases of resort to L1 will be
equally accessible to remedy….when learners select the L1 by accident or for a
particular communicative purpose, attempts to squelch the use of the L1 are
unlikely to yield the desired result. (p. 233)
In this sense, the instructor’s ability to affect L1 usage when it may be without thinking
may be limited. Many empirical studies have confirmed that one of the biggest causes of
learners slipping into their L1 during L2 tasks is to make comments to oneself, as a form of
private speech. This seems to help many learners process the cognitive demands of both thinking
of their ideas, usually in the L1, and producing the same idea in the L2 (Anton & DiCamilla,
1998; Hancock, 1997; Leeming, 2011; Scott & de la Fuente, 2008). In addition, studies also
show that many learners instinctively use L1 to comment on the task content or the task itself, as
a way of socializing with their group and reducing the language anxiety of the task (Anton &
DiCamilla, 1998; Hancock, 1997; Leeming, 2011; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). Though these uses of
L1 can certainly be useful in creating a comfortable atmosphere and aiding students in their own
individual language processing, when used too much during a task it can have a negative effect
on the group’s communication with each other. Highlighting the dangers of excessive side
commenting seemed to help this particular class be more conscious of how their actions affected
the collaborative success of the whole group. Understanding their role in the group’s success in
turn seemed to motivate them a little more to try to limit their own L1.
69
CONCLUSION
Closely examining my students’ L1 use during their discussion tasks has really opened my eyes
to the variety of ways EDC instructors could effectively reach the goal of 100% English with all
types of students. Reflecting upon this issue in this teaching journal has caused me to be more
aware of the multiplicity of reasons behind student L1 use, and of ways I can cater my own
responses to that L1 use with different methods of feedback. Because, as Mori (2004) had
pointed out, simply reminding students repeatedly to stay in English does not always work, it
would be useful for EDC instructors to be able to quickly discern why students are slipping into
their L1, and have a handful of techniques to readily pull out and apply.
There are many other strategies that could be tried apart from the simple ones I applied to
my classes this semester – other ways to instigate student reflection, learning effective ways of
halting discussions mid-task to quickly give feedback before continuing the discussion
(something I still do not have a handle on), or even experimenting with which type of learners or
classroom atmospheres the challenge of participation grades would be most effective with –
conducting this teaching journal has only encouraged me to continue exploring this issue in
future semesters.
REFERENCES
Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in
the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54 (3), 314-342
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English Only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27
(1), 9-32
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57 (3), 402-423
Ford, K. (2009). Principles and practices of L1/L2 use in the Japanese university EFL classroom.
JALT Journal, 31 (1), 63-80
Hancock, M. (1997). Behind classroom cod-switching: Layering and language choice in L2
learning interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (2), 217-235
Leeming, P. (2011). Japanese high school students’ use of L1 during pair-work. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21 (3), 360-382
Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first
language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language
Journal, 87 (3), 343-364
Meyer, H. (2008). The pedagogical implications of L1 use in the L2 classroom. Maebashi Kyoai
Gakuen College Ronsyu, 8, 147-159
Mori, R. (2004). Staying-in-English rule revisited. System, 32, 225-236
Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL
Journal, 5 (2), 1-8
Scott, V. M., & de la Fuente, M. J. (2008). What’s the problem? L1 learners’ use of the L1
during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92
(1), 100-113
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting?
TESOL Quarterly, 37 (4), 760-769
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first
language. Language Teaching Research, 4 (3), 251-274
70
Avoiding Grey Hairs: Exploring Effective Classroom
Management Strategies for English Discussion Teachers
Carey Finn
ABSTRACT
Using notes kept as part of a teaching journal, this short paper looks at a significantly and
exceptionally “troublesome” English discussion class – one that was markedly different from the
instructor’s other classes. After highlighting the connection between classroom management,
discipline and teacher stress, the paper outlines the major issues that arose in the class and the
impact they had on both the instructor and students over the course of a semester. Then,
considering ideas of group cohesion, individual stresses, motivation and different learning
techniques, the paper examines possible reasons for the problems, which were largely
behavioural. The instructor’s responses and attempted remedial actions, and the results thereof,
are detailed. Potential solutions are then explored, taking various classroom management and
discipline strategies into account.
INTRODUCTION
Teaching journals are useful in many ways. Firstly, they provide a means by which educators
can reflect personally on their teaching practices (Farrell, 2007); critical reflection generally
being regarded as an important part of teacher development (Richards and Ho, 1998). Secondly,
journal observations can be shared with colleagues, as in the case of this paper, which facilitates
cooperative problem-solving. Journals can help educators to become critical learners themselves
– students of their own classrooms.
With this in mind, I kept a teaching journal for a period of six weeks, writing my entries
the morning of the workday following the lesson with the chosen class. I adopted an almost-
stream-of-consciousness approach (Farrell, 2007), guided by several of the questions suggested
by Richards and Ho (1998) Did anything unusual occur in the lesson? Where there any
problems? What kind of interaction occurred? What grouping arrangements were used? Was
anything done differently from usual? And, crucially, what are the instructor’s current
limitations?
Over the first four weeks of the English discussion course, it became apparent that one
class was very different from the other 12 classes that I was teaching. Disrespectful, both
towards me and each other, restless, inattentive, disruptive, overly-reliant on L1 and decidedly
unpunctual, yet paradoxically capable of meeting the class grading criteria successfully, they
were an unusually problematic and stressful class to teach. By the fifth week, I was confused as
to what was causing these issues, unsure of how to resolve them, and growing increasingly
frazzled. I noted, with guilt, that I was dreading having to teach the class each week. While one
class in a previous semester had been similarly challenging, such classes seem to be exceptions.
The majority of my classes are relatively pleasant and painless to teach. So what could make one
class so different from the others? To consider this issue more deeply, as well as to try and
devise strategies to lower my teacher stress levels, I decided to keep my teaching journal on the
“problem” class.
Teaching has been ranked as one of the most stressful professions – second only to the
job of driving an ambulance (www.teachers.org.uk), with classroom management cited as one of
the leading reasons for job burnout of new teachers (www.apa.org). It is therefore relevant to
consider what classroom management is, and how its potential for stress can be reduced.
71
Classroom “management”, as opposed to classroom “discipline”, can be defined as the creation

of a positive, respectful learning environment in which students behave appropriately out of a
sense of personal responsibility. Classroom discipline can be defined as ways of responding to
inappropriate behaviour (Weinstein, Tomlinson-Clarke & Curran, 2004). Classroom discipline
too is “a well-documented source of teacher stress” - a “chronic stressor” in fact, with teachers
reporting “minor (but repetitive) distracting and disturbing behaviours” as the source of this
discipline-related stress (Lewis, 1999). Such misbehaviours have of course “plagued” teachers
since “the days of the first academy started by Plato in Athens” (Wadden and McGovern, 1991).
Classroom misbehaviour, incorporating all passive and active behaviours - for example, sleeping
in class or talking disruptively - which detract from classroom learning, has collectively been
termed “negative class participation” (Wadden and McGovern, 1991), a term which I will
borrow for use in this paper. While some negative class participation can be said to occur in all
language classes, Wadden and McGovern emphasise that its cause should always be considered,
especially if it is more prevalent in a particular class (1991). It is also important to consider
different classroom management and discipline strategies to reduce the teacher’s stress in such
situations.
DISCUSSION
In the fifth lesson of the course, as was by now the pattern, the students did not respond to my
greetings after the chime had signalled the start of class. They continued to chat in L1 as I
repeated myself, to little avail. They used L1 frequently throughout the lesson, not to negotiate
meaning, but simply to make humorous comments and reactions. When I asked them, firmly, to
only use L2, they simply laughed and made disrespectful comments in L1, probably assuming
that I could not understand what they were saying.
The content of their L2 speech was abysmal and comprised almost entirely of illogical
short utterances. They often misinterpreted the discussion preparation topics, despite repeated
explanation from me. One of the popular students – T, used his cell phone in front of me, in spite
of repeated reprimands in previous classes. Three of the nine students were absent, and one
arrived at the beginning of the discussion test. Latecoming was a persistent issue in the class.
Wadden and McGovern note that in oral-skills classes, tardy students not only interrupt the class,
but hold the lesson back (1991).
In the sixth lesson, something strange happened. The students were, for the first time,
cooperative and pleasant from the beginning of class, even scolding each other if someone was
not paying attention or was using L1. The content of their L2 speech was of a much higher level,
with longer utterances, and they completed two lively discussions, on which I complimented
them.
While relieved at this about-face, I was confused – what had triggered the change? The
only thing I had done differently was pairing myself with T during the warm-up activity to
prevent him using L1, as he seemed to have an influence on the other students. Aldrich (2013)
writes about perceived social pressure in the language classroom – whereby students are
influenced by peer pressure to perform, or not perform, a behaviour – in this case, using L1. It is
possible that this was happening in my class.
I also suspect that the students’ discussion test results, which they had been able to check
online before the sixth lesson, were what had caused the dramatic behavioural change. Despite
their unruliness in Lesson 5, they had performed sufficiently well in the test to get A and B
scores. After the test, I had also given very positive, encouraging feedback. Perhaps a
combination of the praise and good results had assuaged some anxiety they may have had about
L2. Aoki (2013) notes that students tend to become anxious when they feel they are not
72
Carey Finn
proficient in the target language – and it can be presumed that this would negatively affect their
behaviour. I decided to give more praise, where due, as a classroom management strategy.
In the seventh lesson, for no apparent reason, the students reverted to their usual pattern
of negative behaviour. Two students were reticent (this too, was becoming a pattern), several
were late, and none of them seemed to enjoy the lesson topic (they said this explicitly in L1). I
also noticed that several students jokingly said, as they had before, that they still did not know
everyone’s name – though it seemed that they sometimes deliberately “mistook” each other’s
names, to try and give an aloof, disinterested image. In the lessons, some students also
sometimes insulted each other in L1. The class dynamic left much to be desired.
In an attempt to engage the class in this “boring” seventh lesson, I spontaneously gave
them an original question to talk about as a transition between activities. They seemed to enjoy
this topic more, and revived somewhat – indicating that lack of interest and thus motivation
could be influencing their behaviour. When they were not listening or were using L1, though
seething inside, I tried to use a different approach to discipline, using a warning smile or stern
look instead of saying anything. Wadden and McGovern (1991) suggest that when a teacher has
to use a verbal reprimand, they have already allowed the students’ behaviour to get out of hand,
and recommend “a good stare or moment of silence” as an effective and energy-saving
technique. I found it to be somewhat effective.
Lesson 8 was a disaster, due partly, it seemed, to a lack of preparation by the students –
they had not done the required homework reading (a common occurrence, and something they
admitted to freely in L1), and partly to bad grouping by me. I carelessly paired students with
lower L2 ability, and low attention spans, together – a recipe for disaster in this class.
In Lesson 9, some students were still saying that they did not know each other’s names –
despite, it should be noted, the continued use of name cards since the beginning of the semester.
Several students were late – one so late that she could not take the discussion test. They used L1
liberally throughout the test preparation activities, triggering me to snap and raise my voice,
which drew sullen looks for a few seconds, before they returned to chatting in L1. While I
thought that perhaps this unruliness was once again related to test nerves, unfortunately the
pattern of misbehaviour continued up until (and in) the final lesson. A colleague who covered
one lesson for me noted that the students’ negative behaviour was exactly the same when he
taught them – indicating that the problems were likely stemming from this specific group, or
perhaps combination, of students themselves. This was reinforced by my personal observation
that none of my other classes exhibited the same level of misbehaviour and lack of respect.
I can only speculate what might have caused the issues described above. Lack of interest,
lack of motivation, low or perceived low L2 ability, possible learning challenges (in the case, I
suspected, of T) and just plain bad attitudes could all have been factors. The L2 ability of the
students was admittedly on the lower end of the university’s ranking scale, which became
particularly apparent during the final lessons, which dealt with advanced, difficult topics. In
addition, I became aware that several of the students had entered the university on sports
scholarships, so it is likely their interests and aspirations lay elsewhere. English discussion
classes are mandatory – and it has been found that discipline problems often result when
students feel they are not in the classroom by choice (Wadden and McGovern, 1991). It should
also be noted that the early timeslot of the class was not exactly conducive to energetic and
enthusiastic students.
Speculating that the behaviour of certain students may be influenced by learning
challenges is highly controversial, but in the case of T, I repeatedly suspected such a thing. As
Root (1994) notes, learning challenges are often not recognised, or not dealt with, leading many
language teachers to speculate in silence whether such a factor might be at work in the case of
73
some students. While further observations and speculation is beyond the scope of this paper, it is
worth keeping two things in mind: firstly, that not all students learn the same way (Root, 1994);
and secondly, with all students, no matter how they learn or what hidden challenges they may
have, it is necessary for instructors to focus on their individual strengths (Root, 1994).
CONCLUSION
When considering possible solutions to the classroom management and discipline issues
described above, finding and focusing on the individual strengths of the students seems to be
most important. While it may be difficult for instructors to remain positive in stressful classroom
situations, looking for and praising what psychologist Robert Brooks calls each student’s “island
of competence” (www.miusa.org) is a helpful technique, and one that I would do well to use
more. For example, if a student struggles to share ideas in a discussion but asks good follow-up
questions, examples of their questions could be noted and praised as part of teacher-fronted
feedback (while also encouraging them to try to share even short ideas).
The above technique can be incorporated into the classroom management strategy (and
contingency plan), which should be defined clearly from the outset. Shifting from an ineffective
non-assertive classroom management style to a more assertive Canter-influenced style (Charles
and Senter, 2005), I intend to take the following “strategic” actions based on the premise that all
students can choose to behave well.
Firstly, with the use of posters or hand-outs, in the first lesson of each semester, I will
make crystal clear my expectations for behaviour in the discussion class. I will then strictly and
consistently reinforce these expectations throughout the course. I have always set out basic rules
in my classes, but they may have been vague or difficult to understand. I also did not enforce
them consistently – for example, occasionally letting use of L1 or rudeness “slide”.
Secondly, following the advice of an experienced supervisor as well as the suggestions of
Root (1994), I will write the agenda for each lesson on the board; offer clear transitions between
activities; experiment with the assigning of roles to students; and give praise liberally (where
due), building on the students’ “islands of competence”. This should help to create a better
structured and more positive learning environment.
Thirdly, I will try to improve group cohesion among the students by adding more “get-to-
know-you” activities to the beginning three lessons, and encouraging the students to have lunch
or tea together as a group (teacher excluded) outside of class time. My observations from other
classes, where students did just that, indicate that students who lunch together, work together.
Aoki (2013) mentions the positive impact of class cohesiveness on learning motivation, and
Truxal (2013) has observed that even classes of students who simply use each other’s names
frequently tend to get along better.
Although I did experiment with the above ideas in the class discussed in this paper, all of
my actions were attempts to solve the issues retroactively. It is not surprising that I was
unsuccessful. It is my hope that the strategies will prove effective by implementing them
systematically and consistently from the beginning of each semester, thereby minimising the risk
of future “problem” classes developing, and reducing stress related to classroom management
and discipline issues. In addition, it might be beneficial to encourage the inclusion of stress
management training in the university’s instructor development programmes.
74
Carey Finn
REFERENCES
Aldrich, S. (2013) Pressure to be Silent: Examining Social Reticence in L2 English Discussion
Groups. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion. 1(2). 3-7.
Aoki, M. Mixed Motivation in EDC Classes. (2013) New Directions in Teaching and Learning
English Discussion. 1(2) 8-11.
Charles, C.M. and Senter, G.W. (2005) Building Classroom Discipline( Eighth Edition). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
English Language Classroom and Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.miusa.org/ncde/tools/esl
Farrell, T. (2007) Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice. London:
Continuum.
Kratochwill, T. Classroom Management. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/education/k12/classroom-mgmt.aspx
Lewis, R. (1999) Teachers Coping with the Stress of Classroom Discipline. Social Psychology of
Education. 3(3): 155-171.
National Union of Teachers. Tackling Teacher Stress. Retrieved from
http://www.teachers.org.uk/files/TACKLING-STRESS-0713.doc
Richards, J.C. and Ho, B. (1998) Reflective Thinking Through Journal Writing. In Richards, J.C.
Beyond Training: Perspectives on Language Teacher Education. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Root, C. (1994) A Guide to Learning Disabilities for the ESL Classroom Practitioner. Retrieved
from http://www.ldonline.org/article/8765
Truxal, D. (2013) The Use of Names and Greetings in English Discussion Class: An
Investigation of Group Cohesion. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English
Discussion. 1(2) 31-35.
Wadden, P. and McGovern, S. (1991) The Quandary of Negative Class Participation: Coming to
Terms with Misbehaviour in the Language Classroom. ELT Journal. 45(2). 119-127.
Weinstein, C.S., Tomlinson-Clarke, S. and Curran, M. (2004) Toward a Conception of
Culturally Responsive Classroom Management. Journal of Teacher Education. 55(1)
25-38.
75
Collaborative Paraphrasing and Willingness to Communicate
in English Discussion
Jeff Holtzkener
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses how the behaviour of an initially uncommunicative EDC class evolved over
the course of several weeks during their second term in the EDC program. Students at first
showed aversion to risk-taking in discussions and their use of negotiation of meaning was
largely perfunctory. After the introduction of the paraphrasing function, and in particular,
gaining experience working together as a unit to negotiate meaning, most students demonstrated
a greater willingness to communicate and more risk-taking in discussion. This paper will
discuss how their confidence in the process of Negotiation of Meaning might have affected their
attitudes toward communication in light of the construct Willingness to Communicate.
INTRODUCTION
For instructors in the EDC program, it is our hope that our students can get as much as possible
from the program in terms of improving their fluency in English, as well as gaining
communication competence and other affective benefits of discussion. Different classroom
conditions, and in particular, how students with different personalities and different motivations
for studying English interact, can have a significant impact on their experience in the program
and how much they benefit from it. If students do not feel willing to share their ideas, they have
little chance of improving their fluency and the other discussion skills that we hope to help them
develop in the EDC program. First and foremost, students need to speak; silent students will
not benefit at all and might inhibit/limit how much the more communicative students will get
from the class. But even if they take the risk of choosing to speak, if they actively avoid taking
further risks in the content they communicate, most instructors would agree that the students will
not benefit as much as they could from the discussions. The notion of Willingness to
Communicate (WTC) provides some insight primarily into the factors involved in a learner’s
choosing to speak or remain silent, but also applies to some extent to general risk taking in L2
communications. The following paper reflects upon a teaching journal in which I recorded
observations of an EDC class over a 7 week period in the fall term of the 2013 school year, and
how their behaviour shines some light on the conditions in which students were willing to take
risks in their discussions. In particular, as students gained confidence in the process of
negotiation of meaning, mostly through the EDC function for paraphrasing, they seemed far
more communicative (both in terms of how often they spoke, and the complexity of the ideas
that they brought to the group), and seemed to be having a more satisfying experience in the
class.
The class under discussion here was chosen because, in the first few weeks of the term,
they demonstrated a range of problematic tendencies during discussions, yet also showed many
positive characteristics in terms of motivation and non-discussion class behaviours. The
discussions in the class tended to be often characterised by long pauses between speakers, very
few follow-up questions beyond mechanically produced function phrases from the previous term
(‘How come?’, ‘Can you give me an example?’) and no disagreement. When an easy to
understand and uncontroversial idea was introduced into the discussion by one speaker,
subsequent speakers would often repeat the idea nearly verbatim. When students used checking
understanding phrases such as ‘Do you understand?’, the response was almost unfailingly ‘Yes’,
even when it seemed likely that no one in the discussion understood the speaker (this was
76
Jeff Holtzkener
usually followed by a long pause, then a change of speaker and topic). In terms of the ideas that
they chose to discuss, they generally used the most immediately obvious answers to the
discussion questions. That is, they tended to choose to express the kind of ideas whose meaning
could most easily be inferred naturally even if a speaker were not to express it clearly. This
observation is not meant judgementally, but this tendency does constitute an important feature of
their discussions in the first few weeks; when students were willing to speak, they tried to
minimize the risks involved.
On the other hand, the students often used function phrases, both current ones (though not
always correctly), and phrases from the previous semester. Also of note was that many students
showed surprisingly good fluency in non-discussion tasks (a regular warm-up consisting of a 3-
2-1 speaking activity, and during pair-based discussion preparation activities). A few students
spoke only rarely, or when spoken to, but most of the students generally gave the impression of
doing their best to at least comply with the basic expectations of an EDC classroom, namely that
they say something. Furthermore, most (though not all) of the students professed an interest in
improving their English communication abilities, and none came across as conspicuously
unmotivated. While in the discussions themselves, the students seemed somewhat ill at ease, the
general atmosphere of the class (outside of the discussions) tended to be relaxed and playful. In
short, they gave the impression of having considerable potential that was not being realized in
their discussions.
DISCUSSION
Negotiation of Meaning
In reflecting on the behaviours that students exhibited, I think that their negotiation of meaning
behaviour was perhaps most significant. The role of Negotiation of Meaning (NoM) in learning
a second language has been widely discussed (see Long 1996, Pica 1996), and many of the
affective goals of the EDC program (four of the seven listed in Hurling 2012) directly relate to
handling and learning from NoM. In this class, it certainly appeared that their use the tools of
NoM was more a show of compliance with instructor expectations rather than a genuine attempt
to better understand classmates' ideas. While in their role as speakers, they sometimes asked if
their listeners understood, in their role as listeners they rarely acknowledged that they didn't
understand the speaker, or asked for clarification. Furthermore, the students themselves gave
some evidence of being aware of this peculiar situation. One student, whom we will call D, was
a very confident speaker, but whose speaking skills were generally much stronger than his
comprehension. A standard reaction that he seemed to enjoy employing was "Yes, yes!" which
he said with a high degree of enthusiasm and apparent conviction. The utterance seemed
intended to convey both understanding and complete agreement with the previous speaker,
although he often used it when he did not appear to understand what had been said.
Occasionally other speakers might ask D, "Do you understand?" after giving an opinion to which
no one had responded. After replying with his "Yes, yes!" other students, clearly unconvinced,
would respond "Really?" to which he would once again, and with greater finality, answer "Yes,
yes!" This elicited much laughter from his group. It was clear both that D did not understand
and D knew that the group knew that he did not understand, but he used this emphatic answer to
show that he wanted to change the subject. D was not the only student in the class to take this
tact, but he did it several times over the first few weeks.
In general it seemed that students in this class had little confidence in or comfort with the
process of NoM, i.e., that they would be able to recover from a breakdown in communication.
Failure to communicate in a group can be embarrassing both for the speaker and for the listeners,
and a potential source of anxiety. This group largely handled this tension between complying
77
with classroom expectations and not wanting to embarrass themselves or their peers by avoiding
potentially difficult ideas in the discussion. When potential breakdowns occurred they seemed
to prefer changing the topic over trying to repair the breakdowns.
Paraphrasing
Week 6, when we introduced the paraphrasing function, was a turning point in their NoM
behaviour. In the presentation for the paraphrasing function, the students compared three short
dialogues. Each dialogue has a different response to a complicated idea prompted by the
question 'Do you follow me?' The first of these exchanges had a student responding with
'Umm. . . Maybe I understand', and included a graphic of a face with a puzzled expression. This
response elicited laughter in the class as well as many glances at D, as they recognized this
behaviour from their own discussions. Introducing this function into the repertory of phrases
they needed to use, had the immediate effect of making students like D more accountable to their
classmates when asked 'Do you understand?', for they now had to show their understanding by
engaging in a paraphrase, or admit that they indeed did not understand.
In the discussions in week 6 and week 7, some students directly tried to elicit paraphrases
from D, concluding their turns with “do you follow me (pause), D?” D did his best to
paraphrase their ideas, though often unsuccessfully. When someone was really struggling to
come up with a paraphrase, another group member, perhaps triggered by one of the paraphrase
attempts might help by offering their own paraphrase. Several times during these few weeks
after the function was introduced, if a student came out with a particularly apt paraphrase, the
group would respond with applause (especially if the recast made use of other functions such as
possibilities or later reporting information).
Of course, there was still considerable hesitancy engaging in paraphrasing. Naturally,
NoM happens most often when breakdown in communication occurs (Foster and Ohta 2005),
but in the context of a group discussion with multiple listeners, it is not always clear when
communication has broken down. Many students in their role as listener might not clearly
understand the speaker, but they might feel that they alone do not understand, and that perhaps
they will come to understand shortly through further discussion by other members. In this case,
remaining silent is a reasonable choice, since it saves the listener the embarrassment of showing
that they do not understand, and saves the speaker and the rest of the group (whom the listener
might have assumed to have understood the speaker) the hassle of interruption and further
explanation. Furthermore, the less clear the listener's understanding of the speaker is, the more
difficult paraphrasing becomes. In short, there are many reasons why a listener might choose
not to use paraphrasing for clarification. One strategy I used to encourage them to paraphrase in
light of this difficulty was to show them how helpful it could be to use paraphrasing to clarify
meaning for the benefit of other group members. I modelled this after a discussion by having
them imagine a group consisting of two students and myself. The first student shares an idea (I
used an example from a recent discussion) and it was an idea that the second student understood,
but I myself could not understand. Getting the second student to recast the idea allowed me to
understand the first student's idea. My intention was to create an additional motive for them to
use paraphrasing even when they themselves understood the idea (and thus paraphrasing would
be relatively easy to do, yet natural and helpful). While I found this strategy helpful in many of
my other classes, I think it had a dramatic impact with this class. One strength of this group was
their willingness to support each other, and this strategy for paraphrasing gave them many
opportunities to do this. Through their interaction, this group realized that having the support of
other group members available significantly facilitated the communication of challenging or
complex ideas. What often occurred when they started recasting each others' ideas was that all
78
Jeff Holtzkener
three, four, or five members of the discussion would get involved in the negotiation of meaning
process, each offering paraphrases and advancing the collective understanding of the idea at
hand. There were many instances of long collaborative paraphrasing sessions that we could
dissect in the feedback, and explore the creative ways they employed to reach better group
understanding.
In this class we spent more time working on paraphrasing than in my other classes, but
this seemed appropriate in light of the acute NoM problems earlier in the term. And, within a
few weeks of starting to use the paraphrasing function, I had noticed another change, namely
that the discussion environment started to become much more relaxed, and some of the reluctant
students became much more willing to share their ideas. Students who had rarely spoken
became more comfortable initiating turns, and most students seemed more willing to express
challenging ideas.
There was one student in particular, whom we will call G, who in earlier classes had more
than once completed a discussion without initiating a single turn. He would respond if someone
asked him a question, often agreeing with earlier speakers and repeating their ideas, but rarely
took an opportunity to share his own ideas. It was clear from hearing him in fluency activities
and in pair work that he was generating original ideas, some of them quite unconventional, yet
he was unwilling to share them in the context of the discussions. In one class in week 7, only
five students were present, and G had not spoken much during the first discussion, and the first
half of the second discussion. Suddenly he asked if he could comment on an idea. His idea was
not at all understood at first, but in an attempt to be helpful D tried to paraphrase G. His guess
was perhaps based more on what he had expected G to say, rather than what he had said. G tried
to paraphrase himself in correction, but the idea was still ill-understood by the group. Soon all
the members of the group had joined in in attempting to recast G's idea, with G doing his best
paraphrase in response. This round of exchanges took about 4 minutes in total until all members
understood G's idea, but in the end all 5 members had participated in the process. G's idea was
somewhat unintuitive (thus the difficulty they had in understanding it), but interesting and
playful. G was noticeably satisfied with having been able to communicate it, and the group was
literally clapping and cheering at having reached an understanding.
This discussion was something of a turning point, at least for these 5 students. From this
point on, G's willingness to communicate seemed much higher; in later classes he continued to
offer somewhat unconventional ideas in the discussion (which again involved much assistance
from the group to fully unpack). But the difference wasn't only noticeable in him alone. The
group had realized that discussions were an opportunity for playfully exploring their ideas
together, and that trying to understand complicated ideas was itself something they could
approach playfully. But more importantly, they began to demonstrate a higher degree of
confidence in the process of negotiation of meaning. Notably, it wasn't necessarily the higher
level students who were most helpful in these negotiations. Often difficulties expressing an idea
result from the speaker focussing on one particular strategy for which they are perhaps lacking a
crucial piece of vocabulary (or for which that piece of vocabulary simply doesn't exist in
English). If the speaker were to change strategies, the idea might be easily communicated, but it
is often difficult for speakers to abandon their current line of thought. When other group
members attempt to unpack the idea, they will often make use of alternative strategies, analogies,
examples etc. and it is often imagination and lateral thinking rather than vocabulary or
grammatical accuracy that eventually clarifies the idea. The group members developed
confidence in this process, that is, that their group mates would have the imagination, sympathy
and perhaps most importantly patience to arrive at a clear understanding. These collaborative
paraphrasing sessions soon became a regular feature of their discussions, and most students in
79
the class took advantage of the collective ability of their group by expressing more complicated
ideas.
In their discussions on the topic of capital punishment, in particular, they indeed made
excellent use of each other's help. They became much more ambitious in terms of the ideas that
they tried to express, and appeared much more engaged in, and satisfied by their discussion.
Rather than using only the automatic follow-up questions that they used earlier in the term, they
more often used follow-up questions to probe each other's ideas in ways that stimulated more
discussion. By the end of term they had become much more frank in their handling of the
question 'do you understand?' They were able to answer this question with almost complete
honesty (perhaps slightly less so in the discussion tests), and without embarrassment for the
speaker or the listener. When someone didn't understand, they all worked together to bridge that
gap.
Willingness to Communicate
We can use the construct of Willingness to Communicate to better understand the change of
discussion behaviour that happened in this group of learners. Willingness to Communicate
(WTC) is explained in MacIntyre, Dornyei, Clement and Noels (1998) with a situated model, (as
opposed to earlier research such as McCroskey and Richmond (1991) which studied WTC as a
personality trait). MacIntyre et al. define WTC as 'readiness to enter into discourse at a
particular time with a specific person or persons using a L2' (547) This concept is especially
useful as it helps us examine how tendencies of a student's WTC might change over time (over
the course of a term at EDC), but incorporates trait-like factors as well. In the case of my group,
there were students such as G, who were simply not willing to enter into discourse early in the
term, and as confidence in NoM increased, became more willing to do so. MacIntyre et al.
present a widely used heuristic model showing the factors that affect a learner’s choice as to
whether to speak at given time. In this model, the top level above Behavioural Intention
(Willingness To Communicate), i.e., whether or not the learner will choose to speak or remain
silent, is Communication Behaviour (L2 Use), and so this model assumes many of the factors
that affect whether a student will choose to speak or remain silent will also determine the risks
that he or she takes when speaking.
In the case of this class, there was a general willingness to comply with the basic
classroom expectations. Most students did engage in communication to some extent early in the
term, but they were clearly unwilling to take any unnecessary risks. In both McCroskey and
Richmond (1991) and MacIntyre et al. (1998) self-confidence and perceived communicative
competence play a large role in willingness to communicate and according to MacIntyre (2013)
'the combination of low levels of anxiety and high levels of perceived communication
competence . . . is the most reliable predictor of L2 trait-WTC' (690). If speakers have a high
evaluation of their own competence they are more likely to engage in communication, and
presumably also to take risks in that communication. Anxiety over their failure to communicate
will obviously make them less willing to communicate. As Fushino (2010) states:
Communication apprehension in L2 group work and self-perceived communicative

competence in L2 group work can change as students experience L2 group work.
If students become more confident in L2 group work, their increased confidence
will presumably make them more willing to engage in L2 group work. (703-704)
In the particular group of learners I have been discussing, NoM was leveraged to expand the
range of ideas that they felt they could communicate, perhaps effectively increasing their
80
Jeff Holtzkener
perception of their communication competence. Their behaviour changed as they gained

experience with, and confidence in their ability to work together. Early in the term, each
member in the group, in their capacity as speaker, likely imagined that the onus was on them
individually, through word choice, appropriate grammatical structures etc., to adequately convey
their intended meaning. In the framework of WTC, their lack of self-perceived communication
competence inhibited them from choosing to communicate. Likewise, in their capacity as
listeners, the onus was on them, again individually, to understand what was being said. The
attitude that we came to take was that the onus is never on individual speakers and listeners to
convey or understand, but rather on the group as a whole, to make sure the ideas that arose in the
discussion were understood by each member. This took a significant amount of pressure off of
each individual speaker, reducing the anxiety associated with communication. The change that
occurred with this group was not immediate, but as their experience with NoM through
paraphrasing increased, their confidence in the process also increased. They also developed
strategies that proved effective in their collaborative paraphrasing sessions. By having their
group as a support network they became more likely to take risks, and having had positive
experiences with risk taking, became even more likely to take risks in the future.
CONCLUSION
The development of this particular group of EDC students suggests that it might be particularly
valuable to develop classroom activities which focus specifically on collaborative negotiation of
meaning, that is, develop activities to make sure the students are comfortable with the process,
and can appreciate the ways in which it can facilitate discussion. There are four clear benefits
that can arise from focusing on collaborative paraphrasing. Firstly, in terms of our specific
classroom goals, by getting students to paraphrase for the benefit of their classmates, they can
increase the opportunities for using this particular discussion function. Secondly, by engaging in
negotiation of meaning more often they may be able to get the benefits proposed in Pica (1996)
and Long (1996) of input desirable for L2 growth. But thirdly, and more importantly, taking the
burden of successful communication off of the speaker alone can reduce the anxiety associated
with whether or not a speaker can communicate their ideas, thus increasing their willingness to
communicate. Lastly, by encouraging students to make use of the collective communicative
skill of the group, individual students might be less likely to choose easy to express ideas over
those they find more interesting, if they feel that there is a greater chance that these ideas will be
understood. Of course the success of collaborative paraphrasing will depend largely on the
dynamics of the group, but when possible there are definite benefits of encouraging this
behaviour. In light of this, it is worthwhile pursuing the development of activities that put
students into the habit of collaborative paraphrasing as early as possible in the term so that they
can reap the benefits later in the term.
REFERENCES
Foster, P. and Ohta, A.S. (2005). Negotiation for Meaning and Peer Assistance in Second
Language Classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430.
Fushino, K. (2010). Causal Relationships Between Communication Confidence, Beliefs About
Group Work, and Willingness to Communicate in Foreign Language Group Work. TESOL
Quarterly 44(4) 700-724.
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. In Doe, T., Hurling, S., Livingston, M., Moroi, T.,
(Eds.), New Direction in teaching and learning English discussion. Tokyo: EDC
81
Long, M. H. (1996). ‘The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition’ in W.
C. Ritchie, and T. K. Bhatia (eds): Handbook of research on Language Acquisition:
Second Language Acquisition. Vol. 2. (p.413–68). New York: Academic Press,
MacIntyre, P. D., Dornyei, Z., Clement, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness
to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The
Modern Language Journal, 82 (4), 545-562.
MacIntyre, P.D. (2013). Willingness to communicate. In P. Robinson (ed.) The Routledge
encyclopedia of second language acquisition (p.688-691). New York: Taylor and Francis
McCroskey, J.C. And Richmond V.P. (1991). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view. In
M. Booth-Butterfield (ed.), Communication, Cognition, and Anxiety (p.19-37). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage
Pica, T. (1996). The Essential Role of Negotiation in the Communicative Classroom. JALT
Journal, 18(2), 241-268.
82
“I don’t care”- the Crossfire in the EDC Classroom
Yifeng Hong
ABSTRACT
Based on the instructor’s teaching journals, this paper discusses the observations and reflections
of classroom interactions in my second semester at Rikkyo on the issues of learning motivations
and classroom behaviors of two specific students who I initially recognized as “trouble-makers”
with “negative” attitudes towards EDC classes. Overtime, with close-up studies, different
patterns of motivations, learning styles and classroom behaviors of them were noticed.
Accordingly, the pedagogy adopted was recorded as evolving as students’ behaviors.
INTRODUCTION
Each semester EDC instructors encounter over one hundred students from various backgrounds
of different majors, personal characteristics, learning styles, English abilities and motivations in
English learning, which brings a challenge for us English educators, especially me as a novice
one, to cater to individual needs of students in the compulsory course where not everyone is in
favor of English learning. In one of my classes, two students were identified in the beginning as
they behaved differently and stood out from their peers. Tom (pseudonym) and Rene
(pseudonym) were level three students. Unlike other students who were generally attentive and
well-behaved, these two students were not cooperative with me or other discussion participants,
and several “troublesome” behaviors were identified. First, in the first four weeks, both of them
were late and absent twice. Second, oftentimes, they just sat and listened, being reluctant to
participate actively. Third, they tended to use Japanese a lot in classes even after I introduced 3
different strategies when having difficulties speaking English. Therefore, Tom and Rene as
typical demotivated students who don’t have interests in English learning are the focus of this
study. At the end of the first month, Tom received 22/25 and Rene received 14/25 in the first
discussion test.
DISCUSSION
The use of Japanese
As we EDC instructors all know, there is a clear “English only policy”. This policy is highly
plausible in the EFL context where students have only 90 minutes each week for English
speaking practice. To maximize their opportunities, there’s a need to ensure they all speak
English in discussion classes. Yet, in SLA academia, it remains a controversy. There are several
studies supporting L1 use in ESL classroom. Scott and De La Fuente (2008) conclude that the
use of L1 in meaningful tasks may “reduce cognitive overload, sustain collaborative interaction,
and foster the development of metalinguistic terminology” (p.111). The use of L1 in ESL
classrooms is also supported by the classical Vygotskian term of ZPD (Lantoft, 2000) as we can
postulate that learners are extending their zone of proximal development within the scaffolding
of L1. However, noted in my first journal taken at week 5, Japanese use plays a negative role in
EDC classes. As noted, both of Tom and Rene employed Japanese a lot in various class
activities. First in the fluency activity, Tom and Rene used Japanese a lot, even after I intervened
with “no Japanese please” in intervals. Also, in the second discussion, they teased at their
partners in Japanese when they didn’t use grammatically correct English. Other than that, no
concrete discussion ideas were heard from them. As an instructor, though I would like to give
intervention, I struggled with the “no intervention policy” in the second group discussion. At the
end, I was very frustrated and didn’t give much constructive feedback but I addressed this
problem to the whole class and asked them to show respect towards their peers and me. In result,
83
there are three main consequences of Japanese use observed: First, both Tom and Rene lost their
opportunities to practice English speaking, specifically functions, and further lost their chance to
develop other communicative skills like discourse-appropriate communication skills. Second, it
brought a negative effect on the instructors, since I was frustrated and angry at the end, failing to
offer constructive feedback on their and other students’ performance. Also, it had negative
impact on their peers. In the fluency activity, when Tom and Rene paired up, they teased and
laughed at each other in Japanese as well. Because of their use of Japanese, other students
nearby who were trying to practice English were interfered by them, and paused for a few
seconds (3rd Journal). Thus, L1 use here also affects other participants’ performances and
willingness to practice English. Based on the observations above, I claim that in the EDC
context, L1 use is not only impeding students’ English acquisition and having negative influence
over the instructors, but also causing problems in classroom management.
Low Proficiency
Then why would these two students cling to their L1 so strongly even after my emphases of
“English only policy”? Rene’s low English proficiency to understand classroom instructions was
recorded in the 3rd journal which was taken in the 8th lesson. In discussion preparation activities,
first I offered whole class oral instructions with hand gestures such as “open the textbook”. After
my instructions, most students followed the guidance and focused on individual work
immediately. However, Rene hesitated and tried to figure out what other students were doing
with a frowned puzzling look. Then I went up to her and repeated the instructions again, and
pointed out the missed opportunities where she should’ve asked the Report Information
Questions. After listening to my instructions, she said “aww” and showed me a smiling face.
Later she used the Paraphrase Questions and Phrases as well as Report Information functions in
group discussions. Throughout this whole class, I didn’t hear her using Japanese at all. I believe
that my instructions show a positive effect on her performances. In their empirical research,
Marinova-Todd, Marshall and Snow (2000) also observed that students are “likely to structure
heavily L1 environment for themselves, retarding their own L2 exposure and acquisition” (p.26).
With the contrast of her different performances, we can assert that Rene sought to L1 resources
in classes mainly because of her low English proficiency and failure to understand my classroom
instructions, as indicated by Mouhanna (2009) that students may be reluctant to speak in the
target language since they suffer from low proficiency in their L2s and lack of motivations.
Therefore, despite that L1 can function as a scaffolding tool, I claim that we EDC
instructors need to create other substitute scaffolding tools for students to foster meaningful L2
communications. First, EDC teachers should be the sources of scaffolding, offering more
explicit instructions on not only functions itself, but also the discourses of function uses, like
what I did above, which have been heavily addressed within EDC to introduce “how” the way of
application of function phrases in authentic communication. Also, EDC teachers shall pay more
attention to low proficient students. For example, in the beginning, Rene was puzzled with
several “basic” functions like “what shall we discuss next?” and “why don’t we discuss…?”, as
she would answer “yes” or “ok” (2nd journal) instead of “Let’s discuss …”, after hearing her
partner asked “what shall we discuss next?” After noticing the confusion, I explicitly explain the
differences and the proper turn-taking orders of the functions. This extra scaffolding provided
extra support and reduces cognitive loads.
Low Motivations
So far, several points from Rene’s perspective were discussed. What about for Tom? Similarly
as Rene, Tom showed some attitudes towards the English discussion classes as well. For
example, when I was giving feedback, he lost attentions and didn’t listen to my comments at all
84
Yifeng Hong
(1st journal). Also, he shows limited willingness to communicate with his peers in English. As
noted in several teaching journals (1st and 3rd), he often just sat and listened to other discussions,
not contributing ideas nor practicing functions, sometimes not even English reactions. Moreover,
he used Japanese in classes. All of these behaviors indicate that he had no interests in English
learning. However, unlike Rene, Tom was able to perform well in the first test by getting a score
of 22/25.Then why wasn’t him motivated in participating in practices? And what are the learner
motivations indeed?
According to Dornyei (1994), there are 3 different levels of learner motivations: first, the
motivational orientations that come from learners’ interactions with factors of the L2, centering
on the individual’s L2-related affective predispositions, which is parallel to Gardnerian’s
integrative motivational subsystems (Dornyei, 1994); second, “a complex of affects and
cognitions that form fairly stable personality traits” (Dornyei, 1994, p.279). Dornyei specifies by
dividing the second level into 2 subsystems: need for achievement and self-confidence; the third
level of language learning motivation is the learning situation level that is directly related to
what is happening the language learning classroom. As Dornyei (1994) describes that it is made
up of “intrinsic and extrinsic motives and motivational conditions” that is cultivated by teachers,
language courses and peer groups, it consists of 3 different components: course-specific
motivations, teacher-specific motivations and group-specific motivations. For Tom, I believe
there lack the need for achievement and the supporting motivational system in the classroom.
For example, since he could achieve relatively good scores without much practice in classes,
why would he bother to practice? Also, relatively easily achieved scores didn’t bring him the
sense of achievement in English learning.
To boost his motivation, there were two different strategies that I applied. First is to
increase the complexity and diversity of tasks. For example, when he was practicing the
functions of Paraphrase, I specifically asked him to use all different function phrases while
others might only focus on 1 or 2 phrases like “do you mean…?” and “I mean…”. Also, I used
several different methods to change the group dynamics of discussion activities, for instance,
pair work and group work, changing partners frequently and using different activities like
matching function phrases as puzzles in a group and bingo. Moreover, I offered some activities
with clear goals for him, such as Taboo and Collecting Function Slips. When he finished the
difficult tasks, the sense of achievement in English learning seemed improved as he showed
smiles and was eager to help others. (4th Journal) Another strategy that I employed is
empowering Tom in classroom activities. For example, I purposely chose him to be the person
who should correct any Japanese speaking behaviors in classroom activities. Whoever spoke
Japanese would receive a sticky note from Tom each time in classes. Also, I specifically paired
him up with lower proficient students and asked Tom to help his peers when they had difficulties
or questions, as stated by Dornyei (1994) that empowering student in classrooms will increase
their motivations in target language acquisition. This empowering strategy is also related to one
of the core values in EDC: “student-centerness”, which includes more responsibilities for
students and proper scaffolding from the teachers to assist students’ language learning
process. Based on my teaching and observation, I believe that proper instructional scaffolding
helps to maximize the effect of classroom practices. Also, when I offered feedback, I tried to
use several methods like teacher-fronted feedback, self-assessment like hands-up and checklist,
and pair work, to avoid long monolog to draw Tom’s attentions. I applied this “collaborative
dialogue” method (Swan, 2000) when giving instructions, which is the process of teacher’s
demonstrations, support, guidance and input, then withdraw with supports when they get
independent increasingly.
85
Formulaic and Fixed Sequences

Several aspects from learner’s viewpoints have been discussed above. Yet it doesn’t answer the
puzzle why they were not cooperative with L1 use and reluctance of classroom participation.
Even though students are undoubtedly the focus in CLT classrooms, the investigations into the
pedagogical issues from instructor’s perspectives are inevitable since classroom interactions
consist of not only Student-Student interactions but Teacher-Student interactions as well. In
EDC, a selective set of highly frequently used Function Phrases and Communicative Skill
Phrases were introduced to students from weeks to weeks, such as Possibility, Changing Topic
and Checking Understanding. This repertoire of fixed sequences as different discourse markers
improves and facilitates students’ speaking output fluency and accuracy, like “one advantage
is…” and “do you mean that…?” Wray (2002, 2008) argues that there are 3 main functions in
fixed sequences: to reduce the speakers’ cognitive processing effort, to mark discourse structure,
and to enable the speaker to manipulate the interlocutor, including perceptions of speaker
identity. The value of formulaic and fixed sequences has been studied and proved in several
empirical studies. Underwood, Schmitt and Galpin (2004) report that native speakers with higher
familiarity of formulaic patterns such as “raining cats and dogs” enjoy higher processing
efficiency compared to their non-native counterparts with lower familiarity of fixed sequence in
a reading test of eye movements. Also, Garrod and Pickering (2007) discover that the use of pre-
assembled lexicalized strings reduced the processing load on hearers, and further gives clues to
listeners about the shape of possible conversations, such as “the first thing is that…”, and signals
the speaker identity with specific information indicating the lexicalized knowledge that the
interlocutors and hearers will soon be processing, overall, building solid speaker-listener
alignment (Wray, 2002).
These arguments coincide with classroom observations of students output, for example
the Changing Topic Functions. In EDC classes, 4 formulaic phrases are taught: does anyone
want to comment? Does anyone want to ask a question? What shall we discuss first/next? Why
don’t we discuss (topic)? These 4 phrases function as discourse markers for both speakers and
listeners to initiate discussion and to switch topics. As aids, 2 patterns of function use were
taught in my classroom together with Join Discussion functions that had been taught previously.
1) In the beginning of a discussion:
A: What shall we discuss first?
B: Why don’t we discuss (topic)?
2) In the middle of a discussion:
A: Does anyone want to comment/ask a question?
 B: Yes, can I make a comment/ask a question?
 B: No, what shall we discuss next?
A: Why don’t we discuss (topic)?
As noted, the 2 patterns provided greatly facilitate the flow of initiation and topic change of
discussions, with less salient waiting time when change topics, shorter processing routes and
better organization of discussions (1st, 2nd journals). However, there are also some issues when
implementing such patterns. For example, when his classmate asked Tom “what shall we discuss
next?”, he responded “why don’t we discuss…ehhh…hmmm…this to…this….?” Here, Tom
struggled with the Changing Topic function “why don’t we discuss (topic)?” To produce the
proper utterance of this function phrase, it required him to process several cognitive steps: first,
read the discussion questions; second, decide the question he’d like to talk about; third, recall the
formulaic sequence; forth, summarize the question into a “topic”; firth, assemble the “topic”
with the fixed sequence; six, produce the output. As we can see above, Tom struggled with the
4th and 5th steps with extra cognitive process required to summarize the question into a word or
86
Yifeng Hong
phrase representing the “topic” with time pressure to deliver the function accurately in real time
communication as he stopped and stammered preceding “topic”. This extra cognitive load
resulted in his difficulty in uttering the function and hence impeded his confidence in properly
using the functions in real-time discussions and the reliability in these function phrases.
A similar situation was recorded with the Lesson 10 Different Viewpoint function (6th
Journal). For this function, 4 function phrases were taught to boost students’ critical thinking and
to bring objective opinions in discussions: how about for (X)? ; How about from (X)’s point of
view? ; For (X)…; From (X)’s point of view… In Discussion 1 Preparation activity, I provided
students a simple A-B pattern to follow in order to scaffold them with functions as they
discussed “what behaviors are ok in public?”:
A: I think it is (always/sometimes/never) okay to…. It’s mainly because from (X)’s
point of view, …
B: I agree/disagree. How about for (X)?
In this pair practice, Rene partnered with the other student, and the conversation was noticed:
The partner student: I think it is sometimes ok to use phones on the train. It’s mainly
because from businessmen’s point of view, they have to call
customers sometimes.
Rene: I disagree. I think…hmm…(few seconds of pause as she looked at the pattern on
the whiteboard)… How about for other people?
In this abstract, as you can see, Rene tried to follow the pattern with functions to organize her
ideas. However, after “I disagree”, she was about to explain her ideas and reasons of her
disagreement, which is contradictory to the pattern on the whiteboard that should be “how about
for (X)?” Therefore, she puzzled with pauses between the formulaic sequences of function
practice and the discourse of the authentic communication.
With the situations described above, I hereby argue that when teaching the formulaic and
fixed sequences, in other words functions in the EDC context, especially structured dialogues,
instructors shall pay more attention to the pragmatics issues that may occur in authentic
communications. Thus, rehearsal teaching between instructors is critical to understand the
function discourse. Also, in classroom teaching, as it has been heavily addressed by EDC
managers, not only the phonetic and grammatical forms of functions and the reason of functions,
in other words the “why” shall be introduced, but also the discourse, speech registers, socially
conditioned rules or “linguistic affordances” (Segalowitz, 2010) of the functions, in preference
to the “how”, must be addressed. Therefore, there is a need to further study and to explicitly
summarize the discourses of the function phrases taught in EDC.
CONCLUSION
After the treatments above, they performed better in classes, with more function use, more
concrete ideas, higher classroom activity participation (4th Journal, 5th Journal and 6th Journal),
reflecting on a steady improvement in both Rene and Tom’s test performances, from 14/25 to
21/25 to 21/25, and 21/25 to 24/25 to 24/25 in 3 discussion tests respectively, confirming that
the efforts and strategies that I applied were effective and successful. For future instructors
encountering uncooperative students, investigations into students’ individual learning styles,
motivations and English proficiency levels, extra scaffolding from instructors and student peers,
change of the complexity of tasks, empowering learners and comprehensive formulaic sequences
teaching are highly valuable to truly comprehend the classroom dynamics.
87
REFERENCES
Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Automaticity of language production in monologue and
dialogue. In A. S. Meyer, L. R. Wheeldon, & A. Krott, (Eds.), Automaticity and control in
language processing (pp. 1-20). New York: Psychology Press
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural
Theory and Second Language Learning. (pp.1-26). Oxford University Press.
Mouhanna, M. (2009). Re-Examing the role of L1 in the EFL classroom. UGRU Jounal. 8. 1-19.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routlege Press.
Scott, V. and De La Fuente, M. (2008). What’s the Problem? L2 Learners’ Use of the L1 During
Consciousness- Raising, Form focused Tasks. In The Modern Language Journal, 92(1),
100-113.
Stefka H. Marinova-Todd; D. Bradford Marshall; Catherine E. Snow. (Spring, 2000). Three
Misconceptions about Age and L2 Learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 9-34.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue” in J. Lantolf (ed.): Sociocultural Theory and Second Language
Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is There a Role of L1 in an L2 Setting. TESOL
Quarterly, 37(4), 760-770.
Underwood, G., Schmitt, N., & Galpin, A. (2004). The eyes have it: An eye-movement study
into the processing of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp.
153-172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
88
Experimenting with Peer Reflection
Ian Hurrell
ABSTRACT
Recent research indicates that peer-reflection activities are effective in helping language learners
to develop a sense of ownership for their learning progress. This article reports on the author’s
efforts to develop activities and materials that would help students reflect with their peers on
their performance in group discussions. Observations from a five week teaching journal will be
used to exemplify the difficulties and benefits for students that arose from these peer-reflection
activities, as well as what insights could be gained by the instructor from listening to the
students’ reflections.
INTRODUCTION
Recently, much research has been done which suggests that student self-assessment and peer-
reflection are much more effective than teacher-fronted feedback in developing a sense of
ownership, self-efficacy and personal responsibility (Birjandi & Masood 2010, Kohonen 2000,
Min 2006). This is mirrored in the large amount of research done by Rikkyo EDC instructors
indicating that self-assessment checklists are effective in helping students to reflect on their
performance and improve the frequency of their function use (Davies 2012, Brinham, 2013).
Having used these checklists in classes myself, I have observed that they are useful for
helping students to target which functions they were not using so much. However, a major issue
with checklists is that students only reflect on the frequency of their function use and not on how
and why the functions can be useful for having better discussions. In addition, as students only
discussed frequency of function use, I often had trouble ascertaining exactly why some students
might be having problems using certain functions which made it difficult for me to provide
useful feedback to help them deal with their problems.
Therefore, the aims of this journal were to; a) develop materials that would help the
students collaborate with their peers and effectively reflect on how and why the functions can be
used to have better discussions; b) observe the benefits and difficulties for the students of peer-
reflection; and c) discover what insights I could gain from listening to the students’ reflections.
As this journal focuses on developing materials rather than addressing a specific problem
in the classroom, any class could have been observed. It was decided that observing my
Wednesday classes would provide the most useful insights as they consisted of two average
Level 3 classes and were later in the week when my lesson plan was more refined. As there were
no significant differences between the two groups, observations from both classes will be
presented interchangeably and no specific reference as to which class the observations came
from will be made in the discussion.
DISCUSSION
Before starting the journal, I developed a general procedure for conducting peer reflection
activities. Students reflected with their peers in pairs or in groups of three directly after finishing
D1 and D2. Both activities were identical so that the students could more easily reflect after each
discussion. In order to avoid influencing the students’ reflections, it was decided that the
students would reflect with each other before teacher-fronted feedback was given. In addition,
when teacher-fronted feedback was given, it should, as much as possible, only comment upon
the students reflections and not introduce new ideas so as not to override the students’ ideas.
89
For the first observation in lesson 6, the reflection materials consisted of two questions
(See appendix 1.1). The first question had students remember examples of paraphrasing that
their partners had used in the discussion. The second question focused on having the students
reflect on whether paraphrasing was useful in their discussion.
In this lesson, the students experienced some difficulties. Many couldn’t remember
examples for the first question, and students who did not use the function in their discussion had
no examples to discuss. As a result, it was also difficult for some to discuss the second question.
For students who could remember examples, there seemed to be some embarrassment when
talking about their own performance and despite having some good instances of extended
negotiations in their discussions they tended to pick the simpler examples of paraphrasing.
Therefore, I had to teacher-front feedback more than wanted in this class. These problems are
consistent with literature which suggests that learners often have difficulties with reflection
activities when they are not used to reflecting on their performance, especially with their peers
(Kohonen 2000), and that more scaffolding and training is required at the initial stages to help
the students make a smoother transition (Min 2006).
Based on these observations in the previous class, I made a number of alterations to the
reflection materials for lesson 7 (See appendix 1.2). Asking the students to remember examples
outright seemed to overwhelm them so I changed the initial question to have the students
remember the topics they talked about in their discussion first. The purpose of this question was
to activate their memories of the discussion so that they could more easily remember examples
for their reflection. I also simplified the questions so that the students could reflect more easily
and I changed the questions to focus on the use of functions by the group as a whole, rather than
each individual’s function use. This way, even students who hadn’t used the function could
participate in the reflection. Finally, I added some extra scaffolding by providing example
answers to each question which the students could use to frame their own reflections.
In this class, it seemed that the group-focus and the first question to activate their
memories were successful as most students could remember multiple examples of reporting
information from their discussions. However, the example answers didn’t seem to help them
form their ideas and I had to give extensive help with the second question. For example, some
students would say, “I think ---‘s idea was interesting. She said ----.” However, when I asked
them “why?”, they couldn’t say. It also seemed that some students were just picking examples at
random. However, after I modeled the example of one student’s idea that I thought was
interesting and why I thought so, they seemed able to think of good reasons of why reporting
was useful for their discussion, for example “This example [of reporting information] was
interesting because I didn’t know this fact”. This observation further supports the importance
that providing scaffolding to the students in the initial stages of introducing a new activity (Min
2006).
I could also use their reflections to reinforce my teacher fronted feedback. For example,
after D1 one group said it was difficult for them to think of information because they didn’t
know about sports stars. This was a problem because they chose the first topic in the textbook
rather than a topic that they could talk about. Therefore, I could suggest that they use the
changing topic phrases to choose an interesting topic first. As a result, in D2 everyone could
give at least two instances of reporting and could also think of examples much better in the
second reflection, which I feel cemented the importance of the function for them.
For lesson 8, as a review lesson, I decided to go back to using a checklist to focus on
general use of functions and communication skills. However, in the reflections some students
commented that they couldn’t understand the timing of using the new functions. Therefore, I
decided to make a flow-chart diagram with a rough order of functions so they could understand
90
Ian Hurrell
the timings better. Also, after seeing a presentation about the motivational power of can-do
statements (Yoshida 2013), I incorporated can-do questions in the reflection activities to guide
their reflections and motivate the students to use the functions more in the discussions. The can-
do questions included “How many topics can you find for this question?”, "Can you make an
“If….?” Question for this topic?”, “Can you think of any information about this topic?”
In this class, the group seemed to be getting more comfortable with reflecting with each
other. They could remember examples from their discussions more easily and the emphasis on
group performance rather than individual performance seemed to create a more collaborative
reflection session which gave me a lot of opportunity to provide focused teacher feedback. In
one interesting example, a student mentioned that “paraphrasing is a difficult function to use
because you have to understand the other person’s idea clearly”. I put this to the class and they
all agreed. This gave me the opportunity to make the point that purpose of paraphrasing is to
help clarify ideas so paraphrasing is even more important when you don’t understand clearly.
Another example was that after D1, many students still mentioned having trouble knowing when
to use the functions and this allowed me to refer to the flowchart and show that asking the
questions will help their group to use the functions more.
The can-do questions also seemed to be effective. When going through the diagram,
many said that all functions were a challenge and when I asked if they could you use all of the
functions, every student said “no”. This gave me the opportunity to say “Not no, you just can’t
use yet”. This was a good motivational moment. I also noticed that after the D1 reflection, the
students seemed to make a real effort to use the functions in D2. Some comments in the
discussion, such as “that was an interesting question!” and “have we used an "If" question yet?”
especially seemed to exemplify that the students were thinking about the functions during the
discussion.
In lesson 9, I used the same activity as lesson 8, and this time, the students could get into
the reflective discussions smoothly and quickly. Before, it always took time for them to start
reflecting and there was a lot of redundant conversation, but this time they were ready and
started instantly which supports research that introducing new methods requires time and
training (Kohonen 2000, Min 2006).
Some comments were now also showing a deep level of reflection, for example, “How
can we use this [the reporting] phrase?”, “Maybe, I saw on the smartphone that______ “.
However, the reflections had a tendency to become a bit negative, for example, “English is hard”
and “I can’t use many phrases”. I felt that this could this be demotivating and this supports the
contention that a lot of thought has to go into the way that peer reflection activities are structured
by the instructor so that students can have a positive learning experience (Birjandi & Masood
2010).
For lesson 10, I went back to the function-focused style of reflection activity for the new
function of “Different viewpoints” (See appendix 1.3). Some small changes were made based on
the observations in lesson 7. A question specifically requiring the students to remember
examples of function use in their group was added and the example answers were changed to a
gap-fill style to provide a more usable model for the students to structure their reflections.
The students could now get straight into their reflections with minimal problems and
there was increased evidence of ideas that showed deep reflection. These comments gave me
some interesting insights into some of the issues that the students were facing which I otherwise
might not have realized. One interesting reflection was related to a point I mentioned in the
previous class’ written comments for the discussion test. I mentioned that one reason why some
people got low scores for content was that some students took very long turns. As a result, the
student said that one of the bad points of “Different Viewpoints” was that it takes too long to
91
talk about the topics. This showed that the student was relating his reflection to the comments I
had written. It also enlightened me to an idea that I had never considered before and helped me
to give the feedback that talking about the topic for a long time is ok but that there should be
more turn taking so that everyone has a chance to participate. Another student said that they
couldn’t discuss the topics deeply because there were so many topics that they could only
address them in a shallow way. Again, I didn’t expect this and this allowed me to emphasize that
they don’t have to discuss all topics in the textbook and it better discuss a few ideas deeply than
many ideas shallowly. Finally, one student mentioned that “Different Viewpoints” works well
with “If”. This showed me that the students were thinking of connections between the functions.
All of this has taught me that peer reflection can also be a good resource to me as a teacher as it
effectively gives me a window into my students’ minds.
CONCLUSION
In the introduction, three aims for this teaching journal were outlined. As for developing
effective materials, I learned that careful consideration is necessary when implementing peer-
reflection activities. As the literature suggests, I found that it takes time for students to get used
to new activities (Kohonen 2000), and that focused training and scaffolding, such as memory
activation questions, model answers and can-do questions, are useful for helping students to
build the skills to effectively reflect with their peers (Birjandi & Masood 2010, Min 2006).
This is mirrored in the fact that the students initially had difficulties with the peer
reflection activities. However, once the students had become used to the activities, several
benefits started to become apparent. By reflecting with their peers, the students seemed to be
able to gain a deeper understanding of the functions and how they can be integrated to make
deep and fluent discussion, as well as a greater sense of ownership over their learning progress.
Finally, from a teacher perspective, by listening to the students’ reflections I was able to
gain insights into the students thinking that I might not have been aware of otherwise. This
helped me to provide focused teacher-fronted feedback to the students’ individual needs. In this
way, I could reinforce their ideas and further encourage a sense of ownership among the students.
To conclude, this teacher journal has been an interesting learning experience and has
convinced me that peer-reflection activities can be very useful in EDC classes. However, it
should be noted that as I was developing the teaching methodology and materials for the peer-
reflection activities throughout the course, the students were always being confronted with new
materials in every class. In the future, I look forward building on these peer-reflection activities
with a more consistent approach from the start of the course.
REFERENCES
Birjandi, P., Masood, S. (2010). Self-assessment and peer-assessment: A comparative study of
their effect on writing performance and rating accuracy, IJAL 13(1), 23-45.
Brinham, A.D. (2013). Promoting higher incidence of Function Use. New Directions in Teaching
and Learning English Discussion, 1(2), 12-15.
Davies, B. (2012). Comparing the effectiveness of different kinds of self-assessment
questionnaires. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 1(1), 4.93-
4.98.
Kohonen, V. (2000) Student Reflection in Portfolio Assessment: Making Language Learning
More Visible, Babylonia, Retrieved from: http://193.52.249.112/crdp/IMG/pdf/3-
_Portfolio_Assessment_V_Kohonen.pdf
Min, H. (2006). The Effects of Trained Peer Review on EFL Students’ Revision Types and
Writing Quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141.
92
Ian Hurrell
Yoshida, K. (2013). Plurilingualism as a goal in Japan's English education. Paper presented at

the JALT LD20 Exploring Learner Development Conference, Gakushuin University,
Tokyo.
APPENDIX
Development of peer-reflection materials
1.1) Lesson 6 – Paraphrasing – basic design
1. Can you remember an example that your partner paraphrased?

2. What do you think about these ideas? If Yes, For example? If No, Why?
a. Paraphrasing helped to understand my partners’ idea clearly. (Yes/No)
b. Paraphrasing helped to talk about the topics more deeply. (Yes/No)
1.2) Lesson 7 – Reporting information – Simpler questions / Topic question added /

Examples added / Group focus
1. What topics did your group talk about in your discussion?

(EX. We talked about important qualities for sports stars)
2. Do you think reporting made your discussion more interesting? Yes - For example? /
No –Why?
EX) Yes, I think so. For example, Ryo said he read in a magazine that Johnny Depp was paid 300 million
dollars for Pirates of the Caribbean. I think this was very interesting because that is a lot of money! I was
surprised?
1.3) Lesson 10 – Different viewpoints – Examples changed to a gap-fill style / Question

focusing on function use added
1. What topics did your group talk about in your discussion?

(EX. We talked about ________.)
2. What viewpoints did your group talk about in your discussion?

(EX. We talked about using phones on the train from __________ and __________
viewpoints.)
3. Do you think talking about different viewpoints helped your group to talk more deeply
about the topics?
93
Can Motivation Be Disruptive?
Aaron J. James
ABSTRACT
Student motivation is a common concern for the novice and veteran teacher of many subjects
including teaching English as a foreign language (EFL). In this teaching journal I record the
process of identifying a classroom issue regarding motivation and how its particular
manifestation had a potentially negative impact on achieving the course goals. I discuss my
provisions as well as provide some insights from the relevant literature for how to use strategies
to mitigate the fluctuations and differences in levels and types of motivations among learners.
This is particularly germane to a classroom that requires group participation and
interdependence in order to realize beneficial outcomes from the learning process.
INTRODUCTION
Teachers, researchers, and scholars have observed that a lack of proper student motivation in a
language learning environment can present problems with respect to attaining course goals
(Dörnyei, 1998). In particular, if oral language production in a group discussion is identified as a
goal, then lack of motivation is obviously an issue. However, a motivation which is profusely
disruptive in a group discussion can impede attaining course goals as well. Even though a
learner may be functional in a language, if he or she finds the discussion inconsequential and
decides to instead parody the expectation to participate meaningfully, this type of motivation to
detract from the conduct in a discussion can lead to problems in classroom management and in
ensuring that all students gain sufficient and adequate speaking time to express their thoughts
and ideas.
This journal concerns one of my first year, second semester, university EFL classes as the
focus for examining student motivation in the context of a discussion class. The class is a high-
intermediate level relative to the majority of the students in the English Discussion Class (EDC)
program. In the article, I discuss primarily one student and the effect his behavior has on other
students and the class as a whole. For reasons of confidentiality, the student will be referred to as
“Taro”.
Taro was shrewdly disruptive in the discussions beginning after the first few weeks of the
course. The importance of this disruption concerns group cohesion which is important to
establish in these discussion classes due to several factors. One factor is the requirement that
students share their independent ideas about the discussion topics which often necessitates
conveying differing opinions. This requires some courage on the part of the students, so if
disruptive behavior is manifested by a student, it can adversely affect the success in fully
exchanging ideas in the discussions. Furthermore, the students’ opportunity to practice the
communication strategies and formulaic phrases called “functions” that we teach them so they
can organize their thoughts and ideas in a coherent discussion, might be restricted.
DISCUSSION
In my teaching journal between lessons 4 and 9, some disruptive incidents were recorded.
During the first incident in the third lesson, Taro was obviously overusing the target phrase
which was the word “if” to be used to talk about possibilities. He would say a long, somewhat
incoherent opinion (not because he lacked speaking skills, but he was apparently trying to
confound his group mates), then he would ask “Does anyone want to comment?” whereupon he
would quickly answer the question himself by saying “If nothing, why don’t we discuss [topic]?”
94
Aaron J. James
This behavior resulted in a somewhat disjointed and lopsided discussion. Nevertheless, I was
able to give useful feedback to all of the students, as well as assign grades for all of the students’
performance in the discussions for the class session in this the event’s first instance.
The tenor of Taro’s discourse was very obvious in his decision to use the word “if” in any
possible way imaginable that I instantly knew he was being jocular. At the time I just thought it
was due to the rather thin content of language to practice for the lesson. Admittedly, I thought
mainly focusing on using this sole conditional without any further challenges in the lesson might
prove to be beneath the skill level of most of the participants. However, I just decided that the
error was on my behalf in not preparing more challenging material to augment the stated aims of
the lesson.
In lesson 4 the topic was a review of the communication skill, agreeing and disagreeing.
Again, this is obviously a skill the students reviewed not only in the previous semester, but
presumably throughout their secondary education. Taro continued his antics but this time they
were more pronounced. In the first discussion he would feign an attempt to ask a question or
make a statement using “if” by stammering his utterance for an unusually long period of time. I
could have attributed this to a common fluency issue that most EFL students experience during
development, but he would use rather high-level, low frequency words in his utterances, stop
and try to reformulate his statement, and then abandon the attempt only then to say “Does
anyone want to comment?” whereupon his group members would laugh. He would then take this
as a cue to further this behavior and either change the topic needlessly or wait for someone to
utter a shortened comment. He would respond to others by asking for a reason unnecessarily or
another function question. For instance, he would ask “How come?, Why? uh, Why do you think
so?” in a concatenate manner which would elicit another laugh from the group. It was apparent
that he was trying to say only function phrases and incoherent ramblings to “score points”. His
actions prevented others from fully expressing ideas or speaking at all because either his
stammered utterances were so long that students never had a chance to speak, or they laughed
and only replied with curt statements that he either interrupted or were purposely short to
encourage his behavior more.
After the first discussion, I addressed the issue during my feedback. I said, “I heard many
people use ‘if’. For example Taro said ‘if’ 1000 times”. The students chuckled and I laughed
along with them, but I then told Taro, “Please don’t speak so much in the discussion because
other students didn’t have a chance to speak. Try to let everyone practice in the discussion.” He
agreed but in the second discussion he displayed the same behavior. This engendered more
laughter and co-dependent participation from his group. His disruption was so prominent that it
was difficult to focus on grading the performance of the discussion group. After class, I spoke to
him in a very polite and deliberate demeanor. This is an approximation of our dialogue.
Aaron: Taro, can I ask you a question?

Taro : Yes
Aaron: Is this class too easy for you?
Taro : Yes. I am in ESS club and I have discussion every day, so it is a little easy.
Aaron: OK, I understand. I can hear that you are a good English speaker, but you are
disrupting the class. Other students can’t speak in the discussions and I can’t hear
the discussions because you are telling so many jokes.
Taro : Oh.
Aaron: This class is not just a joke.
Taro : OK
Aaron OK, thank you.
95
I highly anticipated the next class to see if this had any effect. I wrote a general note in
my feedback comments for the students on the class website. The following remark is the
comment I wrote.
“Please try to be a little more serious in the discussions. Of course I would like
everyone to have fun, but I can’t help you improve your discussion skills if you are
not participating respectfully. Improving your discussion skills is the purpose of
this class. Please help me to help you.”
I naturally felt perplexed by his behavior because his manner showed a lack of
consideration for the purpose of the class. According to Dörnyei, essential preconditions for
generating an effective motivational environment are “appropriate teacher behaviors and a good
relationship with the students; a pleasant and supportive classroom atmosphere; and a cohesive
learner group with appropriate group norms.” (Dörnyei, 2001 p. 31) I ordinarily spend the first
two weeks of class establishing these environmental elements and it was no different in this class.
Therefore it puzzled me when he decided not to take my direction and continued disrupting the
class. My assessment of him at this point is that he feels the class is ridiculous, and not worth his
best effort or respectful participation.
Observed Changes
In week five, after my chat with him, the student seemed a little contrite and I did not sense that
he was uncomfortable nor did he show any overt anger toward my attempt at correcting his
behavior. He allowed others to speak and his utterances were not as extended. Also, in lesson 6
his behavior in the discussions was not as disruptive as it had been the initial week. Although
Taro’s behavior had seemingly been rectified, I stayed vigilant to perceive any relapse in his
distracting activity.
I had originally attributed the motivation for Taro’s behavior to the content of the lessons.
Therefore, in week six when we practiced paraphrasing, I anticipated that this skill would be
more of a challenge for the class as a whole and thusly I could engage his and their interest in
English a little more. The basis for this expectation is that I have surmised that Taro may be
instrumentally motivated. This is due to his likely “pragmatic and utilitarian reasons” (Ortega,
2009) for studying English. Ortega has further characterized instrumental motivation as being
present when reasons such as getting a better job or pursuing a higher level of education in the
L2 are orientating factors. (Ortega, 2009 p. 173) Additionally, since Taro is in the English
Speaking Society (ESS club), there may be a link between his expectations for this course and
his involvement in extra-curricular English speaking activities. This may be the cause for his
reduced yet continued fascination with using the discussions as a way to engage in disruptive
jokes, rather than meaningful discussions with peers.
In the discussions for lesson 7, Taro did not use the overt manner of extending his
utterances, but he did make gratuitous uses of the target function phrases (reporting information)
and previous function phrases. I had given the instruction to the students to use the previous
week’s function (paraphrasing) to check the meaning of each other’s ideas after a sufficient
amount of information had been reported. One minute into the discussion, he asked a student
who was making a statement about the topic, which was about important qualities needed to
become famous, “Where did you hear about that?” to which the original speaker replied, “I
watched it on TV”. Taro’s response was, “Do you mean you watched that information on TV?”
whereupon the group started to laugh. So as can be understood in this example, he was
96
Aaron J. James
continuing his behavior although more subtly. At the time I was unsure if he was just trying to
score points or if my other suspicions are correct, namely that he was using the class as a
platform for gaining attention by lampooning the class content and format due to his perception
that the content is too simplistic for him.
Causes for Behavior Change

During the week when the first incident occurred, I gave Taro the lowest grades possible on his
language usage. I think my dual remedy of speaking to him and giving a low grade for his
discussion score during the week of the first disruption (week 4) has made a slight impact on his
outlook and desire to pass the class. Even though by lesson 7 he was still displaying a minute
amount of the behavior he exhibited before, it was not to the same degree. So, my plan at this
point was to keep setting high expectations and monitoring his behavior. It should be noted that I
delayed implementing a provision for one week because I assumed the original incident would
be an isolated occurrence. Unfortunately, it was not. Therefore, I remained cognizant of the
possibility that after the second of three discussion tests he would revert because most of the
grades will have been entered and his passing grade will be assured.
CONCLUSION
Taro’s performance in the test confirmed my previous suspicions that he would simply do what
was necessary to pass. Taro fulfilled the quantitative requirement for the test by uttering an
allotment of function phrases, but he ceased verbal participation at the midpoint of the 16 minute
time limit. I think Taro and his involvement in the ESS club and other English language learning
environments has affected his manner of involvement in EDC. I suspect he is more motivated to
use English as a tool for personal advancement rather than to be involved in a social manner
with English speakers in general. I concluded from a reading of Dornyei (2001) that describing
the purpose of the discussions and how these functions apply to the goals of the class overall
would be quite valuable. Additionally, finding out the needs and goals of the learners would be
useful. For example by “using needs analysis techniques” I could ask learners “which skills they
consider important and what language related goals they have” (Dornyei, 2001). After taking
these steps and obtaining this information from the outset of the course, I could make an
agreement with learners to infuse their interests and goals in tasks and activities. These
implementations would help learners like Taro see more value in challenging his own perceived
ability, instead of viewing the EDC as a necessary but unsatisfying obstacle to their ultimate
aims.
REFERENCES
Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language teaching,
31(3), 117-135.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Ortega, L. (2009). Second language acquisition. Hodder education.
97
An Attempt to Help an Introverted Student
to Join a Group Discussion
Yurika Kambe
ABSTRACT
The observation focuses on how an introverted student could develop his performance in a group
discussion through self-evaluation and group scaffolding activities. The target student did not
use function phrases in group discussions, yet the student was confident in using such phrases in
pair activities. Post observation, it seemed that a group scaffolding activity would coax the
introverted student into using function phrases in a group discussion.
INTRODUCTION
This journal records the observation of a male student in a Level 4 English discussion class
made in a reflective teaching journal kept over the course of a semester. One student was
identified as a target student (TS) because he was extremely shy in a group of peers and has
displayed minimal social, friendly and communicative characteristics in peer activities. From
Week 2 to 4, I used controlled and semi-controlled activities so that TS could recognize and take
responsibility for his lack of group involvement and thus join group discussions as a speaker and
a listener. By Week 5, TS managed to state his opinions only when he was asked questions in
extended discussions. Interestingly, his utterances often consisted of at least two clauses and TS
chose appropriate words to precisely express his ideas. Also, he was capable of correcting
himself autonomously; for example, “I taked, ah… I took a boat when I travelled in Vietnam.”
However, when he joined a group discussion, he became passive again. He was silent as a statue
unless other students asked him questions. This observation implies his lack of communication
in group discussions is not caused by a deficient linguistic knowledge of English.
The English Discussion Course (EDC) at Rikkyo University demands students to have a
sixteen-minute discussion where three or four participants are expected to exchange opinions in
a balanced, interactive and construed way (cf. Hurling (2013)). To meet the course requirement,
TS must join a group discussion as a speaker and as a listener. Fundamentally, he has to use
function phrases assigned every week in a lesson regardless of the anxiety he faces (for learners’
anxiety, refer to Brown and Yule (1986) and Brown (2000)). Thus, the observation mainly
consists of how often TS could use function phrases each week.
The observation had two phases. The first phase ran from Week 6 to 8 and it examined
how successful he was in using function phrases in D1 and D2. It also focused on how self-
evaluation and teacher-fronted feedback would help him to set up his individual goals for further
development of his performance. The second phase ran from Week 10 to 12. It, again, observes
the frequency of use of function phrases in discussions. The observation features how group
scaffolding activities and rapport with peers encouraged him to interact in a group discussion.
DISCUSSION
Initial Performance and Changes from Week 6 to Week 9
Following Week 5, TS was introverted and displayed little eye contact with others. Before
lessons, he always played computer games. For Test 1 carried out in Week 5, he scored 9 out of
25. The results of Test 1 are shown in Table 1 below along with the results of Tests 2 and 3:
98
Yurika Kambe
Content Communication Questions Function Language Total Score
Test 1 2/5 2/5 0/5 0/5 5/5 9/25

(Week 5)
Test 2 5/5 4/5 2/5 4/5 5/5 20/25

(Week 9)
Test 3 5/5 3/5 0/5 0/53 5/5 13/25

(Week 13)
Table 1: Distribution of Test Scores
The test scores from Table 1 indicate that TS played only a speaker role, because he got
no scores for asking questions and got lower scores for communication (reactions,
agree/disagreeing, negotiating meaning). He did not use function phrases or contributed to the
discussion as a listener. Thus, what could be done to enable him to be a successful speaker and
listener in a group discussion?
One possible means of promoting students’ success in discussion might be giving them
appropriate feedback. As argued in literature, giving proper feedback helps learners to develop
their language skills. Lantolf (2000) says that there are mainly four styles of feedback; i)
teacher-fronted (T-F), ii) student-to-student (S-S), iii) self reflective, iv) any combination of the
above. For my lessons, I applied a combination of T-F and Self reflective feedback. Such
feedback was used because self-reflection allows learners to set their individual goals, which
may foster students’ self-achievement. Lantolf (2000) also mentions it a great way to increase
learners’ autonomy and such feedback would raise awareness of their own use of language in a
way that might not be possible in previous feedback (I asked students to self-evaluate about their
use of function phrases solely in this observation. Score 1 means students use one function
phrase. Score 2 means they use 2 function phrases. Highest score in the self-evaluation for Week
7 is three, Week 8-9 is 4, Week 10 is 5, Week 11-13 is 6. Self-reflective feedback appeared to be
an appropriate method to use for TS, especially when considering his shy nature. When I
arranged S-S feedback after D1 and D2 during Weeks 2 to 4, TS did not give any feedback to his
associates, which caused long silences to occur in the group interaction.1 As he did not speak in
the discussion, his peers found it impossible to give him feedback, which led him to lose his
confidence. As a result, I gave T-F feedback which complemented any feedback that went
unnoticed during S-S feedback. T-F feedback focused on performance as a group, and elicited
positive examples from students’ utterances. Here, let us focus on Table 2 illustrating how TS
evaluated his own performance from Week 6 to 9:
Week6 Week7 Week8 Week9 Week10 Week11 Week12 Week13
D1 Absent 0 1 3 0 1 1 2
D2 Absent 1 0 2 0 5 1 0
Table 2: Self-Evaluation on Function Phrase Usage
Analysis of Table 2 concludes that TS could not use multiple function phrases in Week 7
and 8. He made an effort to express his opinions, although he could use the single function
phrase either in D1, or, in D2.2 As mentioned above, TS was passive and less interactive with
peers before Week 5. Although he scored 0 or 1 in self-evaluation in Week 7 and 8, his positive
99
change in discussions can be noteworthy. This might be related to a pair work prior to D1 and
D2. I paired TS with a strong female student. She encouraged TS to use the function phrase.
Beside her encouragement, I incorporated comments from TS into my T-F feedback, attempting
to let him feel confident before D1. But, no improvement was observed.
In Week 9, TS attempted the second discussion test after D1 and D2. In these discussions,
I paired him with strong students and used as much of his comments as I could when giving T-F
feedback. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, TS could use multiple phrases and played both speaker
and listener roles in the group discussion. It should be noted that in Test 2, TS constantly
received positive reactions constantly from other group participants (e.g., That’s interesting!,
Wow! Good! Good!). In addition, not only TS but also the other students were responsible for the
running of group discussion as a speaker and a listener. In other words, every participant should
use speaker-side phrases like I heard that and listener-side phrases like Where did you hear that?.
At this stage, I was unsure whether the combination of self-evaluation and T-F feedback
triggered the improvement observed in Week 9, or if it was something else. As his previous self-
evaluation scores in Week 7 and 8 were low, it meant TS had not yet reached achievable goals in
each group discussion by self-evaluating performance. It may be said that when quiet, and
introverted students like TS try self-evaluation, they find they have too many areas and tasks to
cover after the self-reflection which could lead them to losing their confidence. Such a discovery
through self-evaluation might have discouraged him from participating in a group discussion.
This reminds us of an insight from Heine and Kitayama (2001), which claims that self-
evaluation might not be the best, or be the only way to develop and motivate Japanese learners
of English. After he had developed a rapport with peers in Week 9, he came to use multiple
function phrases. It seemed that peer rapport might let TS use function phrases not only in paired
activities in practice, but also in D1 and D2. Accordingly, peer interaction and collaborative
teamwork observed in Week 9 enabled me to shift my focus onto activities between D1 and D2
from Week 10 to 13. The next section features how a group scaffolding activities helped TS to
use function phrases in a group discussion.
Changes from Week 10 to Week 13

A new peer scaffolding activity between D1 to D2 was introduced in lessons from Week 10. In
the activity, every student was equipped with a listener or speaker card which required them to
use particular function phrases/(dis)agreeing phrases/follow-up questions, etc. Students have to
complete their roles in a group of three or four within three or four minutes. Initially, listener
cards are given to talkative students and they had brush-up their listener skills mainly in the
activity. On the other hand, speaker cards were assigned to relatively quiet students like TS,
which encouraged them to contribute to the discussion as a speaker. The activity also starts from
speaker side to let quiet students to initiate group discussions. When they completed the activity,
they switched cards and tried a different role in the group. They were allowed to recycle topics
and ideas. The intention of the activity was to reinforce students’ language use without
generating new ideas on topics. This activity also aims to foster listener/speaker responsibility as
a group discussant. My expectation was that TS would use function phrases as a speaker or
listener in a group discussion. With this in mind, let us refer back to Table 1 and 2.
In Week 10, TS was not able to use function phrases at all. However, he was interactive
and shared his ideas as a speaker before other students asked him questions. He used questions
as a listener in D1 and D2. It was a surprising observation, because he was separated from strong
students and had less peer support in each discussion. In Week 11 and 12, TS started to use one
or two function phrases in D1 and D2. In addition, he joined the discussion voluntarily just as he
did in Week 10, which was a big contrast to his behavior during Weeks 1 to 8. A reason for the
100
Yurika Kambe
break might be that TS had learnt how to join a discussion as a speaker and as a listener. It is
possible that his attitude changed through group scaffolding activities. Another reason for the
improvement might be not only TS but also fellow students were gradually developing
responsibilities of speakers and listeners in a discussion. Again, that may be also induced by
group scaffolding activities.4
Table 1 and 2 shows that in Week 13, TS could use function phrases in D1, while he
could not in D2 and Test 3. This may have been because in D2, all the students except TS were
strong and talkative, and they did not consider equal participation. Although I gave teacher-
fronted feedback stating that equal participation is important in a discussion, the following factor
may have caused him use less function phrases in the subsequent test. In the test, the students
spent five to six minutes negotiating meaning of vocabulary to convey all-English discussion. As
they used six minutes for negotiation of meaning of words in a sixteen-minute test, they had
only ten minutes to discuss the topic. This prevented all participants from talking about the topic
deeply in the limited time (technically each student had only two to three minutes to use six
function phrases), which caused less function use among the participants. This may be related to
a nature of EDC course which demands students to carry out 100% English discussion. On the
other hand, to satisfy other criteria of EDC discussion, students should use more function
phrases and make use of other communicative skills.
An alternative activity should be introduced into students to solve the conflicts
mentioned above and to let every student use function phrases successfully; for example,
introducing the scaffolding activity from Week 2 to instill the idea that each participant has
responsibility as a speaker or a listener. Another approach might be encouraging students to
constantly react to each other, because peer rapport from strong students helped to make shy
students like TS confident and comfortable in a group discussion (this insight follows an
argument of Young D. J. (1991), Tsui (1996), Oxford (2000), etc.). Furthermore, it would be
necessary to find a way to help students (especially Level 4 students) when they spend too much
time in negotiating meaning of vocabulary and they had less time to share contents and use
function phrases. It has been often observed that Level 4 students spend too much time in
negotiating word meanings, where the lack of time left for group discussions. If we could have
vocabulary aids, it would prevent long discussions on negotiating word meanings and enable
students to focus on the use of function phrases. As an example of vocabulary aids, I sometimes
make a list of difficult words on board. Students can refer back to it and select appropriate words
quickly. It sometimes gives students sufficient time to be able to discuss topics smoothly and in
great depths.
CONCLUSION
The observation focused on an introverted and shy student in a Level 4 English discussion class.
The target student carried out self-evaluation and received teacher-fronted feedback from Week
5, and there was little improvement observed in his performance from the following week. On
the other hand, it seems that peer interaction and group scaffolding activities from Week 9 had a
more positive impact on his discussion skills. However, it was observed that the long negotiation
of meaning between students sometimes prevents not only TS but also other students to use
function phrases in the discussion. It would be beneficial to investigate when it is best to
introduce group scaffolding activity in an English language course. Again, use of vocabulary
aids to help students to have time to discuss topics deeply will be taken into consideration in
future observations.
101
NOTES
1
It is often said that Japanese learners do not prefer peer interaction (cf. Ellis (1991)).
2
Table 2 indicates that TS didn’t use multiple function phrases in a discussion. I found the same
result in my classroom notes. However, I could see him acting as a speaker voluntarily in
discussions; for example, he could use “Can I make a comment? In my opinion,…..It’s mainly
because….”.
3
TS could use one phrase, which is scored “zero” in an EDC test evaluation.
4
I used the same group scaffolding activity to Level 3 students to make a balance between a very
dominant student and other students. In their discussion, one student often dominated the
discussion and mainly used speaker phrases. After using scaffolding activities, students learned
speaker/listener responsibilities and everyone could score well-balanced points in Week 13 test.
That may mean that the scaffolding activity helps not only students like TS who is quiet and
introverted but also other students who are fairly talkative or only use speaker or listener
function phrases.
REFERENCES
Brown, H.D. (2000) Principle of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Person
Education.
Brown, G., and G. Yule (1983). Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge; Cambridge
University Press.
Ellis, R. (1991) Communicative Competence and the Japanese Learner. JALT Journal 13 (02).
103-130.
Heine, S., Kitayama, S., & Lehman, D. R. (2001). Cultural differences in self-evaluation:
Japanese Readily Accept Negative Self-Relevant Information. Journal of Cross- Cultural
Psychology 32 (4), 434-443.
Hurling, S. (2013) Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English
Discussion (1), 1-2.
Lantolf, J.P. (ed.) (2000) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Oxford, R.L. (1999) Anxiety and the Language Learner: New Insights. J. Arnold (ed.) Affect in
Language Learning. 58-67.
Tsui, A. B. M. (1996) “Reticence and Anxiety in Second Language Learning,” K.M. Bailey and
D. Nunan (eds.) Voices from the Language Classroom; Qualitative Research in Second
Language Education. 145-167. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Young, D. J. (1991) “Creating a Low-Anxiety Classroom Environment: What does language
anxiety research suggest?” The Modern Language Journal 75-4. 426-439.
102
Language Anxiety, Tension, and the Fashioning of L2 Selves
Nicholas Kasparek
ABSTRACT
This reflection paper explores the connections between observations of two “shy” students in
different classes and the literature on learner anxiety, willingness to communicate, and L2
identity. Taking the influential concept of language anxiety as a starting point, it considers
possible effects of classroom atmosphere and the students’ perceived competence on their
performance. The concepts of learners’ willingness to communicate and positive construction of
L2 selves are then considered both as potentially better goals than anxiety reduction and as
possible approaches to reducing debilitative anxiety while increasing euphoric tension.
INTRODUCTION
Language anxiety is a contentious concept, but it seems to provide a name for something that
many have experienced or observed as language learners and teachers. In the EDC program,
teachers have written about students who despite seeming outgoing in Japanese communication
before class, became reticent, frustrated, and anxious in English (Singh, 2013; Yamauchi, 2013),
and quantitative studies among other Japanese university students have found that half or more
“suffered from some level of anxiety” in their English classes (Andrade & Williams, 2009, p. 5).
Research has shown that this anxiety is best not thought of as simply a manifestation of a
general “trait anxiety”; rather than an element of one’s enduring personality, it is a “state anxiety”
induced in particular situations (Singh, 2013; Trang, 2012). Additionally, while some have
argued that some of this anxiety can facilitate second language acquisition by fostering greater
motivation (Spielmann & Radnofsky, 2001), anxiety is most often seen as debilitative (Andrade
& Williams, 2009; Horwitz, 2010; and Trang, 2012).
Horwitz (2000) suggests a helpful analogy to illustrate her influential conceptualization of
this debilitative language anxiety, namely, wearing unflattering clothing, like speaking in a
foreign language, makes us “feel that we are presenting a less positive version of ourselves to the
world than we normally do,” and it is precisely “this disparity between how we see ourselves
and how we think others see us” that is the fundamental source of language anxiety (p. 258).
Poststructuralist second language acquisition (SLA) theory suggests that speaking in a second
language (L2) is a process fraught with even greater potential tension. As Norton (2000) notes,
“When language learners speak, they are not only exchanging information with target language
speakers, but they are constantly organizing and reorganizing a sense of who they are and how
they relate to the social world” (p. 11, cited in Swain & Deters, 2007, p. 827). In other words,
attempting L2 communication may not simply reveal a gap between the presented self and the
imagined true self it obscures, but risk a loss or transformation of this self; to modify the old
saying, the L2 clothes (re)make the (wo)man. Yet to take the analogy a little further still, as with
a new outfit, there is also potential for excitement, or “euphoric tension,” with the transformation
and fashioning of a new self that the clothes can enable (Spielmann & Radnofsky, 2001).
In this article, I reflect on my observations of two students in two discussion classes who
first seemed simply “shy,” not only in English but also in Japanese, but whose behavior seems
better explained in terms of anxiety and tension and these elements’ connection to students’
willingness to communicate (WTC). Through reflection on their and other students’ behavior, I
found that I was giving excessive weight to the influence of a supposed relatively fixed
personality on classroom behavior, when it would be more productive to think in terms of
affective states and evolving identities. These reflections illustrate some of the interplay among
103
personality, environmental, and confidence factors in language anxiety and how this influences
student behavior, and suggest that teachers attend to students’ co-construction of L2 selves.
DISCUSSION
Initial Observations
One lower-intermediate level class seemed to present itself in the first week as problematic, and
one quiet student, whom I will call Keiko, especially worried me. I sensed an odd tension in the
atmosphere and early activities and discussions were marked by awkward silences. I initially
interpreted this as a kind of student resistance and negative attitude toward the class stemming
from the students’ low English proficiency and motivation, and more troublingly, this seemed
even to extend to indifference toward their classmates. Keiko seemed proficient in English, but
her verbal participation was limited and inconsistent in this atmosphere. One very friendly
higher-intermediate class provided a good contrast to Keiko’s, especially because it also had one
especially quiet student, whom I will call Nobuko. Like Keiko, even though she had apparent
proficiency, Nobuko spoke rarely and haltingly, sometimes even trembling.
I began my focused observations in the fifth week of the course, yet it was already
apparent that there had already been some changes in the two students’ behavior. In the lower-
intermediate class, Keiko had begun speaking significantly more and performing well with each
classes’ target phrases, though she still spoke quietly and sporadically. Meanwhile, in the upper-
intermediate class, Nobuko remained quiet, though she continued to show signs of nonverbal
engagement. This difference was reflected in the first discussion test scores. Keiko participated
actively and met all the criteria to earn a high score, while Nobuko scored significantly lower
than her classmates, primarily because she rarely interjected in her group’s lively discussion.
Classroom Atmosphere
Differences in classroom dynamics and context seemed salient as I observed different levels of
change between Keiko’s and Nobuko’s performance, but in unexpected ways. In the lower-level
class, Keiko grew more comfortable talking with her classmates as the mood warmed, and
pauses in her group’s discussions gave her many opportunities to join it. Her classmates often
needed help expressing their ideas, and they welcomed her follow-up questions and comments.
Meanwhile in the consistently boisterous higher-level class, Nobuko’s classmates would often
get too caught up in the excitement of the discussion and forget to include her. The class
certainly had a fun and pleasant atmosphere, and one that Nobuko also seemed to enjoy, but it
was a context that created few openings for Nobuko to do much more than laugh and nod along.
Concerned about creating a warm, safe, and cooperative classroom atmosphere, I tried different
strategies for introductory comments, activities, and feedback to reduce student anxiety in both
classes.
My initial impressions of Keiko’s class had dramatically changed by the seventh week;
they were now positive about participating, responding to my instructions and feedback, and
working together. In addition to the use of humor, one potential cause of this change in general
classroom atmosphere in Keiko’s class was the greater emphasis I had begun placing on highly
structured activities. While I had been concerned about overly limiting student output, many
students in this class seemed to welcome the challenge of the puzzle of molding their ideas and
questions to various prompts and A-B dialogue structures. What I had taken as resistance now
seemed better explained as anxiety about the ambiguity and openness of the tasks (Oxford,
1999). While students in other classes often ignored rigid prompts so they could say their
original ideas and then often used my suggestions more naturalistically at other points in
discussion preparation activities, these students seem to draw upon the structure to generate
104
Nicholas Kasparek
interesting ideas. This corresponds to Phillips’s (1999) suggestion that cued-response activities
requiring some creativity can reduce anxiety. Moreover, it connects to Spielmann and
Radnofsky’s (2001) concept of “cognitive euphoric tension.” These students were cognitively
challenged, but this actually led to a reduction of “affective dysphoric tension.” While less
closure-oriented with tasks and thus less directly affected by this change in task structure, Keiko
grew more comfortable and relaxed thanks to this general shift in classroom atmosphere.
Meanwhile, the general atmosphere had less room for improvement in Nobuko’s class. I
began to emphasize in my feedback the need for balance in discussions and encouraged
everyone to join the discussion boldly whenever they have a comment. Perhaps reflecting
greater comfort with her classmates and responding to my encouragement, Nobuko often asked
“Can I start?” and contributed the first ideas in her group discussions, drawing upon the
preparation activities. However, after these initial comments, she mostly added only quiet
reactions and a few halting comments. Her classmates paused at times, seeming to hold
themselves back. They gently asked her some follow-up questions, and perhaps as a way of
further decreasing anxiety-producing pressure and co-constructing a different form of
participation for shy classmates (see Ewald 2008), they posed many questions to the entire group.
Nobuko sometimes answered these open questions, remarking once that she does not
want to copy celebrities, but wants to “follow [her] own style.” This independence showed in her
interactions in the classroom before and after class, as well as her self-positioning in class. She
seemed to prefer remaining on the periphery of groups, even physically, such as when she stood
by the door listening and smiling as her classmates chatted in Japanese after week 9’s class. It
was surprising, then, when I noticed her chatting in Japanese before class in week 13, especially
since she was doing most of the speaking while one classmate listened supportively. She seemed
to be warming herself up for active participation in the course’s final discussion test that day.
Thus, as with Keiko’s class, the more relaxed classroom atmosphere does seem to have
eventually reduced some of the debilitative anxiety that Nobuko had been experiencing. Yet
even in the final and very relaxed discussion in week 14, in which Nobuko posed a fun question
about amusement parks to the group and spoke up to share several comments on this and other
topics, her hands were often shaking as she spoke.
Furthermore, although both Keiko and Nobuko participated progressively more on
average as the semester advanced and the classroom atmosphere generally became less anxious,
stressful situations occasionally arose that reduced their participation. This was especially true
for Keiko, who was grouped in week 9 with a classmate who tended to seek attention, dominate
discussions, and close off to ideas different from his own. Likewise, Nobuko was more
comfortable with certain classmates than others, though everyone was supportive and inclusive.
I am convinced that Nobuko and Keiko were affected by the classroom atmosphere, but
it is equally clear that this factor alone does not go far in explaining the changes and lack of
changes in their behavior. If this had been the primary determinant, then Nobuko would have
been expected to experience less debilitative anxiety in the more consistently relaxed
atmosphere; however, it was Keiko who grew more comfortable speaking in small-group
discussions. It might still be possible to ascribe this difference to the enduring personality trait of
“shyness,” as Nobuko might be somehow more deeply shy than Keiko. But it seems more
productive to turn next to another social, transient factor: state perceived competence.
State Perceived Competence

Another factor suggested by the literature on language anxiety is learners’ situational perceived
proficiency (MacIntyre, Noels, & Clément, 1997), and this also emerged in my own reflections
on Keiko’s and Nobuko’s classroom behavior. It was soon apparent that Keiko made her group’s
105
discussions smoother and more interesting, despite her seemingly “natural” quietness. Once she
began speaking, she seemed to get into the flow of fluent output. Early in my observations, she
emerged as one of the strongest students in the class in terms of English proficiency. In contrast,
Nobuko seemed not only to have difficulty speaking up, but also to struggle to express her ideas.
She seemed to exhibit a distinctly lower level of English proficiency than her classmates; even
when others asked her questions, she seemed to have trouble processing them and answering
clearly, breaking the flow of discussions. In week 7, I began to wonder if her apparent shyness
was simply a product of poor English language skills, and that I had somehow missed this before.
However, through continued observation and further reading on language anxiety, I
began to see that a focus on some “objective” language proficiency measure was primarily
important to their WTC only insofar as it influenced the learners’ self-evaluation of their own
proficiency. In other words, it was not communicative competence per se, but the L2 confidence
that it fosters (or inhibits) and the “state communicative self-confidence” that this in turn
engenders (MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1998). Although I was unable to gain a real
understanding of Keiko’s and Nobuko’s private subjective experiences and perceptions, through
my observations of their behavior, I could conjecture that Keiko received a great deal of positive
reinforcement about her communicative competence, while Nobuko was often frustrated by the
inarticulateness of her comments. Thus, although Nobuko’s classmates were often actually more
supportive than Keiko’s and created a friendlier and more relaxed atmosphere, and it seemed
that Nobuko’s English language skills were probably objectively better than Keiko’s, Nobuko
must have begun to compare herself negatively with her seemingly more capable classmates.
While Keiko’s confidence increased and anxiety dropped quickly, Nobuko seemed to
relax in class only until she attempted L2 use in group discussions. At this point, it seems safe to
assume that the classroom atmosphere was far less salient than Nobuko’s lack of state
communicative self-confidence, and each unsatisfying performance led to less perceived
competence and more anxiety about revealing this lack of competence to classmates she had
come to care about. Indeed, in the final week, Nobuko reflected on her performance throughout
the semester, telling her partner that she often confuses Russian and English words when she
wants to comment, leading to hesitation. She expressed worry that the wrong language would
come out, which certainly suggests a low level of confidence in her ability to communicate in
English, especially in such high-paced discussions.
Willingness to Communicate and L2 Selves

Thus far, these reflections have yielded fairly obvious, though important considerations about
“quiet” and “anxious” students: the general atmosphere affects anxiety in limited ways and
reduced confidence leads to more anxiety. Language anxiety is therefore far from determined by
personality, as research on language anxiety has shown (Trang, 2012). Indeed in observations, I
noticed something interesting about Nobuko’s situational willingness to communicate. While
she rarely spoke up in L1 or L2 interactions with her classmates before and after class, she
expressed a willingness to talk with me in English before class. She was often the first to arrive,
and we chatted while I set up. She could have easily avoided this interaction, but she chose to
come early and discuss complex topics with me. Likewise, she had high WTC in pair work; it
was only in group discussions that she remained quiet, but engaged. By contrast, in Keiko’s case,
there was broader development of WTC; Nobuko might also have achieved more WTC in group
contexts if more had been attempted to change the class’s social context and her role in it.
It nonetheless remains tempting for both teachers and students to consider shyness a trait.
Indeed, Ewald (2008) found that students were more accommodating of shy classmates
regarding participation expectations in group work than teachers; the shyness of students like
106
Nicholas Kasparek
Nobuko becomes socially “real” for teachers and students alike. This reality is helpfully
addressed by the WTC model. In this model, “personality” forms part of the base level of WTC.
As the authors emphasize, this placement at the bottom of the pyramid gives it an important
enduring role, but it is a role mediated by many layers of other more immediate factors, which
may appear “trait-like” in that some patterns are relatively consistent over time (MacIntyre,
Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1998, p. 549).
The WTC model thus suggests that the more enduring variables involved in one’s
willingness to communicate are the least directly connected to L2 use, while the more situated
and subjective elements are most immediate (ibid, p. 547). For instance, “state perceived
competence” and “state anxiety” are elements of “state communicative self-confidence” (ibid, p.
549), which is only partly influenced by one’s more general and enduring confidence. And even
this is only indirectly influenced by general personality. Teachers should therefore guard against
unconsciously forming different expectations for quiet students. As MacIntyre, Clément,
Dörnyei, & Noels (1998) argue, “The ultimate goal of the learning process should be to
engender in language students the willingness to seek out communication opportunities and the
willingness actually to communicate in them” (p. 547). And this is the goal for all students, even
if students themselves hold strong assumptions about what can be expected of shy students.
The concept of L2 selves pushes the WTC model and its goal further and suggests how
teachers and learners can extend and increase all learners’ WTC. While the WTC model
considers its base layers, including personality, “stable, enduring influences” (ibid, p. 547), a
more sociocultural-influenced model of L2 selves insists that these identities are also evolving in
social contexts (Swain & Deters, 2007). Learners are constantly negotiating their identities, as
they are constructed through communication, social interaction, and reinterpretation. Just as one
cannot simply translate L1 comments into an L2, one’s L2 identity is not “a mere transposition
of one’s L1 self” (Spielmann & Radnofsky, 2001, p. 267).
Yet many of my students expressed an expectation of this direct transposition. In the
final week of the course, many students reacted to a prompt about differences between their
personalities when they speak in Japanese and when they speak in English. Responses were
mixed with some students claiming no change and some saying that they were actually less shy
when speaking English, but a large majority, including Nobuko and Keiko, said that they were
even shyer. This was usually expressed in terms of frustration at unmet expectations of saying
what they want to in English. Some went as far as to say that they were “not clever” in English.
While these expressions of frustration were not entirely unexpected, it felt as though I had just
scratched the surface of something that had inhibited a large number of my students’
development of WTC.
In contrast, some students said that they did not really like speaking in Japanese, but that
they enjoyed speaking in English; and some said that they liked communicating in both
languages, even though it is different. One student expressed her disassociation of her L1 and L2
selves, explaining that she “can just say anything in English because it’s not the real me.”
Reflecting on this now, I think that more attention to all the students’ L2 selves as real, but
potentially different, could have led to more development of these identities and an associated
increase in WTC. For students who identify and are identified as shy in their L1 especially, such
as Keiko and Nobuko, this could foster the euphoric tension of an exciting transformation.
CONCLUSION
In the course of my observations and reflections on two of my “shyest” students’ behavior, it
became clear that language anxiety and tension influence less anxious students as well. The
implications of these reflections thus extend to teacher sensitivities, attitudes, and practices for
107
all learners, especially in programs that demand a great deal of L2 output. Although EDC classes
have many design elements that should reduce anxiety for many students, including support with
conversational gambits, pair work, preparation, and small-group discussions (Phillips, 1999;
Singh, 2013), it is important to remember that this is not sufficient for all learners and different
elements may actually increase frustrations for some students with different expectations (Saint
Léger & Storch, 2009; Spielmann & Radnofsky, 2001). Meanwhile, it is important not to
disregard the social reality of personality and the deliberate (re)construction of L2 selves.
These reflections thus suggest a number of implications for further research and potential
strategies to influence student performance. First, although fostering a low-anxiety classroom
environment through humor and varied task structures such as cued-response activities was
observed to be helpful for quiet students, a relaxed classroom atmosphere seems insufficient to
foster learners’ willingness to communicate. Moreover, while this did not arise in my
observations, Spielmann and Radnofsky (2001) warn that students react negatively to what they
perceive as teachers’ “complacency” and “low expectations” (p. 271). Maintaining high
performance expectations should therefore accompany anxiety-reduction strategies.
For instance, I could have enhanced the use of humor by encouraging students to play
even more with the topics, perspectives, and language in order to make the discussions
simultaneously more comfortable and more creatively demanding. Likewise, while emphasizing
the value of balanced discussions and encouraging participation was effective, it might have
been more so if I had also given feedback on the students’ accommodation strategy of opening
more challenging questions to everyone rather than keeping the nerve-wracking spotlight on the
speaker. The success of adding more structure to activities for Keiko’s class could also have
been extended by acknowledging the challenge of constructing responses in a specific format
and emphasizing this as a chance for students to show their creativity, like poets expressing
original ideas through rigid conventions. All of these strategies would reassure students that
anxiety is normal, but that they have the agency to transform it into euphoric tension. A more
promising strategy might then be to address anxiety and tension directly with students and be
sensitive to its powerful effects on their performance, rather than develop subtle background
strategies to minimize tense situations.
Extending this, further research could focus on consciously promote the construction of
students’ clever and outgoing L2 selves with a high level of WTC. These include questions
about fostering play in English and creating more opportunities for students to show their
creativity, critical thinking, and intellectual engagement in their L2 identities. Research concerns
would then move beyond a narrow focus on language anxiety to encompass the issue of
promoting cognitive and affective euphoric tension for all students.
Equally, it seems helpful to create outlets for students’ frustrations and concerns about
their L2 communicative competence. Students’ subjective experiences and perceptions may exist
in a kind of black box, but this does not preclude opening conversations about them. These
conversations with me and their classmates might encourage more realistic expectations and
self-evaluations, reduce the sense of competition about proficiency levels, mitigate the negative
effects of frustration, and lead to greater state communicative self-confidence. In the final week,
students seemed to appreciate the opportunity to open up about their struggles and commiserate
about frustrations. If this had come earlier, it might have helped students share strategies and
reduce fears of embarrassment about sounding less intelligent in English.
Discussion classes in an L2 seem unavoidably fraught with tension, and both language
anxiety and perceived personality traits such as shyness are major components of this. Taking
Horwitz’s metaphor of L2 use as the donning of a different outfit, the L2 discussion class
becomes a weekly fashion show, where learners also fashion themselves. Learners are pushed to
108
Nicholas Kasparek
“try on the clothes” of this other language in front of their classmates and teacher in every class,
and each week the outfit changes a little with changes in topics, skills, and other factors. Over
time, these communally designed outfits in turn come to define who the learners are in the L2,
both to themselves and to others. Thinking in these terms suggests a continual need for research
into attending tension and identity and investigating strategies to make this process more
exciting and fun than frightening and frustrating, while remaining intellectually challenging.
REFERENCES
Andrade, M. & Williams, K. (2009). Foreign language learning anxiety in Japanese EFL
university classes: Physical, emotional, expressive, and verbal reactions. Sophia Junior
College Faculty Journal, 29, 1–24.
Ewald, J. (2008). The assumption of participation in small group work: An investigation of L2
teachers’ and learners’ expectations. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 16, 151–174.
Horwitz, E. K. (2000). It ain’t over ‘til it’s over: On foreign language anxiety, first language
deficits, and the confounding of variables. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 256–259.
Horwitz, E. K. (2010). Research timeline: Foreign and second language anxiety. Language
Teaching, 43, 154–167.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness
to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The
Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
MacIntyre, P.D., Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second language
proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47, 265–287.
Oxford, R. L. (1999). “Style wars” as a source of anxiety in language classrooms. In D. J. Young
(Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to
creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp. 216–237). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill
College.
Phillips, E. M. (1999). Decreasing language anxiety: Practical techniques for oral activities. In D.
J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical
guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp. 124–143). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill College.
Saint Léger (de), D., & Storch, N. (2009). Learners’ perceptions and attitudes: Implications for
willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom. System, 37, 269–285.
Singh, S. (2013). An examination of foreign language anxiety in the EDC program. New
Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 1(2), 26–30.
Spielmann, G., & Radnofsky, M. L. (2001). Learning language under tension: New directions
from a qualitative study. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 259–278.
Swain, M. & Deters, P. (2007). “New” mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. The
Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 820–836.
Trang, T. T. T. (2012). A review of Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope’s theory of foreign language
anxiety and the challenges to the theory. English Language Teaching, 5(1), 69–75.
Yamauchi, K. (2013). Support for reticent learners and L2 identity. New Directions in Teaching
and Learning English Discussion, 1(2), 45–49.
109
Targeting and Teaching Appropriate Vocabulary: Considering
emergence and context
Robert J. Lowe
ABSTRACT
This paper describes how vocabulary was targeted and taught in several English discussion
classes in Rikkyo University’s EDC program. The paper first describes the context of the lessons
and the limitations on the teacher when it comes to teaching lexical items, before moving on to
establish criteria which may be used to select appropriate vocabulary to teach, with a particular
focus on emergent language and class context. Finally, a number of examples from lessons are
provided demonstrating how vocabulary was selected in particular lessons and the effects that
teaching these items had on student performance.
INTRODUCTION
In the English Discussion course at Rikkyo University, teachers are principally concerned with
the teaching of functional language and improving the discussion skills of their students. The
teaching of other aspects of language such as grammar and vocabulary is not considered to be a
central tenet of the course, and teachers are rightly wary of introducing these aspects of language
in case they interfere with, or distract the learners from, the principal aims of the program.
However, while teaching EDC classes, it is likely that instructors will wish to target specific
language which they feel will help their students to better express their ideas, and which they
have heard their students attempting to produce. In addition, Kawamorita (2013) has noted that
students on the EDC course often provide feedback stating that they feel the opportunity to
practice vocabulary in their classes would help them better express their ideas during their
discussions.
There has been some previous research into the teaching of vocabulary from articles set
as reading homework in the EDC context (Brennan, 2012; 2013; Kawamorita, 2013). However,
in this paper I will focus on the targeting and teaching of appropriate new vocabulary items, with
particular reference to the context of the lessons, and to emergent language among the students.
Due to the unpredictable nature of this project, these observations come from several different
groups of students; however it is important to note that several of the observations recorded in
this paper were consistent among more than one group.
In this paper I will be working with Richards’ and Rogers’ (2001) definition of vocabulary,
which includes “the consideration of lexical phrases, sentence stems, prefabricated routines, and
collocations” (p.227). I will first describe the criteria which were used to select vocabulary for
teaching, before moving on to critically discuss specific examples taken from my teaching
journal.
SELECTING APPROPRIATE VOCABULARY

In this section I will quickly describe the ways in which vocabulary was selected. First focusing
on the appropriate amount of vocabulary which can be taught in a lesson, and then moving on to
construct a framework for vocabulary selection.
Amount of Vocabulary
Considering the limited opportunities for teaching vocabulary in EDC lessons, it is important to
have a rough idea of the quantity of vocabulary which can be introduced into each class without
110
Robert J. Lowe
interfering with the lesson aims or overwhelming the students with vocabulary to the point
where they are unable to absorb the language. Basic introductory language teaching texts seem
to be in rough agreement about the appropriate level of vocabulary that can be comfortably
introduced in lessons. Hadfield and Hadfield (2008) present a number of sample vocabulary
lesson plans at different levels, with the amount of new vocabulary they consider appropriate to
introduce for each level initially specified. For a forty minute four-skills elementary level class,
they include 8 items of vocabulary (p.50), while for an intermediate class of similar length they
select 12 vocabulary items (p.54). Scrivener (1994) offers a similar opinion, suggesting 8
vocabulary items for an example four-skills elementary class (p.233). Considering the specific
focus of EDC lessons, and considering that vocabulary teaching is incidental and plays a
supportive role rather than being a major focus in this context, I decided that it would be realistic
to focus on a maximum of between six and eight pieces of vocabulary per class – though in
reality this was often lower due to much of the useful vocabulary having been anticipated in the
homework reading, and also due to the fact the students were trying to use simple English to
convey their ideas and opinions.
Criteria for Selection

Most language lessons focus on pre-specified pieces of vocabulary to teach to students, usually
on the basis of frequency - how often the vocabulary occurs statistically among speakers; and
coverage - how many applications the vocabulary has (Nation, 2001). While these are useful
criteria for general English lessons, in the specific context of the EDC course I decided to
combine these with somewhat alternate criteria to select vocabulary which would be appropriate
to teach. These criteria were based on the fact that most of the actual content of the lessons is
student-generated, in that students are discussing their own personal opinions, beliefs, and
experiences autonomously, and with very little teacher input. In autonomous vocabulary learning,
Nation (2001) writes that “learners should use word frequency and personal need to determine
what vocabulary should be learned” (p.395). Meddings and Thornbury (2009) argue similarly
that language learning is largely about communication, and learners should be taught emergent
language for which they show a communicative need. Building on these general principles, I
decided during the lessons to target vocabulary which met the following criteria:
 The vocabulary should be emergent. Rather than the teacher deciding beforehand
which lexical items to teach in the lessons, vocabulary should be selected only when the
learners display a communicative need for it (i.e., by trying to use the language).
 The vocabulary should have either high frequency among the students, or display
potential for broad coverage. High frequency is an important consideration, because if
several students show a need for the same piece of vocabulary, it will be more important
to teach this vocabulary than that which only one student displays a need for. Equally,
broad coverage may be equally important in different contexts or situations. If, for
example, a student shows a need for a word which is related very specifically to a
particular experience of theirs, and is unlikely to be used by any other members of the
class, it is not particularly important that it be taught. However, if only one student uses
a word which could potentially be used by many of the students in that particular class it
will have a higher priority for teaching. No one piece of vocabulary will have both of
these properties, but each selected item should have one of them.
 The vocabulary should be appropriate to the context of the lesson. Students may move
to an off-topic subject during their discussions, during which they display a need for
items which are not relevant to the topic. These have a lower priority than vocabulary
111
which will contribute towards their discussion.
Vocabulary was targeted during feedback at several points in the lessons, but never either before
the free practice of the functions, or following the second discussion. This was because at points
before the free practice there had not been enough time for language to emerge, and after the
second discussion there was very little opportunity for the students to use the new vocabulary,
thus reducing the likelihood of successful uptake. In addition, certain stages of the lesson such as
feedback following the second discussion have specific aims in the context of the EDC course,
making a focus on the secondary vocabulary teaching inappropriate and potentially distracting.
In the following section I will discuss how these criteria were applied during discussion
classes and what effect this teaching had on student performance.
DISCUSSION
The observations contained in this section come from lessons following week 5 of the course.
The groups described are not always the same, as required vocabulary emerged unpredictably
among the students, although there were several instances of similar vocabulary arising across
multiple classes. In each case I will provide the topic, the vocabulary items targeted, and a
discussion of when and where these items emerged, and why they were chosen as suitable items
for teaching.
Example 1
Topic: Technology: Past, Present and Future
Vocabulary: “Outdated”, “Old fashioned”, “Cutting edge”, “Innovative”.
Discussion: During this lesson a number of students in one class showed a communicative need
for the above lexical items. This was displayed either through saying the equivalent Japanese
word, or attempting to describe the meaning of the words using long constructions after
struggling briefly to recall the particular lexical item they wished to use.
These vocabulary items were collected while the students were preparing for discussion 2,
and were taught through simply writing the words on the board and asking some concept-
checking questions such as “do you know what this word means?” or “Can you make an
example sentence using this word?”. The students were then encouraged to use these words
during later stages in the lesson. The students used these words several times during their second
discussion and the points they made were clearer and more specific than they may have been
otherwise. For example, the students used “cutting edge” rather than the more generic word
“new” to distinguish the various different technologies they mentioned.
These items met each of the criteria specified earlier in this paper, being emergent, and
having a high frequency among the learners. The fact that many learners used these words in the
second discussion indicates that they had a broad coverage, and in addition were appropriate for
the topic of the discussions. The broad coverage was a further consideration in the particular
vocabulary taught. For example, “cutting edge” has broader applications than other similar items
such as “high tech”. The quick uptake of the items by many of the students in the class showed
that the students deemed them useful for expressing their ideas on this particular topic.
Example 2
Topic: The Environment and You
Vocabulary: “Tiring”, “Troublesome”, “I can’t be bothered”.
Discussion: These vocabulary items emerged in a similar way to those mentioned in Example 1.
While students were discussing the positives and negatives of different environmentally friendly
112
Robert J. Lowe
activities, such as recycling and using bicycles, they often tried to say one of the above words,
either using Japanese (“Mendoukusai”), or talking around the item by making a needlessly long
construction (“I feel that doing that makes a lot of big problem for my daily life”). This was a
common issue among nearly all the students in the class and in several stages of the lesson.
The vocabulary was quickly taught as part of the discussion 1 feedback and the students
were encouraged to practice it during their discussion 2 preparations. The vocabulary was taught
by saying to the students “I heard a few of you saying `mendokusai` during your discussions.
How do you say that in English?”, then eliciting some ideas and providing some other options.
Again, these vocabulary items were all used noticeably by a number of students during their
second discussion, demonstrating the communicative need which existed, and which these
vocabulary items helped to achieve. Once again, each of these items met the criteria specified
earlier in this paper.
Example 3
Topic: Country versus City
Vocabulary: “Impolite”, “Rude”, “Inconvenient”, “Disgusting”, “Not useful”
Discussion: The above items were selected on the basis of a number of incorrect antonyms used
by the students to describe the negative aspects of either country life or city life. The students
were likely extrapolating from the rules they knew for forming negatives, and accordingly
producing nonexistent words such as “unuseful”, “unpolite”, “unconvenient”, and “undelicious”.
This was an issue which emerged in several groups and in several stages of the lesson.
These items were taught by boarding the incorrect examples and asking the students
whether they were correct or not. The students sometimes provided correct alternatives, and in
other cases the correct language items were provided by the teacher. As with the previous two
examples, once these items had been taught they were utilized extensively by the students in
their subsequent interactions. These items fitted the criteria described earlier in this paper, in that
the students showed a genuine communicative need for them, and they could be widely used by
all the students, as opposed to being used narrowly by one student to talk about their specific
personal experience.
These three examples have illustrated how the criteria outlined earlier in this paper were utilized
during discussion classes to target appropriate vocabulary. In each of these examples, the
language targeted was emergent and the students had shown a need for the language prior to it
being taught. Further, the language could be used by many of the students at several different
points in their discussions to express their ideas, showing that the vocabulary had high frequency
and broad coverage. Finally, the language taught in each case was appropriate to the context of
the lesson, and could be used by the students to more clearly express their ideas, views, and
experiences related to the topic of each class. These positive conclusions were drawn from my
own impressions of student performance, rather than from a scientific or statistical investigation
of word frequency, however the use of these vocabulary items several times during the second
discussions demonstrates provides some evidence of the effectiveness of this approach. In
addition to this, certain vocabulary items arose in subsequent lessons during discussions, when
necessary, although this was only informally observed.
One of the possible drawbacks of this approach is the spontaneity required for it to be
effectively employed. While it may be possible to anticipate some of the vocabulary which
comes up in each lesson, the fact that the items are necessarily emergent requires the teacher to
think quickly both about which vocabulary to teach and also about the best way to teach it. This
may lead to important vocabulary being omitted or less useful language being taught, as the
113
process of selection is partly intuitive. However, with practice the majority of these issues can be
minimized, and the criteria given in this paper should help to guide and supplement the intuitive
process of vocabulary selection, leading to useful vocabulary being focused on and less useful
vocabulary being ignored. In this discussion section I have demonstrated how these criteria were
applied in a number of lessons in order to select and teach contextually appropriate, emergent
vocabulary.
CONCLUSION
In this paper I have discussed the benefits of teaching small amounts of appropriate vocabulary
during discussion classes, suggesting that doing so allows the students to express their ideas
more clearly and exactly. In order to do this in a way which does not interfere with the aims of
the course, I proposed three core criteria which can be used to select small amounts of relevant
vocabulary that can be immediately used by the students. I argued that the vocabulary chosen
should not include more than between six and eight items, and should be emergent, have either
high frequency or broad coverage, and be appropriate to the context of the individual lessons in
which it arises. Finally, I demonstrated though examples from my teaching journal that
vocabulary selected and taught in this way was taken up quickly and used extensively by the
students during their discussions. In addition, I added some anecdotal observations about the use
of this vocabulary in later lessons, though this would need to be investigated further for any
authoritative statements to be made. While this paper has suggested a rationale and selection
process for teaching vocabulary, it would be instructive for future research to focus on specific
activities which could be utilized in the teaching of vocabulary, and perhaps more autonomous
approaches to tackling vocabulary in EDC classes. While this paper does not contain a
statistically rigorous account of the effectiveness of this approach, I hope it will provide a useful
grounding for instructors to use when selecting vocabulary to teach in their lessons.
REFERENCES
Brennan, S. (2012). Investigating vocabulary use following pre-discussion vocabulary-
building activities. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 1, 4-108
– 4-112.
Brennan, S. (2013). Further investigation into pre-discussion vocabulary activities. New
Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 2, 95-98.
Hadfield, J. & Hadfield, C. (2008). Introduction to teaching English. Oxford; Oxford
University Press.
Kawamorita, Y. (2013). Helping student use of vocabulary. New Directions in Teaching
and Learning English Discussion 2, 67-71.
Meddings, L. & Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching unplugged: Dogme in English language
teaching. Peaslake: Delta Publishing.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scrivener, J. (1994). Learning teaching. Oxford: Macmillan.
114
Effective Ways To Reduce L1 Usage and Raise L2 Usage
Matthew McLaughlin
ABSTRACT
Although usage of the L1 in the language learning classroom has traditionally been discouraged,
in recent years this position has been challenged with more teachers now calling for a pluralistic
approach in which all of the students’ lingual resources are valued in the language learning
process. Under monolingual compulsory settings however, the goal is to create a 100% L2
speaking environment. However, students still tend to revert to their L1 at certain stages
throughout the lesson. The author’s observations, recorded in a teaching journal over a 10-week
period, revealed two effective ways to reduce L1 usage and raise L2 usage; pairing up heavy L1
users with light L1 users and introducing a points-and-rewards system for L2 usage. Simple
reminders from the teacher proved to be ineffective. Each student’s level of participation in
pair- and group-work also seems to be a factor influencing the amount of L1/L2 output
generated.
INTRODUCTION
Many studies have begun to challenge the traditionally-held position that the language learning
classroom should be a place in which students interact exclusively in the L2 and the notion that
any L1 usage (i.e. speaking in their mother tongue) is bad. This welcome change in perspective
is reflected in a number of studies (Atkinson, 1987; Hopkins, 1988; Auerbach, 1993; Doyle,
1997; Anton & DiCamilla, 1998; Schweers, Jr., 1999; Levine, 2003) which have explored a
more pluralistic approach in which the classroom is increasingly being perceived as a space in
which L1 usage is allowed, and at times openly encouraged, so that the “potential of the mother
tongue as a classroom resource” (Atkinson, 1987, p.241), is used to full advantage.
On the other hand, some researchers (Mori, 2004 et al.) have argued for what has been
called the “staying-in-English rule” based on the belief that, “speaking in English as much as
possible would contribute to the students’ linguistic development” (Mori, 2004, p. 227). In
addition, Mori also argues that another benefit of this rule is that it can serve as “a pedagogical
intervention to give students the discipline needed to master a skill” (Mori, 2004, p. 228).
Finally, as Bassano and others have pointed out, some “teachers are [simply] disappointed at
seeing students going back to their L1” (cited in Mori, 2004, p. 226), especially if the teacher
believes that the students have the capabilities to perform tasks or activities in their L2.
To sum it up briefly, there appear to be two key positions; one in which L2 interaction is
prioritized (and often strictly enforced) or one in which all of the lingual resources that a student
may bring to the classroom (L1, L2, L3 etc.) are valued and encouraged for the purposes of
language learning. It is likely that the former position is derived from Long’s well-established
interaction hypothesis (Long, 1989), a seminal theory which posits that language acquisition
occurs when students interact in the target language. On the other hand, others such as Fotos
(2001) have argued that “L1 [is] a useful tool for conversational strategies such as repair work,
seeking clarification and emphasizing a point” (as cited in Leeming, 2011, p. 362), among other
things.
Irrespective of one’s personal views on this matter, when Rikkyo University (Tokyo,
Japan) students enroll for their first year, they are required to take an English Discussion Class
(EDC) which espouses a 100% ‘English-only’ policy. In other words, students enter the class
under “monolingual compulsory settings” (Leeming, 2011, p. 360).
In each class, students are required to conduct two full in-class discussions (10 minutes
and 16 minutes long, respectively) exclusively in their L2 (English) in groups of three or four (or
115
sometimes five) students. During discussion tests, students are punished if they speak in their L1
(Japanese) by losing ‘Participation’ points. Therefore, despite the large background of literature
which points to the benefits of an inclusive or pluralistic approach (L1 + L2 approach), this
study focuses on various experimental pedagogical techniques and strategies to reduce the
frequency of L1 usage and increase the frequency of L2 usage when an instructor is faced with
“monolingual compulsory (my emphasis) settings”. In the case of Rikkyo University freshmen,
this is important so that students can successfully complete both discussions exclusively in
English (one of the goals of the course) without having to revert to their L1 (Japanese).
DISCUSSION
A single English Discussion Class (‘EDC’), consisting of nine Level Four students (n=9) was
targeted for observation. First-year Rikkyo University students are divided into four levels from
1 to 4 for the EDC course based on their TOEIC scores, with four being the lowest. Attendance
fluctuated from as few as four students in the class to a maximum of nine students (full
attendance). Over the first four weeks of the course (each class taking place on a Friday
morning), the instructor (the author) observed both teacher-student and student-student
interactions, taking notes on the frequency of L1/L2 usage and noting occasions when students
opted to code-switch back into their mother tongue.
Observed Behavior
While there did not appear to be any obvious consistent pattern that each student followed,
several general observations were made. First of all, students reverted to their L1 when trying to
express difficult or complex ideas or content. These moments in the class were often
accompanied by pauses in the conversation, perhaps due to high cognitive load. Code-switching
was often preceded by attempts at negotiation of meeting with fellow classmates using, “how do
you say [Japanese word] in English”?
Secondly, although all students seemed to display similar levels of oral proficiency in
English, some students chose to code-switch more frequently than others. That is to say, some
students appeared less motivated to use their L2 (English) than others. Therefore, I hypothesized
that high cognitive load alone was probably not the only factor influencing code-switching
behavior. Finally, there was quite a variety in the levels of participation in L2 classwork when
placed in pairs or groups, suggesting that the students’ levels of motivation probably also varied.
Intervention
Three different types of intervention were then formulated with the hope that they would reduce
the amount of L1 usage and increase the amount of L2 usage in class.
First intervention: Reminders

Based on my experience teaching other ‘problematic’ classes in which students frequently code-
mixed, I hypothesized that simple reminders from the teacher would be ineffective. Nevertheless,
I hoped that frequent reminders would result in some positive change in L2 usage.
First intervention: Observed changes

Largely in line with my hypothesis, simple verbal reminders from the instructor to students in
class only appeared to have temporary benefits. While some students switched back to the L2 for
the remainder of the activity after receiving reminders, these students often reverted back to their
L1 in activities that took place later on.
116
Matthew McLaughlin
Second intervention: Pairing/grouping students according to code-switching frequency

For the second intervention, I decided to pair up students with similar or different L1 usage
frequencies (i.e. code-mixing frequencies) in order to determine if this had any positive or
negative effect on the level of L1/L2 output generated.
For the pairing/grouping experiments, students were first categorized into one of four
categories; very heavy L1 users (students who made several L1 utterances, at the sentence level,
in every dyadic or group interaction during weeks 1-4), heavy L1 users (students who
consistently made approximately one L1 utterance in both class activities and discussions during
Weeks 1-4), medium L1 users (students who spoke in their L1, Japanese, in either activities or
discussions but not both during Weeks 1-4) and light L1 users (students who made no more than
one L1 utterance, or less, per class during Weeks 1-4). This categorization was conducted after
observing the students during discussions and discussion preparation activities.
During Weeks 1-4, the author also observed and noted students’ general in-class
participation. There was no strict scale used to measure participation and therefore this is one
limitation of these observations. Students were categorized into the categories of ‘high’,
‘medium’ or ‘low’ participation.
During Class 8 (my fourth entry in the journal), for the Discussion 1 preparation activity
(in which students practice in pairs for 2 minutes on topics related to Discussion 1), students
were paired up with a new classmate based on three experimental paradigms.
Second intervention, experiment #1: Observed changes

For the first experimental paradigm, students who displayed similar code-switching frequency
during in-class interactions were put into pairs and their interactions were recorded by the
instructor who took notes. For example, where possible, very heavy or heavy L1 users were
paired up with other heavy L1 users and vice versa. As you can see in Table 2 below, and as one
would expect, pairing up students of similar code-switching frequency did not discourage the
frequency of L1 usage in the classroom. If anything, it encouraged this form of behavior.
Second intervention, experiment #2: Observed changes

For the second experimental paradigm, students were paired up with classmates who displayed a
different code-switching frequency during in-class interactions. For example, heavy L1 users
were paired up with medium or light L1 users.
The results of Experiment 2 were interesting. During this second dyadic interaction,
Student A, who was usually a heavy L1 user but someone who also displayed a high level of
participation in interactions, used the L1 much less. This was possibly due to the fact that
Student B’s (the partner) nationality is South Korean and is someone of limited Japanese
proficiency, forcing Student A to speak in English, the pair’s lingua franca. Originally, Student F
was to be paired up with Student H but as Student H was absent, Student F was added to the
Student E/I pairing to form a group of three. Interestingly, while Student E, normally a heavy L1
user, used the L1 much less during this interaction, Student F, normally a light L1 user, did use
the L1 a little. Student I used the L1 very little during this exchange. Finally, in the third group,
there was very little L1 usage/code-mixing at all, a promising result as Student G is normally a
heavy L1 user.
Second intervention, experiment #3: Observed Changes

For the third and final paradigm for the second intervention, students who displayed a different
code-switching frequency behavior but a similar degree of in-class participation were paired-up
and notes were taken on their interactions.
117
Interestingly, while there was a large amount of code-mixing/L1 usage in the first pair
(Student E and Student I), there was very little L1 usage in the second pair in which almost all of
the interaction was conducted in the L2. The only difference between the parameters of these
two groups is the level of participation. The third pair of students was once again a mix of heavy
and light L1 users but this time both students typically displayed low levels of participation. As
expected, there were very few utterances during this exchange but most utterances were made in
the L2. Student B, normally a light L1 user, spoke only in the L2. Student D, normally a medium
L1 user, used less code-mixing (only 1 utterance in the L1) during this interaction while Speaker
G, normally someone who displays a high level of participation, did not interact much.
Second intervention: A summary

In ideal classroom settings, teachers hope that the majority of students will engage in the L2 (in
this case English). Therefore, it logically follows that pairing up light L1 users who both display
high levels of participation will theoretically lead to much interaction in the L2 but it is not
always feasible to have such pairs in every class we teach. Based on the observations recorded in
the author’s teaching journal, the most effective pairings have been ranked in Table 1 while
Table 2 shows the least effective pairings observed in class in terms of reducing the amount of
L1 usage and raising the amount of L2 usage.
One interesting finding from these class observations was that when heavy L1 users were
paired up with light L1 users who displayed a high level of participation, the light L1 user
seemed to have a positive influence on the heavy L1 user, suggesting that pairing up students
who display a different code-mixing frequency might be one beneficial way to reduce L1 usage
in the classroom. This can be even more successful in reducing L1 usage when the pair does not
share the same L1, forcing them to resort to an L2 (or L3) such as English which then serves as a
lingua franca for communication. This was the case in my class in which one student’s mother
tongue was Korean.
Secondly, if the level of participation is higher in the student who tends to be the heavy
L1 user (see Table 2 in the Appendix below), this may have the detrimental effect of
encouraging the other student, usually a light L1 user, to engage more in the L1 to accommodate
with his/her partner’s preferred language modality (i.e. the L1). This was observed on several
occasions over the course of the observations, implying that pairing up heavy L1 users with light
L1 users is insufficient. There must be another determining factor which encourages L2 usage
such as level of participation. This warrants further investigation in future observations or
studies.
Third intervention: Points-and-rewards system

Finally, I hypothesized that a rewards-and-penalty system in which students ‘Participation’
scores were either positively or negatively affected by their L1/L2 usage in class, could be
effective in the EDC class, a class which they should be instrumentally motivated (Gardner,
1988) to pass in their first year as students are unable to graduate without passing the course.
Furthermore, as the teacher, I felt “the responsibility to create an environment that induced the
students to talk in English” (Mori, 2004, p. 228).
During Week 11 (7th journal entry), I introduced a new system in an attempt to drastically
reduce the amount of L1 usage in class which became a problem again in Week 10, after much
positive progress in Week 9.
The new point system which I introduced penalized students a point each time they made
a full-sentence utterance in their L1. On the other hand, students were rewarded a point if, when
participating as listeners in a discussion, they reminded or helped speakers move back into the
118
Matthew McLaughlin
L2 (English) by making simple reminders or gestures to classmates through comments such as

“in English please”. The students’ points were recorded in a tally-point system on the board next
to the student’s name. In Japanese society, people are often extremely self-conscious and
anxious about being held responsible in any open or direct way (especially when the
responsibility involves negative implications). Therefore, I hypothesized that this system would
affectively encourage them to take responsibility for their own L1/L2 usage.
Based on the extremely high level of L2 usage in today’s class, a dramatic improvement
since last lesson, I believe that this new system was highly effective in reducing L1 usage in
class. Student E who has been known to often code-switch back and forth between L1 and L2
only made one full-sentence L1 utterance throughout today’s class and was therefore only
penalized one point. Student D made one L1 utterance but by reminding Student E to speak in
English, he also received one reward point and therefore had no points deducted this week for
L1 usage overall. The only exception was Student A, who arrived almost 80 minutes into the
lesson and made three L1 full-sentence utterances. This is probably due to the fact that she had
missed the explanation about the new point system at the beginning of the class.
As this new system proved to be highly effective in generating an L2-only classroom
atmosphere, I will continue to use this system in future classes.
IMPLICATIONS
The strategies employed by the instructor were what Dornyei (2005) refers to as “environmental
control strategies”, which aim to “eliminat[e] negative environmental influences and exploit[…]
positive environmental influences” (Dornyei, 2005, p. 113). The author decided it would be
appropriate to limit the scope of this paper to examining the impact of the influences which are
“outside the individual” (Skehan, 1991, p. 281) by recording in-class observations either through
taking notes on the spot about student-to-student interactions or through recording student
interactions.
Up until the first Discussion Test, which students completed in Week 5, the instructor
employed the first strategy of making direct reminders to students who were speaking in both
English and Japanese to speak less in their L1 (Japanese) and more in their L2 (English). While
this did sometimes work, temporarily, the author observed that students who had been given
reminders would still revert back to their L1 later on in other interactions. Therefore, in
summary, the first strategy was found to have only temporary benefits and no sustaining effect
on students who regularly code-mixed. This finding supports Mori’s assertion that “successful
implementation of a staying-in-English rule involves more than simply telling the students to
talk in English” (Mori, 2004, p. 234).
For the second intervention, both the second and third experiments in which I
experimented with different pair- and group-combinations appeared to be effective. This
suggests that pairing up students who display a different code-switching frequency behavior can
be effective in reducing the amount of L1 usage and raising the amount of L2 usage in
interactions. The findings also suggest that students who are more willing to use the L2 during
class may have a positive influence on students who are known to code-mix frequently. The
third paradigm also showed that the level of participation may be an important factor to consider
too, as students displaying a high level of participation had a positive influence on classmates
who typically do not participate as much in class.
During the third intervention, a rewards-and-penalty system also succeeded in
encouraging students to speak more in their L2 (English). As mentioned, this successful result
may be partly due to socioaffective factors in Japanese society. As students were directly
rewarded or penalized on the whiteboard in front of their classmates, this may have encouraged
119
some of them to take more responsibility for their language choice (i.e. using either the L1 or
L2).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, two out of the three interventions did appear to help reduce the amount of L1
usage and raise the level of L2 usage in class. The findings of this paper suggest that pairing up
heavy L1 users with classmates who are more willing to use the L2 might be an effective way to
reduce the frequency of L1 utterances in class. Moreover, a penalty-and-rewards system,
especially in a country such as Japan where people are very conscious of responsibility, may
also be another effective way to help motivate students to use more English (or L2) during class
time. In future, further observations need to be made into how the levels of participation affect
overall L1/L2 output.
REFERENCES
Anton, M. & Dicamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in
the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 3, pp. 233-247.
Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource? ELT Journal,
41, 4, pp. 241-247.
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 1,
pp. 9- 32.
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. London: Lawrence Ehrlbaum Associates.
Doyle, T. (1997). The L1’s Role in ESL Instruction. Paper presented at TESOL ’97 in Orlando,
FL.
Fotos, S. (2001). Codeswitching by Japan’s unrecognised bilinguals: Japanese university
students’ use of their native language as a learning strategy. In M. Goebel Noguchi and S.
Fotos (eds.), Studies in Japanese Bilinguals. Bristol: Cromwell Press, pp. 329-352.
Gardner, R. C. (1988). The socio-educational model of second language learning: Assumptions,
findings, and issues. Language Learning, 38, pp. 101-126.
Hopkins, S. (1988). Use of mother tongue in teaching of English as a second language to adults.
Language Issues, 2, 2, pp. 18-24.
Leeming, P. (2011). Japanese high school students’ use of L1 during pair-work. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21, 3, pp. 360-382.
Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first
language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language
Journal, 87, iii, pp. 343-364.
Long, M. H. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawai’i Working
Papers in ESL, 8, 2, pp. 1-26.
Mori, R. (2004). Staying-in-English rule revisited. System, 32, 2, pp. 225-236.
Schweers, Jr., C. W. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 Classroom. English Teaching Forum, Apr.-Jun.,
pp. 6-13.
120
Matthew McLaughlin
APPENDIX
Table 1: Successful Student Pairings

Student 1 Student 2 Amount of L2 Usage
1. Very heavy L1 user + Light L1 user (*different L1) Very high
High participation + High participation
2. Very heavy L1 user + Light L1 user + High
High participation High participation
3. Heavy L1 user + Low Light L1 user + High Medium
participation participation
Table 2: Unsuccessful Student Pairings

Student 1 Student 2 Amount of L2 Usage
1. Very heavy L1 user + Heavy L1 user + High Very low
High participation participation
2. Heavy L1 user + High Light L1 user + Low Low - Medium
participation participation
121
The Effects of Pre-task Planning Activities on Fluency in
Group Discussions
Brandon Narasaki
ABSTRACT
There are a variety of methods used by EDC instructors with the goal of preparing students to
actively participate in group discussions. However, due to the nature of individual differences in
language learning, and the changing moods and motivations of learners, instructors must find a
variety of means to help prepare classes to have successful discussions. One sign of a successful
discussion is the absence of unusually long silences (inter-turn gaps). This reflective paper
focuses on the use of several different pre-task planning (PTP) activities for one class in
particular, and the effects these preparation methods have on student performance in group
discussions: primarily the frequency and length of silences. Theories within the areas of
sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (SLA) are referenced in an attempt to better
understand the usefulness of PTP in promoting learners to develop more fluent L2 discussions.
INTRODUCTION
This project was started after an initial observation of one particular group (hereby referred to as
Class A) in which every week, students consistently encountered instances of silence in their
group discussions of three to four members. This was seen as a unique problem and uncommon
compared to the progress of the other twelve classes taught in the Fall 2013 semester. An
instructor might expect a lower level class to have more instances of silence in group discussions
because of limited L2 proficiency, or a lack of understanding the instructions or task, but this
was not the case for the Class A. All eight students showed positive signs of comprehension
during instructor led explanations and presentations, and had no trouble starting activities once
prompted. The problem of silence for this group occurred when the floor was open for any of the
group members to speak, not when the speaker took an extended amount of time to think of how
to explain his or her ideas. Class A’s silences are considered unusually lengthy for a fluent
discussion based on Sacks et al. (1974)’s findings that highly proficient speakers will tend to
have very short gaps between one speaking turn to the next, measureable by less than a second.
Although in a first language (L1), turns are usually smooth and more automated with minimal
gaps, in a second language (L2), limited linguistic and interactional competence hinder this
natural fluency (Levinson, 1983).
Current research has looked at the ways in which a student’s L2 can be developed,
distinguishing three aspects of L2 performance: fluency, accuracy, and complexity (Foster and
Skehan, 1996; Skehan and Foster, 1997; Skehan, 1998). Skehan (1998) defines the three
dimensions of language production as; accuracy (how closely the L2 language produced
conforms to target language norms), complexity (the use of interlanguage forms that are complex
and structured), and fluency (the speaker’s ability to produce language in real time). For the
context of this paper, L2 learner fluency will be the primary focus, omitting the dimensions of
accuracy and complexity. More specifically, fluency will be considered the amount silence in
group discussions (i.e. the more silence, the less fluent the discussion).
The two main areas of research used in this study are inter-turn gaps and pre-task
planning (PTP) activities. Inter-turn gaps (Ryoo, 2011) is a fairly recent term adapted from
Levinson (1983)’s attributable silence referring to any unusually lengthy silences between
speaking turns. These speaking turns could be from one speaker to the next, or when one speaker
continues his or her turn after no other member takes the floor. These inter-turn gaps often
122
Brandon Narasaki
signal problems in talk, and are usually not apparent in L1 interactions. In fact, Schegloff et al.
(2002) posit that any pause of more than a beat of silence could potentially be considered
unusual or lengthy, leading the researchers of the study to believe that a silence of any longer
than a beat in turn transitions is one way non-native speakers exhibit their non-nativeness.
Although studies on inter-turn gaps have been widely investigated in first language interactions
(Sacks, 2004; Wilson & Zimmerman, 1986), there is little research in terms of second language
interactions. One study in the area of L2 inter-turn gaps was done by Wong (2004), where she
concluded that a delay in turns may be caused by the L2 learner’s lack of full command of the
target language. Similar to Schegloff et al. (2002), Wong (2004) also claims that the occurrence
of inter-turn gaps may be a sign of the generic difference between L1 and L2 interactions.
Another recent study by Hauser (2009), focused on turn-taking organization of L2 learners in
discussion activities, found obvious differences of turn-taking practices compared to the
conversations of native speakers. Hauser (2009) discovered that learners of English were much
less likely to compete with each other for control of the floor, and often avoided taking the role
of the primary speaker, unlike native speakers’ tendency to attempt to take the floor much more
often and naturally. This could be one possible explanation for the unusual amount and length of
inter-turn gaps in Class A’s group discussions. Their fear as L2 learners of being seen as
overbearing and controlling by speaking too much may cause the students to wait for others to
take the floor, leading to an increase in inter-turn gaps.
In addition to the affective issues in turn-taking, another possible variable in causing
inter-turn gaps is the use of preparation activities for group discussions, which leads into the
second area of research for this paper: pre-task planning (PTP) activities (Ellis, 2005). The
usefulness of pre-task activities has been claimed by numerous studies based on the information
processing theory which explains that human beings can only process a limited amount of
information, input or output, at one time (Huitt, 2003). Hence, if learners are given time to plan
out their ideas, the pressure of processing information on working memory is decreased,
theoretically making it easier to combine form and meaning through access of their own
linguistic knowledge (Ellis, 2005). However, most of the research on task planning does not deal
with the use of different kinds of PTP activities. Abdi et al. (2012) call for further research in
examining how different conditions of strategic planning may have an effect on learners’ oral
performance. This paper further explores the area of oral fluency in L2 communication by giving
Class A several different PTP activities and tracking the amount and duration of inter-turn gaps.
Hopefully, more insight will be shed on the usefulness of different types of preparation methods
for oral tasks through this paper.
As stated in the bi-annual Rikkyo University Instructor Handbook for EDC teachers,
“The preparation activities allow students time to generate ideas on the discussion topic and
become familiar with any vocabulary required to discuss the topic… [Instructors should] stress
to students that one purpose of the preparation is to generate ideas...” (EDC Instructor’s
Handbook, Fall 2013, p. 61). Thus, PTP activities in the EDC context aim specifically at
providing students the chance to prepare ideas to use in discussions. Some of the more common
PTP activities used by EDC instructors include a simple 2-4 minute talk between pairs about
their initial ideas on the topic at hand, or some variation of a Stations activity. These two PTP
activities, along with several others, are used in this paper to examine their usefulness for
reducing inter-turn gaps during group discussions.
DISCUSSION
Five different PTP activities were used over the course of five lessons, with a total of ten
discussions and ten chances to implement one of the PTP activities. Students were put into either
123
Group A or Group B for each discussion, changing the group dynamics every discussion so that
students had a chance to work with different classmates. To help better understand the degree of
silence in each group discussion, two categories were used to distinguish the length of each
inter-turn gap: short pauses (less than 5 seconds) and long pauses (5 seconds or more). These
two categories were decided upon after determining that a silence of 5 seconds or more was
noticeably awkward by both instructor and students (even students from the other group). A
short description of each PTP used in this study is given below, followed by the results of each
group discussion in relation to the PTP activity used.
Stations:
The Stations activity was used in lessons 10, 11, and 12, which required students to work in
pairs as they moved around the classroom to different posters on the wall, focusing on one of the
ideas to be discussed in the following group discussion. Students were told to practice sharing
their ideas with a partner while also practicing the previously taught target language (i.e.
students were expected to focus on both content and previously taught target language).
3-2-1:
The 3-2-1 activity was used in lessons 10 and 12, and required students to take turns being both
a listener and a speaker with one partner at a time. The first speaker would spend a total of six
minutes through three different rounds (three minutes in round 1, two in round 2, and one in
round 1) talking through their ideas to a different partner each time. The listener was only
allowed to give Reactions while listening, but to ensure the listeners stayed on task, each listener
was required to paraphrase at the end of the speaker’s turn. The goal of this PTP activity for
speakers was to give students a chance to practice talking through (and repeating) what they
would be saying in the group discussion. For listeners, the goal was to have exposure to ideas
from peers to help them think about the topic from a different point of view.
Quick Chat:
Quick Chat was implemented in only one discussion, during lesson 13, and was similar to the 3-
2-1 activity above, but simplified. By giving students a few minutes to talk about their opinion
with a partner, each student practiced explaining at least one idea they could talk about in the
group discussion. Listeners were allowed to ask follow-up questions (unlike the 3-2-1 PTP
activity). The Quick Chat gave listeners a chance to hear different ideas from their partner, and
lasted for only three minutes when used in lesson 13.
Individual Think Time:

This Individual Think Time Preparation Activity, used in lessons 9, 11, and 13, was in addition
to giving students time to read the discussion prompt and circle/check the choices provided in
their textbook. Once the students marked their answers, they were instructed to think through
what they wanted to say for each idea. Using this specific PTP was decided after several weeks
of monitoring and tracking how Class A responded to other kinds of PTP activities, and
postulating that students might benefit from time to simply sit and think about their own ideas
before explaining them to a partner or group.
No Preparation:
The use of No Preparation, during lesson 9, was to help determine whether or not PTP activities
helped students avoid inter-turn gaps during group discussions. The idea to do this came after
several weeks of using different methods of preparing students for group discussions so that they
124
Brandon Narasaki
could have more fluid speaking turns to avoid inter-turn gaps, but continuing to see several
instances of long, awkward silences while trying to pass and take the floor.
Stations 3-2-1 Quick Individual No

Chat Think Preparation
Time
Short Pause (less than 5 seconds) 1.33 .5 2 1 0
Long Pause (5 seconds or more) 4.67 4 9 6.33 4
Average of Short and Long
Pauses per Discussion 6 4.5 11 7.33 4
Table 1. Groups A and B’s average number of inter-turn gaps for each PTP activity
To help compare the data for each PTP activity, Table 1 provides the average number of
inter-turn gaps recorded in each discussion for both groups combined from lesson 9 through 13
(total number of inter-turn gaps ÷ number of times PTP used). On average, Class A consistently
faced four or more inter-turn gaps as a class in every discussion, which seemed to be much more
than any other class during the semester. Although Quick Chat had the highest number of inter-
turn gaps among the five PTP activities used, there does not seem to be any type of pattern that
can be derived from the length or number of inter-turn gaps and the type of PTP used. Thus, it
can be assumed from the data collected that no significant difference was made in the use of the
five different PTP activities used for the focus of this study. However, when interpreting the data
collected, it is important to keep in mind that each PTP activity was not implemented the same
number of times (e.g. While Stations was used a total of three times for this study, No
Preparation was only used once). If each PTP activity had been used the same number of times,
the study may have yielded different results.
CONCLUSION
This paper has reflected upon the reasons for inter-turn gaps in L2 group discussions, and
whether or not PTP activities aid in reducing this problem. Based on the data collected, no
significant conclusions can be drawn in terms of the effect of the PTP activity on inter-turn gaps
in group discussions. However, there are a few important limitations in this study that may be
the cause of finding no clear positive correlation between PTP activities and fluency, such as the
variations of student groupings and topics. Only looking at the quantitative data collected in this
study was not sufficient in understanding the cause for inter-turn gaps in Class A’s group
discussions. To aid in better understanding the reasons for these inter-turn gaps, student oral
responses were collected in the last lesson of the semester.
Students were put into pairs and asked to discuss three main questions (“Are silences in
group discussions good or bad?” “What were the causes of silences in group discussions?” and,
“How can we avoid silences in group discussions?”). After comparing instructor insight with
student responses, three main factors were identified: topic knowledge, L2 competence, and
dominating discussions. Instructor and students agreed that when the topic was familiar or easily
understood by group members, it was easier to avoid inter-turn gaps. Fluency increased when
students had preconceived ideas on a particular topic, instead of having to develop ideas within
the PTP activity. This claim is also supported by studies such as Skehan (1996) and Van Patten
(2002) which found that learners have a limit of attention, meaning that the various language
production and comprehension components are competing with one another for priority. If a
learner focuses more on developing complex ideas, expressing these ideas will become less
fluent. One example for Class A was with the topic of the death penalty. Students had talked
125
about this topic in another class, and having this prior experience learning about the death
penalty in their L1 seemed to aid the students in developing a more fluent English discussion.
The second common concern for many of the students was that their level of English
proficiency was not high enough to continue an extended group discussion without having
moments of awkward silences. Ellis (2004) also points out that a possible cause for all the mixed
results in the effectiveness of PTP in oral tasks is due to the learners’ proficiency level, and
individual orientation to the three aspects of L2 competence (fluency, accuracy, and complexity).
Different task types and burdens on the learner will produce different results even if the PTP
remains consistent. Simply put, there are too many variables to hold PTP solely accountable for
the results of a learner’s performance. Hence, it seems reasonable to say that in order for
students to have a more fluent discussion with few or no inter-turn gaps, a combination of
factors must be satisfied, not only an effective PTP.
In a study by Ryoo (2011), it was found that students in a particular EFL context followed
a very monologic turn-taking system in group discussions (i.e. students were not connecting
their ideas to one another, but simply expressing their own). However, unlike Ryoo (2011)’s
study, Class A consistently created discussions which were connected and rich with ideas. The
students in Ryoo (2011)’s study were taking turns giving monologues instead of connecting their
ideas together as a typical conversation/discussion should, which limited the complexity of their
discussion. Having disconnected turns between interlocutors was an additional problem for
Ryoo (2011)’s participants, however, Class A was much more dialogic in their turns. Follow-up
questions and agreement/disagreement were always evident in their group discussions (which
may have led to an increase in inter-turn gaps), creating a much deeper group discussion,
thereby increasing a fourth component of L2 competence specifically for interactions which I
refer to as communicative cohesion. It could be said that Class A was putting more of an
emphasis on this L2 communicative cohesion by trying to connect the ideas of each member and
make a deeper discussion. With a stronger focus on one component of L2 competence, others
such as fluency (more specifically, the amount of inter-turn gaps) may have been negatively
affected.
The last factor that both students and instructor believed to cause inter-turn gaps was
learners tending to avoid competing for the floor, a reflection which is supported by Hauser
(2009). Effective discussions in the EDC context are described as, “balanced and interactive, and
constructed by all participants” (EDC Instructor’s Handbook, Fall 2013, p. 1). Due to this
special feature of group discussions, students were reminded each week that a good discussion is
one that allows for everyone in the group to take turns speaking and ask questions. Some
students mentioned in the last lesson of the class that they did not want to talk too much, and
wanted to give other students a chance to speak in order to create a more balanced discussion.
Because of this worry, when the active students waited for the quieter ones to take the floor,
inter-turn gaps were more prevalent. One important point to clarify is how an instructor should
define an awkward silence (inter-turn gap) in an L2 group discussion. Although Sacks et al.
(1974) and other studies have defined what constitutes an inter-turn gap in L1 interactions, it
may not be realistic to hold L2 learners up to this expectation. When providing students with
useful feedback, it is important for the instructor to clarify what is an acceptable length of
silence between turns.
Although this paper does not provide any definitive answers as to which PTP activities
help students develop more fluent group discussions, it is an initial step in establishing an
appropriate context for determining the usefulness of the pre-task in successfully completing an
oral task: more specifically, reducing inter-turn gaps in group discussions to increase fluency.
Future research could look more closely at the different areas of L2 competence (fluency,
126
Brandon Narasaki
accuracy, complexity, communicative cohesion, or a combination of the components) and how

different PTP activities affect the task itself by keeping other variables more consistent.
REFERENCES
Abdi, M., Eslami, H., & Zahedi, Y. (2012). The impact of pre-task planning on the fluency and
accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ oral performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 69, 2281–2288.
Ellis, R. (2004). Task- based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language
performances. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299 –323.
Hauser, E. (2009). Turn-taking and primary speakership during a student discussion. In H.
Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 215-244).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.
Huitt, W. (2003). The information processing approach. Educational Psychology Interactive.
Valdosta, GA:Valdosta State University. Retrieved from the web September 20, 2008,
from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/infoproc.html.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and Focus on form in L2 Oral Performance. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21, 109 – 148.
Ryoo, Hye-Kyung. (2011). Inter-turn gaps in small group discussion talk among Korean EFL
learners. Secondary English Education, 4(2), 3-22.
Sacks, H. (2004). An Initial Characterization of the organization of speaker turn-taking in
conversation. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first
generation (pp. 35- 42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of
turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S., & Olsher, D. (2002). Conversation analysis and applied
linguistics. American Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 3-31.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied
Linguistics, 17, 38–62.
Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–86.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on
foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research,1, 185–211.
Van Patten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52 (4), 755–803.\
Wilson, T. P., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1986). The Structure of Silence between Turns in Two-
Party Conversation. Discourse Processes, 9(4), 375-390.
Wong, J. (2004). Some preliminary thoughts on delay as an interactional resource. In R. Gardner
& J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversation (pp. 114-131). New York, NY:
Continuum.
127
Examining Planning for the 3/2/1 Minutes Fluency Activity for
Students with Low Proficiency
Chie Ogawa
ABSTRACT
This paper is a reflection of examining students’ attitudes toward 3/2/1 fluency tasks and pre-
task planning. To help students develop oral fluency, 3/2/1 fluency tasks are widely used in the
EDC curriculum. However, 3/2/1-minute activities are not always easy for some students. In
order to help them feel more confident prior to the speaking task, I implemented pre-task
planning. I observed and took notes on students’ behavior during the planning time and during
the fluency tasks. The participants were from the lowest level (level 4). The observation shows
insight about how students do different type of planning. Future suggestions on how to
implement pre-task planning for low-level learners will be discussed.
INTRODUCTION
One of the main course objectives for EDC courses is that students will be able to become a
fluent speaker of English. To achieve this goal, a 3/2/1 activity is implemented in the unified
curriculum. In the 3/2/1 activity, students form pairs with a classmate. One of the partners is
designated as a speaker, and the other one is assigned as a listener. The speaker narrates the
same topic to different partners at intervals of three minutes, two minutes and one minute.
Because of time pressure and task repetition, the students are expected to express their ideas
more fluently and efficiently (De Jong & Perfetti, 2011). Therefore, learners are able to have
proceduralization during the tasks (De Jong & Perfetti, 2011).
However, this simple task can prove to be a challenging for some learners. In my class,
students are expected to listen to their partners quietly without any follow-up questions and
comments, which often makes speakers feel pressure that they need to speak continuously.
Speakers talk about two given topics within the allotted time. In the first semester, I observed a
few students who were struggling with speaking fluently during the 3/2/1 minute tasks. These
students had a lot of pauses, they could not come up with the right vocabulary, or they finished
speaking about the given topics too early. I observed that their disfluency was more salient
during the first three minutes. In particular, students in the lowest level class (level 4) were more
likely to have pauses and repetition of speech compared to students in the advanced level classes.
To help students in the lowest-level classes develop their oral fluency, I wanted to explore more
effective ways to assist students increase their fluency and self-confidence toward the speaking
tasks.
To solve the problems mentioned above, I decided to implement pre-task planning prior
to the 3/2/1 fluency task. Many researchers have investigated the effectiveness of pre-task
planning and have suggested that it is useful to improve learners’ oral fluency and complexity
(Ortega 1999, Foster & Skehan, 1996; Kawauchi, 2005; Mehnert, 1998). In this project, three
different types of pre-task planning were implemented. Individual brainstorming was introduced
first. In this type of planning, students were instructed to brainstorm whatever they wanted to
talk about. The second type of planning was pair-work. For this type of planning, students could
ask follow-up questions with each other. Teacher-led planning was the third type of planning
where a model passage was provided to the students. Each week, students used a different type
of planning prior to the 3/2/1 minute task.
128
Chie Ogawa
DISCUSSION
Students’ initial behaviors
The reasons why I have been interested in exploring this topic is because quite a few students in
the first semester could not continue speaking for three minutes during the 3/2/1 minute activity.
In particular, I could observe this trend more often in the lower level classes. It seemed that
higher level learners could somehow manage to accomplish the fluency task with on-line
planning, in which they could plan and talk at the same time. On the other hand, lower level
learners encountered problems such as long pauses, frequent repetition, and false starts. When
the disfluency happened to the lower level students in the first semester, I chose to make the
future less challenging. For example, I allowed listeners to ask speakers follow-up questions.
Instead of a full 3/2/1 minute activity, I sometimes implemented a 2/1.5/1 minute activity. These
solutions were successful to certain extent as they kept speakers engage in the talk with external
assistance (e.g., time and follow-up questions). However, I realized the main reason why the
lower level learners accomplished the task was due to minimization of the speakers’ time, not
through their own improvement. After I had conferred with the program managers in the first
semester about how I could complete the full 3/2/1 minute task, I realized the importance of
including the full 3/2/1 minute activity.
In the second semester, I really wanted to help lower level students improve their fluency
and to feel self-efficacy about their fluency. Therefore, I decided to seek some pre-task planning
activities to enable learners to improve fluency.
Students in the lower level class

The lowest level class (level 4) was selected for observation. The students in the class were from
the College of Arts, majoring in history or education. The class consisted of eight students (three
male students and five female students). Their language proficiency was lower intermediate. It
seemed that students did not have confidence in their English. Compared to other classes, the
students in this class have low proficiency, lack of vocabulary and lack of confidence in
speaking English. I thought observing this class would be beneficial and meaningful to
understand further about their reactions toward the 3/2/1 minute fluency tasks and planning.
Pre-task planning
I started implementing the pre-task planning from Week 2 in the second semester so that the
students could be exposed to the different types of planning. Each week, the students used a
different type of planning before the 3/2/1 minute fluency tasks. Because I already knew what I
wanted to explore before the semester, I decided to start implementing the pre-task planning
from Week 2. The students engaged in the following different types of planning:
No planning. Students started a three-minute fluency task without any planning. I showed
the task questions right before they started the 3/2/1 minute activity. Therefore, I observed that
some students were not ready for the fluency activity without planning. For example, I noticed
that some students needed to reread the questions and took longer to comprehend the questions
before starting speaking. This caused a false start in some situations. In addition, some students
finished the two given topics earlier than the allotted time. It appeared that students had not
generated enough ideas, which led them to repeat the same content over and over.
Brainstorming. Students were given a handout to write down their ideas (Appendix A).
The planning time was four minutes. They were instructed to use the boxes on the handouts as
they wished. In addition, they were allowed to add more boxes if they felt it was necessary. Most
of the students were able to write down as many ideas as they could. Students usually finished
brainstorming both for the given topics within the allotted time. After they brainstormed, I
129
collected their brainstorming papers so that they did not have access while they talk during the
3/2/1 minute tasks. Overall, they talked about the ideas they have written on the handout. In a
few instances, I observed that a student could not write down ideas quickly. The student ended
up brainstorming only one topic out of the two given topics. When that happened, the student
paused longer during the actual fluency tasks since they insufficiently brainstormed enough for
the second topic. After they brainstormed, I collected their brainstorming papers so that they did
not have access while they talk during the 3/2/1 minute tasks. Overall, they talked about the
ideas they have written on the handout. However, students sometimes forgot what they wrote,
which made them pause longer than usual.
Pair work. Students were given an instruction paper to work with a partner (Appendix B).
They were given four minutes to ask each other questions related to the topics. For example, a
student explained his or her ideas to a partner (e.g., “In my opinion, studying English is
important for me”). The partner was instructed to ask as many follow-up questions as possible
related to their partner’s opinion (e.g., “Do you like English? / Have you been to an English
conversation school?”). The difference between a pair work planning and the actual fluency task
is whether or not the students asked questions. During the actual 3/2/1 minute tasks, the speakers
narrated monologues. This pair-work planning could function not only as a rehearsal but also it
could elicit some necessary information. I observed that listeners enjoyed pair-work planning by
asking many each other as many questions as possible. However, one problem of this pair-work
planning was that students could not finish both topics during planning. Sometimes, students
asked too many questions about the first topic and they could not progress to the second topic.
Another problem was the equal amount of speaking. Although a pair was given four minutes for
this pair-work, it did not guarantee that each pair could equally divide speaking time. In spite of
these issues, students were engaged in this planning to elicit more information from each partner.
Teacher-led. Students were given a teacher-model passage (Appendix C). While I read
this passage aloud, students followed the passage on the handout. The primary aim was to
provide students the ideal structure for their task performance with examples and experiences
and also accuracy. I observed that during the actual fluency task, some students shared a similar
opinion that I read from the teacher-model passage. On the other hand, one student reported that
this planning was difficult because she could not follow the given passage to understand fully.
Observed changes
Based on my observations, the students performed slightly better when they had a pre-task
planning conditions compared to non-planning conditions. For example, students had fewer
pauses and appeared to organize their speech slightly better by using more examples and their
experiences. Without planning, students sometimes listed ideas but did not provide support with
the reasons or other examples. At the beginning of the semester, it seemed hard for them to
continue speaking all by themselves. As the semester progressed, they gradually seemed to gain
confidence to accomplish a speaking task within the first three minutes. More and more students
were trying to use examples or experiences to support their ideas during the fluency task so that
they could have longer sentences. Because listeners could not interrupt the speakers, speakers
needed to utilize some strategies about how to continue speaking.
Some of the students in this class stated that they appreciated the planning activity. For
example, if the topic was unfamiliar, it was a good way to organize about what they wanted to
say. One female student reported that the 3/2/1 minute task was the hardest activity throughout
the 90-minute class. However, as time went by, she became used to speaking in the monologic
tasks. I realized that I have been thinking that the 3/2/1 minute is a valuable warm up activity,
but for some learners in the lower level class, it is such a challenging activity for them.
130
Chie Ogawa
The students seemed to gain more confidence when they were placed in planning
conditions, compared to being placed in non-planning conditions. When there was no planning,
they said “Oh, no planning today?” and showed their disappointment. Pre-task planning helped
them to comprehend what they were expected to talk about more fully. While they planned, one
of the students asked for my assistance to understand the topic question. She said she
misunderstood the meaning of the question. She said that planning time was necessary for her.
Therefore, with planning, it seemed beneficial for lower level students to have more readiness
and self-efficacy toward the topic.
CONCLUSION
Based on my observations, I would suggest the following pedagogical points for low-level
learners and possible research questions. First, as challenging as they appear, full 3/2/1 minute
monologic tasks can beneficial, in which the listeners are expected to listen quietly during the
tasks. A three-minute speaking time seems very long for low-level learners. However, as time
went by, students were gradually increased the duration of the speaking time without pauses.
The flexibility of adapting this activity is dependent upon on the students’ needs. I heard that
some instructors use this type of activity to provide practice towards listeners’ reactions and
follow-up questions. Possibly, future research could investigate learners’ oral performances
during the 3/2/1 task, comparing monologue tasks or interactive tasks.
Second, planning helps students with low-proficiency to have readiness prior to a fluency
activity. As I observed, the students were not always ready for the speaking tasks without
planning. For example, without planning, they invested too much time, focusing on what they
would talk about, which caused false starts. In addition, students could better prepared for the
task by using the pre-task planning time to comprehend the fluency topics.
Third, topics can be adapted based on students’ needs. Sometimes, students struggled
with topics that were unfamiliar to them. To solve this problem, students’ needs should be taken
into consideration. Ideally, by previewing the fluency questions in advance (e.g., a week before),
teachers can understand the degree to which students are familiar with topics based on their
students’ reactions. This will allow teachers to modify a topic question as necessary. Students
could also choose from a list of familiar topics in order to speak more confidently (e.g., “If you
don’t watch foreign movies, you can tell about foreign music or foreign food”).
This semester, I tried to include full 3/2/1 minute fluency tasks in each class regardless of
the schedule. I was surprised that a student mentioned that it was the hardest activity throughout
the 90-minute class. At the same time, I thought, as an instructor, I wanted to make the most use
of this activity to help improve the students’ proficiency. The 3/2/1 minute activity is not merely
a great activity for a warm up; it can be useful to help students gain fluency and to improve their
metacognitive skills about how to be a more fluent speaker of English.
REFERENCES
De Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental
study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61(2), 533-568.
Foster, P., & P. Skehan. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based
learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-324.
Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low
and high intermediate proficiency in R. Ellis (ed.): Planning and Task-Performance in a
Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language
performance, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 52–83.
131
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21, 109-148.
APPENDIX A
Brainstorming planning
Topic 1: Is it important for you to learn English?
Why?
Example?
Important or
not
important
Experience?
Topic 2: Do you think everyone in Japan need to study English?
Why?
Example?
Everyone
or
not everyone
Experience?
132
Chie Ogawa
APPENDIX B
Pair work planning
Topic 1: Is it important for you to learn English?
 Why?
 For example?
 Experiences?
 Other questions?
Topic 2: Do you think everyone in Japan need to study English?
 Why?
 For example?
 Experiences?
 Other questions?
APPENDIX C
Teacher-led planning
Topic: Is it important for you to study English?
 I think (I don’t think) it is important for me to study English. One reason is I want to
travel to an English speaking country. For example, I want to visit Hawaii. I have some
friends living in Hawaii, so I want to go there and talk to my friends in English. They are
Japanese but they were born in Hawaii. They cannot understand Japanese. Another reason
is that I want to use English for my job in the future. For example, I want to work at a big
company such as Toyota or ANA in the future. I think we need to use English to
communicate with other workers from different countries. So, I want to study English for
my future career. For example, I can improve my English by studying TOEIC. TOEIC is
very useful when I get a job. Many companies need employers to have higher TOEIC
scores. If I have higher TOEIC scores, I might work abroad such as New York or London. I
really want to work abroad in the future.
2) Do you think everyone in Japan should study English?
 I think everyone should study English in Japan. One reason is internationalization. For
example, in Tokyo, we have many tourists from different countries. If we want to have
more tourists, everyone should study English. Another example is that Tokyo Olympics is
coming in 2020. I am very excited to have many athletes from all over the world. But, I am
worried because not many Japanese people can speak English. If many foreign tourists
133
want to ask you in English, they might not be able to communicate very well. So, I think
everyone should study from elementary school children and older people to study English.
I think if you can speak English, you can have more friends. That’s a wonderful thing.
 I think (NOT everyone) should study English. For example, elementary school children
need to focus on other subjects such as Japanese or Kanji. Also, even university students
can choose to study English. For example, my friend major in art. In my opinion, studying
art does not really need English. If you really want to use English for your job or for your
future, you can study English.
134
Reflections on Willingness to Communicate in an EDC
Classroom
Timothy A. Opitz
ABSTRACT
Given the continuing trend in second language education towards language in use as a desired
learning outcome and as a means towards that outcome itself, Willingness to Communicate has
become a useful construct to explain students’ choice to speak. A reflective journal was kept in
a compulsory freshmen English discussion class for five weeks with a specific focus on
observing Willingness to Communicate behavioral indicators. The various pedagogical efforts
by the instructor to enhance learner behaviors and attitudes are reviewed and situated within a
heuristic framework. Lastly, some reflections on the perceived successes and failures of one
particular class to achieve a state of behavioral intention to communicate are offered.
INTRODUCTION
“…it is only through experience of communicating in a foreign language that one becomes an
effective communicator” (Hurling, 2012, p. 13)
The above quote not only reflects the general aims of one university’s communication based
language program, the English Discussion Class (EDC) program at Rikkyo University which
places a priority on language in use as a learning outcome, but is also representative of the
greater trend in second language acquisition theory which emphasizes communication as a
necessary component of the learning process itself as well as a goal of learning (Hashimoto,
2002). The implication for the classroom instructor is that factors which affect communication
outcomes need to be understood and addressed. Willingness to Communicate (WTC) has
emerged as a construct to capture a range of socio affective and intrapersonal variables which
have been observed to be indicative of communication outcomes. Simply defined as “the
intention to initiate communication, given a choice” (MacIntyre et al., 2001, p. 369), WTC is
emerging as a central concern for researchers and classroom practitioners alike.
Numerous theoretical approaches have been offered to examine learner behaviors as
predictors of WTC. A quick browse of modern SLA research yields a smorgasbord of ideas and
constructs aimed at informing an understanding of learner behaviors that affect WTC. Dornyei
(1988) borrowed Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior from behaviorism to look at L2
learner behaviors in terms of group cohesion. Maslow’s (1970) ideas about intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation have been widely applied to SLA contexts by too many to mention.
Similarly, others have examined motivation in terms of Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational
model which delineates integrative and instrumental motivations. Young (1999) developed
ideas about learner anxiety and L2 self to associate with L2 competence. Horowitz et al., (1986)
applied ideas from psychology to flush out communication apprehension. A comprehensive list
of the work that has been done to this point is far beyond the scope of this paper. It will have
suffice for now to say that predictors of language behavior and associated constructs observable
in an L2 classroom are neither straightforward nor simple and examining a learners choice to
speak is far from an exact science.
MacIntyre et al. (1998) provide a useful theoretical framework for organizing WTC
variables (Figure 1).
135
Figure 1: MacIntyre et al. (1998) heuristic framework for reflecting on WTC variables.
The framework provides a useful reference point for understanding the relationships of WTC
variables. Organized in a hierarchical structure, WTC variables are roughly divided into
enduring and situational influences with the enduring influences providing the foundation at the
bottom of the pyramid. The Layer VI enduring influences are highly stable patterns that predate
the individual (MacIntyre 2007) such as the broad social context in which language groups
operate and gender differences. Layer V contains affective and cognitive predictors where ideas
about group cohesion, like Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model, can be found and
Young’s (1999) L2 self begins to manifest itself. Learner behaviors concerning the role
individuals play in a group, like Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (1991), land in the Layer
IV Motivational Propensities. All of these factors begin to culminate in the Layer III Situated
Antecedents where learners are primed to make the choice to speak or not to speak with a
specific person. Layer II is the realization of the behavioral intention and Layer I is the desired
outcome of Language in Use. The model incorporates a range of individual and social-
contextual factors which have been either observed or theoretically postulated to either enhance
or reduce WTC.
In one potentially relevant research study, Yashima (2002) applied the MacIntyre (1998)
heuristic model to a specific teaching context, Japanese university freshmen in a compulsory
English discussion class at a Japanese university, and, through a questionnaire, concluded that
many Japanese learners fail to exhibit a desire to integrate to the L2 community and develop a
positive Layer VI Intergroup Climate because they are deficient in their orientation to
international posture. Therefore, “…lessons should be designed to enhance students’ interest in
different cultures and international affairs and activities” (p. 63). Given that the participants in
the present paper are of a similar nature, Japanese university freshmen taking a compulsory
136
Timothy A. Opitz
English discussion class at a Japanese university, Yashima’s (2002) conclusion may be

applicable to the student population being observed in this paper.
The Participants
Two EDC classes at Rikkyo University were chosen by the instructor to be the object of
reflective journal writings during the first four weeks of the semester. Both classes exhibited a
below average level of WTC in the early stages of the class in spite of specifically targeted
pedagogical efforts. Having had prior experience working with Japanese learners in a context
with language in use as a desired outcome, problems were anticipated. Extensive research has
indicated that, in spite of extensive compulsory education in the Japanese school system,
Japanese high school students are graduating with a deficiency in language in use competencies.
The Ministry of Education has acknowledged the shortcomings of the current system in
preparing students for success beyond the classroom and has initiated multiple reform proposals
aimed at addressing the interaction inadequacy (Neustupny and Tanaka 2004). Yet, the status
quo in the classrooms persists as practitioners continue to over-emphasize grammatical
competence. Working from this assumption, pedagogical actions were taken immediately in day
1 of EDC instruction to combat expected issues in the Layer VI enduring influences related to
intergroup climate and social context. For example, students were paired and instructed to think
of their own classroom rules. Naturally, the bulk of the suggested rules pertained to classroom
management concerns. Ideas like “be on time”, “don’t eat”, “don’t sleep” were common among
all classes. However, the rules that were not suggested by Group 1 and Group 2 reveal more
about their Layer VI disposition. More often than not, students will make suggestions like “have
fun” or “be nice to your classmates” which can be interpreted as being indicative of behaviors
moving towards Layer V Affective-Cognitive Contexts. Group 1 and Group 2 had no such ideas.
The teacher’s rules that were subsequently presented to the class were specifically designed to
address WTC issues and draw attention to the nature of expectations in a discussion class. Rules
included: 1. Make mistakes – to mitigate excessive focus on form that may reduce Layer V
Communicative Competence, 2. Ask questions – to establish expectations about the Layer V
Social Situation, and 3. Help each other – to facilitate Layer IV Intergroup Motivation.
Additionally, the first activity in all of the instructor’s EDC classes was a name circle activity
designed to quickly move the students’ mindset towards the Layer III Desire to Communicate
with a Specific Person. The name circle is generally fun and students have a laugh as they
struggle to remember each other’s names and personal information. Students frequently
volunteer information not demanded by the activity and use appropriate English expressions
such as “nice to meet you” or ask follow up questions. However, Group 1 and Group 2 offered
almost nothing beyond what was explicitly demanded by the activity and barely cracked a smile
or acknowledged each others’ utterances.
The indicators of reduced WTC continued throughout the first four lessons. Both Group
1 and Group 2 exhibited L1 WTC inhibition in the classroom before each lesson started,
frequently sitting as far apart from each other as the classroom would allow, not making eye
contact, or speaking to each other. This behavior is not uncommon for the first lesson or two but
rarely persists into the third or fourth week as it did with these two groups. Also, the Fluency
Practice activity was a struggle for these groups. Speakers frequently finished before the allotted
time had expired and Listeners rarely gave English reactions (or any reaction of any kind) or
asked questions despite repeated encouragement to help their partner in this manner. Discussion
preparation activities were frequently treated as a closed-ended task. Pairs would frequently
complete the activities without speaking and sit quietly waiting for time to expire. The
discussions themselves were marred with extended pregnant pauses, few reactions to content,
137
negligible follow up questions other than the occasional “why?”, and were more reminiscent of
students taking speaking turns to model their pre-planned utterances than discourse level
interaction.
In short, the two groups were chosen as the object of a reflective journal about WTC
behaviors for their perceived high degree of WTC inhibition. Furthermore, their responses or
lack of responses to the specifically targeted pedagogical interventions made them a pedagogical
challenge and an interesting case study.
DISCUSSION
Reflective journal entries were written immediately following lessons 5-9. In general, groups 1
and 2 were perceived to have a lower degree of WTC than their counterparts. However, journal
entries reveal that Group 2 exhibited slow but continuous progress in enhancing WTC indicators
while Group 1 peaked in Lesson 5, bottomed out in Lesson 6 and continued at a low level
throughout the remainder of the class. In addition to the persistent focus on promoting group
cohesion and constant re-affirmation of communicative competence to promote confidence in
individual L2 self that all classes received, both groups received targeted pedagogical
interventions specifically intended to address some aspect of WTC behavioral indicators.
Students have their first discussion test in Lesson 5, so an appeal was made to students’
assumed desire to perform well on the test. This motivation could be viewed as instrumental
(Gardner 1985) or extrinsic (Dornyei 1998). Either way, it would fall into MacIntyre’s (2007)
Layer V Affective-Cognitive Context. After a practice discussion, the students were given a
self-check sheet and asked to count how many times they performed each of the desired
language behaviors to create awareness about their individual performance. Then, teacher led
feedback offered advice about how students can help each other use the desired language. For
example, using “if” to talk about possibilities was a targeted language in use outcome in
Discussion Test 1. Students were advised to ask an “if” question, and respond with the “if”
clause in the answer. An example “if” question from the practice discussion along with a
response containing the “if” clause was written on the board. Students were further advised that
they can ask everybody in their discussion group the same question so they can all get a point on
the test. The intention was to build the Layer V Intergroup attitudes by fostering group cohesion
as a means of satisfying their perceived extrinsic motivation of performing well on the test.
A couple of different WTC related pedagogical efforts were made in Lesson 6. First,
student attitudes about their own communicative competence and image of L2 self were
attempted to be enhanced by giving positive feedback about their test performance. Specifically,
individual students were complemented on their ability to perform language features that had
been problematic for them. In addition, a brief meta-explanation about the inter-relationship
between culture and language was offered. The underlying assumption was that both groups had
unresolved language aversion issues due to their perceived lack of integrative motivation
(Gardner 1985). In other words, classroom observations had led the instructor to believe that
both groups lacked enduring motivating forces such as international friendships or interest in
international affairs and, therefore, had avoidance tendencies towards language behaviors that
were not positive L1 transfers. In the instructor’s other EDC classes, students would frequently
express desire to travel, mention having international friends, or talk about their desire to work
in a foreign country. In Group 1 and Group 2, students expressed to indicators of this kind. The
lesson 6 target language, paraphrasing, avoidance may have been an example of approach
avoidance due to enduring ethnocentric intergroup attitudes. Simply telling another student “I
don’t understand” as a precursor to paraphrasing may have been interpreted as face-challenging
because it implicitly means the speaker is not communicating well. As an example of the inter-
138
Timothy A. Opitz
relationship between culture and language, the instructor talked about learning to use keigo when
speaking Japanese, making the point that even though westerners don’t use keigo it is a natural
and necessary component of speaking Japanese. Likewise, some of the language behaviors the
students are being taught such as simply saying “I disagree” or “I don’t understand” are
necessary for English communication. One student response in Group 2 was quite revealing.
After, this brief meta-explanation a defiant student assertively said “We are Japanese!” The
statement could be interpreted as representative of a Layer VI enduring influence of Japanese
ethnocentrism.
Again working from the assumption that the Group 1 and Group 2 students were
primarily driven extrinsically by the desire to pass the class, another instrumental motivation
appeal was made. The students were asked how much a discussion test was worth compared to
a regular lesson. The percentages and numbers were written on the board and explicit attention
was drawn to the relative value of tests versus regular lessons. The intention was for students to
see that performance in everyday lessons was almost as valuable as performance on the tests.
Therefore, if they wanted to do well in the class, they would have to make a greater effort in
daily lessons.
Perhaps the most enlightening episode occurred during WTC related pedagogical
intervention in Lesson 8. As a preparation for a review lesson on follow up questions, students
were paired and given 2 minutes to discuss “What is most important to have a good discussion?”
It should be mentioned here that group work, helping each other, not worrying about form, and
embracing cultural differences were constantly and consistently re-enforced in all EDC classes
by the instructor. The degree to which these messages were embraced by Group 1 was clarified
by the student responses. After the two minutes was up, the class reconvened as a teacher
fronted group and responses were written on the board. The two most common answers among
all classes were “help each other” and “ask follow up questions” which is a good indicator that
the students had been receptive to the pedagogical efforts and understood that the discussion
class format required them to step outside their culturally bound expectations about classroom
learning. Only one student in Group 1 said “follow up questions” and not one person said “help
each other”. The lack of this type of response seems to indicate that they were still mired in
their Layer VI enduring attitudes about what language learning involves and what happens in a
teaching/learning context. Also, a couple of students gave responses along the lines of “give
clear ideas” and “communicate clearly”. These kinds of responses give cause to again assume
that they are more concerned with form than language in use. It would appear that the
instructor’s assumptions that the long pauses in between utterances during discussions and in
fluency practices were students planning their speech to ensure that it was as grammatically
accurate as possible was accurate.
By Lesson 9, Group 2 was performing at an acceptable level but Group 1 was still
struggling. The fluency practice began again with a 15-20 second lag before anyone began to
speak, students spoke in hushed tones, and speaking turns continued to be marred with long
pauses and planned deliberate speech. Having a feeling of failure to achieve group cohesion, an
appeal was made to individuals’ Layer III State of Communicative Self-Confidence while giving
feedback after the fluency practice. Each student was complimented on same aspect of their
language performance whether it was warranted or not. Of course, positive feedback on
performance is a standard technique for promoting confidence in L2 Self and was used
consistently in all classes throughout the semester. In this instance, each individual was targeted.
For example, Student A was complimented on English reactions, Student B on follow up
questions, Student C on content, etc… The rest of the lesson continued as usual. Pair work was
done mostly without language interaction and the first discussion was pocked with silence and
139
awkwardness. In another affirmation of Group 1’s solitary extrinsic motivation, the students
sprang to life in the discussion test itself and performed well.
CONCLUSION
The reflective journal entries were discontinued after Lesson 9 but the instructor continued to
monitor performance. Group 2 continued its slow but steady progress. Outside the classroom,
before and after class, they continued to exhibit low group cohesiveness and showed little desire
to communicate with each other. However, once the class started, they demonstrated an ability
to work themselves up to the Layer II WTC and their Behavioral Intention manifested itself in
L2 use. It may be that individuals never really developed the Layer III Desire to Communicate
with a Specific Person due to underlying enduring influences such as individual personal
psychology, but the messages about group cohesion and communicative competence were
understood well enough to bring them to a reasonably level of Layer III State of Communicative
Self-confidence. Compared to all other classes, Group 2 was performing at a relatively lower
level in terms of WTC behaviors, but was managing their inhibitions well enough to achieve the
central desired learning outcome of language in use on a discourse level. It is interesting to note
that, as a class, Group 2 had been identified through testing as lower proficiency than Group 1.
In observing classroom language, the level of Group 1’s proficiency did appear to be of a higher
skill level than Group 2. Group 1 students would frequently use more specified vocabulary,
make multiple clause sentences, and have higher type-token rations during discussions. At one
point in the semester, individual students who had been observed to more proficient were
approached by the instructor outside the classroom in an effort break through the Layer VI
enduring influence of individual psychology. The students were praised for their English
competency and asked to help the instructor by stepping into a facilitator role for the group. The
logic was that if the enduring social influences could not be broken down and students had
neither a desire to integrate to the L2 community nor any desire to interact with a specific person,
they could be motivated on the Layer III Situated Antecedents level as performing a personal
favor to the instructor. This tactic seemed to be moderately successful with two of the Group 2
students, but was not embraced by any of the Group 1 students.
Group 1 never realized Layer III Situated Antecedents of any kind. In fact, it appears
that individuals in Group 1 were never able to transcend the Layer I enduring influences of
Social and Individual Context. First and foremost, Yashima’s (2002) ideas about the lack of
integrative motivation (Gardner 1985) in Japanese learners appear to be directly applicable.
Yashima (2002) used 6 measures of international posture to evaluate students desire to integrate
with the L2 community: intercultural friendship, interest in international affairs, approach
avoidance tendencies, ethnocentrism, interest in international vocation, and communication
competence. When evaluating Group 1 by these measures, a clear pattern emerges. The
instructors pedagogical interventions were more focused on Layer V Affective-Cognitive
Context behaviors, but the EDC curriculum does provide opportunities to cultivate international
posture in the discussions. In retrospect, student content and responses to these topics
illuminates their attitudes toward integration. For example, Lesson 2 focusses on studying
English and asks “Do people in Japan need to study English?” as a discussion prompt. A
number of Group 1 students felt nobody in Japan really needs to study English. This kind of
response seems to be another indicator of the ethnocentrism displayed in Lesson 6. In Lesson 3,
students were asked to talk about “What countries would you like to visit?” In the Fluency
Practice and multiple students answered “no where” or “I only want to travel in Japan.” Again,
these responses can easily be interpreted as a lack of international posture. Many more example
140
Timothy A. Opitz
of this nature could be sighted, and none of the Group 1 students mentioned having international
friends.
With the exception of the meta-discussion about the language-culture connection in
Lesson 8 to address approach avoidance tendencies and drawing positive attention to
communicative competence, it seems that little was done to facilitate international posture. The
instructor had quickly recognized Group 1’s issues with enduring cultural attitudes and assumed
pedagogical interventions of this nature would be futile, opting to try to exploit perceived
student strengths. If it is indeed the case that the root of these students’ WTC inhibition lies
deep in the enduring influence of culturally bound attitudes causing a fear of integration, it begs
the question “What can be done?” Of course, providing talking points that concern international
posture in the curriculum is a nice starting point, and the EDC curriculum has clearly provided
multiple opportunities for students to foster integrative attitudes as Yashima (2002) suggested,
but is there anything more an individual instructor can do in the classroom in the instances
where whole classes fail to move past Layer VI issues? An interesting path for future research
and practitioners action research would be to experiment with classroom techniques and
interventions that specifically target integrative desire.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179-211.
Dornyei, Z. (1988). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31,
117-135.
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes
and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and Willingness to Communicate as Predictors of Reported
L2 Use: The Japanese ESL Context. Second Language Studies. 20(2), 29-70.
Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern
Language Journal 26. p.125-132.
Hurling, S. (2012) Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English
Discussion, 1, 1.1-1.10.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S., Clément, R. & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to Communicate,
Social Support and Language Learning Orientations of Immersion Students. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369-388.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness
to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern
Language Journal, 82, 545-562.
MacIntyre, P.D., (2007). Willingness to Communicate in a second language: Individual decision
making in a social context. Available at
http://www.uoc.edu/portal/ca/catedra_multilinguisme/_resources/documents/Barcelona_p
aper_for_UOC_Conference.pdf.
Maslow, A., (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
Neustupny, J. & Tanaka, S. (2004) English in Japan: An overview. In Makarova, V. and Rodgers,
T. (Eds.), English Language Teaching: The Case of Japan (2004) (pp. 11-28). Muenchen,
LINCOM EUROPA.
Yashima, T., (2002). Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language: The Japanese EFL
Context. Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54-66.
Young, R. (1999). Sociolinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19,
105-132.
141
Japanese L1 Use In a University EFL Communicative
Classroom: Purpose, Function and Intervention Strategies
François Ouellette
ABSTRACT
The English-only policy in EFL classrooms has been a point of contention for teachers, students
and administrators. For students, adhering to 100 percent English in an EFL course can prove
challenging. Teachers are therefore required to evaluate their beliefs about policy and develop
strategies to support students’ L2 use. This article chronicles the experiences of Japanese first-
year students studying a mandatory EFL course, which focuses on speaking fluency at Rikkyo
University. First, the author documents the function and purpose of Japanese use in the
classroom assisted by keeping a teaching journal. The teaching journal primarily examined
Japanese use of three students. Next, the article evaluates the purpose of Japanese use in the
classroom and which of the following instances require the most teacher intervention: Japanese
for task comprehension, L2 communication difficulties and Japanese for social purposes. Lastly,
the article explores teaching intervention strategies to support L2 use in an English discussion
class.
INTRODUCTION
The English discussion class (EDC) at Rikkyo encourages students and teachers to use
100 percent English. However, strict adherence to this rule can frustrate some students and can
create a discouraging second-language learning (SLL) environment. Students inevitably use
some of their first language (L1), Japanese, in the class; it is possible for teachers to irritate and
alienate students by frequently reminding them to speak English. Moreover, it is important to
recognize that the EDC program is mandatory for Rikkyo students, and thus it is difficult to
predict a student’s motivation to learn English as a foreign language (EFL). Many teachers
believe it is important to set an English-only precedence at the beginning of the program to
ensure clear expectations of their students, and this is often an effective practice. However,
frequently reminding students to use the L2 can frustrate them and can generate a negative
attitude in the class. In one of my classrooms I noticed I was alienating some of my students
when I was getting frustrated with reminding them to use English. In turn they were becoming
frustrated with my requests, and as a result, the students began to use more Japanese in the
classroom.
The English-only policy is used to maximize students’ use of their second language (L2),
English. Some benefits include maximizing their time-on-task, as students only meet once per
week in the discussion class for 90 minutes, making it important for student to use the L2 as
much as possible during class time. English-only also can push students to use more
L2 communication strategies when they encounter L2 difficulties such as managing negotiation
of meaning (Gass and Varonis, 1989) as discussed in Gass & Varonis (1994). Communication
strategy practice can prepare learners for communication breakdowns that they may have in the
future with people who do not share an L1. Lastly, anecdotal observations remark that when a
student is addressed in their L1 they are more likely to answer in their L1, thus decreasing L2
talk-time with their peers.
DISCUSSION
In my first semester teaching the EDC, I had three students who frequently used Japanese in the
classroom. I often reminded these students to use English both in and out of classroom activities,
142
François Ouellette
which resulted in a tense classroom atmosphere. These students were not motivated to use
English and became increasingly defiant and generally used Japanese to socialize. I perceived
their increased use of Japanese as a way for these students to demonstrate their frustration and
disinterest in the EDC classroom.
In the second semester I noticed a similar pattern evolving in one of my classrooms. In
lesson five I had three new students who were regularly using Japanese in the classroom. Note,
all names used in this article are pseudonyms. Yayoi and Yuki primarily used Japanese for social
purposes between activities. The third student, Manami, used the most Japanese in and out of
English discussion activities. These students were not particularly motivated to learn English
and shared similar opinions about learning EFL. During one lesson Yuki said “I don't need to
know English. I don't want to leave Japan and I never need to use English”. Nevertheless, all
three students made an effort in the classroom to learn the English functions and meet the goals
of the EDC. However, I was becoming frustrated that the students persisted to use Japanese in
the classroom after I had asked them several times to use English and I could see the students
were becoming equally frustrated with my requests. The use of Japanese and increased tension
within the classroom prompted me to investigate the use of the L1 in an EFL classroom. Over
enforcement of the English-only policy can discourage students from participating in classroom
activities.
I decided to observe the students use of the L1 in the classroom without intervening to
better understand their motivations for using their L1. Particularly, at which points in the lesson
were students using the L1. I noticed three general instances when Japanese use was most
prevalent. This list is compiled by most frequent to least frequent use in the classroom.
1. Social The most common use of Japanese occurs immediately after completing a
classroom task such as a fluency activity, practice turns, or station activities. Generally, students
used Japanese as they were returning to their desks or moving around the classroom. Students
were likely continuing their ideas or anecdotes from the recently completed activity. Student L1
use sometimes interfered with instructions for the next activity. Though, this was the most
frequent use of Japanese, it represented a small portion of class time, perhaps 0-3 minutes total
in a 90-minute lesson.
2. Task Comprehension Students used Japanese during my instructions of the next
activity or right at the beginning of a newly introduced classroom task. Sometimes students did
not understand my instructions for the next activity because my rate of speech was too fast or
due to their unfamiliarity with vocabulary. In other cases, students were still socializing in their
L1 from the previous activities and were not listening to the instructions for the next activity.
3. L2 Communication Difficulties Students used Japanese during speaking activities to
communicate a complicated thought for which they lacked sufficient English vocabulary. In a
discussion pair, conveying their ideas was more important than using the L2 strategies that I had
taught them.
Investigation
In lesson five, I began keeping a teaching journal to observe Japanese use in the classroom.
Manami’s use of Japanese became the focus of my observations as she used the most L1 in the
classroom. She was less proficient in English than her peers in terms of her English speaking
and listening skills. She was a diligent student and made efforts to participate throughout the
course. Overall, the EDC class placement is effective is pairing students with similar English
proficiency from the same major disciplines. I have taught roughly 220 EDC students with only
2 students who were misplaced amongst their peers and should have been placed in a lower level
class.
143
I observed the use of Japanese in class and evaluated the frequency of each instance
(most frequent to least frequent): 1 Social Reasons 2. Task Comprehension
3. L2 Communications Strategies. Next, I decided to evaluate the importance of managing the
use of Japanese in each instance. Evaluating the importance of Japanese use in the classroom
was used to inform my teaching strategies for minimizing L1 use in the EDC. I ranked L1 use in
the class based on two criteria a. Can the teacher modify his or her instruction to mitigate the L1
use from students? b. Does L1 use negatively affect SLL opportunities?
1. Task Comprehension is the most important use of Japanese to address because
students are unlikely to successfully or accurately complete an activity if they cannot understand
what is being asked of them. Manami sometimes used her L1 to understand the task, but she
rarely used Japanese to convey her ideas in the discussion portion of activities. I ranked Japanese
use for task comprehension as an innocent transgression of the English-only policy. I believe it
is innocent because it was infrequent, and had a minimal negative impact on the English
discussion activities. She used Japanese with the aims to fulfill English classroom activities. For
example, after I gave classroom instructions Manami would sometimes whisper in Japanese to
her partner to confirm the objective of an English activity, which resulted in less time to practice
target functions or generate ideas for the group discussions. Castellotiti (1997; cited in Liu, Ahn,
Baek, & Han, 2004) suggests that the L1 is useful to “enhance language input” for
comprehension, which can be a useful strategy for beginner L2 learners, but the students in the
EDC have sufficient language skills to communicate more complicated ideas in English.
Ultimately, Japanese use for task comprehension is avoidable because teachers can clarify their
instructions and prepare simpler instructions for lower proficiency L2 student. Students are often
capable of understanding a task if a teacher can simplify their instruction to maximize student
comprehension. Instruction techniques will be discussed in the Teaching intervention strategies
section.
2.L2 Communication Difficulties is the second most important issue to address because
the EDC wants students to use percent English during discussion activities. Sometimes during
the English activities, students will use Japanese to convey difficult ideas or ideas for which they
lack the most appropriate vocabulary. The EDC teaches students to use communication
strategies to help them convey difficult ideas and use unfamiliar vocabulary. Therefore, in ideal
circumstances students should rarely need to use Japanese in English group discussions because
they have speaking strategies at their disposal. Students are also taught how to collaborate with
their peers to convey difficult ideas. Further, collaboration in the EDC is encouraged and
rewarded in the students’ grading criteria because it encourages peer-to-peer negotiation of
meaning in the L2.
3. Japanese Use for Social Purposes Social use of Japanese is the most frequent use of
Japanese in my class. I ranked this as the least important issue to address for a few reasons. Most
importantly, students rarely use Japanese during group discussions and pair activities. Social use
of Japanese almost always occurred between English discussion activities. At the beginning of
the course I treated social use of Japanese as the most important issue to address because it was
the most frequent use. Ultimately my beliefs changed about managing social use of the L1 in a
mono-ethnic EFL classroom because my previous rigidity was counterproductive to an overall
positive SLL atmosphere. Students rarely used Japanese during the lesson’s activities, which
suggested to me that students were trying to fulfill the objectives of the English course. Social
use of Japanese had a limited impact on the course aims, thus I ranked this as the least important
L1 use to address.
144
François Ouellette
Teaching Intervention Strategies

The teaching journal has helped me notice patterns with my students’ use of Japanese. Across
the semester I had opportunities to experiment with different strategies to help my students
become more successful in speaking English. First, I identified L1 use in the class and developed
a plan for each instance L1 of use. I ranked student L1 use based on how a teacher can create a
more effective SLL environment and by how negatively L1 use affects English learning and
production. If students are using the L1 for task comprehension, then teachers can probably
modify their instruction to be more comprehensible for the students. After recognizing that
Manami was asking her peers for clarification of task expectations, I realized I should change
my instructional style. Below is a list of strategies teachers can use to mitigate L1 use for task
comprehension.
Supporting Task Comprehension

1. Slow down rate of speech, slow down instruction, slow down the transition between
activities. I noticed my students relied less on the L1 when they were given sufficient time to
understand tasks. Effective time management is important because rushing through parts of a
lesson tend to cause miscommunications in the classroom. I found my time management
improved significantly when I began using a timer for discussion preparation and practice
activities. As a result, I could devote more time to my instructions and transitions between
speaking activities because task-time was shortened and made consistent.
2.Multisensory instruction. First, a teacher needs the students’ attention before they are
capable of attending to the teacher’s instructions. If students are not paying attention, they will
likely have to ask a peer for clarification once the task has begun, which has a negative impact
on the learning outcomes of all the students. A teacher can give oral instructions while
demonstrating the activity in the textbook—pointing to the text can increase learners’
understanding of the task. Multisensory instruction is supported by Mayer (2001) who proposes
that information processed by two senses can have a synergistic effect so long as each medium
of information does not require too much working memory to comprehend. Thus, auditory and
visual instructions with the students attention can improve students understanding of instructions
for language tasks. Additionally, a teacher can check for comprehension by prompting students
to paraphrase the instructions or simplify the words in the textbook by summarizing the task and
by giving students sufficient time to read the activities objectives.
Supporting L2 Communication Difficulties

L2 communication difficulties would sometimes arise during group discussions where
students might default to the L1 to communicate ideas. Manami would sometimes whisper her
ideas in Japanese in turn-taking activities and rarely if ever initiated group discussions. A teacher
can use a few scaffolding strategies to improve student preparation for speaking activities, thus
minimizing the need to rely on the L1 to convey ideas during group discussions.
1. Students can answer the same practice or discussion preparation question two or
three times, but with different partners. The student can scaffold their ideas by first attending to
generating content and then focusing on language accuracy and function use. Scaffolding allows
students to become more fluent by sharing the ideas with different partners, which can give them
confidence to use similar ideas during group discussions. Additionally, peers can help one
another with the formation of ideas and function use as suggested in Vygotsky’s social
interactionist theories (1978; as cited in Cameron, 2001). Teacher intervention can also ensure
that students are receiving sufficient practice time by managing speaker and listener turns. If
students are doing four stations activity, one strategy is to assign who begins the discussion.
145
Assign speaker 1 and speaker 2 and have them alternate at each station to promote more equal
L2 talk-time. Alternating who initiates each talking turn creates more balanced L2 talk-time.
Alternatively, teachers can call out “switch” halfway through two-minute preparation turns.
2. Student-Teacher pair work. If there is an odd number of students, then teachers can
pair with a reticent student. Note, during discussion preparation activities the first-turn students
will work in a group of three so that the teacher can still listen and give class feedback. In the
following two or three turns the teacher can pair with a reticent student. The teacher can
facilitate the student’s L2 practice by ensuring 90 percent talk-time rather than 50 percent or less.
I found this strategy especially effective because the teacher can give lots of encouraging
feedback to build up the student’s confidence before group discussions. I used this strategy
twice with Manami and I noticed a few positive effects from pairing with her. First, I noticed
that I was able to build rapport with her and I noticed a change in her confidence and motivation
in the EDC. In this sense, teacher-student pair work can lower a student’s affective filter
(Krashen 1985) by offering support and helping students feel comfortable speaking English.
During teacher-student pair work I was able to encourage her ideas and give her praise, in turn
she smiled and had a welcoming disposition. If students are happy in the classroom and feel they
are recognized and accountable to a teacher or their peers, then students generally invest more
effort. Secondly, I was able to assist Manami with the formation of her ideas if she had
difficulties. At times she might ask me “How do you say “nani nani” in English?” to which I
would respond, “Hmm, I’m not sure, can you give me an example?”. We would work through
her ideas together until she was capable of sharing her idea in English. The practice during pair
work prepared her for group discussions because she was able to reproduce L2 content more
fluently and accurately, which she had previous difficulty expressing during our pair activities.
3. In some cases, lower proficiency students are also more shy to speak in group
discussions and tend to take the last turn to speak. Generally during a group discussion, the more
intuitive ideas about a topic are stated first and the last student is left with the most challenging
task of choosing a novel idea to discuss. In many cases, this idea has not been practiced during
the preparation phase, which puts an added cognitive load on the last turn-taker. The speaker
must both attend to language and generate an idea, which is difficult for some L2 speakers. The
result is students forgo their turn, give up half-way through an idea, default to the L1 or use
communication strategies to get assistance for their peers. I can remember Manami being the last
speaker in group discussions on three occasions. Her peers invited her to speak “What’s your
opinion?” She had difficulty sharing a unique idea because the ideas she had practiced had
already been mentioned in the group discussion. When Manami was the last turn-taker, her turns
were filled with long pauses as she struggled to generate unique ideas and attend to language. On
some occasions, she would apologize and ask to move on. In such cases, students are
encouraged to use communication strategies like “How do you say…?”, “Do you understand?”
and “For example… (describes idea)”. However, sometimes, students will not use such
communication strategies.
One of the most effective strategies I used to help lower-proficiency L2 students with L2
communication difficulties was by assigning the order of roles as I had during station activities.
During group discussion 1 I would note the order of turn-taking roles, and in discussion 2 I
would reverse the order of the roles. So, the student who spoke last in discussion 1 would have
to speak first in discussion 2. Usually, the first speaker in a group discussion is often the most
confident and proficient L2 speaker, whereas the last speaker is often the least confident and
least proficient. Assigning speaker turns had several beneficial side effects. Firstly, students who
struggle will almost always have an idea to share from the discussion preparation if they speak
first. Being first in the group discussion may add some extra pressure to lead a conversation, but
146
François Ouellette
the discussion preparation often prepares the speaker. Secondly, discussion group members
become more aware of their own talk-time and tend to become better at self-managing equal
participation. Lastly, because their attention is drawn to speaking equally, more proficient
speakers will ask more follow-up questions, invite quieter speakers to share ideas and support
weaker students to reach the group goal of equal participation. Raising classroom awareness of
turn-taking and student talk-time was best observed during group discussion tests. The group
speaking strategies developed during regular classes translated to higher overall grades on the
discussion tests. For example, more proficient speakers tend to dominate the discussion in order
to achieve the highest grade. However, since collaboration is rewarded, a selfish strategy is
counter-intuitive. Sometimes dominant students would get a lower grade on asking questions,
which resulted in lower-proficiency students receiving less time to participate during the test. In
contrast, once students understood the importance of collaboration by asking many questions,
the overall group discussion test scores increased for all the students.
Teacher-led intervention was effective in raising students awareness of group
participation, but student-led self-reflection was also effective at raising awareness of speaking
strategies. Students reflected on their percentage of talk-time during the discussions with the
goal of 25 percent talk-time in a group of four students. Students in this class kept a week-to-
week log about their talk-time, which I would refer them to before each group discussion. I did
this to encourage the group to speak equally and help each other out. To support self-reflection,
students thought about which functions can help the group speak more equally. I asked students
“If you wrote, less than 25 percent group talk-time, what strategies can you use to speak more?”
“If you spoke more than 25 percent group talk-time, how can you help others to share more
ideas?”. More talkative students changed their group discussion behaviour by asking more
questions to weaker or shy students. Reticent students began initiating more group discussions
and joined the discussion more often by saying “Can I make a comment?”, “Can I add
something?” or “Can I ask a question?”. The class was able to replicate their attention to equal
group participation on the tests, which contributed to higher average course marks. One
disadvantage to the student talk-time log was sometimes talkative students would feel guilty and
apologize if they felt they were speaking much more than 25 percent of the group discussion
time. Another disadvantage was, sometimes proficient students spent their 25 percent of talk-
time generating ideas and forgot to use their functions. Ultimately, managing talk-time and
students L1 use during activities became much easier as the semester went along. L1 use for
communication difficulties was minimized by devoting sufficient time to scaffolding ideas and
managing student practice time. Equal group participation was improved by teacher led
intervention and student self-reflection activities. The journal motivated me to indentify possible
strategies I could use to minimize L1 use during activities. In contrast, I had difficulty coming
up with strategies to minimize social use of L1 in between activities.
Japanese Use For Social Purposes

Japanese use for social purposes was the most frequent use of the L1 in the classroom.
As mentioned before, the EDC has a 100 percent English policy, however some students use
their L1 to socialize between activities as they walk between desks or after group discussions.
During my observation period of L1 use, I did not remind students to speak English in between
activities and I noticed the students were in a better mood. They were less frustrated because
they were not being reminded to use English outside of activities. Students seem to discern
between being in an English speaking activity and being out of an English speaking activity.
Further, Japanese use generally occurred to complete their ideas and thoughts that they had been
discussing during the English activity. It is necessary to have a fairly strict adherence to time
147
management of activities because the lessons duration is only 90-minutes. A teacher is presented
with two options when conduction pair activities, one is to allow student to finish their story in
English by devoting more time to practice turns. Or two, adhere to the time and stop students
during their conversations and risk that students may choose to quickly finish their story in
Japanese. Because students were diligent during English activities and made genuine efforts to
speak as much English as possible during group discussions, it seemed less important to enforce
English-only in between activities. The result was the students were overall happier, which
improved class cohesion. L1 use in the class allowed students to quickly complete an anecdote
they had been telling during the short practice activities or station activities. Further, small L1
use outside of activities did not have a noticeable negative affect on using the L2 and I would
argue created a more comfortable L2 atmosphere because students were happier and more
relaxed. Occasionally, students would continue to speak in Japanese after they had taken their
seats and this can interfere with the teacher’s oral feedback and instructions. In these cases, I
waited until the students finished speaking or asked them to “please listen”. Overall, social use
of Japanese in between activities had a limited negative effect on English participation in the
class. The reflective process led me to focus energy on helping students use English during
speaking activities rather than reprimanding students outside of the activities. Nevertheless,
managing social use of the L1 in the EFL classroom is a topic that deserves future attention to
develop other teacher intervention strategies.
CONCLUSION
The reflective practice of my teaching principles has changed my opinion on the English-only
policy. My observations helped me recognize how students were using their L1 in the classroom,
including: task comprehension, L2 communication difficulties, and for social purposes. I came
to believe it was better to focus my efforts on classroom dynamics that would have a direct
impact on L2 success. I was able to develop some teaching strategies to support lower-
proficiency L2 students become more successful in sharing ideas and participating in English
group discussions. These strategies also had beneficial effects on class cohesion, and encouraged
students to help each other speak more English in group discussions. Students also became more
aware of turn-taking strategies and improved their ability to speak equally during group
discussions, which led to improved class scores on discussion tests. Lastly, my attitudes towards
using Japanese for social purposes changed. I decided the cost of discouraging Japanese use for
social purpose came at the expense of student motivation and class cohesion. The result being
that an English-only policy might not be the most effective strategy, however, an English-mostly
policy seems to be an effective compromise. Future implications for research would consider
social use of the L1 in the classroom as it relates to the English-only policy.
REFERENCES
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY:
Longman.
Liu, D. Ahn, Baek, Han (2004). South Korean High School English Teachers' Code Switching:
Questions and Challenges in the Drive for Maximal Use of English in Teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 38, 4, 605-638.
Mayer, R. (2001) Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
148
Attempting to Increase Function Phrase Use in
Communicatively Competent Students
Matthew Y. Schaefer
ABSTRACT
The use of Functions is a key component of the EDC course, both as a tool to organize
Discussions and as a way to generate content for the students. In this paper, I will reflect on my
observation of two students who, in the first several weeks of the term, contributed very well to
all lesson activities, but did not use the target Functions sufficiently. In Lessons 6, 7, 10, and 11
(i.e. lessons that introduced new Functions), I tried different types of Preparation activities for
Discussion 1 to see if they had any effect on the observed students’ use of Functions.
INTRODUCTION
The stated objectives of the EDC course include students being able to use a variety of
interactional functions during extended (16-minute) discussions (Hurling, 2012, pp. 1-3 & 1-4).
Most of these target functions are presented explicitly by instructors, in activities which include
focused practice, and students are made aware that they are assessed on their ability to use them
appropriately. As part of the presentations of the functions, students are encouraged to consider
both how to use them (i.e. specific target phrases and appropriate contexts) and why they are
beneficial for the discussions. The ‘why’ is often explained as encouraging negotiation of
meaning (e.g. Paraphrasing), generating content (e.g. Reporting Information), or going deeper
into the topic (e.g. Different Viewpoints) (Doe, Hurling, Livingston, Moroi, & Takayama, 2013).
However, although the course puts a relative emphasis on the acquisition of these functions, I
noticed that many of my higher-level students 1 were not using them as often as they were
expected to. This was despite the fact that they were still contributing a lot of content to the
discussions and exhibiting a strong willingness to communicate, often more so than lower-level
students who were using the functions at a higher frequency. Discussions with colleagues led me
to believe that this was a common teacher observation in EDC lessons.
I decided, therefore, that this would be a good subject for my Teaching Journal semester
project and chose two students to observe, both of whom were in the same class, and who fit the
profile of high-level learner/low-level function user. Furthermore, they stood out in their class
because their classmates were in general low-level learners and average function users. The two
observed students, Miyuki and Keisuke2, were clearly much more comfortable speaking English
and sharing ideas than their classmates. They often contributed a relatively large percentage of
the utterances in discussions, were generally comfortable disagreeing with others’ opinions, and
often displayed a sense of humor during activities. They were quick to laugh and, in illustration
of how they differed from their classmates, were usually the only two to speak (albeit to each
other and in Japanese) before and after the lesson.
1
In this case, “higher-level” means students who exhibit an overall stronger communicative
competence compared to their classmates.
2
Both names are aliases.
149
My initial aim of the Teaching Journal was to observe whether or not, or in what ways,
Miyuki and Keisuke’s lack of Function use was affecting their content in Discussions. However,
I soon realized, helped by conversations with colleagues, that there was a clear distinction
between Function use and Function Phrase use. In other words, a student could express the
purpose of a Function (e.g. “School uniforms are not a good idea”) without marking it with a
particular phrase that made it clear what the Function was (e.g. “In my opinion, school uniforms
are not a good idea”). I noticed that Miyuki and Keisuke were in fact often expressing target
Functions but not always marking them with Function Phrases. This led me to consider what the
benefits were of having students use Function phrases, considering that they were still
contributing relevant content to the discussions without them. I came to two conclusions. First,
Function Phrases are the easiest way for students to understand, and practice, the Function itself.
If a student is asked to use a Function Phrase appropriately, it provides a clear example and thus
an explicit way for instructors to explain the Function. Second, the Function Phrases are
interactional by nature, and are therefore just as, if not more, important for the listeners in the
discussions than for the speaker. For example, the speaker may know that his or her particular
utterance is intended as a paraphrase, but if this is not clear to the listeners, there is a strong
potential for a breakdown in communication. With this in mind, I then shifted the focus of my
Teaching Journal to observing how different types of Practice activities could foster better
Function Phrase use in the Discussions immediately following them.
DISCUSSION
One purpose of the Preparation activities in EDC lessons is to help students activate their
knowledge of, and develop their opinions on, the lesson topics. They provide a low-pressure
activity in which to generate content to use in the two extended Discussions, which the students
perhaps perceive as being of “higher stakes” than other stages of the lesson. The Preparation
activities are also chances to practice the target Function Phrases by applying them to the lesson
topics, and therefore giving students an opportunity to see how they could be used in contexts
broader than the more limited (in terms of content) Practice activities. Lessons 6, 7, 10, and 11
all introduce new Functions, and in each of these lessons with the observed class I tried different
types of Practice activities for Discussion 1. As part of my observations, I kept records of what
method I used for the Preparation activity, what topic was being discussed, which Function was
being practiced, and how long the activity lasted (see Appendix 1). I also noted how well Miyuki
and Keisuke used the target Function Phrases in the Preparation and in the subsequent
Discussion.
Method 1: Function Patterns

After students prepared for the Preparation activity individually by putting check marks in a
table, I put them into pairs to discuss their ideas. However, I first gave each pair a Function
script to follow:
A: OPINION?
B: OPINION
A: REASON?
B: REASON
A: PARAPHRASING?
B: Yes, that’s right! or Not really… + PARAPHRASING
150
Matthew Y. Schaefer
I modeled this with a student before they began and then allowed the pairs to discuss their ideas
for about six minutes, taking turns being A and B. Most pairs completed the script about four
times. Although Miyuki and Keisuke were not working together as a pair, I observed that both of
them did not always follow the script, but were able to when I reminded them. They also
frequently asked extra follow-up questions.
In the following Discussion, neither Miyuki nor Keisuke used the target Function
(Paraphrasing), although they did contribute many ideas. It is possible that, because this
particular Function’s primary purpose is to negotiate meaning, both students felt that its use was
not necessary for contributing content to the Discussion. However, it should be pointed out that,
after further practice of this Function, they were able to use it in later lessons.
Method 2: Phrase Cards

As before, the students first worked individually to begin thinking about the topic. I then gave
one student in each pair a piece of paper with the question Function Phrases written on them:
Where did you hear that?

How do you know about that?
Students discussed their ideas and whoever was holding the piece of paper had to use one of the
questions at an appropriate time. They then gave the paper to their partner who similarly had to
ask one of the questions before handing it back, and so on. Students continued this activity for
about seven minutes, with most pairs exchanging the piece of paper about three times. Keisuke
and his partner exchanged more times, mainly, it seemed, because they treated it as a game and
enjoyed the challenge of finding opportunities to ask the questions. I had to prompt Miyuki to
ask one of the questions when she had the paper as she and her partner seemed to have forgotten
the structure of the activity, even though they were sharing ideas about the topic.
Keisuke used the Function Phrases often from early in the subsequent Discussion, which
seemed to prompt Miyuki to also use them. However, their use was not always appropriate and
therefore did not necessarily lead to more content. From my observation, this was probably
because they were looking at the Function Phrases more as language forms that they were
expected to use in the lesson, rather than Discussion Functions that could improve the depth of
their interactions. This may be directly linked to the game-like nature of the Preparation activity.
However, it should be pointed out that, again, both Keisuke and Miyuki were able to use the
Function more appropriately in later lessons. It may be, therefore, that having them use it a lot at
the early stages of its acquisition, even in somewhat inaccurate contexts, had long-term benefits.
Dornyei (1995) points out that one of the acquisition stages of strategic conversational phrases is
providing early opportunities for repeated use. As he puts it, “automatization will not always
occur without specific focused practice” (p. 64). In addition, he lists ‘encouraging risk-taking’ as
one of the procedures for this type of strategy training, which could be interpreted as allowing
students to misuse a piece of target language if it moves them in the direction of acquisition.
Method 3: Teacher-Student Demonstrations

This time, I gave students no explicit instructions on how to organize their interactions, other
than to discuss their ideas and to remind them of the target Function (Different Viewpoints) by
leaving the phrases written on the whiteboard. While the pairs were talking, which lasted about
six minutes, I monitored and took notes on good examples of Function Phrase use and on missed
opportunities of Function Phrase use. After the activity, in front of the whole class, I re-enacted
the good examples with the students who had originally used them. I then re-enacted the missed
151
opportunities, also with the relevant students, but this time prompted the use of the Function
Phrases, either by gesturing towards the whiteboard or by asking a question Function Phrase and
thereby eliciting an answer Function Phrase (e.g. “What about from older people’s point of
view?”). Keisuke was one of the students who provided an example of good Function use.
In the Discussion, both Keisuke and Miyuki used the Function Phrases accurately and
with appropriate frequency (about two or three times each within ten minutes). One possible
reason that Keisuke was able to do this may be that he acquired the Function well from the
Practice and Preparation activities and was therefore primed to use it in the Discussion. (It
should be noted that his use of the Function in the Practice activity was applied to content
different to his use of the Function in the Discussion.) I believe that Miyuki’s good use of the
Function may be connected to Keisuke. Because they seemed to have good rapport with each
other, it is possible that she would pay more attention to my feedback example using Keisuke’s
utterance from the Practice activity. Also, because I always had them in the same groups for the
Discussions – for the purposes of the Teaching Journal – she may have again been influenced by
his use of the Function. On a general scale, this method also exhibits more ‘teacher confirmation’
(Arnold, 2013) than the others. Teacher confirmation includes, among other behaviours, teachers
demonstrating that they are paying attention to what students are saying and validating their
ideas (in this case, by sharing them with the rest of the class). According to Arnold (p.35), this
encourages learners “to participate more actively in the learning tasks and thus smoothes the
road to language learning.”
Method 4: Student-Led Feedback

Students were given no particular instructions on how to conduct their sharing of ideas, but I did
tell them that I would ask them to report some of the ideas that they heard afterwards and that
they could take notes while they were speaking if they wanted to. I again left the target Function
(Balancing Opinions) on the whiteboard. Students spoke for about eight minutes. None of the
students took notes while they were speaking, but the four students I called on to report their
ideas (including Keisuke and Miyuki) were able to while using the target Functions (e.g. “Shiina
said that one disadvantage of Fumi paying a fine is that she will become poorer and steal
again.”), although I occasionally had to prompt them by gesturing at the board.
Keisuke and Miyuki both used the target Function appropriately and extensively during
the Discussion. By this point in the EDC course, they both seemed very aware of how they were
expected to perform and would sometimes treat it as a game of who could use a Function Phrase
first in a given situation. Their interaction with each other, as both students and friends, seemed
to have a strong influence on their language output. As Stevick (1980) put it, “success depends
less on materials, techniques, and linguistic analyses, and more on what goes on inside and
between people in the classroom.”
CONCLUSION
There are many factors that may influence a student’s use, or non-use, of a particular Function
during a discussion. Among these are: the student’s particular emotional state in any given
lesson (MacIntyre, 2002); the student’s previous experience with the Function (including in their
L1); the nature of the Function itself and how easy it is to incorporate into different topics; and
the influence of classmates’ use of the Function. In addition, simply by attending the EDC
course every week, students are likely to become more aware of what is expected of their
performance in the various activities and can therefore improve their ability to use the target
language appropriately. However, it is also reasonable to assume that the Practice activity
immediately preceding a Discussion may influence the students’ output. Through my informal
152
Matthew Y. Schaefer
observation, lacking any detailed data, of two EDC students, it is difficult to draw any firm
conclusions. Nevertheless, giving students semi-controlled practice of the target Function
Phrases (as in Methods 1 and 2) may have acted more as an extension of the Practice activities
than as preparation for a free discussion, in terms of what the students felt was the focus of the
activity. This could be reflected in the Discussions, in the way that, although Keisuke and
Miyuki’s Function Phrase use was frequent, it was not always appropriately applied to the
content. One reason that Methods 3 and 4 seemed to work better for Keisuke and Miyuki, I
believe, is because they combined feedback of Function use with feedback of content, and
therefore provided more concrete examples of how the target phrases could be integrated into
more authentic contexts. The simultaneous awareness-raising of both forms and meanings may
be seen as a transition from the structured output of the more controlled Practice activities to the
more open-ended, “spontaneous” output of Discussions (see Lee & VanPatten, 1995).
The informal research I conducted through this Teaching Journal perhaps raised more
questions for me than it answered. In the future, I would like to analyze Practice activities and
Discussions to see whether or not marked Functions (i.e. ones that include Function Phrases)
that appear in the Practices are more likely to be repeated in the Discussions. I would also like to
look at Discussions to see if there are any significant differences between responses to marked
Functions and responses to unmarked Functions.
REFERENCES
Arnold, J. (2013). Self issues and motivated behavior in language learning. In J. Arnold & T.
Murphey (Eds.) Meaningful action. (p.29-44). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Doe, T., Hurling, S., Livingston, M., Moroi, T., & Takayama, I. (2013). What do you think?
Interactive skills for effective discussion 2 Book III. Tokyo: EDC.
Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1),
55-85.
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. In T. Doe, S. Hurling, M. Livingston, T. Moroi (Eds.),
New directions in teaching and learning English discussion. Tokyo: EDC.
Lee, J. & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2002). Motivation, anxiety and emotion in second language acquisition. In P.
Robinson (Ed.) Individual differences in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Stevick, E. (1980). Teaching languages: A way and ways Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
APPENDIX
Table 1: Preparation Activities Data
LESSON # METHOD TOPIC FUNCTION DURATION
6 Function Patterns Purpose of TV Paraphrasing 6 minutes
Qualities to become Reporting

7 Phrase Cards 7 minutes
famous Information
Teacher-Student Different
10 Public manners 6 minutes
Demonstrations Viewpoints
153
Student-Led Ways to punish

11 Balancing Opinions 8 minutes
Feedback criminals
154
Checking for Understanding: A Reflective Analysis of a
Teaching Journal
Ethan Taomae
ABSTRACT
This paper is a reflective analysis based on observations while teaching an English discussion
class at a Japanese university. Although the instructor was able to regularly achieve the lesson
objectives, he was dissatisfied with teaching the group and thus kept a weekly journal from
lessons 5 to 14. While the instructor attributed some of his frustration to the students’
introversion and lack of initiative, through the process of reflection, the instructor was able to
become aware of the students need for greater support in comprehending instructions. This paper
also documents the strategies that students used when they did not understand and techniques the
teacher used over the course of the semester to improve his teaching and ensure his students
understanding of the given instructions.
INTRODUCTION
Much has been written in the literature about how teacher reflection can lead to new insights and
improvement in teaching (Bailey, 1990; Farrell, 2007; Richards & Ho, 1998; Schon, 1987). One
way for teachers to do this is through reflective journals. In their analysis of teaching journals
kept by teachers in an in-service teacher development program, Richards and Ho (1998)
concluded that while journals themselves don’t promote critical reflection, they do provide
teachers with the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, Farrell (2007) states that journal writing can
serve a myriad of purposes; one of which is “a way of triggering insights about one’s self as a
teacher and one’s own teaching” (p.109). It was with these things in mind that this article aims to
show how maintaining and reflecting upon weekly journal entries helped me to raise my own
awareness of my instruction and led to the exploration of different teaching methods.
I kept a weekly reflective journal from Lesson 5 until Lesson 14 (i.e. the last lesson of
the semester). The class observed was a university English discussion class made up of level 4
students, which was the lowest English level, based on a listening placement exam. There were
eight students in total (5 boys, 3 girls). This class was not chosen because of its performance in
achieving the lesson objectives (in fact, they were not so different in comparison with other
classes) but were chosen because of my dissatisfaction with teaching this class. In lesson 5, I
wrote, “It is mainly their general responsiveness/attitude or lack thereof that I have a problem
with”. As a teacher, I felt that I was achieving my instruction goals but I didn’t enjoy the
interactive and social aspects of teaching this class. I was constantly feeling frustrated with the
pace and the reaction I was getting from the students. I tried to keep upbeat but it was difficult. I
wrote, “one of my issues as a teacher is that I let my mood be easily affected by the students”.
This is something that I was aware of based on my previous teaching experiences. In classes
where students acted like they did not want to be there, I could feel myself showing my
frustration and it is something I have worked to limit. To that end, the purpose of keeping a
journal was to examine in a more detached and reflective way what was making me feel the way
I did and what I could do to improve the situation in class. In the rest of this paper, I will
describe my observations of the students, show how an analysis of those observations led to a
greater awareness of my students’ needs, and report the steps I took to address them.
155
DISCUSSION
Observed Behavior
As I mentioned earlier, I found this class to be frustrating to teach. By keeping a journal, it was
my hope that I would be able to gain some insight as to why this was the case. Some examples
of behavior I found frustrating include the lack of reactions or response, the lack of initiative on
the part of the students, and a lack of energy from the students. One example that I cited several
times in my journal was the “wall of silence” that often greeted me after saying, “good morning”
at the start of class. I tried to overcome this by re-upping my energy and saying, “Let’s do that
one more time with a little more energy, good morning!” to which I would get a half-hearted
“good morning” from several of the students. In a lot of ways this would set the tone for the
class.
I also found it frustrating having to deal with things that I had taken for granted as being
a natural routine of the class, especially since this was the second semester in a unified
curriculum course where many routines are set. One example was in correcting quizzes. Like
most teachers, I had the students exchange quizzes with their partners and correct their partner’s
quiz. However, instead of correcting their partner’s quiz, a group of three students sat there and
just corrected their own quiz. In most classes, a group of three would find a way to rotate their
papers so that they were not correcting their own paper but not this group. I told them that they
should not correct their own paper; they should exchange papers. They looked at me with little
to no expression to which I responded by gesturing for them to pass the quiz in a circle to the
right. They did this and finished correcting the quiz. This incident probably wouldn’t be so bad
if it didn’t happen again two weeks later with the same exact students. I was so annoyed and
couldn’t understand why this happened again. A similar thing I found frustrating was how slow
they were to line up for fluency activities and change discussion groups even though these are
activities that are done in nearly the same way every lesson. One episode that captures this
occurred in lesson 9. I had students partner up and then do “rock-paper-scissors” to determine
the role of speaker and listener. The students then lined up with listeners being on one side and
speakers on the other. Apparently, one pair didn’t communicate with each other very well
because after doing “rock-paper-scissors”, one partner lined up in the listener line, but for some
reason, the other one stood by his desk as if he didn’t know where to go. Everyone else had lined
up but this one student was still standing in the same spot where he was sitting. It seemed like he
thought he was supposed to be in the spot where his partner was. However, since his partner was
already there, he chose to do nothing and stand by his desk. He was standing there for a good 15
seconds before I had to tell him to line up. I could not understand why he and his partner were
unable to handle it by themselves. These types of inaction happened regularly with this class.
Because we had a lot to cover, I found myself getting annoyed at the amount of time being
wasted.
In trying to understand the reasons behind the observed issues, three reasons initially
came to mind: poor social skills, poor inter-personal relationships with their classmates/partners,
and attitude issues due to low motivation to study English. By keeping a journal, there was a
feeling of detachment when I looked back and reflected on these events. The initial emotions
that I felt were no longer there and so I got a different view of the class. What I realized was that
my impressions of the students (i.e. poor social skills or low motivation) might be true at some
level for the individuals; however, as a class, it had not affected their performance in discussions.
They were able to have productive 16-minute discussions. Their first discussion test scores
indicated that they responded to instruction at near the same level as most other classes. They
were able to demonstrate the target communication skills such as reactions (e.g. okay or I see)
and checking for understanding (e.g. Do you understand? or Sorry, I don’t understand). This was
156
Ethan Taomae
true for discussions in both the regular lessons as well as test lessons. Generally speaking, in
terms of social skills, none of the students in this class would be considered abnormal. Some
might be slightly introverted but not exceedingly. Most of them said “good morning” when
greeted individually. They just didn’t do it as a class. Interpersonal issues were also not
necessarily a big problem. While not exactly friends, the students didn’t have much trouble
talking to each other in Japanese before class so interpersonal issues don’t explain incidents like
correcting their own quizzes or not communicating where to line up. Perhaps this could be a
result of the student’s failure to take initiative or responsibility and say something like, “Let’s
exchange quizzes”. Aldrich (2013) suggests that effective teams have members that are willing
to play roles such as initiator or enabler and it is when there is no member willing or able to
fulfill these roles that teams fail. An interesting note here is that some of these same students are
willing to take on these roles in the discussion (e.g. being an initiator by reading the questions
and starting the discussion), but fail to do so in between class activities which are unstructured.
Finally, let’s consider the issue of negative attitudes and low motivation. Motivation is
quite a complex topic and based on my observations, it is difficult to say whether this is in fact
an issue for these students in this class. Much of the behavior I have reported centers around the
students’ introverted personalities and lack of initiative and not necessarily on their willingness
to learn and use English. Here I would like to focus on the actions of one student who has had a
big impact on how I have viewed the class. For the purpose of this paper I will call him Taro. To
give some background information, my observation of Taro is that compared with his classmates,
he has above average English ability. He is an active participant in the discussions but I get the
feeling that he doesn’t really like the course. In my journal, I wrote about a feeling of “resistance”
that I got from him. It was never an overt subversive attitude but little things. For example, when
I gave him feedback, he would often argue against it. One time, I told him he should give a
reaction when his partner asks, “Do you follow me?” and he argued that he did do it, even
though I was right next to him listening. Another time, the activity called for students to give an
opinion then support it with reported information (e.g. I think… For example, I heard that…).
He only gave his opinion, so I told him to report information. He kept arguing that the idea was
just his opinion. I tried to explain to him that I understood that it was his opinion but that he
needed to also report information. Still, he argued against it. When he went back to practicing
with his partner, he again didn’t report information. In this case, I think it was largely due to the
fact that he may not have totally understood the function of reporting information as it had been
introduced in the previous week, which he had been absent for. In many classes, another student
might have helped to explain to him what he was supposed to do, but in this class, the students
never did.
Observed Linguistic Needs of Students

In observing and reflecting on my lessons with this class, I found it difficult to break down the
incidents likes the ones described above. The incidents themselves are not terrible and many of
the things that I found frustrating in regards to teaching this class seemed to be mainly due to the
lack of outgoing personalities and the lack of initiative and willingness to take on responsibility
(e.g. telling a partner what to do). It could be the case that another teacher would have been just
fine with these students as the students may have responded differently to that teacher.
Nonetheless, in reflecting on my lessons, I wanted to not only examine why I felt the way I did,
but also focus on things that I could do as a teacher. As I did this, I started to become more
aware of one aspect of the students’ behavior as it related to my own teaching: comprehension of
my instructions. In almost all of my classes I could get a reading on the students to see whether
they understood what I was saying. Oftentimes, if a student didn’t understand, I would get a
157
quizzical look which I could key on. Occasionally students would raise their hand and explicitly
state that they did not understand or they would ask a question to clarify. In this class, however, I
would get little to no reaction at all; not even an expression of confusion. Most of it was blank
stares while others just chose to look at their tables. I often interpreted this behavior as being that
the students understood and just wanted to go ahead with the activity instead of hearing me talk.
Over several weeks after keeping my journal, I started to understand that the students’
comprehension was not as good as I initially had thought. An episode with the aforementioned
Taro before class seemed to capture this completely.
1. Taro: Teacher, teacher.

2. Ethan: (facing board, then turned around)
3. Taro: Can I use the bathroom?
4. Ethan: Yes, you can. By the way, please call me ‘Ethan’ not teacher (points to name on board).
5. Taro: It might take a long time.
6. Ethan: (stunned) uh… okay.
Based on his response in line 5, Taro doesn’t seem to realize what is being requested of him. On
the other hand, his response to the question was immediate and if the answer was not so far off,
there would seem to be little indication that he never understood the request. In moving from
Taro to the class in general, there were times where I thought the students understood what to do,
only to have to stop the activity and re-explain moments later.
By identifying student comprehension as an issue in my journal, it helped me to become
more patient as a teacher as I realized that perhaps this was a legitimate teaching issue and not
just negative attitude from the students. It also forced me to be more aware of how I was giving
instructions and to be more in tune to whether the students understood or not. In the next
sections, I will introduce the strategies that I observed students using when they didn’t
understand my instructions/feedback and then present the teaching techniques I employed to
ensure student comprehension.
Student Strategies
One of the objectives of the English Discussion Class is for students to be able to get help when
they don’t understand (Hurling, 2012). They are taught phrases like “I don’t understand” or
“Can you explain?” Almost all students are able to use these phrases in their discussions.
However, this performance has not translated to situations outside of the set discussions such as
when students don’t understand the instructions or feedback of a teacher. In fact, the students
that were observed as part of the journal seemed to have three main strategies for dealing with
episodes where they did not understand: do nothing, rely on routine, or ask a partner in Japanese.
The most common case was a non-reaction which was essentially doing nothing. It is
only apparent that students had not understood the instructions/feedback because a breakdown
occurred immediately after. This happened for a number of reasons. One reason is that students
thought they understood what it is they were supposed to do but in actuality, they didn’t.
Another reason is that students did not understand, but chose not to make this known perhaps for
affective reasons. A third reason is that students did not care and/or were not paying attention,
which was observed by behavior such as eyes on the table. One example of this non-reaction by
the students came in lesson 6. Five students were about 2 minutes into a discussion when a sixth
member arrived. I decided to stop the discussion there and create two groups. After the new
groups were set, I gave the feedback point that they should use the changing topics phrase,
“What shall we discuss first?” to start their discussions instead of just reading the first question.
158
Ethan Taomae
I then asked if they were ready and started the discussion again. Inexplicably, both groups again
just read the first question and did not use the phrase given as feedback. I immediately stopped
the discussion and repeated the feedback. This made the feedback much more salient and both
groups took it up as the discussion was started for a third time.
Another reason for breakdowns in comprehension from students comes from an
overreliance on routines. This could be categorized as a non-reaction, but I have chosen to
differentiate it here. Research has shown that strong listeners make use of both top-down and
bottom-up processing whereas weaker listeners rely more on top-down listening cues to help
them understand (Tsui & Fullilove, 1998; Vandergrift, 2004). In other words, weaker listeners
lack the linguistic skills to decode the sounds and thus make guesses based on context. Because
the English Discussion Class has a unified curriculum, the lessons are structured in similar ways
thus creating a kind of routine. Students often know what comes next and as a result, may not
focus much on what is being said by the instructor. There are a number of times where this can
be useful. When using check-sheets as a form of self-assessment, it is unnecessary for the
instructor to go into much detail on how to use them if students have used them several times
prior. On the other hand, sometimes activities may look similar but are not and so students don’t
do what they are supposed to. An example of this was in lesson 10. The objective of the lesson
was to ask for and give different viewpoints. As part of the presentation, students were given a
discussion topic and were asked about it from different viewpoints (e.g. How about from an old
person’s point of view?). These questions were mind mapped with the original question on the
board. Students were then given several other discussion questions and asked to brainstorm and
mind map other possible viewpoint questions like the example on the board. While working in
pairs, two pairs started brainstorming possible point of view questions. The other two pairs,
however, started to discuss the questions. Discussing questions in pairs is something that is done
quite often in the class and these students assumed that they were doing it again. For those two
groups, I re-explained what the task was. By the time those two pairs understood, the other pairs
had already completed the activity.
The final strategy that students used when they failed to comprehend the
instructions/feedback was to ask their partner in Japanese. In lesson 6, I gave instructions to do a
discussion preparation task and had the students do it. While three of the pairs started doing the
task, the girl in the final pair looked to her partner and asked, “Wakatta? (Do you understand?)”
and the boy replied, “Zen zen wakaranai (I don’t understand at all)”. The two of them then
proceeded to do nothing. This strategy is disappointing on two levels. The first is that they chose
not to use English even though they know how to ask their partners, “Do you understand?” or
say, “I don’t understand, what do we do?” These phrases are part of the course objectives and
the same students have actually used them in the discussions. The second is that they chose not
to seek help from either the instructor or other classmates and instead preferred to just sit at their
table. In reflecting in my journal on this incident, I wondered how I could get students to use
these checking for understanding phrases not only in their discussions but also in the context of
the class with both their classmates as well as their instructor. In the next section, I will
introduce some of the techniques I used to help students better understand the instructions.
Teaching Strategies
When students are unable to understand directions, it significantly decreases the effectiveness of
the lesson. The biggest factor is that it takes more time to repeat or rephrase the instructions and
as a result, students are left with less time in which to master the material. Another factor is that
a lack of comprehension and the subsequent breakdowns sometimes leads to frustration and can
159
affect the atmosphere of the class. In aiming to ensure that my students were able to understand
my instruction, I tried different techniques.
The first and most obvious was trying to speak slower and clearer. Sometimes in my
excitement I talk fast and so it was important for me to be aware of the pace and clarity of my
speech. Second, I tried to use routines so that students were familiar with what was expected of
them. One example is using the same methods of forming groups (e.g. the loser of “rock-paper-
scissors” moves). It has already been mentioned earlier in this paper the potential pitfalls when
students rely on routines as a form of top-down processing so being able to anticipate where
students might make these mistakes is key. A third technique I used was using the board and
modeling activities with another student. This provided a visual aspect to assist in the
comprehension of the instructions. A fourth technique was a concept check. An example was in
a post-discussion activity. I wanted the students to self-assess themselves and choose one area to
focus on in the following discussion. I modeled what I wanted them do. For example, acting as a
student, I said, “In the discussion, I want to improve asking for and giving information.” I then
asked one of the students what he chose. The student didn’t understand and gave no response so
I quickly asked the strongest student in the class what he chose. He told me his answer in a way
similar to mine and this set up a model for the other students so I was able to quickly ask the
other students for their choices even the one who initially couldn’t answer. By checking that
they understood before going into the activity, I was assured that everyone understood and that
the activity would go smoothly.
The last technique is one that I have tried to develop the most but needs to be further
researched and experimented with. It is building autonomy in the students toward using the
checking for understanding phrases throughout class and not necessarily just in the discussions.
The first step was for me to model the phrases. After giving instructions, I asked the students,
“Do you understand?” In the beginning, as expected, I got a lot of non-responses. However, I
pushed for more reactions and started to get more “yes’s” or “no’s”. While this might not be the
best way to check if your students understand what they are supposed to do, it is a very quick
way. One of the challenges of using the previous techniques such as modeling and concept
checks is that it can take a lot of time and this takes away from time students could spend
mastering the target language goals. Another benefit of using this direct question of
comprehension is that it pushes more of the responsibility onto the student to speak up when
they don’t understand. As a result of using this technique, I was able to get some progress out of
the students. By lesson 7, I was regularly asking, “Do you understand?” after giving my
instructions and in response, one student asked, “What does ‘role-model’ mean?” This is not to
say that the class started giving more responses but that some students were starting to take on
more responsibility for their own understanding. There were still moments even late in the
semester where I would ask, “Do you understand?” and have only one student respond. I
followed it up by directly calling individual student’s names and this led to a clear reaction. In
lesson 14, after giving instructions to a task, I saw a student try to ask a question to another
student in Japanese. I intervened and asked the student if they had a question. The student then
switched to English and asked a clarifying question about the task. I answered it sufficiently and
the students successfully completed the task. While that student didn’t do it entirely on her own,
she did manage to form her question in English and ask for help. Another part of this process
that I have encouraged is to have students paraphrase the instructions to the activity. Not all
students in this class would be capable of doing this, but I chose a particularly strong student and
asked, “Do you understand?” and he said he did. Then I pointed to the paraphrasing phrases on
the board (e.g. In other words…) and he paraphrased the instructions for the activity. This is
another way to get students to demonstrate their comprehension. Ultimately the goal of this
160
Ethan Taomae
technique is to build students up to the point where they don’t need me to intervene but rather
can feel confident enough to use these checking for understanding phrases on their own
regardless if it is with a teacher or a peer.
CONCLUSION
As this paper has shown, reflection through teaching journals can result in greater awareness in
teaching. Initially, I felt frustrated at teaching this discussion class and attributed it to the
students’ introversion and perhaps a lack of initiative. However, through deeper reflection, I
came to the realization that I had been unaware of the students’ need for support in
comprehending instructions. As a result of this realization, I developed a greater degree of
understanding of my students and altered my instruction by trying different methods to ensure
greater comprehension.
One idea that was explored briefly was that of getting students to make it known when
they don’t understand and take the initiative to ask for help or clarification. For many of the
students, they were able to do it in English in their discussions but failed to do so outside of that
structure. As part of a strategy to get students to take responsibility of their understanding, I
attempted to use the checking for understanding phrases after giving instructions with the hope
that it would encourage them to act when they did not understand. While there were some
examples of students acting on this, it is unclear as to the degree of impact the practice had. The
implementation of this strategy was largely informal as it developed out of reflective practice;
therefore more formal research needs to be undertaken to determine the effectiveness of such
strategies.
REFERENCES
Aldrich, S. (2013). Pressure to be silent: Examining social reticence in L2 English discussion
groups. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 1(2), 3-7.
Bailey, K. (1990). The use of diary studies in teacher education programs. In J. C. Richards, & D.
Nunan (Ed.), Second language teacher education (pp. 215-226). Cambridge, England:
Farrell, T. S. (2007). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. London:
Continuum.
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. New directions in teaching and learning English
discussion, 1, 2-9.
Richards, J., & Ho, B. (1998). Reflective thinking through journal writing. In J. Richards
(Eds.), Beyond training: Perspectives on language teacher education (pp.153-170).
Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tsui, A., & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2
listening performance. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 432-451.
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24, 3-25.
161

To What Extent Can We Allow Students to Use L1 in EDC?

Asca Tsushima
ABSTRACT
This paper will re-examine the role of L1 use in English Discussion Class (EDC) where it is
encouraged to keep the ‘English only’ policy to both the instructors and students. The target
student performance was observed over a period of three months during the spring semester
2013. One particular student showed his strong need to rely on L1 when undertaking activities
and receiving feedback and instructions from the instructor. One can consider allowing the use
of L1, only at the beginning of the course, if that brings benefit to learners, especially for
students with a lower English competence and a lack of experience in putting themselves in an
English only environment.
INTRODUCTION
Student performance will be the focal point of this essay, examining if L1 can be used
effectively within the EDC programme. The student S’s performance, a male first year student
from level 4 group, and as well as my reflections as an instructor, were recorded in my weekly
teaching diary. In addition to this, with students’ consent, the second Discussion Test was
videotaped in order to analyse the student interaction during a 16 minute discussion with peers.
The placement TOEIC test score range of the level 4 group was from 175 (low) to 290 (high).
The student S has received 175 (Listening: 115/ Reading: 60).
Firstly, I have to stress that I am not proposing to encourage students and instructors at
EDC to use L1 when the students are capable of taking a lesson in English without an issue.
Obviously, the use of L1 should be minimised in order to increase the amount of exposure to the
target language. More importantly, one semester at Rikkyo proved to me that Rikkyo students
who met the English requirement at the entrance examination were capable of conducting a 16
minute discussion, using the weekly function phrases in order to communicate with peers in L2.
For a bilingual instructor, the English only policy can play an important role in the language
classroom because this rule forces the students to communicate with peers and the instructor in
English. The L1 use not only reduces the amount of time to practise L2, but it could also
potentially remind students of the traditional teacher-centred classroom where students were
expected to be more passive than what a communicative teaching classroom wills them to be.
However, one cannot expect a certain English competence in all students as some
examination systems, such as the athlete recommendation system at this university, do not
require an English language assessment. If we have a student who has difficulties in making a
sentence, e.g. not knowing the meaning of basic words such as ‘interesting’ and ‘difficult’,
should the instructor expect other students in the class to explain the word without using L1? In
week 1, Student S, in particular, reacted negatively to the English only policy by saying in
Japanese: “Our teacher does not understand that it is so hard to use English all the time”, whilst
despondently looking down at the floor. From this moment, I have started questioning to what
extent we should allow students to use L1.
Just like other current communicative language teaching classes at university (Cook,
2001), the leaners’ L1 use in the classroom, in principle, is not encouraged in our programme.
EDC aims to improve students’ discussion skills in English through the learner-learner
interactions, and with which the students will be able to hold a 16 minute discussion without L1
use and any assistance and intervention by the instructor. Many studies have shown the benefit
of negotiation of meaning between learners, which could have a positive effect on learning L2
162
Asca Tsushima
(Pica, 1994). The goal of this paper is to describe the use of L1 by Student S and the change of
his performance. A few suggestions of future teaching strategies and effective activities will be
discussed in the last section of this paper.
DISCUSSION
1.1 The Student’s Initial Performance
My teaching journal has been kept since Week 1 when the first class of a level 4 group had
clearly displayed a particularly problematic performance, namely the frequent use of L1. Student
S required constant L1 assistance from his peers in order to get a handle on each activity. This
initial performance, under the strict, English only policy, which I originally imposed, led to two
challenges in managing the group, and they were as follows:
• Time pressure: The time for student activities was reduced due to the necessity of
modification in my instructions, including paraphrasing and repetition.
• Potential motivational issues for Student S and other students: There seemed to be
confusion and slight disappointment for some students when Student S required extra language
assistance from both the instructor and classmates to have an English discussion. For Student S,
my constant reminder of English policy made him shy away. Research has found that more male
students negatively react to the only English classroom setting (Jones, et al., 2001).
Considering the fact that this is his first semester at the university, it was not an ideal
situation if this discussion class became so overwhelming that Student S will lose his interest in
learning English in the future. Thus some immediate changes were made to my teaching practice
from the following week. In the first few lessons, I allowed students to use L1 to check their
understanding if my instructions and activities were unclear. Longer preparation time was given
before each activity so that Student S could fully comprehend what he was supposed to discuss
in this time (Yuan and Ellis 2003). Some phrases that enabled students to negotiate the meaning
were reviewed, such as: “How do you say___ in English?”, “Sorry, I do not understand” and
“Once more please”. The last phrase was suggested by Student S as a simpler version of “Could
you say that again please”, which was listed in their course book. These modifications to my
teaching practice seemed to work effectively as a new communication strategy to avoid L1 use
during discussions in class proved successful.
My initial observation also showed that, for Student S, the level of the text, written only
in the target language in the course book, had not matched with his current linguistic
competence. To solve this problem, I decided to have a chat with Student S in L1, at the end of a
class, to recommend him to skim through the textbook questions before each lesson. Although
the impact of our quick talk on his linguistic development is not certain, I received a quite
positive and pleasant response from Student S to my advice. He even asked me how I studied
English, so our small talk, conducted in L1, regarding the language learning process, certainly
helped create a positive rapport with him (Macaro, 2000a).
1.2 Limiting the Interlocutors to Avoid Communication Breakdown in L2

Discussion Test 1, in week 5, showed an unfavourable result of how students communicated
with each other. It was clear, in the test, that all students were keen on sticking to L2 use
exclusively and using the functions they learnt in the previous lessons. Thus, other peers hardly
asked any follow up questions or for clarification when Student S’s comments were
incomprehensible. However, I must say there was a constant friendly support (e.g. providing
163

positive comments, suggesting student S to use simple words, and using body gesture) from the
group members to Student S whenever he was at a loss for words. The absence of code-
switching might have compelled them to limit the interlocutors to avoid a communication
breakdown. If so, this communication pattern needs to be improved as it is not ideal in language
leaning.
1.3 Several Potential Factors Which Motivated Student S to Practise the Target Language
Although Student S needed recourse to L1 (see Example 1 below) in discussing unknown
language words (Knight, 1996), due to the familiarity of the discussion tasks and classmates, he
seemed, week by week, to start building up his confidence, resulting in him making comments
and getting involved in discussions (Plough and Gass 1993). For example, in Week 7, students
learnt the phrases of “Joining a Discussion”, such as “Can I make a comment?” and “Can I ask a
question?”. The function enabled Student S to actively participate in a discussion for the rest of
the semester.
Example 1
Question: Is face-to-face communication sometimes better than email?
Student E: I do not agree with you (that emails are better than face-face communication)
Student S: Doyukoto? (English: What do you mean?)
Student E: The emotion does not send…
Student S: Tsutawaranai? (English: Email does not express our real feelings?)
Student E: yes yes”
The final observed lesson was Discussion Test 2 in Week 9. The videotaped discussion test
showed frequent body gestures, by his peers, to be understood by Student S, which was seen as a
compensation for a lack of linguistic knowledge. Apart from the 2 minute preparation time in L1,
Student S did not require L1 assistance during the test. As seen in the Examples 2 and 3 below,
Student S, despite the lack of accuracy of grammar, managed to give his opinion using the
function phrases taught in class. The potential factor of his willingness to communicate actively
in L2 came from the interactions with peers who constantly provided positive feedback and
reactions. Student S requested clarification when he was unable to comprehend the lexical item
“endure”, asking Student E to give an example. This, “Asking for example”, was also one of the
function phrases introduced in Week 6. The knowledge, taught in the course, to negotiate the
meaning helped Student S stay in the target language in the test.
Example 2
Question: Are Rikkyo students independent?
Student S: Can I comments?

Student E:Oh okay
Student S: Agree, agree, agree (pointing at each student)
Student E: oh thank you
Student S: so Rikkyo students...very independent...home alone...live alone..., so cooking,
washing, clean...
Student N: Clean room (with body gesture)
Student S: Yes yes...very tired but smart...my smart...ryo...okay?
164
Asca Tsushima
Student N: Nice comment

Student S: Thank you
Example 3
Question: Is pressure bad for students?
Student E: Can I start? I think that pressure is not bad for students. If they reach a goal (using
body language), they understand pressure – endure pressure. Do you understand?
Student N: Yes
Student S: No no no no. e? Endure?
Student E: hmn...
Student S: For example? Please for example?
Student E: Hmnn...not go to toilet...in class...okay?
Student S: Ahh! okay okay okay. Thank you.
CONCLUSION
The discussion on L1 use in a language classroom is debatable. For some teachers, L1 use does
not bother them at all as long as L1 facilitates language learning. Yet, as a bilingual teacher, it is
worthwhile to re-examine the necessity of an English only policy in a monolingual classroom
from time to time. Of course, depending on where they will use the target language in the future,
the code-switching habit amongst learners could be contentious for language development.
For future EDC activities for a student like Student S, the use of L1 could be considered
in the discussion preparation activities if code-switching helps language learning. The topic and
questions in the discussion preparation activity, in the course book, are closely connected with
the discussion topic. Thus, if the learners are allowed to process the text and generate their own
ideas in L1 if necessary, code-switching could prove highly useful in students learning an L1-L2
equivalent, which would consequently minimise L1 use in discussions 1 and 2. Alternatively,
some vocabulary cards could be prepared in advance for the lexically complex items that
students might not know. Students could quickly check the meaning upon request. It is
implausible to define how much use of L1 is ‘too much’ in class. Further formal observation and
research will be required to measure the effect of L1 use or absence of L1 use on developing
discussion skills.
REFERENCES
Cook, V.J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57 (3), 402-423.
Jones, B., Jones, D.& Demetriou, H., Downes, P. & Ruddock J. (2001). Boys’ performance in
modern foreign languages: listening to the learners. London: CILT.
Knight, S. (1996). Dictionary use while reading: the effects on comprehension and vocabulary
acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. Modern Language Journal, 78 (3),
285-299.
Macaro, E. (2000a). Issues in target language teaching. In K. Field (Ed.), Issues in modern
language teaching (p.171-189). London: Routledge.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second language learning
conditions, processes and outcomes. Language Learning, 44 (3), 493-527.
Plough, I. & Gass, S.M. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: effects on interactional
structure. In G. Crookes & S.M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and Language Learning (p. 35-56).
Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
165

Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency,
complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1-27.
166
Observing Preparation Task-Types that Enact Ideas
Repetition and Retention
Matthew W. Turner
ABSTRACT
During learner-centered discussions, one arguable expectation is that participants build and
develop ideas conceived in preceding preparation tasks. However, given the interactive and
dynamic nature of lively discussions, students may occasionally fail to adequately implement or
realize these developments in the allotted time. The teachers may therefore instill upon the
learners these targets before each discussion activity commences by forming preparation tasks
that give the learners the best possible opportunities to retain, repeat and develop their ideas in
freer and collaborative settings.
This paper will reflect on the findings of a semester-long observation that was conducted
to assess various types of preparation tasks that were aimed at reinforcing learner retention and
repetition of ideas during discussion tasks. Although this current study serves only as the first
steps towards a more expansive enquiry, it is hoped that these initial task observations inform
further studies in the area.
INTRODUCTION
A great amount of methodology within the communicative language teaching paradigm has
focused on the use of ‘tasks’ as an essential component of each lesson. As a result, research into
the use and development of tasks is extensive and broad, often focusing on the various task
effects on learners’ second language output. Detailed definitions of tasks have been established
over the years; however one starting point would be to consider the distinction between real
world tasks and pedagogical tasks. While real world tasks reflect the type of exchanges that
would take place in a shop transaction for example, pedagogical tasks, for Nunan (2004) are said
to be “a piece of classroom work that involves the learner in comprehending, manipulating,
producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is focused on mobilizing
their grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning” (p.2). In relation to lesson planning
and in consideration of learning and communicative outcomes, tasks have come to be
increasingly used as a way to facilitate this process, with Ellis (2003) noting that tasks can either
be “unfocussed” or “focused.” In an unfocussed approach, “no attempt is made to design the task
to ‘trap’ learners into using a specific linguistic feature (p.65). While a focused task on the other
hand “aims to induce learners to process, receptively or productively, a predetermined linguistic
feature” (p.65). Estaire and Zanon (2004) equate such activities as ‘communication’ or ‘enabling’
tasks, with the former focusing on the interaction of meaning and the latter paying attention to
linguistic input such as functional language and vocabulary for example. In choosing to
sequence tasks, Ellis (2009a) believes there are three phases: a pre-task phase, a main task phase,
and the post-task phase (p.224). Of interest to this essay is the pre-task phase in particular, which
assumes the role of planning in such task supported language lessons. Pre-tasks can be said to be
‘strategic,’ in that “planning what content to express and what language” is developed “without
the opportunity to rehearse the complete task” (Ellis, 2009b, p.474). Tasks can emerge as
monologic or interactive, with previous studies affirming the importance of note-taking
(Crookes, 1989), repetition (Bygate 2001; Ahmadian 2012) and consciousness-raising (Willis,
1996). Willis and Willis (2007) further define such note-taking preparation tasks as including
sequencing, ranking and classifying, which “involve a certain amount of decision making, based
on personal choice or opinions” (p.72). Bygate (2001) also made use of narrative
167
and interview task types repeatedly over an extended period to study to determine the
participants’ oral production levels. Above all, these tasks should instill in the learners a sense of
preparedness, which Skehan et al. (2012) provides salient principals for:
• Preparedness as time to assemble what one is going to say;

• Preparedness as having expressed similar thoughts before;
• Preparedness as a repeated performance;
• Preparedness as familiarity with information.
(p.174)
It has been argued by Skehan and Foster (1999) that preparation activities produce three
aspects of language production amongst learners: fluency, accuracy, and complexity. A learner’s
fluency can be said to improve when they can reproduce greater “lexicalized systems” in real
time with palpable ease, while accuracy relates to the amount of “error avoidance” undertaken
by the learners. Finally, complexity reflects the learners’ ability to “restructure, use advanced
language and take risks” (p.96-97). Pertinent to this study is the focus on the level of learner
complexity and fluency expressed, as a mixture of the two equates to the reproduction and
advancement of ideas into the main task. Gass et al. (1999) also argued that language input in
preparation tasks prompted heightened lexical richness amongst learners in the final
performance task, recording that vocabulary introduced during pre-task stage continued to be
recycled during the main task related to their study. Given the difference in language production
displayed by learners, theoretical studies have questioned task characteristics and type in relation
to learner performance. Skehan (2001) showed that particular task characteristics had an outward
effect on learners’ accuracy, fluency and complexity skills. With his ‘Trade-off Hypothesis,’
Skehan noted that ‘familiarity of information’ provided no gains in accuracy or complexity, but
showed slight gains in fluency. While the choice between making a task ‘dialogic’ or
‘monologic’ impacted on both accuracy and complexity, but lowered fluency. Using a
‘structured’ approach meant greater fluency, but little to no developments in learner accuracy or
complexity. Skehan argues that attending to one area may take the attention away from others,
and that ultimately a raised awareness in one area may detract from other areas.
This paper will assess the role that strategic preparation tasks take in reinforcing learner
retention and repetition of ideas. Considering the previous studies mentioned, if learners can
successfully recycle ideas developed or initiated during the pre-task stage, this is undoubtedly a
guiding tenet of preparation tasks. It is has become apparent that some tasks are more successful
than others in achieving these aims, while others have led the author to question why learner
ideas were not retained during freer discussion tasks. This study will therefore attempt to record
and measure ideas retention, by focusing on the task-type itself, considering leaner interactions
within the task and the differing amounts of the control that are exercised. Keeping in mind
Skehan’s hypothesis, functional language use amongst learners will also be observed to see if
there is indeed any correlation between successful idea retention and functional language usage
in discussion activities. This study is reflective and informed principally by observations made
by the writer in the position of a teacher with his learners. More formal enquires would be
needed therefore in order to effectively test the underpinnings of this essay.
DISCUSSION
An arguable aspect of any English teaching professional is the ability to reflect, adapt and
question what is taking place in the classroom, while taking active steps in responding to any
critical occurrences. One way to do this is by keeping a teaching journal which Richards and
168
Matthew W. Turner
Farell (2005) believe can “serve as a source of discussion, reflection or evaluation” about
“incidents, problems or insights” (p.68) from our classes. In choosing the best way to record data
that sufficiently reflected perceived successes of certain preparation tasks on the learners’
retention of ideas during freer discussion activities, in-class observations were used to inform a
semester-long journal. An observation model was developed to record the desired evidence
outlined in the introduction to this essay. Wajnryb (1992) believes that successful learning takes
place when learners are “engaged by the lesson,” through a combination of “the teacher, the
materials, the tasks, the activities” (p.34). Wajnryb implemented these beliefs through her
‘learner as doer’ (p.35) observational model that was used to gauge such effects. This model was
adopted as the starting points to inform an observational tool that was to be used to record the
outcomes of various preparation activity effects on content retention and potential functional
language use (See Appendix). It must be noted that although this observation model allowed
quantifiable data to be collected; namely the number of ideas that students were seen to have
produced and repeated, this observation model also allowed the author to make judgments about
functional language use. The four variables presented on the observation model resemble the
grading rubric that unifies the program of which this study took place within. For example, ‘4’
reflects superior use, ‘3’ equates to a good use of the language, with ‘2’ and ‘1’ referring to an
uneven or rare use of functional language used in discussions (Doe et al.,2013, p.17).
Observations were made over four weeks during one semester (weeks 8, 10, 11, and 12).
Given the nature of each preparation task, observations were made across three learner levels
(levels II, III, IV) to ensure that the preparation tasks trialed displayed efficacy across all English
proficiencies. It was also decided that focusing on the preparation task preceding discussion one
would provide a clearer focus, considering that the nature of preparation tasks for discussion two
are partly informed by feedback from the first discussion. Finally, to maintain constant
conditions in delivering the preparation activities, students were always reminded and
encouraged to reuse their ideas again through verbal prompts on the completion of preparation
activities, as well as being asked to recollect on the amount of ideas they had gained going into
the discussion. As was mentioned in the introduction, the preparation activities that were used
were adapted from Willis and Willis (2007), while considering Ellis’ (2009b) notions of
strategic planning, as well the preparedness principals established by Skehan et al. (2012). The
following sections of this essay will now detail the outcomes of each preparation task, together
with brief discussions on the potential successes and/or shortcomings thereof.
As was described earlier, an observation model was used over four preparation task-types
with a mixture of different learner levels. After each session ended, results were counted and
averaged out. The results of each set of observations can be seen here:
Observation of Participants Average No. of Idea Replication Average Level of

Task-type No. Ideas Function Use
1 15 2.1 Yes:60% No:40% 2.7
2 18 2.1 Yes:23% No:77% 2.9
3 12 2 Yes:83% No:17% 3
4 13 1.7 Yes:85% No:15% 3.1
169
Observation 1: 3-2-1 Fluency

For this preparation activity, an approach commonly used to develop fluency was used for the
dual purpose of developing learner ideas. The students were first presented with a series of
choices; in this case learners decided their favorite types of Japanese popular culture. On making
their choices, the learners then engaged in a ‘3-2-1’ fluency activity, informed and outlined by
Nation (2001). This task had limited interaction and consisted of half of the room assuming the
role of speakers, while the others simply listened and offered supportive verbal reactions. The
learners had three chances to repeat their ideas, on each occasion the time was shortened. On
completion of the activity, the teacher elicited from the learners how many ideas they had
developed before moving on to the discussion.
The results indicated that uptake of retention was generally good amongst learners. More
than half of the participants repeated one of their ideas, with the other students choosing to use a
new idea, or respond to another student’s idea. Although idea retention was generally met here,
function use appeared satisfactory at best, with some learners failing to use the target language
previously introduced in the lesson. These results suggest that a combination of decision-making
followed by a monologic reproduction of these choices helped learners to develop their ideas
and successfully carry them through to the main-task discussion, but failed in implementing
more interactive discussion functions that were momentarily sidelined for this preparation
activity.
Observation 2: Interview
It was decided that the next preparation task would be made more interactive in response to the
monologic nature of the previous task. Once again, students were initially given independent
time to rank choices, with the topic concerning public manners. Students decided which manners
such as using a phone on the train or eating in the street were okay, sometimes okay or never
okay. Once the students had made their choices, partnerships were formed with one student
tasked with being the interviewer and the other as the interviewee. For a limited amount of time,
the interviewer could only ask questions about the interviewee’s ideas. Interviewers were told
that they had to ask a mixture of questions, examples of which were modeled by the teacher, but
that the questions were ultimately of their choice. This task was semi-controlled in that learners
had to abide by their roles during interactions, reducing full communicative capacities.
Surprisingly, although the average number of ideas produced increased in the preparation
task, very few were carried into the discussion and recycled. Learners generally used new ideas
other than the topics talked about during their preparation interviews. Additionally, students
were deliberately grouped with new students in the discussion and encouraged to repeat their
ideas as per the conditions of this observational study. Compared to the previous preparation
task, function use did increase during the discussions, and it was noted that functions such as
asking about viewpoints, possibilities and the use of paraphrasing was both present in the
preparation and present in the discussion task. It was also informally noted that some students
even repeated the same interviewer questions but failed to repeat their own ideas. In summary,
this task-type appeared to promote accuracy amongst learners in the shape of successful
functional language repetition but failed in its attempts to encourage learners to repeat the ideas
that were collaboratively developed in their interviews. Learners instead felt confident enough to
talk about new ideas, previously selected during the ranking phase, thus showing complexity
gains, in that learners took more risks.
170
Matthew W. Turner
Observation 3: Presentation
For this preparation activity, learners were presented with a reduced amount of choice to rank
and choose from, with each person’s prompts being unique from everyone else. Learners were
asked one by one to give a two minute presentation about their ideas to group of 3-4 class
members, with the topic being the same as the previous set of observations. After the two
minutes had elapsed, each student in the group could ask questions to the presenter for a further
two minutes to aid with the development of ideas. This process was repeated for all of the
members. This activity was largely created as a compromise between the monologic nature of
the fluency activity used initially for the first observation, and the use of questions from the
second observation. On the completion of presentation rounds, half of the learners from each
group changed to keep the dynamics fresh. On observing the subsequent discussions, the
findings showed an increase in idea repetition from preparation to discussion performance. As
learners had less choice to choose from, most people reused what they had developed. It was
also noted that learners gave extended ideas which often incorporated information that was
initially instigated by the presentation group’s earlier questioning. It was also seen that this task-
type may have promoted a more even balance of ideas in the discussion, with most participants
successfully producing their unique idea, before engaging in further questions.
Observation 4: Statements
In previous tasks, learners had either been speakers or listeners, interviewees or interviewers and
also presenters. For this observation, it was decided that the learners would be given fewer
conditions to work with and simply encouraged to interact about a series of topics presented to
them on posters around the room. On reading each poster; with topic this time concerning
various crimes, learners were encouraged to choose their own punishment for each example
before interacting with one another. Learners were prompted to change posters when finished,
however it was the responsibility of each group to only change if they felt it necessary.
Although it must be stressed that the discussion questions were written in a way to make
explicit use of each of ideas detailed on the posters, learners still went ahead and actively
repeated their orientations and feelings to each of the posters they were involved with in a
confident manner. There were also marginal gains in the average number of function use from
the previous task-type, which could be largely down to the freer and more interactive, dialogic
nature of the preparation task. Conditions more closely reflected that of the final discussion task,
therefore making it easier to replicate function use instances with the same ideas once again.
This task type can be therefore seen as the most successful in terms of ideas repetition in that the
task was less controlled, freer, with the learners allowed more of a chance to interact with the
topic personally by classification using their own punishments related to each crime.
CONCLUSION
This observational study has attempted to provide an illustration of the results of various
preparation task types on the learners’ replications and reuse of ideas. Various tasks were
explored by the teacher, by carefully changing the conditions on each occasion. Although these
observations serve as introductory and would require a more formal approach to data collection
to make more conclusive judgments, the observation model implemented here suggests that
altering conditions of preparation tasks may have some effects on learner output production.
Conditions such as learner roles appeared to have reduced the repetition of ideas amongst
learners, while activities that promoted repetition with timed conditions did have some positive
effects. Preparation tasks that closely reflected the conditions of main task of freer discussion
were seen to have had the strongest effect on the learners’ replication of ideas, with interaction
171
being wholly interactive, with fewer restrictions imposed by the teacher. Finally, although a
degree of attention was paid to the relationship between the learners’ overall function use and
ideas repetition, no distinct correlations could be made, with the differences remaining marginal
throughout. Functional language use is formally recorded and tested using quantitative data
collection methods as a standard on the related language program (Doe, 2012), however this
observation made use of casual teacher judgments instead. It can be argued therefore that this
was a limitation to this study.
Moving forward, several directions from this study could now be taken. On a day-to-day
pedagogical level, the writer will think more closely about the tasks that he chooses to use in
preparing students for discussions, with idea repetition remaining as a successful factor and
indicator of learner preparedness. Further studies may also make use of recording software to
more accurately track idea repetition and development, allowing for a closer analysis on
syntactical and lexical repetitions. Studies around awareness-raising with regards to assessing
the learners’ knowledge about each stage of the lesson could also inform another direction that
this study could take. Above all, this study has attempted to reveal that preparation tasks need to
be chosen carefully, with conditions, roles and interactivity producing varying outcomes in
achieving idea repetition in discussions.
REFERENCES
Ahmadian, M.J. (2012). Task repetition in ELT. ELT Journal, 66(3), 380-382.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M.
Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching Pedagogical Tasks (pp.23-114).
Abingdon, U.K.: Pearson Education Limited.
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 11, 367–83.
Doe, T., Hurling, S., Livingston, M., Moroi, T., & Takayama I. (2013). English Discussion
Class: Instructor Handbook. Unpublished manuscript.
Doe, T. (2012) Assessment: Improving Rater Reliability on the EDC Discussion Test. New
Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 1, 1-11.
Ellis, R. (2003). Designing a Task-Based Syllabus. RELC Journal, 34(1), 54-81.
Ellis, R. (2009a). Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246.
Ellis, R. (2009b) The Differential Effects of Three Types of Task Planning on the Fluency,
Complexity and Accuracy in L2 Education. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509.
Estaire, S., & Zanon, J. (1994). Planning Classwork: A Task-Based Approach. Oxford, U.K.:
Macmillan Heinemann.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Fernandez, M., & Alvarez-Torres, M. (1999). The effects of task
repetition on linguistic output, Language Learning, 49, 549-580.
University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press.
Richards, J.C., & Farrell, T.S.C. (2005). Professional Development for Language
Teachers.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on
narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120.
172
Matthew W. Turner
Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M.
Swain (Eds.), Researching Pedagogical Tasks (pp.167-185). Abingdon, U.K.: Pearson
Education Limited.
Skehan, P., Xiaoyue, B., Qian, L. & Wang, Z. (2012). The task is not enough: Processing
approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 170-187.
Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom Observation Tasks. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University
Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.
APPENDIX
Observation No. ( ) Discussion Preparation Activity:
Lesson No. ( ) Speaker - Listener - Listener - Speaker Speaker

Speaker
Learner Level ( ) Controlled Interaction Semi-controlled Freer Interaction

Interaction
Number of
Preparation Idea repetition? Learner
Student Discussion
Ideas Ideas How many? use of
Name Group
What? Functions
A B Yes No 1 2 3 4
A B Yes No 1 2 3 4
A B Yes No 1 2 3 4
173
Why Do Students Use Japanese?
Hiroaki Umehara
ABSTRACT
Although many teachers think student usage of an L1 reduces language learning opportunities
(Swain and Lapkin, 2000), there is a growing body of study that recommends the use of
Japanese (L1) in English classes (Birch, 2010). Therefore, it seems important to consider why
students are using Japanese before claiming all Japanese is a hindrance to language learning.
This reflective paper attempts to discover what kind of student interactions unfold when the use
of their L1 is explicitly prohibited by the teacher. The observation of one English discussion
class suggests that the students employ Japanese for intersubjectivity and to avoid losing face,
not due to their laziness. Consistent with previous findings on the benefits of L1 use, this paper
describes the potential usefulness of judicious use of L1 and the importance of analyzing
whether students are using or abusing Japanese in their English classes.
INTRODUCTION
L1 use in L2 classrooms has been a contentious issue in the field of second language acquisition
(Leeming, 2011, Saito, 2014). The direct method (Cummins, 2007) or monolingual principle
states that English is best taught in English, and this ideology has exerted much influence on
language education policies in Japan (see Fredrick, 2011; Honna & Takeshita, 2005). According
to Stephens (2006), recent English programs in Japan are apt to view a monolingual instruction
policy more favorably, and Tokyo’s recent appointment as the host city for the 2020 Olympics
has fueled the debates on the pedagogical principle “eigo wa eigode” —“English classes should
be taught in English” (Kubota, 2014). When discussing an English-only policy, the focal point is
the role of the students’ L1, and the issue is usually discussed from two different SLA
perspectives: cognitive approaches and sociocultural approaches (Foster and Ohta, 2005). The
advocates of an English-only policy tend to support cognitive approaches, especially
interactionist theory for second language acquisition, which states that since significant exposure
to comprehensible input is the key element for language learning, maximizing L2 while
minimizing L1 in classrooms should be encouraged (Ohta, 1995). This view is taken as a given
and is well-ingrained in recent task-based language teaching; a lot of pro-communicative
teaching practitioners tend to view L1 use in the classroom as a hindrance (Cummins, 2007).
Another group of SLA researchers, who acknowledge the importance of students’ L1 tend
to support sociocultural approaches. In these approaches, language development occurs as a
social process. L2 learners develop language knowledge by interacting with other learners.
Sociocultural theory carefully examines the creation of the context and learner interactions in
order to analyze how learners socially construct the mutual understandings through which
language is acquired (Ohta, 1995). Teaching professionals following this framework tend to see
L1 as a critical tool for language learners, one that enables them to interact meaningfully. The
present study is situated within this framework in order to describe the setting and student
interactions.
There is a growing body of study that recommends the use of Japanese in English classes
(e.g. Birch, 2010), claiming that an L1 is useful in saving time, lowering anxiety, explaining
difficult concepts, and managing the classroom (Lee, 2013). These studies usually observe how
and when Japanese students use their first language while engaging in English language tasks. In
other words, students are allowed to reference their L1 when necessary. There is no study that
examines student interactions in a classroom that explicitly prohibits the use of Japanese. Thus,
this present paper attempts to discover what kind of student interactions unfold when the use of
their L1 is explicitly prohibited by the teacher.
174
Hiroaki Umehara
Context
The class that was the setting for this paper was an English discussion class at a private
university in Tokyo. This discussion class was one of the compulsory English courses that all
first year students have to take for the duration of one year. The class has one 90-minute lesson
every week, and all the classes are conducted following a unified syllabus, which aims to
develop the students’ language fluency. In this class, fluency development is referred to as the
“development of students’ abilities to use English to communicate meaningfully in real time”
(Hurling, 2012). With the emphasis on language fluency, the class size is kept small; each class
has only seven to nine students. In conducting the class, explicit feedback on language form is
only acceptable when it is employed to repair communication breakdowns. Teachers are
encouraged to maximize students’ English talking time so that they can get as many chances to
use English as possible. All students are told on the first day of the class that the class is
conducted only in English and that the excessive use of Japanese will be penalized. This
English-only policy is explicitly stated in the student handbook as well. All first year university
students are separated into four levels, and the focal level of this study is level 4 (low-
intermediate level). The class was comprised of eight students: six male students and two female
students.
DISCUSSION
Observations took place over 13 weeks, beginning during the second week of the class in the
second semester. This study was triggered by one fascinating interaction I heard from the
students before the very first class began.
<Right before the class started>

Shun: I just met my former English Discussion teacher.
Yoshi: Haha…
Shun: But I just said “yeah” many times to him because I don’t understand English.
Yoshi: Yeah, I do that too all the time.
Shun: He was speaking gibberish. I guess he was speaking Thai.
Yoshi: No, no, Chinese. (laughter)
After I overheard this conversation, one scary thought crossed my mind: these students
might participate in this discussion evasively if I force them to follow the English-only policy. I
usually go over the class objectives and rules emphasizing the importance of using only English
in the class on the first day of the class. However, this time I did not stress the English-only
policy so much. Rather, I stressed the importance of using and practicing English to share
interesting ideas. I did not state that excessive Japanese could hurt their grades.
Initially only field notes and a reflective teaching journal were kept; however, after a few
particular features were noticed, the classes were audio-recorded. During the first two weeks of
the semester, I took notes on the students’ language proficiency, personalities, and their group
dynamics to gain a big picture of the class. I adapted Spradley’s (1980) model to organize my
initial notes. In making observations, I learned that all the students were very active and
motivated individuals who were studying community and human services. Almost all of them
actively participated in sports club activities, and since they had intense practice sessions almost
every day, they were very tired at the end of day. Although all the students had affable and fun-
loving personalities, I did not enjoy the fact that I occasionally had to remind them of the
English-only policy. I taught the students some practical English phrases to solve
communication breakdowns, such as “How do you say…in English?” and “Can you say that
175
again?” but some students still used Japanese. Needless to say, I could have come down hard on
them, penalizing their Japanese usage, but this type of practice does not agree with my teaching
belief that values positive affect and rapport. I also think that students need to enjoy a class to
learn anything. Moreover, I was afraid that if pushed too hard on the English-only aspect these
students would engage in the class with a “just saying yes” attitude. Furthermore, it has been
suggested that L1 plays an important role in L2 learning (see Anton & DiCamilla, 1998) and that
students sometimes need their L1 to fully participate in L2 classes (Cook, 2001). Thus, to better
understand when and why students were using Japanese during their interactions, the classes
were recorded from weeks 6 to 14.
While keeping field notes and the teaching journal and carefully analyzing transcripts of
the audio recordings, I noticed some recurring patterns that prompted student exchanges of
Japanese utterances.
Intersubjectivity
The first pattern arose when Japanese was used for intersubjectivity. In this situation, Japanese is
employed to understand, control, and complete a task. According to De Guerrero and Villami
(1994), “intersubjectivity” is achieved when “individual[s] working in collaboration define the
objects, events, and goals of a task in the same way.” First, the two students, who had the lowest
English proficiency, would inquire about the meaning of questions either in Japanese or English.
Second, the other students would try to answer their peers’ questions in English, but these
attempts usually did not succeed, making things even more complicated for those two students.
It should be noted that all the other students always attempted to answer the two students’
inquiries in English, thereby following the English-only policy. After a few negotiations had
been tried, both parties would inevitably get frustrated and would eventually fall back on
Japanese. To illustrate this interaction, a segment from a feedback session on a fluency activity
in Lesson 10 has been provided.
Teacher: Guys, how did you do from two minutes and thirty to one minutes thirty? Did
you get all of the information 100%? Talk in pair. How about you?
Yoshi: Ah ee 100%?
Teacher: Yes, you had less time from two thirty to one thirty, did you still talk about all
the same idea? 100%?
Yoshi: Idea 100%?
Teacher: Yes 100%
Yoshi: Ah yeah, yes, yes…
Teacher: Okay great. Okay do you guys understand? So please talk in pairs. Three, two,
one start.
Yoshi: Ee doiukoto? (What do you mean?) [whispering]
Hiroto: So say 100% short time?
Yoshi: 100%?
Yes, no, yes? Doiukoto? (What do you mean?)
Hiroto: Zenbu ietakatte. Nifun hann kara ietakatte. (Did you say all the idea? from
two thirty to one thirty.)
Yoshi: Aaa haha zenzen wakaranakatta. No dane. (Oh I see, I did not know what to
do. Then the answer is no.)
In this excerpt, the teacher tried to demonstrate what the students had to do in the next
activity and called upon Yoshi. The student asked for clarification by partially repeating “100%?”
176
Hiroaki Umehara
with rising intonation. The teacher provided further explanation, and the student asked, “Idea
100%?” again for even more elucidation; he said, “Ah yeah, yes, yes,” as his answer to the
question. The following interactions between Yoshi and Hiroto clearly illustrate that Yoshi did
not understand the question and had provided a throwaway answer to avoid any further
negotiation for meaning. Yoshi finally understood the question with the Japanese explanation
from Hiroto.
Avoid losing face

The second pattern occurs when Japanese is employed to avoid losing face. When the students
engaged in discussions, the two weaker students unintentionally got laughs from their peers.
They were obviously class-clown types but did seem not to appreciate being laughed at for their
English. I noticed that these two students like to get the whole room laughing when they mean to
be funny, but when they are seriously trying to communicate their ideas, it is a different story.
When their peers laughed at their genuine efforts in English, these students tended to share the
same ideas in Japanese, so that they could correctly convey their ideas and avoid humiliating
themselves. The following is an excerpt from a lesson about public manners.
Shun: Eating bento in train is bad.

Yasu: Why?
Shun: Ah not good because not good.
Yasu: Haha why?
Shun: Because it no nose, no nose.
Yasu: “No nose?”
Shun: Yes, “No nose.” (with gesture)
Yasu: Hahaha, I don’t understand.
Shun: Japanese say “kusai” (smells bad)
Yasu: Oh okay, hhhh.
These two types of Japanese usage seemed to be serious issues that I had to address
because in these cases, the use of Japanese had nothing to do with the laziness that many
teachers worry about permitting to detrimental effect in the classroom (Ford, 2009). Teachers
tend to be overly concerned about the risks associated with students overusing Japanese to the
expense of their actually practicing English (Lee, 2013), but it seemed to me that the students
were using Japanese to actively participate in the classroom activities. I could also argue that the
students had used Japanese out of their drive to participate considering that they could have just
as easily given up talking and kept quiet.
A supplementary handout
In order to minimize their Japanese usage while enabling them to participate in the class, a
supplementary handout was distributed to the students during lessons 7–13; it highlighted all the
target phrases and the important vocabulary words needed in order to understand the questions
and activities for each week. The students were told to look up any phrases and terms that they
did not know as homework so that they could participate in discussions without asking any basic
comprehension questions or sharing their ideas in Japanese. Each time, I listed about ten words
that seemed above the students’ English levels. All the students took this homework seriously,
and they mentioned that the handouts were useful for the class. From my perspective, it seemed
like the two weakest students used much less Japanese after the handout was introduced. I told
them to add any words that they did not know during the lesson to the list because they could
177
always refer to the handout without bothering other students.
Scaffolding
I also allowed these two students in particular to get help from other students in Japanese when
they were engaging in preparation activities. Because the main goal of this discussion class is to
let students “hold fluent, interactive discussions in groups of four for 16 minutes or more”
(Hurling, 2012), I tried to encourage the students to equip themselves with the necessary
vocabulary before the main discussions. I prompted the students to ask, “How do you say… in
English?” questions if they needed, so that they would feel confident enough to try to express
their ideas in English during the primary discussions. This encouragement seemed to work very
effectively. I noticed many times that the students frequently used the words that they had
learned from the preparation activities in the course of the main discussions. Another effort I
made to minimize Japanese usage was to always ask, “Do you understand, (insert name)?” to
everyone before any discussions began. I made this a routine practice for the students so that
they knew that I was really checking their comprehension. If any of them said or seemed to be
leaning toward “no”, I attempted to provide more simplified instructions. (It should be noted that
I did not use any Japanese for any purposes in the class). If the students still did not understand
me, I let one student explain the task in Japanese to the rest of the class. I always reminded them
that it is okay to say “I don’t understand” to a teacher. This practice also appeared to be effective
considering that I was getting more and more “I don’t understand” answers as the semester
progressed.
Students’ Perspectives
After the last class ended, I interviewed my two weakest students in Japanese, and they told me
how hard it was to follow the English-only policy. They said that one of the other compulsory
English classes had been disastrous for them because they had had no idea what they were
supposed to be doing, and if they had asked their friends questions in Japanese about the
teacher’s instructions, the teacher would get furious because they had spoken Japanese. They
said that they did not and could not care about the class that much since they did not know what
they were doing. They had just attended the course so that they could fulfill the requirement.
I feel this is a very sad thing because I believe that teachers should enforce the English-only
policy out of their concern for student achievement, but in this case, the students could not
understand the instructor’s original intentions.
CONCLUSION
Many teachers think student usage of an L1 reduces language learning opportunities (Swain and
Lapkin, 2000) but incorporating an L1 is sometimes unavoidable when learning and practicing
the target language (Chavez, 2003; Umehara & Gorsuch, 2013). As many studies have suggested,
an L1 should be flexibly employed and tailored to student needs while emphasizing the L2 usage
in the classroom (Carson, and Kashihara, 2012). Some teachers might think my practice of
encouraging “How do you say…in English?” prevents student opportunities to negotiate for
meaning. I acknowledge that it is important to push students to interact and decode meanings in
English and that such practice will teach students communication strategies they can draw upon
in the real world. However, I also think it is important to bear in mind that negotiation for
meaning can be very frustrating and embarrassing for non-native English speakers (Aston, 1986).
Foster (1998) found that intermediate EFL students did not initiate much negotiation for
meaning when they encountered communication breakdowns. She claims that repair practices
are frustrating for students since they slow down the flow of a given task and are also indicators
178
Hiroaki Umehara
of a student’s incompetence. Lee (2013) discovered that low proficiency Japanese students had
serious problems understanding and negotiating meaning in English, and they tended to
eventually make use of some Japanese.
Carson and Kashihara’s (2012) study shows that student desires for instructors to use
and know their L1 declined with increasing L2 ability. Based on their findings, they also suggest
that instructors who are proficient in Japanese should teach lower-level students and that
instructors who are proficient in English should teach higher-level students. It would be
impossible to match an instructor’s L1 proficiency with students’ L2 proficiency levels, but
instructors and program developers should at least carefully examine why students are falling
back on their L1 before penalizing all cases of its utilization. Needless to say, instructors should
take their teaching development seriously so that they can effectively provide clarifying
instructions before relying on any L1 use. It is hoped that this paper will raise awareness about
the importance of analyzing whether students are using or abusing Japanese in their English
classes.
REFRENCES
Aston, G.1986. ‘Troubleshooting interaction with learners: the more the merrier?’Applied
Linguistics. 7. 128–43.
Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in
the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 314- 342.
Birch, G. C. (2010). Behind the scenes: An examination of student L1 use. The Language
Teacher, 34(3), 19-24.
Carson, E., & Kashihara, H. (2012). Using the L1 in the L2 classroom: The students speak. The
Language Teacher, 36(4), 41-48.
Chavez, M. (2003). “The Diglossic Foreign-Language Classroom: Learners’ Views on L1 and
L2 Functions”, in C. S. Blyth (ed.) The Sociolinguistics of Foreign-Language Classrooms.
(pp. 163-208). Heinle: Thomson.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language
Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 57(3), 402-423.
Cummins, J. (2009). Multilingualism in the English‐language Classroom: Pedagogical
Considerations. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 317-321.
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cogitive dimensions of interaction in L2
peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 78, 484-496.
Ford, K. (2009). Principles and practices of L1/L2 use in the Japanese university EFL classroom.
JALT Journal, 31(1), 63-80.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied
linguistics, 19(1), 1-23.
Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language
classrooms. Applied linguistics, 26(3), 402-430.
Fredrick,C. (2011). English Translation of the MEXT Guidelines. National AJET. National AJET
2011-2012. AJET Blog. Retrieved January 10, 2013 from <
http://ajet.net/2011/02/24/english-translation-of-the-mext-guidelines/>.
Honna, N., & Takeshita, Y. (2005). English Language Teaching in Japan Policy Plans and their
Implementations. RELC Journal, 36(3), 363-383.
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. In Doe, T., Hurling, S., Livingston, M., Moroi, T.,
(Eds.), New Direction in teaching and learning English discussion. Tokyo: EDC.
Kubota, R. (2014). Orinpikku to eigo kyooiku: Han guroobaru teki kaikaku オリンピックと英
語教育：反グローバル的改革 [The Olympics and English language teaching: Anti-
179
global reforms]. Shuukan Kinyoobi 『週刊金曜日』, January 17, 2014.

Lee, P. (2013). ‘English Only’ Language Instruction to Japanese University Students in Low-
Level Speaking & Listening Classes: An Action Research Project. Keiwagakuen daigaku
kiyou, 22, 1-30.
Leeming, P. (2011). Japanese high school students' use of L1 during pair-work. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 360-382.
Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-
learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied
Linguistics, 6, 93-121.
Saito, Y. (2014). Japanese University Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices regarding an English-only
Policy. The journal of Rikkyo University Language Center, 31, 29-42.
Spradley, James P. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Stephens, M. (2006). The use and abuse of Japanese in the university English class. The
language Teacher, 30 (8), 13-18.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first
language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251-274.
Umehara, H. & Gorsuch, G. (2013). A near peer review task for Japanese language
learning. Journal of Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching, 2, 35-51.
180
An Examination of Extreme Shyness in EDC Classes
Jason Wan
ABSTRACT
In this paper, I will discuss the performance of one particularly shy student in an EDC class.
First, I will discuss why I chose to observe this particular student. Then, I will describe in detail
the student in terms of his extremely shy behavior at the start of the course and any changes in
this behavior over the course of four lessons. Next, possible reasons for these changes will be
discussed, followed by a discussion of possible future strategies/activities that might be effective
in changing student performance in regards to extremely shy behavior.
INTRODUCTION
The aspect of student behavior I chose to observe was shyness and reluctance to speak in a
discussion class. The student I selected to observe (henceforth known as ‘R’) exhibited extreme
shyness in class, to the point where he was hindering his classmates’ ability to have discussions.
This aspect was important because this kind of shyness had a negative impact on not only the
student in question’s performance but also his classmates. It is not uncommon for learners
studying a foreign language to feel anxiety, and in second language acquisition literature,
anxiety is recognized as an important barrier (Gregerson & Horwitz, 2002). This anxiety created
a somewhat uncomfortable atmosphere in the class, and I wanted to observe if and how this
uncomfortable atmosphere would improve.
From the start of the semester, R had great difficulties communicating in pair activities in
his EDC lessons. During the second lesson, he could not answer his partner’s question
efficiently, which led to a communication breakdown. His partner asked him a standard question
in the EDC curriculum: “What do you think?” R started by saying “I think…” and then stayed
quiet for 40 seconds. His partner, not knowing whether R needed more time or not, looked at me
for help. Immediately, I thought that R might have been shy and suffering from increased levels
of anxiety because, as Wu (2010) noted, “those who have higher levels of anxiety are likely to
be reticent or unwilling to communicate in the classroom (p.176).” This problem was repeated a
couple of weeks later in a group discussion. A student asked R for his opinion, and he did not
respond. His classmate waited for more than one minute before giving up and moving on.
Upon consulting with R’s first semester teacher, I was told R was a difficult case because
he was extremely shy. This teacher also gave me some advice on how to deal with R. First of all,
since R was extremely shy, it was suggested that he not be singled out in class as this could
exacerbate the problem. Second, it was suggested that I pair R up with different classmates to
see if he could develop a level of comfort with any of them. The hope was that if R became more
comfortable with his classmates, he would feel less shy about opening up to them. In addition, I
asked a more experienced program manager for advice on how to handle R and his silent
situations, and I incorporated this advice into my lessons to help not only R but also his
classmates. One suggestion was that I not include R in pair activities; instead, I could always
make sure he was in a group of three students. This may not have helped R directly with his
shyness, but it benefitted his classmates because if R did not answer their questions, they had
someone else with whom they could continue the discussion.
DISCUSSION
For lesson five, R was one minute late, but I do not think this impacted his performance in class.
During the day’s fluency activity, he smiled, which showed he was not uncomfortable during the
181
activity. Perhaps he felt like he could speak more because he did not feel like he was in the
spotlight. However, for the initial speaking turn, R was silent for the final 30 seconds. He was
not alone, however, since his classmates had stopped speaking as well.
During the discussion test simulation preparation, R tried to participate. He took a long
time to do the ranking activity (1-5), but the fact that he tried to participate was a pleasant
surprise. He even asked a couple of questions to his classmates, which was a rarity (he asked
“What do you think?” and “Why?”). In the second preparation, he answered a classmate’s
question quickly. In the discussion test simulation, R tried to participate in the discussion. He
asked, “Can I start?” and proceeded to follow up with an opinion. However, pauses hindered his
fluency. A classmate asked whether he was finished or not, but when R could not continue,
another classmate jumped in (“Can I make a comment?”). After that, R remained silent for the
remainder of the discussion. Seeing this, I tried to provide some phrases that could be used to
stall for time in a discussion (for example, “Just a moment, please.”) I had hoped that R would
be able to use the phrases in case the same situation happened again. However, he did not use
them in the lesson.
In the discussion test, R offered three ideas, all prefaced with a Joining the Discussion
phrase (“Can I start?”). He continued to perform at a better-than-expected level during the
discussion test, going so far as to ask “Does anyone want to comment?” and helping his
classmate translate “shudan” into “group”. Based on lesson five, R had already showed some
improvement since the beginning of the semester. Although his fluency was still below average,
his level of involvement in the lesson was better than he had shown in previous lessons. His
extreme shyness did not seem to impair him too much, outside of being silent for most of the
discussion test simulation. However, whether this performance was because of the fact that it
was a discussion test lesson remained to be seen.
R was absent for the next lesson. As R was absent for lesson six, I was a little concerned
as to whether he would show up for lesson seven, and, if he did, how he would handle the new
function (without knowledge of the previous week’s function). Fortunately, he showed up early
for lesson seven.
After the quiz, I had the class stand up to do the 3-2-1 fluency activity. I made sure that R
was a listener first so he could take some extra time to gather his thoughts about the fluency
questions. I was not able to monitor his performance as a listener because I had to participate as
a listener myself in the fluency activity. When it was his turn to speak, R participated in the
activity. Although there were a few pauses and hesitations, they were consistent with his peers’
level during the fluency activity. In other words, R was not abnormally hesitant or unwilling to
speak. In fact, he even laughed a few times, which may have indicated his growing confidence.
He continued to finish the fluency activity with a variety of partners without any major problems.
During the practice, he participated with his partner. His fluency was not on par with his
classmates, but he did not simply stop as he had done before in a paired speaking activity. He
even asked his partner a question (“How come?”), which was a rarity for him. After practicing
the function phrases, I paired R up with another classmate. Up until this point, R had seemed
willing to participate in today’s lesson, so I wanted to see who he felt comfortable speaking with.
During the preparation for the first discussion, he tried to speak with his partner, even smiling.
However, there were still times when he did not know what to say. Nevertheless, whereas in the
past he would stop attempting to communicate, this time, he told his partner, “I don’t know.”
This represented a shift to a more willing attitude to at least tell his partner that he did not know
what to say instead of merely becoming silent. R volunteered to state his opinion in the first
discussion, but he became a little flustered when his classmate noticed his linguistic mistake. He
almost gave up when he couldn’t say something smoothly, but he endured. In the first discussion,
182
Jason Wan
he even made a joke and laughed with his classmates. Perhaps this was indicative of his growing
comfort with his classmates. He even volunteered to offer his opinion first (“Can I start?”) for
the second discussion question. Finally, in the discussion, he even disagreed with one of his
classmates, showing that he was willing to express his own opinion even if it was different from
his classmate’s opinion.
For the second discussion preparation activity, R seemed to lose a little bit of focus. He
stared blankly into space when he was supposed to do the individual preparation activity. When
he was supposed to discuss his ideas with his partner, he spoke only a little bit. In the second
discussion, R was silent for the first nine minutes of the discussion. When he finally broke his
silence, he asked his classmate, “Why did you think Obama is a bad role model?” After his
classmate answered his question, he reacted a few times (“I see, I see. OK.”) and then remained
silent for the remainder of the discussion. Perhaps he was not interested in the second
discussion’s topic or he became tired. Whatever the reason, R’s sudden drop in performance was
unexpected given how he had performed in the lesson until that point.
On another note, something interesting happened after the lesson finished. Normally, R
was the first one to leave the class right after it finished, without saying a word to anyone. After
lesson seven, however, he did not leave the class right away. In fact, a classmate gestured to him,
and they appeared to speak in Japanese when they left the classroom. This change made me
realize that, perhaps, R was becoming friends with some of his classmates. This may have been
the reason R seemed to have improved in lesson seven (excluding discussion two).
R was present at the start of lesson eight. After completing the quiz, I made him one of
the speakers for the lesson’s Question 3-2-1 activity. I did this intentionally so that he did not
have too much pressure on him to produce English quickly; in fact, I encouraged the speakers to
give very short answers. However, in his initial try, there were a lot of pauses and silent
moments. He seemed reluctant to answer questions. R may have had difficulties with the topic,
as evidenced by the fact that when his partner asked him different questions about his favorite
sport, R began to respond. Another possibility is that he may not have felt comfortable with his
first partner. When he repeated the activity with two other classmates, he was more willing to
answer their questions. As a listener, he seemed more comfortable asking questions than
answering them. He repeated the question activity three times, and all three times he asked his
partner questions. This idea of R being more comfortable asking questions than answering them
would come up again throughout the lesson.
In the practice, R tried to answer his partner’s questions. His lack of fluency hindered his
ability to answer, but it did seem like he was making an effort. Once again, he was better at
asking questions than he was at answering them.
In the first discussion preparation activity, he started by asking questions, and he also
managed to answer his partner’s questions. However, when the first discussion started, R was
silent for the first 8.5 minutes of the discussion. With approximately 1.5 minutes left in the
discussion, R commented on something his classmate said. Then, when questioned about his
opinion, he gave it. However, this was at the end of the discussion, and time expired.
As the lesson progressed, it seemed like R was getting more comfortable answering
questions. In the initial Question 3-2-1 activity, he did not appear to like answering questions,
but in the following activities, he was less reluctant. This trend continued into the second
discussion preparation activity. He answered his partner’s questions, and asked his partner to
give reasons twice. R seemed primed to participate in the second discussion.
However, once the second discussion started, R was silent. Upon further inspection, he
had fallen asleep even as his classmates were having the discussion around him. He continued to
do this for the rest of the discussion; his classmates did not try to involve him. He woke up once,
183
but then proceeded to close his eyes and drift off again until the discussion ended. Thus, he did
not participate in the second discussion at all. Perhaps R did not have the endurance to maintain
focus for 90 minutes or was not interested in the discussion topic.
For lesson nine, R was a little late, but he still managed to finish the quiz. After the quiz,
the students had to do the 3-2-1 activity. I made sure that R was a listener first. As a listener, he
nodded his head, but he gave no verbal reactions. At the end of the third and final minute, he
said a reaction, but then time ran out. When it was his turn to be a speaker, he spoke fairly
normally. He stuttered a bit, but he performed the activity adequately. He even laughed a little.
However, his fluency did not seem to improve much over the three rounds.
During the test simulation preparation activity, R did well. He asked a checking
understanding question (“Do you understand?”) to his partner. He even gave a detailed opinion;
however, he did have to rely on some Japanese to negotiate meaning. He was a bit limited in this
preparation by his lack of knowledge of one of the choices, but he did find the confidence to tell
his partner (“I don’t know Freshness Burger.”). During the second preparation activity, he
initiated the discussion by choosing the topic (Line or Twitter). Based on his performance, it
looked like R seemed fairly interested in today’s lesson.
During the test simulation, R was awake and laughed a few times. He tried to join the
discussion willingly (“Can I start?”). He offered his opinion. He stuttered a bit, and his
classmates laughed. I was worried that R would shut down, but he did not give up and continued
to try. His classmate paraphrased his idea, to which he replied, “Yes.”
During the actual discussion test, R did better than his previous test. Again, he tried to
join the discussion willingly. He gave his opinion, but his fluency was hindered by the frequent
pauses in his speech. He had trouble getting his ideas out of his mouth. Knowing this, he said to
his classmates, “Sorry, I don’t speak well.” This acknowledgement of his shortcomings was in
and of itself a revelation. This lack of confidence could have been the main reason for R’s
anxiety since, as Ellis (1994) noted, when students find themselves less proficient, they tend to
become anxious. His classmates proceeded to ask him several follow-up questions, which he
answered well – he answered all of them and did not give up once. When R did not know how to
answer his classmate’s question, R told him. During the test, he asked his classmate, “How
come?” When the topic changed, R again joined the discussion and answered his classmates’
follow-up questions. His classmate asked him a Reporting Information question, and he used the
appropriate Reporting Information phrase.
I do not know if R’s performance was enhanced by the fact it was a discussion test; it
seems that he participated more during discussion test lessons. Also, I noticed that R seemed to
be getting more comfortable answering open-ended questions (such as “Why do you think so?”).
He had more trouble when he had to initiate his own ideas from the textbook as opposed to his
classmates asking him follow-up questions.
Based on my observations on these four lessons, I hypothesized that R understood the
importance of discussion test lessons, and, consequently, consciously made a stronger effort to
participate better in these lessons. Also, with every lesson, it seemed like R was gradually
becoming more comfortable with the lesson and his classmates. Initially, R seemed reluctant to
share his opinions with his classmates to the point of stopping the discussion altogether. While
he never did participate at the same level as his classmates, he did improve to the point where he
did not cause breakdowns in discussions. However, one of the most difficult aspects of teaching
R was his unpredictability. Throughout the entire semester, R would perform well in some parts
of the lesson and then be completely non-participatory in other parts. For example, he would
participate in some discussion preparation activities only to be silent for the ensuing group
discussion. This pattern of unexpected non-participation made it difficult to anticipate his
184
Jason Wan
performance every lesson. As a result, it is difficult to say whether R made any improvements in
his English discussion skills over the course of the semester. There are a few possible reasons for
R’s unpredictability. One possible reason is that R was uncomfortable with certain members of
the class. This discomfort would be enough to prevent him from participating in the discussions.
Another possible reason is that R was uncomfortable with some of the questions or topics.
However, given that he spoke about related topics in the pair discussion activities, this reason
seems unlikely. Another possible reason is that R simply lacked the stamina to participate
throughout the entire lesson. Perhaps being actively involved throughout the 90-minute lesson
was beyond R’s capabilities, so he conserved energy at various points of the lesson. Finally, the
removal of responsibility may have influenced R’s behavior. In the pair discussion activities, R
may have felt that he had to participate more, but in group discussions, he might have felt less
pressure to participate.
The only consistent change I observed in R throughout the semester was that he seemed
to become less shy. There were two possible causes for this change. First, it was highly likely
that R started to become more familiar with his classmates, and this familiarity lowered his
anxiety levels. Second, since R became familiar with the routine of the EDC lesson, he knew
what to expect from each class. This familiarity with the class routine also lowered his anxiety
levels. His decreasing anxiety levels and shyness enabled R to participate more (albeit only
slightly) in each lesson.
CONCLUSION
Based on my experience of keeping a journal, one of the main strategies for influencing student
performance is the establishment of a routine in the classroom. Initially, students may be hesitant
when they first enter a discussion class in a foreign language; their anxiety levels may be high
for many different reasons. One possible reason is that they do not know what is expected of
them in a discussion class. However, with the establishment of a routine, students can gradually
come to know what they are expected to do in each class. Once students know what to expect,
their anxiety levels will decrease, and their performance will improve. Of course, there can be
variations in activities from lesson to lesson, but as long as the same pattern exists in each lesson,
students should perform better.
Based on my observations of R throughout the period of the teaching journal, more
introduction activities (i.e. icebreaker activities) done at the start of the semester might be
effective in changing student performance. The reason for this is that if students are shy, then
activities that help students become familiar with their classmates should help them overcome
their shyness. As mentioned above, R seemed to perform better as the course went on because he
started to become more familiar with his classmates. Perhaps if I had spent more time helping
the students get to know their classmates at the start of the term, R would have been able to
overcome his shyness faster.
Unpredictable behavior can be difficult for a teacher to handle in a classroom. By
definition, unpredictability means that teachers are not able to foresee how students will act in a
lesson; it is impossible to expect the unexpected. Nonetheless, given this caveat, there may be
some courses of action that teachers can take when encountering unpredictability in the
classroom. One possible solution is to involve the other students in the class more. For instance,
if a greater emphasis is placed on getting all members involved in a discussion, then the other
members of the group may feel more responsible for their classmates and encourage them more.
This peer pressure, in turn, may resolve some issues of unpredictability because it may influence
the students in question to conform with the rest of the class.
185
REFERENCES
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Gregerson, T., & Horwitz, E. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and
non-anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern
Wu, K. (February, 2010). The relationship between language learners’ anxiety and learning
strategy in the CLT classrooms. International Education Studies, 3, 174-191.
186
Accounting for Learners’ Positive Behavior Using a
Motivational Strategies Framework
Daniel Warchulski
ABSTRACT
Based on observations of student behaviors in the EDC program and reflections as part of a
teaching journal, this paper attempts to account for students’ positive behaviors and success in
the context of a motivational strategies framework. Evidence of learners’ motivation is
examined with reference to observed motivational behavior, including attention, participation,
and volunteering. A motivational framework, consisting of the Language, Learner, and
Learning Situation Levels, is then utilized to reflect upon the instructors’ practices and as a
potential explanatory tool.
INTRODUCTION
In the field of foreign/second language (L2) learning, most ESL/EFL instructors and researchers
seem to agree that motivation is a key component in determining L2 achievement and success
(Noels et. al, 2000). Accordingly, the past few decades have witnessed an abundance of
research in the area of L2 motivation. Despite this interest and belief that motivation plays a
crucial role in L2 learning, the number of empirical investigations examining actual motivational
strategies in language instruction is scarce. As such, although L2 instructors generally realize
the importance of motivation in their classrooms and, in many cases, are familiar with theories
and definitions of L2 learning motivation, some instructors are unaware of the numerous
strategies that are available to them. Further, instructors do not always consciously or
systematically implement or consider a particular strategy as useful in motivating their students.
Consequently, learners’ success and motivation in the classroom can lack a clear, principled
explanation. Further, trying to motivate learners is often an overwhelming challenge that can
result in frustration and a lack of success. Given the pivotal role of motivation in L2 leaning, I
decided to reflect on and examine the role of motivational strategies as a possible explanation for
students’ success and motivation in the L2 classroom. These strategies can generally be thought
of as various instructional interventions utilized by the teacher to elicit and stimulate student
motivation (Guiloteaux & Dornyei, 2008).
Based on initial observations of English Discussion Classes (EDC) at the start of semester
two, I noticed that in virtually all my classes, students seemed to exhibit high levels of
motivation as evidenced by their achievement and success in the classroom, including high
weekly grades and test scores. Although most classes exhibited similar characteristics, the focus
of my specific observations and reflective journal entries and practices, were a group of learners
consisting of seven students (4 female, 3 male), whose major is Languages. These students
appeared to be particularly highly motivated as evidenced by their overall positive attitude and
various observable behaviors which resulted in their consistently high levels of achievement
during class activities and tasks from weeks 1 through 4. Accordingly, more specific notes
pertaining to this class, and its perceived high level of motivation, were taken from weeks 5 to
13 whereby their behaviors were reflected upon and summarized in some detail. Searching for a
plausible explanation of their positive behavior, I decided to utilize a framework consisting of
motivational strategies in an attempt to explain the learners’ overall success and high levels of
motivation. The use of such a framework allowed for a high degree of speculation regarding
motivation and allowed me to make attributions for the students’ seemingly high levels of
motivation in an informed manner, and within the context of my teaching practices and ability to
187
provide an environment conducive to motivating learners. As well, in a practical sense, by

examining motivation with reference to particular strategies and techniques, there are immediate
pedagogical implications that instructors can draw upon and utilize in their classroom practices
to enhance overall motivation and thus, achievement in L2 learning.
From a theoretical perspective, the precise nature of motivation can, at times, seem murky
and confusing. Over the years, numerous scholars have attempted to define L2 learning
motivation with the result that although there are plenty of definitions, there appears to be some
disagreement regarding them and an absence of a consensus on a definition. For example,
Gardner (1985) asserts that motivation consists of an integrative and instrumental orientation
and is composed of four elements: a goal, a desire to attain that goal, positive attitudes toward
L2 learning, and effortful behavior. Meanwhile, Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination
theory suggests that motivation consists of various forms of regulation that lie along a
continuum between self-determined (intrinsic) and controlled (extrinsic) types of motivation.
Besides these, researchers have provided and proposed a variety of other definitions and
theoretical frameworks to account for L2 learning and motivation including needs,
instrumentality, expectancy, and reinforcement theories, as well as others. From a pedagogical
perspective, among some of the issues associated with these theoretical definitions and
explanations are that they cannot always be easily tested and often fail to provide instructors
with meaningful, specific, and practical ways of motivating their students (Oxford & Shearin,
1994). In other words, they can lack immediate and practical pedagogical implications that
teachers can utilize.
In response to practicing instructors’ concerns regarding the failure of motivational
theories to provide much in the way of practical applications and guidance, a number of scholars
have attempted to synthesize the findings and research regarding L2 motivation into suggestions
of specific motivational strategies with immediate implications for classroom practices. For
instance, Oxford and Shearin (1994) examined various theories and integrated them into an
expanded theoretical framework with practical instructional implications. Perhaps a more useful
synthesis, however, was suggested by Dornyei (1994) who provides some specific suggestions
for motivating learners by outlining a comprehensive motivational construct relevant to L2
classroom motivation comprising of three broad levels: the Language Level, the Learner Level,
and the Learning Situation Level. More recently, Dornyei (2001) expanded on his work by
producing a systematic framework for motivational strategies that encompasses these levels,
including a list of specific motivational techniques that consists of four main dimensions:
creating basic motivational conditions, generating initial motivation, maintaining and protecting
motivation, and encouraging positive retrospective self-evaluation. Given the practical
implications of this work, it is within this framework that I examined my students’ motivation
and attempted to account for it by examining and reflecting upon both their and my own
behavior and practices.
DISCUSSION
Since L2 learning motivation is an eclectic construct, determining whether students are
motivated or lack motivation is not always clear and can be a challenging process. This
becomes particularly apparent when attempting to measure learners’ motivation through
observations and as such, certain limitations exist. Despite these limitations, in a recent study
about the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation by Guilloteaux and Dornyei
(2008), students’ observed behavior, including attention, participation, and volunteering, was
found to be strongly correlated to their motivational state. Further, the results indicated that
instructors’ motivational practices and strategies are linked to increased levels of students’
188
Daniel Warchulski
motivated learning behavior and overall motivation. Accordingly, examining and reflecting on
my practices in the context of observed student behaviors can potentially provide a well-
informed explanation of students’ L2 learning motivation and their success in the EDC course.
In discussing observed motivated behavior, it is useful to begin by briefly pointing out
that during EDC lessons, my students did not exhibit any behaviors that may be construed as
unmotivated or lacking motivation. For instance, off-task, inattentive, or disruptive behaviors
such as chatting, sleeping, day-dreaming, and studying another subject were generally absent.
Conversely, students often seemed to be interested during tasks, had a positive attitude during
lessons, and displayed behaviors that are associated with high levels of L2 learning motivation.
In turn, their motivated behavior resulted in experiences of success and high levels of attainment
as evidenced by their overall grades. In all lessons, most students attained a perfect score (i.e. 4
out of 4) for their participation and in their use of function phrases and communication skills.
Assessing learners’ attention, participation, and volunteering during class are variables
that can measure a student’s level of motivation and thus, can effectively be utilized as
indicators of motivated behavior (Guilloteaux & Dornyei, 2008). As such, these variables were
observed from weeks 5 through 13, and were reflected upon. Regarding attention, students
exhibited high levels of attention during all lessons. For example, during teacher-fronted
activities, such as explanations, feedback, or instructions, students were observed to always be
paying attention to the instructor by looking at the teacher, following his movements, and
carrying out instructions as required. The learners’ demonstrated their attention in other ways
too, such as turning to watch other students who were contributing to various tasks. As well, all
students seemed to show high levels of attention and commitment during activities that required
student-to-student interaction, including during fluency practice, function practice, preparation
activities, and discussions. With respect to participation, all students actively and eagerly
participated during all aspects of the lessons. More importantly, students took part in overall
classroom interaction in a manner that was relatively equal, thereby allowing everyone to share
their ideas and input. Finally, although the requirement that students volunteer answers during
teacher-fronted activities is not a particularly important or frequent component of EDC lessons,
whenever given an opportunity to answer a question or to provide input, students were generally
eager to volunteer. In fact, whenever I asked students for their input, on most occasions, at least
one third of the students volunteered a response without having to be coaxed. These observed
behaviors imply and provide powerful evidence that students were indeed motivated.
In attempting to account for the students’ perceived high levels of motivation, I

speculated and reflected on my overall teaching practices and classroom environment in the
EDC program within the context of a list of motivational components categorized into three
main theoretical dimensions as mentioned earlier: the Language Level, the Learner Level, and
the Learning Situation Level (See Table 1). Although all three levels are important in
determining one’s motivational state, the Learning Situation Level can be particularly relevant
for practicing instructors since it encompasses and is associated with situation-specific motives
rooted in various aspects of L2 learning in a classroom setting (Dornyei & Csizer, 1998). As
such, by focusing much of their effort here, instructors are perhaps most likely to feel
empowered and in control of their students’ overall motivation because they can make a direct,
positive, and meaningful contribution through their practices, including the creation of a suitable
environment in which motivation can be fostered and maintained. This is particularly true
within the EDC program since, while EDC instructors have the ability to influence the Language
and Learner Levels, it would seem that at the Learning Situation Level they have the greatest
opportunities to make an impact on learner motivation.
189
Table 1 Components of foreign language learning motivation
Level Motivational components

Language Level Integrative motivational subsystem
Instrumental motivational subsystem
Learner Level Need for achievement

Self-confidence
 Language use anxiety
 Perceived L2 competence
 Causal attributions
 Self-efficacy
Learning Situation Level
Course-specific motivational components Interest
Relevance
Expectancy
Satisfaction
Teacher-specific motivational components Affiliative motive

Authority type
Direct socialization of student motivation
 Modelling
 Task presentation
 Feedback
Group-specific motivational components
Goal-orientedness
Norm and reward system
Group cohesion
Classroom goal structure
(Dornyei, 1994, p. 78)
A number of studies and research papers have examined specific motivational strategies
in the context of these motivational components. Based on an overview of relevant research and
findings, a partial list of the following macro-strategies emerged as being effective and
important for instructors to utilizein motivating L2 learners: proper teacher behavior, personalize
the learning process, familiarize learners with L2-related values and culture, create a pleasant
and relaxed atmosphere, increase and promote learners’ self-efficacy and linguistic self-
confidence, develop a good relationship with the learners, make language classes interesting,
promote autonomy, provide motivating feedback, personalize the learning process, increase
learners’ goal-orientedness, recognize students’ effort, and promote group cohesiveness and
group norms (Dornyei,, 1994; Dornyei & Cxizer, 1998; Cheng & Dornyei, 2007; Guilloteaux &
Dornyei, 2008). Although I was unable to utilize all of these strategies, reflecting on this list
with reference to the different levels of motivational components, and the strategies I
successfully implemented, provided some valuable and practical insights into my students’
motivational state and more importantly, allowed me to account for and reasonably explain their
motivated behaviors in the context of my teaching approach and practices.
190
Daniel Warchulski
At the Language Level, instructors should, among other things, attempt to personalize the
learning process and familiarize learners with l2-related values. To the extent possible within
the EDC program, various strategies at this level were implemented. To begin with, whenever
given an opportunity, I attempted to present English in general, as well as various aspects of L2-
related culture, in a positive and realistic manner. For instance, this was done through the
introduction of supplementary authentic materials, such as pictures, to complement lesson topics
and by providing students with specific examples of various L2 cultural values and practices
when appropriate. Also, students were reminded throughout the semester of the benefits of
learning English and students managed to increase and use English-only during lessons. In
terms of personalizing the learning process, EDC instructors are somewhat limited since the
curriculum is unified and as such, instructors are unable to, for example, perform a needs
analysis and to adjust the syllabus accordingly. However, the EDC framework potentially
personalizes the learning process by promoting the sharing of personal information and
experiences among the students during various tasks and activities.
The Learner Level of L2 motivation involves a complex of affects and cognitions that are
responsible for relatively stable personality traits and include a need for achievement and self-
confidence (Dornyei, 1994). At this level, some of the strategies I utilized which promote
motivation included attempts to increase the students’ self-efficacy and confidence and the
creation of a pleasant and relaxed atmosphere. I attempted to create a supportive atmosphere
that minimizes face-threatening activities, while promoting risk-taking. Specifically, I avoided
making any potentially face-threatening social comparisons while encouraging students to take
risks during lessons by tolerating and avoiding an explicit focus on grammatical errors. As well,
I used humor in an appropriate manner and encouraged its use by students during discussions.
At the same time, attempts to increase and maintain students’ self-efficacy and confidence
included regularly providing praise, encouragement, and reinforcement through personal
comments and feedback, including positive examples of students’ ideas and use of function
phrases and communication skills. Further, students experienced success and a sense of
achievement through their high grades.
With respect to the Learning Situation Level, a number of strategies that help account for
the students’ high level of motivation were implemented. These include measures that are
concerned primarily with various aspects of teacher-specific and group-specific motivational
components, including developing a good relationship with the learners, making the classes
interesting, promoting learner autonomy, and increasing the students’ goal-orientedness.
Although course-specific motivational components are important for instructors to consider, the
nature of the EDC program makes their implementation challenging for instructors since a set
curriculum must be followed. However, perhaps students’ interest, curiosity, and attention was
aroused by virtue of making peer interaction an integral aspect of lessons whereby seating
arrangements and groupings were consistently changed. As well, the manner in which
discussion preparation activities and function phrases and communication skills were presented
varied.
In terms of teacher-specific motivational components, developing a good relationship
with learners enhances learners’ affiliative motive to please the teacher and is a core requirement
of any student-centered approach to education (Dornyei & Csizer, 1998). As such, I made an
effort to get know the students on a personal level by conversing about and showing an interest
in students’ personal affairs before, during, and after lessons. The purpose of all activities was
made clear and explicit to the students, thereby allowing students to see the value or utility of all
activities. Overall, the classes appeared to be interesting for the students also. The students
seemed to enjoy the discussion topics and activities were varied to enhance interest throughout
191
the duration of the course. Although promoting learner autonomy within the EDC framework
can be difficult, certain features of the EDC program allow for and promote some degree of
autonomy among learners. For instance, the students are generally responsible for their own
learning by virtue of the required student-to-student interaction during the discussions and other
activities. More importantly, by primarily playing a facilitative role during all lessons, I was
able to instill the expectation that the students are responsible for their learning and success, thus
enhancing student autonomy. Also, motivating feedback was provided in all classes after every
activity. This feedback was specific and informational in nature, often including examples of
students’ successful performance. As well, students’ goal-orientedness was enhanced through
goal-setting activities after each discussion whereby students were individually asked to assess
their performance in terms of goals pertaining to function and communication skills use.
Finally, examples of motivational strategies that were used pertaining to group-specific
motivational components include increasing the group’s goal-orientedness, promoting the
development of group cohesion, and using cooperative learning techniques. Group goal-
orientedness was promoted by activities where the students discussed their goals in a group
format. Meanwhile, group cohesion was enhanced by using various cooperative learning
techniques, such as frequent use of group work, and by creating situations where students were
able to share genuine personal information with each other throughout the lesson.
CONCLUSION
Given the importance of motivation as a determinant of students’ success and attainment in
language learning, practicing instructors would be well-advised to utilize a motivationally-
conscious teaching approach. This is particularly important since motivational teaching
practices result in tangible positive changes in learners’ overall motivational disposition and
classroom behavior (Guilloteaux & Dornyei, 2008). Utilizing and reflecting on our motivational
strategies and techniques is not only a rewarding process for us as instructors, it is extremely
beneficial in creating and maintaining high levels of motivation in our students. Additionally, it
can potentially be a useful tool by providing us with insight into our students’ behavior and
motivational state and allowing us to account for students’ motivated, as well as unmotivated
behavior. As such, instructors ought to consider ways in which they can apply motivational
strategies systematically and in a context-appropriate manner.
To provide a more comprehensive picture and analysis of how the use of motivational
strategies impacts learner motivation, future research in this area must be more systematic in
nature by incorporating a more accurate measure of students’ motivational dispositions. This
can be achieved through more precise observations of instructors’ behavior, as well as by
measuring the students’ course-specific motivation at the start and end of the course by using a
self-report quantitative instrument specifically designed for such a purpose.
REFERENCES
Cheng, H-F. & Dornyei, Z. (2007). The use of motivational strategies in language instruction:
the case of EFL teaching in Taiwan. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1),
153-174.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum.
Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the foreign language classroom. Cambridge:
192
Daniel Warchulski
Dornyei, Z. & Csizer, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: results
of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2(3), 203-229.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: the role of attitudes
and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Guilloteaux, M. J. & Dornyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: a classroom-oriented
investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL
Quarterly, 42(1), 55-77.
Noels, K. M., Pelletier, L . G., Clement, R. & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a
second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language
Learning, 50(1), 57-85.
Oxford, R.L. & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: expanding the theoretical
framework. Modern Language Journal, 78, 12-28.
193
SECTION THREE
Classroom Activities
Risk-taking with Roles: An Activity Designed to Reduce
Social Reticence in L2 English Discussion Groups
Simon Aldrich
ABSTRACT
When students have shown the ability to automatize and use L2 learned language in one
communicative context, but fail to do so in another, the teacher must consider socio-affective
factors that could produce pressures capable of inhibiting the students’ Willingness to
Communicate (WTC). This paper introduces an activity designed to help students take risks and
perform communicative roles during discussions in groups of three to five students with the
same level of confidence that they have shown in pair work. The focus was on providing repeat
exposure to the roles in the hope that social barriers to language production would be gradually
broken down. Check-sheets were used to compare the frequency of target language production
between study groups and controls. It was found that on average some of the roles were used by
more of the students in the groups undergoing the treatment, and that there were a greater
number of students in the control groups who rarely or never performed some of the roles.
INTRODUCTION
MacIntyre defines WTC as “the intention to initiate communication, given a choice” (MacIntyre
et al., 2001, p.369). The principle looks at students’ self-confidence and willingness to take risks.
There are various factors deemed to influence whether the choice is made to accept the risk and
successfully transition from intention to action. Consequently, teachers should be mindful that
certain conditions are met to ensure that a student’s willingness and ability to communicate
results in actual communication. One such obstacle to students’ completion of a communicative
act is the social pressure felt not to follow through on their intentions. This seemed to be a
contributing factor in the present case, as the students generally had no trouble performing the
roles in pair discussions. This problem was particularly pronounced in groups that lacked
inherently outgoing individuals. In these groups, silence became a palpable barrier to
communication; that is, a pressure that the students could feel acting against their desire to speak
(Aldrich, 2013). Ajzen (1991) labels pressure due to the perceived acceptance or disapproval of
one’s actions by others as the ‘subjective norm’, which forms part of his ‘Theory of Planned
Behavior’. In the current study, the author assumed on the basis of past observations that this
pressure originated from class members as a result of their doing group work.
The activity focused on giving students repeat practice of the following roles in group
discussion; giving the first opinion, challenging ideas with disagreement, asking questions to
develop the topic, and reacting to support the speaker. Each of these roles contains an element of
risk that will be further discussed later. In line with ideas on WTC, it was hoped that the activity
would help students to “recognize their own ego-fragility and develop the firm belief that, yes,
they can indeed do it… (and) take those necessary risks.” (Brown, 2007 p.73) In essence, that
they would find the strength to overcome the pressure of group silence. And furthermore, that
repetition of the activity might enable them to be sufficiently at ease when tasked with initiating
and maintaining discussion with a group of strangers in the future. The question that this study
intended to answer was as follows: To what extent does repeat practice of discussion roles help
break down social barriers to WTC?
197
CONTEXT
It is important to note that the idea of preparing students for future communicative environments
had hitherto been undervalued because the author focused more on creating an atmosphere in
class where students could relax, be themselves, and bond to form a tight, social group. Such an
approach builds a harmonious group through the sum of unaltered individual parts, but does
little to work on the limitations of a group in which certain communicative roles are
predominantly performed by one particular student. This is no good if we believe that effective
discussion depends on the participation of a group of individuals capable of playing more than
one rolei. Indeed, an approach that focuses on existing strengths can leave individual students ill-
equipped to deal with different dynamics. For example, in cases when students who would
normally initiate discussion are absent, or when enough students are missing to result in the
teacher monitoring a single group for a whole discussion, the consequences of not encouraging
individual communicative risk-taking become apparent. In such cases, there are often longer
pauses at the start of discussions because students are unwilling to self-select and give the first
opinion. Similarly, students tend to ask fewer follow-up questions, react less frequently, and
seem to avoid disagreement. It is therefore believed that a change in dynamic, just like a
wholesale change in group members, can lead to a variation in the degree of risk associated with
making certain communicative moves and this risk contributes to the perceived pressure not to
speak. As a result, without focusing on risk-taking the teacher may not facilitate any learning
that could be seen to have practical value beyond the constraints of a member-specific and
temporally-limited discourse community.
ACTIVITY FOCUS: ROLES AND RISKS

With the preceding ideas in mind, the aim of the activity was to give students time to practice
performing a variety of roles central to the production of effective discussion (i.e. a discussion
where ideas are raised, followed, questioned, and challenged). As mentioned above, these roles
may be seen to contain an element of risk, which if common to the group might serve to enforce
the subjective norm and dissuade a student from performing them. In other words, if a number of
students in the group avoid using a particular role, individuals may perceive performance of this
role as unfavorable behavior, and as a consequence, not use the role themselves. Following are
the roles, what they bring to the discussion, and the particular risk(s) believed to be inherent in
each:
Table 1 Roles and Risks

Role What they bring Risk
Starter Reduces silence and cuts anxiety by giving the first opinion. Risks failure to predict consensus
Risks highlighting difference
Challenger Takes the discussion into new areas by challenging with Risks highlighting difference
disagreement
Questioner Moves the discussion forward with follow-up questions Risks failure to be appropriate/accurate
Supporter Encourages production of ideas by reacting and responding to Risks exposure of nascent L2 self
speaker
Going through these roles one by one, by giving the first opinion on a topic and thereby
initiating the discussion, the Starter runs the risk of committing a cultural faux pas. The
communicative culture of Japanese speakers is said to be consensus driven, for this reason,
hierarchy often decides who should take the lead. If a speaker of higher status goes first, they
risk losing face through failing to predict the status quo; hence an individual of lower status who
has less to risk will often lead (Kramsch, 1998 p.46). Naturally, this situation gets messy when
198
Simon Aldrich
you add the confusion of a foreign language and the accompanying variant levels of ability,
comprehension, and confidence within the group.
Moving on to the Challenger, the risk associated with challenging the accepted view on a
given topic is present in all communities. To do this among one’s peers is no simple undertaking,
particularly if you come from a culture like Japan’s where consensus is so highly valued. For
students to become comfortable with this level of risk, disagreement must become a more
frequent element of their L2 discussion. Consistent exposure to the positive consequences of
disagreement is essential for the gradual acceptance of the value contained in smooth execution
of this communicative move. It was hoped that this, and the benefits of performing the other
three roles, would become clear to students through repeated experience of the activity.
Next the Questioner, the risk involved here is one more traditionally associated with
language learning; the risk of looking foolish through making a mistake. Before asking a
question, a student must feel sure of two things; that the question is appropriate in terms of it
being based on correct comprehension of the idea expressed, and in that it will not offend by
overstepping the bounds of what can reasonably be inquired about. And second, that the
question is accurate in terms of form so to avoid misunderstanding. If there is doubt in the mind
of the questioner on either of these points, then there is a greater chance that the question will be
abandoned.
Finally, here are the risks for the Supporter. After an opinion has been voiced,
comprehension and attention should be signaled by supportive listeners. The risk in providing
this kind of encouragement to the speaker in L2 is that the verbal manifestation of an
intrinsically emotional and personal quality must come in an as yet unassimilated form. While
comfortable with the drive to express support, the listener is not fully at ease with whether the ‘I
see’ or ‘Yeah’ selected to show it is an accurate representation of their still juvenile L2 identity.
Reactions, through the immediacy of their expression are perhaps a more visceral element of
language production than longer, more complex forms. For this reason, the author believes that
they are far more difficult for some students to automatize than seemingly more complex
examples of language. This may be why some students can be observed either whispering their
reactions, or hamming them up to cover embarrassment. For Japanese students of English, some
might also argue that an L1 habit of silent listening may also have to be altered in order for
active listening to occur.
PROCEDURE
To avoid the additional pressure of having to use newly taught language, it was decided that the
activity should be done at the start of the class. It would take the 10-12 minutes usually allotted
to a fluency exercise that was partly designed to provide an introduction to the lesson themes,
wherein students can start to form ideas to be used in later discussions. Not wishing to deprive
the students of this valuable creative time, the risk-taking activity also made use of two topic-
themed questions that the students were to discuss in groups of four, rather than in the pairs
commonly used for the fluency exercise. For example, in week 4 of the semester when the
activity was first done, the questions focused on the lesson theme of ‘Fashion’ (appendix 1.1).
After reading the discussion questions, each of the four students was given a role card stating
their discussion task in simple language. For instance, the student who would take the role of
‘Starter’ had a card that read ‘Give the first opinion for each topic e.g. Can I start?’(appendix
1.2). In the first week of the activity, cards were given to students who had previously shown a
degree of comfort with that particular role. This was done to ensure that the first experience of
the activity would be favorable for all of the students.
199
Once the information on the cards had been processed and students had confirmed that
they understood what was required of them, the discussion commenced. The students discussed
the two questions for a total of eight minutes, during which time the author took notes regarding
students’ performance of the roles. This information was not to be used as feedback, as the
author wanted to avoid the impression that this new activity was meant to single-out individual
student weaknesses.
After discussing the questions, the students were given a handout clarifying the roles
(appendix 1.3). The teacher then talked the students through each of the roles, highlighting the
significance of each to an effective discussion. After that, the students were given just one
minute to discuss the question on the handout and identify the roles that their classmates had
played. Once again, the teacher did not remark on any students who had failed to complete the
task.
Finally, the teacher told the students that the purpose of the activity was to allow them the
opportunity to become comfortable playing a variety of roles in discussion. The point was made
that up until now their discussions had contained all of the necessary roles, but that the same
individuals usually performed particular roles. The question was posed; ‘What happens if the
Starter is absent? Who will begin the discussion?’ And by way of an answer, they were informed
of how this activity would help them all to maintain discussion in the future, and that we would
repeat the activity. For the remainder of the semester, role cards were rotated to achieve the
above. In addition, the author recorded the balance of participation and performance of roles in
regular in-class discussions (i.e. those except for the activity). A total of twelve classes were
monitored, six were randomly selected to use the activity (Egroups) and the remaining six served
as controls (Cgroups).
VARIATIONS
As the course progressed and the students became more comfortable with their classmates and
teacher, the following variation was implemented. The students were informed as usual that they
should keep their role secret, but that now the teacher would monitor the discussion and try to
guess which role each student had performed at the end. This had the effect of re-focusing some
students who were starting to grow tired of the activity and not make sufficient effort to perform
their role.
RESULTS
The author ticked the appropriate box on the check-sheet each time a student used one of the
roles. However, as the study focused on group use of roles, in a single lesson (comprising two
discussions; one of 12 minutes, and one of 16) just one tick per student for each role was
counted towards the class total. Subsequent use of the role during the lesson by the same
individual was not included in the total. For example, if Student A disagreed four times in
Lesson 4, just one instance was included in the class total for seven weeks. In this way, the
author was able to see how many students in the class had the confidence to regularly perform
the roles during group discussion throughout the study period, rather than the frequency of
individual use. The average number of different students performing a particular role in each
lesson over the seven-week period (APL) was also calculated.
200
Simon Aldrich
Table 2 Number of different students performing roles over seven classes

Class E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 Totals C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Totals
#Students 7 7 8 7 6 6 41 7 8 8 7 6 9 45
Starters 20 28 37 30 22 28 165 19 26 25 34 30 30 164
APL 2.9 4 5.3 4.3 3.1 4 3.9 2.7 3.7 3.6 4.9 4.3 4.3 3.9
Challengers 16 7 31 11 9 20 94 13 7 4 8 6 12 50
APL 2.3 1 4.4 1.6 1.3 2.9 2.3 1.9 1 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.7 1.2
Questioners 34 36 26 29 29 25 179 25 19 32 22 21 35 154
APL 4.9 5.1 3.7 4.1 4.1 3.6 4.3 3.6 2.7 4.6 3.1 3 3 3.7
Supporters 12 30 20 25 19 30 136 9 11 15 31 18 22 106
APL 1.7 4.3 2.9 3.6 2.7 4.3 3.3 1.3 1.6 2.1 4.4 2.6 3.1 2.5
The results showed a higher number of Egroup students per class performing all of the target
roles, with the exception of Starter, which was identical to the controls. There were an average
of 2.3 different students challenging with disagreement, compared to 1.2 in the Cgroups, 4.3
different questioners, compared to 3.7, and 3.3 supporters, compared to 2.5. In addition, these
three roles showed greater variance between Egroups and controls with regard to the number of
individual students whose use of the role was zero to minimal (never recorded, or recorded just
once over seven weeks). While there were only two more students in the Cgroups who rarely or
never started the discussion, there were ten, six, and eight more who shied away from
challenging, questioning, and supporting, respectively (appendix 1.4).
REFLECTIONS
The results suggest that the effect of the activity was twofold. Firstly, more Egroup students
were encouraged to regularly perform the roles during discussions, Secondly, a greater number
of students who were less inclined/too shy to perform the roles were able to overcome such
obstacles. Perhaps because the regular practice helped more students to use the roles, there was
less social pressure on these individuals, assisting their WTC and allowing them to feel more
comfortable when disagreeing, asking questions, or reacting to their classmates. While this was
not the case for starting the discussion, in-class notes showed that there continued to be longer
pauses at the start of discussion in some of the Cgroups. This suggests that without practice of
this role, students in these classes remained less confident about self-selecting themselves to
give the first opinion. Of course, after just one semester of use, it cannot be stated categorically
that all of these results are directly attributable to the activity. However, they do seem to point to
the possibility that practice of roles goes some way towards breaking down social barriers to
WTC. One further suggestion that the impact of the activity was positive was found in that use
of the role names (e.g. Starter) unconsciously became a feature of regular teacher–fronted
discussion feedback. The author caught himself giving praise like, “Very balanced discussions
today; there were six different Starters.” Perhaps this feedback also served to provide a further
opportunity for consciousness-raising among the students, as they may have considered the
value of varied participation in regard to what roles they had played to contribute to an effective
and enjoyable discussion.
It is important to note that the activity was introduced in the second semester of a unified
course of study, meaning that the students had no exposure to this kind of practice in the first,
and perhaps most formative part of the course. For this reason, there may have been some
resistance to the activity, as it deviated from the fixed lesson plan that they had become
201
accustomed to. Also, the students may have formed communicative habits during this time that
could have become sufficiently entrenched as to make breaking them more difficult in Semester
2. With this in mind, it could be posited that better results would be seen if the activity were
done from the beginning of the first semester. This way, the importance of building the ability to
comfortably play all of the roles necessary for good discussion would be recognized as a key
study goal from the start. If the students were able to do this, and carry the performance through
into the second semester, it would be an excellent opportunity for habit formation with
potentially long-term benefits.
Consideration of this issue led the author to recall reading of dysfunctional groups in the
business world (Robbins & Judge, 2007), wherein, the effectiveness of teams was dependent
upon the various roles that individuals were able to play.
REFERENCES
Ajzen. I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50:179-211.
Aldrich, S. (2013). Pressure to be Silent: Examining Social Reticence in L2 English Discussion
Groups. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 2, 3-7.
Brown, H.D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy
(3rd ed.) White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clement, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to Communicate,
Social Support, and Langauge-learning Orientations of Immersion Students. Cambridge
University Press.
Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
APPENDIX
1.1 Questions
1. Do you spend a lot of money on clothes?
2. Are there any clothes that you think people shouldn’t wear?
1.2 Role Cards
give the first opinion for each topic disagree two times
e.g. ‘Can I start?’ e.g. ‘I’m sorry, but I disagree’
ask two follow-up questions react every time your classmates speak
e.g. Do you have a part-time job? e.g. ‘I see`
1.3 Post-discussion Handout
Discuss this question with the group: What roles did your classmates play in the
discussion?
202
Simon Aldrich
Role A Role B
The Starter The Challenger
Gets the discussion started by sharing Makes the discussion deeper by disagreeing
opinions
Role C Role D
The Questioner The Supporter
Moves the discussion forward with Helps the speaker by reacting e.g. ‘I see’
follow-up questions
1.4
#Ss with zero to minimal role use
Roles Egroups (41 Students) Cgroups (45 Students)

Starter 4 6
Challenger 14 24
Questioner 1 7
Supporter 7 15
Total 26 52
203
Using Written Feedback to Facilitate Self-Regulation
Paul Landicho
ABSTRACT
One of the main challenges facing EDC instructors in every lesson is how to provide their
students with clear, specific and meaningful feedback, particularly after Discussion 1 (D1).
Another key goal is trying to maintain a consistent balance between positive and negative
feedback points, and helping the students understand what they need to do to improve. This is a
critical point in the lesson because instructors need to also find a way to support their students’
improvement by allowing them an opportunity to work on their weak points, in order to help
them perform more successfully in the main discussion, i.e. Discussion 2 (D2).
INTRODUCTION
In higher education, two common forms of feedback are either through a transmission process,
where “teachers ‘transmit’ feedback messages” (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006, p.200), based
on his/her observations to students, thus placing the responsibility for learning exclusively in the
teachers’ hands (Boud, 2000); or through the use of self-check sheets, where students are
empowered to take responsibility for their learning, but with minimal input and control from the
teacher. This activity was created as a bridge between these two feedback methods, and in effect,
negate the ephemeral nature of discussions through the use of written feedback, and as a result,
provide another way for instructors to help their students improve their overall performance in
the EDC program.
Another aim of this activity is to allow the instructor an easier way to establish a
starting point for students after D1, and build on this to help them improve in D2. This activity is
also designed to do this in a more transparent way as the students will be able to follow the
instructor’s notes, which were taken during their respective group’s discussion. This also allows
the instructor to give customized feedback to each group.
Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) mention that good feedback can be loosely described
as anything to help the students’ capacity to self-regulate their own performance. The following
section of this article aims to illustrate how the written feedback activity coincides with these
principles.
DISCUSSION OF GOOD FEEDBACK PRINCIPLES

Helps Clarify What Good Performance Is
This principle is very important, especially in terms of the aims of the EDC program and the
students’ grades. During each lesson, a number of aspects are assessed by the instructor
including function usage and communication skills. Thus, with the help of this activity, each
discussion group is able to see how well they performed in relation to such criteria. As such, this
activity helps to serve as a reminder to students that they need to use a variety of both current
functions and functions from previous lessons in their discussions. This is very important as
students have a tendency to focus on the functions from the lesson, and as a consequence,
functions from previous lessons are often overlooked.
In terms of communication skills, it helps students to recognize that in every discussion,
they should aim to give reactions, agree or disagree, ask follow-up questions, and where
necessary, check understanding. Thus, with the help of this activity, the instructor is able to
highlight what areas the students need to focus on to help them to be able to perform better in the
main discussion.
204
Paul Landicho
Facilitates Self-Reflection
The notes taken by the instructor, which are used for the written feedback, deliver high quality
information to the students as they are able to see specific instances of when the functions were
used, and when they were not. These concrete examples are read by the students in an effort to
aid memory retention. The notes are placed up on the wall or the board, which helps to integrate
a kinesthetic aspect to the activity, in that students need to stand up to read the instructor’s
feedback. Together with their group, they will then analyse these notes to help them discuss their
good points and points they need to improve. With this approach, the students are more engaged
(Doran, 2013) as they are unable to switch off as they more than likely would during the usual
verbal ‘transmission’ from the teacher to the students feedback approach. This activity also
provides the instructor an alternative way of giving feedback to this more conventional style of
feedback, which also helps to take the emphasis off of the instructor, so the students can
concentrate more closely on what things they need to work on.
Encourages Positive Self-Esteem

During the more common verbal ‘transmission’ feedback approach, students may more likely
focus on their negative points even though the teacher also stated some positive points during the
discussion. This tendency reverses during written feedback because the instructor is able to set a
limit on the number of negative points for the students to work on, and thus, avoid less confident
students from shutting down emotionally.
Another interesting thing to note is that when feedback is transmitted directly from the
instructor to students, there can be a tendency for this feedback to be weighted more towards the
negative points, as some instructors may be more focused on providing the students with as
much advice as possible to help them perform better in D2. However, when using written
feedback, there is now more of a balance between positive and negative points. This is because
students can now see both such points while they are examining the instructor’s written feedback
notes.
Provides Opportunities to Close the Gap between Current and Desired Performance
This activity shows students how well they performed in D1, which they can use as a starting
point, and what functions or communication skills they need to target in order to help them
perform better in D2. Thus, the instructor’s notes and some of the content of the discussion can
be used to form the basis for a short formative feedback activity.
What is interesting to note is that there is now a balance between feedback on content
and feedback on functions usage and communication skills between the instructor and the
student. In reference to the two more common feedback styles mentioned earlier, during the
teacher-centered verbal transmission-style feedback, the instructor will give feedback on both
content, and functions and communications skills for both discussions. Figure 1 below shows
how students are not involved in the feedback process of both D1 and D2.
205
Transmission - D1 and D2
Function and
Content
Comm Skills
(Instructor)
(Instructor)
Figure 1. Share of Responsibility through Transmission for D1 and D2
When self-check sheets are implemented for both discussions, the instructor will most
likely give feedback on content for both groups, and the students will take sole responsibility of
their usage of functions and the communication skills they used. Figure 2 below shows how
students are more involved in the feedback process, but only in relation to the usage of function
and communication skills.
Self-Check Sheets - D1 and D2
Content
Functions and (Instructor)
Comm Skills
(Students)
Functions and
Comm Skills
(Instructor)
Figure 2. Share of Responsibility through Self-Check Sheets for D1 and D2
When Written Feedback is used in the lesson, the areas of feedback are similar to that of
Self-Check Sheets for D1, as can be seen in Figure 3. However, this changes for D2, as the areas
206
Paul Landicho
of feedback are now reversed, which is illustrated in Figure 4. Thus, after D2, the instructor is
able to give more concise feedback, as the instructor’s primary responsibility is to briefly
comment on how much improvement has been made in terms of function usage and
communication skills. As for content, students are asked to report on what interesting ideas they
heard to members of the other group.
Written Feedback - D1
Function and
Content
Comm Skills
(Instructor)
(Students)
Figure 3. Share of Responsibility through Written Feedback for D1
Written Feedback - D2
Functions and
Content
Comm Skills
(Students)
(Instructor)
Figure 4. Shift in Share of Responsibility through Written Feedback for D2
207
CONTEXT
This activity can be useful for all types of students in the EDC program, including reticent
students, as they are now more involved in the feedback process. In addition, Weaver (2006,
p.387) made some interesting discoveries related to teachers’ feedback through her qualitative
findings of students’ perceptions of helpful versus unhelpful feedback. She reported that from
her study, the majority of respondents did not like reading teachers’ feedback that was too
general or vague. Another common response was that the teachers’ feedback commented mainly
on their weaknesses. Most of the respondents also identified that their teacher gave them
comments, which may have been too vague or general, but did not give them any suggestions on
how to improve.
Thus, the written feedback activity meets these students’ perceptions of helpful
feedback because they are able to see specific instances of their usage of functions and
communication skills. Plus, students are required to work together to talk about what things they
did well in their D1, which seems to boost their confidence significantly. Students are also asked
to identify some possible things they can improve, and based on these findings, the instructor
can easily set up short practice activities to allow students an opportunity to work on these weak
points, which in turn, will help them perform better in D2.
TASKS AND MATERIALS / PROCEDURE

For each discussion group, the instructor needs to print out one written feedback sheet
(Appendix A). The sheets are designed so that during D1, the instructor can take notes focusing
particularly on any instances where the functions are being used by the respective groups. Any
occurrences of communication skills can also be recorded for the students’ reference.
Before the end of the first Discussion, the instructor would determine which functions
and communication skills were performed well for each respective group. This is simply done by
circling the adjacent smiley face icon. For things that the students need to improve on or use
more, the adjacent sad face icon would be used. As mentioned above, this should be limited to
just two negative points, which is usually one function and one communication skill.
After the instructor gives his/her students feedback on content, the written feedback
sheets for each respective group are then placed on the wall or board. All the members from
each group will then move to their group’s sheet to collectively determine the functions and
communication skills they used well and which ones they need to use more. Using the
smiley/sad face icons on the written feedback sheet helps to improve ‘Comprehensibility of
feedback and criteria’ (Carless, 2006) in that students are able to understand the instructor’s
notes easily.
Once each group has agreed on which things they need to improve, students are
arranged into pairs or groups of three, and then the instructor will provide these smaller groups
some opportunities to practice these weak points. Ideally, it’s best to let them practice such weak
points one point at a time for one to two minutes each. This can easily be done through the use
of a quick formative feedback activity, such as, “Which is better, tea or coffee?” It’s important to
note that when choosing such an activity, it should be based on something that students can
easily talk about, which will allow them to focus more on practicing the skill rather than
spending time thinking of extra content. Another good way to do this is to incorporate some of
the interesting ideas that they already came up with in their discussions into the activity, for
example, “Which is better, pet snake or pet bird?” One other interesting variation is to ask for
students’ input when writing the question on the board, for instance, “Which is better, pet snake
or pet ______ ?” After the students finish these activities, they can then move onto preparing for
D2.
208
Paul Landicho
Based on their D2 performance, the instructor can let students know how much they
improved. If the students still had some difficulty in implementing some of the advice from the
written feedback sheets into their D2, the instructor is then able to implement another quick
formative feedback activity.
After this, students can then be rearranged into new groups where they can have the
chance to report to each other on what interesting ideas they heard in their respective discussions.
This practice allows for the instructor to listen carefully and take notes on what the students
thought were the most pertinent opinions of their discussions, which the instructor can use for
later reference.
VARIATIONS
This activity can be altered to cater for differing levels of students. For higher level classes, the
feedback sheets can be tailored to provide higher level students more of a challenge. This can be
done by drawing the students’ attention to the new, slightly more difficult (and thus, less
frequently used) function phrases. This is especially useful when students are continually
overusing phrases that they already know, and so this pattern can be addressed in the instructor’s
notes. One example of how to do this can be seen below in Figure 5.
Figure 5. An example of Written Feedback aimed at higher level students
On the other end of the spectrum, the feedback sheets can be slightly altered to help
lower level students to gain a confidence boost. In the EDC program, shorter function phrases
are given, which students can use more easily. This trend can also be reflected in the instructor’s
notes as shown below in Figure 6.
209
Figure 6. An example of Written Feedback aimed at lower level classes
REFLECTIONS
After having used this activity for the best part of two semesters, I observed that using this
written feedback allowed for much smoother feedback from the instructor and amongst the
students, whilst following principles for good feedback as outlined above. Giving such feedback
can be quite challenging, particularly at times when the things that need to be addressed are
completely different between each group. It can also be very tough for newer instructors to the
course because, as one of my colleagues asked me during his first semester, “How can you
monitor the students’ usage of not only the current lesson’s function, but also the functions from
previous lessons?” This question brought to mind the way in which I gave feedback to students
during my first EDC semester. I remember that it took a lot of effort to firstly navigate through
my notes which I’d taken during D1, then pinpoint what things I wanted to praise and address,
and finally construct my feedback based on these points, but in a concise and understandable
way, whilst using specific examples, and for multiple groups. This also would sometimes take
place when lessons were being held in shared classrooms, where the noise levels would also
make it pretty difficult for both students and teachers.
Another point worth mentioning is that it provides instructors with another way of
giving effective feedback, in addition to their current feedback practices. As such, this activity
can be used as a precursor to students using self-check sheets (and later peer-check sheets). One
of the initial problems that several of my colleagues mentioned was that when students were
given self-check sheets, there are always some students who may be overly critical of their own
performances. Instructors would then need to correct this by advising these students that they
have actually performed such skills. With written feedback however, this problem can be
avoided completely.
210
Paul Landicho
The main difference between these types of feedback is that there is a shift of
responsibility for learning from the instructor to the students once self-check sheets are
inevitably implemented. Thus, when the instructor decides to employ such check sheets into
his/her lesson, the students will already be comfortable, because they will already have
understood what needs to be done, and they will already have had experience in taking some
responsibility for their own learning, rather than having this onus fall completely on the
instructor’s shoulders. This is in direct contrast to how they were taught in the primary and
secondary education levels, where lessons were more teacher-centered. As such, students in the
first few weeks of the EDC program would often need a little bit of time to adjust to a student-
centered learning environment.
I strongly believe this written feedback activity is one way to help students make this
adjustment more easily because even though the activity itself is student-centred, the students
are inherently being guided by the instructor. In regards to assessment, this has translated into
better scores as students have a clearer sense of what they need to do to improve their
performance and what they need to continue to do in D2.
I also feel that this activity has helped them to make this transition in a more enjoyable
way. For example, one of the positive knock-on effects has been the way in which after D2,
students seem to enjoy summarizing to different members what they have just discussed. This
exchange of ideas takes place in a very relaxed and learner-centered setting, thus increasing the
students’ talking time in each lesson. These correspond to one of the “affective aims” of the
EDC program (Hurling, 2012, p.1-3), where it is hoped that students will “develop a positive
attitude toward engaging in discussions with their peers”, and one of the “practical aims”, which
is “to develop students’ speaking fluency” to help them be able to take part in longer discussions.
In upcoming semesters, further research will need to be performed in an attempt to
establish the effectiveness of this activity in relation to students’ learning, and how it helps them
to develop their L2 voice. It would also be interesting to examine how students perceive written
feedback, and how it affects their motivation to improve their English competency.
REFERENCES
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning
Society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167.
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher
Education, 31(2), 219-233. doi:10.1080/03075070600572132
Doran, D. (2013). Targeting Oral Errors with Written Feedback. New Directions in
Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 1(2), 134-138.
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning
English Discussion, 1, 1.2-9.
Nicol, D.J. & Macfarlan-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated
learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher
Education, 31(2), 199-218. doi:10.1080/03075070600572090
Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J. & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: all that effort, but what is
the effect?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277-289.
doi:10.1080/02602930903541007
Richards, J.C. (2002). Theories of Teaching in Language Teaching. Methodology in Language
Teaching - An Anthology of Current Practise. Cambridge University Press
Weaver, M.R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written
responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394.
doi:10.1080/02602930500353061
211
APPENDIX
Appendix A: An example of a Written Feedback sheet
212
Introducing Reaction Phrases to be an Active Listener
ABSTRACT
Verbally reacting to what speakers say is considered an important communication skill in a
discussion at the English Discussion Course (EDC) at Rikkyo University. Important as this still
may be, verbal reactions are not discretely taught as an official communication skill, such as
agreeing and disagreeing or asking follow-up questions, within the course. This project takes a
look at two methods of introducing reaction phrases during the lessons based on a hypothesis
that if they are introduced, students might give more reactions toward what other speakers say.
Two methods were trialed as an attempt to identify a better method. A suggestion for future
research is also made based on the findings.
INTRODUCTION
When learning to speak in a second language, it is not rare for the learner to feel vulnerable. This
sense of vulnerability can be the result of the learner's actual ability to communicate in a second
language not being able to match that of their ideal L2 self (Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2009). Closely
related to the concept of the L2 self is the concept, willingness to communicate, which
MacIntyre et al. (2001) define as "the intention to initiate communication, given a
choice"(p .396). When Brown (2007) introduces this concept as one of twelve teaching
principals that can act as important foundations for teaching practice, he mentions that "risk-
taking"(p.73), which is related to this concept, is something needed both productively and
receptively. Verbal reactions from the listener can provide speakers with some feel of comfort
and reassurance. This feel of security may work favorably for the speaker, enhancing their
willingness to communicate.
Dörnyei and Thurrell (1994) include “reacting in various ways to what a conversation
partner is saying” (p.45) as a typical language function that has been included and taught in
contemporary textbooks. While valuing verbal reactions as important, it has not been given a
place on the syllabus at EDC to be taught as an independent communication skill, such as
agreeing and disagreeing or asking follow-up questions. Decisions to teach reactions, as well as
what phrases to teach, are at each instructor’s discretion.
CONTEXT
When speaking in Japanese, it is not uncommon to find students at EDC giving verbal reactions
to each other while talking in dyads or in groups. Unfortunately, some of the same students do
not give reactions when speaking in English. Some may be feeling anxious and not realize that
they are not reacting. Some may just be naturally reserved and not react even in Japanese. And
then, some may want to react but are not aware of any verbal reaction phrases in English,
making them incapable of this act. The type of learners targeted for this project is students that
tend to not give verbal reactions during EDC peer discussions. Two methods for introducing
reaction phrases were trialed and compared to see if either was more effective than the other.
The number of verbal reactions given by the participants before and after being exposed to the
treatments was compared to confirm if introducing reaction phrases during class increased
verbal reactions at all.
Treatment 1 (T1) exposed students to some reaction phrases that can be used for two
different situations. For each situation, three phrases were provided for a total of six new phrases
a week. Treatment 2 (T2) exposed the students to a table of fifteen function phrases that could be
213
grouped for three different situations.
TASKS AND MATERIALS

For T1, cards with reaction phrases for two specific purposes were prepared every week with
three phrases being introduced for each type of reaction (Appendix A). Enough cards were
prepared for each student every week so students could have one in front of them for the
duration of each lesson. Fluency question cards were prepared as well (Appendix B).
T2 required a card with a table of reaction phrases that were introduced in the textbook.
Since there were only thirteen phrases in the textbook, the phrases “I’m sorry to hear that” and
“Well…” were added to fill the empty blanks on the chart to provide the students with fifteen
phrases in total (Appendix C). These two phrases were chosen since the chart in the textbook
included five phrases for showing understanding, five phrases for showing surprise and only
three phrases for reacting to bad news. Enough cards for each student were prepared so all
students could have one in front of them for the duration of each lesson. Fluency question cards
were prepared as well (Appendix B).
Data for this project was collected during the three discussion tests (DTs) of the semester.
The standard DT scoring sheets were used for this project’s purpose.
PROCEDURE
The fourteen-lesson semester was divided into three sections of four lessons each (table 1).
Lessons 1 and 14 were excluded since they follow a different structure. Every class was placed
in either Group A or Group B to undertake treatments in different order. Each treatment was
introduced during the first three lessons of each section. The data used to compare the
effectiveness of each treatment was collected during the last lessons of each section, which were
also the DTs for this course.
Table 1
Project Schedule
Section Group A Group B
1. Lessons 2-5 T0 T0
*T= Treatment
Section 1 was used to obtain a benchmark score for all the students. No special treatment
was introduced during this period, but for comparative reasons this non-existent treatment will
be called Treatment 0 (T0). In section 2 Group A was exposed to T1 and Group B was exposed
to T2 and the treatments were reversed in Section 3. The procedures for T1 and T2 are described
below.
Treatment 1
For an eight-student class, students were seated in two groups of four. The students in the group
designated as the speakers for the first round of 3-2-1 (Nation, 2009) were given cards with the
fluency questions for that lesson on them (Appendix B) and instructed to think of what they
were going to say in their monologue. The students in the listener group are given two sets of
phrases on a card (Appendix A). The instructor gave a brief explanation of when these phrases
can be used then had the students say each phrase once in a repeat after the instructor manner.
Following this, the instructor shared a short story containing a few short sentences, pausing after
each sentence, so the students could practice reacting to some actual content (Appendix D).
After this, all students were instructed to take the card they were given and make two lines
214
at the front of the classroom, one being all speakers and the other being all listeners. When the
first set of speakers finish their speaking turns, the students were instructed to swap the card they
have with the student standing in front of them so the new speakers would have the fluency
question cards and the new listeners would have the reaction cards. The new listeners were
gathered at a different corner of the room to practice the reaction phrases like the first group of
listeners while the new speakers gave thought to what they would say during their speaking turn.
The 3-2-1 activity is repeated with students in their new roles.
When the 3-2-1 activity is finished the question cards (Appendix B) are swapped with
reaction phrase cards (Appendix A) from the teacher so all the students have separate reaction
cards with the same content on them. The students are encouraged to use the reaction phrases on
the cards throughout the entire lesson as well as any other reaction phrases they may already
know. The cards are referred to during feedback when applicable.
Treatment 2
The procedures for T2 were basically the same as T1. The only difference is how the reaction
phrases on the reaction cards were practiced (Appendix C). In the first lesson of each section, the
five phrases in the left column were emphasized and a repeat after the instructor practice was
conducted. The second lesson focused on the middle column and the third lesson on the right
column. Even though a repeat after the instructor was conducted with only a third of the phrases,
the students were encouraged to use any one of the phrases on the card as well as any other
phrase they may know. All the students had separate cards they could look at during the
remaining time of the lesson, as did the students exposed to T1.
Data Collection
EDC DTs were used for data collection to measure the effectiveness of each treatment. The
default test scoring sheets were used to count the number of reactions each student gave. The
reactions students gave were categorized into two groups; content reactions and permission
reactions. Content reactions were reactions toward the content of what another speaker shared
and permission reactions were reactions toward questions for turn taking and changing topics.
To differentiate the two on the test score sheet, content reactions were recorded by slashing the
check box from top left to bottom right and permission reactions from top right to bottom left.
FINDINGS
Participants
The participants of this project were all the students that attended the instructor’s lesson during
the fall semester of 2013. Data was collected from the students that were present at each DT; 83
participants for DT 1, 83 for DT 2, and 85 for DT 3. The number of participants per level is as
shown in table 2. Participants who were in periods 1 and 3 were placed in Group A and the
second period participants in Group B.
215
Table 2
Participants
Group A Group B
DT Lv 2 Lv 3 Lv 4 Total Lv 2 Lv 3 Lv 4 Total
1 12 27 9 48 5 23 7 35
2 12 29 8 49 5 22 7 34
2 12 31 8 51 5 22 7 34
Total 36 87 25 148 15 67 21 104
*DT=Discussion Test, Lv= Level
Analysis
The aim of this project was to confirm if either of the treatments introduced would increase the
number of reactions given by the participants during DTs, as well as identify which treatment
could be more effective. The number of content reactions and permission reactions were
recorded then processed on PASW Statistics 18. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted
to see if there were any statistically significant differences between the three DTs (table 3),
treatments (table 4), and class levels (table 5).
The difference in number of content reactions given per DTs was statistically significant
overall (F(2,248)=3.308, p=0.038), however the effect size was small at 0.026. Post hoc Tukey
between all three DTs showed that on average participants gave 1.207 more content reactions in
DT2 than in DT3 (p=0.030). The difference in number of permission reactions per DTs was
statistically significant overall (F(2,248)=4.772, p=0.009), however the effect size was small at
0.037. Post hoc Tukey between all three DTs showed that on average that participants gave more
permission reactions in DT2 than the other two DTs (p=0.025 minimum).
216
Table 3
Descriptives for ANOVA Between Discussion Tests
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Min Max
Number of DT 1 83 4.83 3.076 .338 4.16 5.50 0 13
Content DT 2 83 5.31 3.393 .372 4.57 6.05 0 14
Reactions DT 3 85 4.11 2.695 .292 3.52 4.69 0 13
Total 251 4.75 3.093 .195 4.36 5.13 0 14
Number of DT 1 83 3.95 2.295 .252 3.45 4.45 0 14
Permission DT 2 83 3.13 1.873 .206 2.72 3.54 0 8
Reactions DT 3 85 3.98 1.826 .198 3.58 4.37 0 10
Total 251 3.69 2.037 .129 3.44 3.94 0 14
The results displayed no statistically significant difference for the number of content
reactions (F(2,248)=0.082, p=0.431) or permission reactions (F(2,248)=1.150), p=0.318) that
were given by the participants after being exposed to either T1 or T2.
Table 4
Descriptives for ANOVA Between Treatments
for Mean
Number of T0 83 4.83 3.076 .338 4.16 5.50 0 13
Content T1 83 4.40 3.208 .352 3.70 5.10 0 13
Reactions T2 85 5.00 3.000 .325 4.35 5.65 0 14
Total 251 4.75 3.093 .195 4.36 5.13 0 14
Number of T0 83 3.95 2.295 .252 3.45 4.45 0 14
Permission T1 83 3.48 1.909 .210 3.07 3.90 0 8
Reactions T2 85 3.64 1.883 .204 3.23 4.04 0 10
Total 251 3.69 2.037 .129 3.44 3.94 0 14
The results displayed statistically significant differences for the number of content
reactions given between class levels (F(2,248)=4.823, p=0.009), however the effect size was
small at 0.037. Post hoc Tukey between all three levels showed that on average the participants
in level 3 gave 1.584 more content reactions than participants in level 4 (p=0.006). For
permission reactions, the results displayed statistically significant difference for the number of
permission reactions given between class levels as well (F(2,248)=3.544, p=0.030), however the
effect size was small at 0.028. Post hoc Tukey between all three levels showed that on average
that participants in level 3 gave 0.811 more permission reactions compared to participants in
level 2 (p=0.036).
217
Table 5
Descriptives for ANOVA Between levels
for Mean
Number of Lv 2 51 4.84 2.942 .412 4.02 5.67 0 10
Content Lv 3 154 5.08 3.258 .263 4.57 5.60 0 14
Reactions Lv 4 46 3.50 2.336 .344 2.81 4.19 0 11
Total 251 4.75 3.093 .195 4.36 5.13 0 14
Number of Lv 2 51 3.14 1.833 .257 2.62 3.65 0 8
Permission Lv 3 154 3.95 2.147 .173 3.61 4.29 0 14
Reactions Lv 4 46 3.43 1.734 .256 2.92 3.95 1 8
Total 251 3.69 2.037 .129 3.44 3.94 0 14
INTERPRETATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

The hypothesis was that if the students were discretely taught reaction phrases during the lessons
it would improve the number of reactions they gave during discussions. Since there was no
consistent increase in the number of reactions being given, whether they are content reactions or
permission reactions, between DTs it seems as though this is not the case. A comparison between
the number of reactions after the participants were exposed to different treatments show that
neither of the treatments had a more positive effect than the other.
Comparing the number of reactions the participants gave between different class levels
identified something interesting. Level 3 students gave more content reactions than those in level
2 and level 4. The difference between level 3 and 4 was at a statistically significant level. For
permission reactions, level 3 participants also gave more than those in levels 2 and 4. The
difference between level 2 and 3 was at a statistically significant level.
These results suggest that students in different levels behave differently when speaking in
English. There may be a need to give a different type of attention to students in each level when
introducing reaction phrases during class. Level 4 students not giving as many content reactions
compared to level 3 students could be suggesting that the level 4 students are not confident at
this act, which can also be affecting their willingness to communicate (MacIntyre et al., 2001). It
may also be suggesting that they cannot retain the reaction phrases that they are being taught due
to the anxiety they are experiencing during class. Level 2 students giving less permission
reactions than level 3 students can be suggesting that level 2 students do not ask turn taking
questions or changing topic questions as much, to begin with. Having a high understanding of
the English language, they may be feeling confident enough to share their ideas voluntarily
without asking their peers for permission to speak, beforehand.
Another way to look at these results is that the level 3 students are over using verbal
reactions during their discussions to a point where the reactions become a programmed routine,
which can make the use of reactions artificial and the discussions unnatural. There may be a
need to look at not just the number of reactions given by each student, but the number of
reactions within each speaking turn and take a closer look at how and when the reactions are
being given, to fully understand how students are using reactions within a discussion so an
effective method of teaching reaction phrases can be identified.
REFERENCES
Brown, H. D., (2007). Teaching by principles, an interactive approach to language pedagogy
218
third edition. New York: Pearson Longman.

Dörnyei, Z. and Thurrell, S. (1994). Teaching conversational skills intensively: course content
and rationale. ELT Journal 48(1), 40-49. doi: 10.1093/elt/48.1.40
Dörnyei Z., and Ushioda, E., (2009). Motivation, language identities and the L2 self; a
theoretical overview. In Dörnyei Z., and Ushioda, E. (Eds.), Motivation, Language
Identity and the L2 self (p.1-8). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Clement, R., and Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate,
social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students, Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 23(3), 369-388.
Nation, I. S. P., (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. New York: Routledge
APPENDICIES
Appendix A: Materials for Treatment 1

Group A: Lesson 6 / Group B: Lesson 10
Showing Understanding Showing Surprise
I see Wow!
[I] got it Really?
Interesting No way!

Reacting to good news Reacting to bad news
Nice! Oh, no!
That’s good/great. That’s too bad.
Excellent. I’m sorry to hear that.

Reactions of Agreement Reactions of Disagreement
I know. Well…
Right. I don’t know…
Sure. I’m not sure…
Appendix B: Fluency question cards for both Treatment 1 and Treatment 2

Lesson 6
1. What TV shows did you like when you were a child?
2. What TC shows do you like now?
Lesson 7
1. Which celebrities do you like (e.g. from TV, sports, movies, music)?
2. Which celebrities don’t you like (e.g. from TV, sports, movies, music)?
Lesson 8
1. What is your favorite manga or anime?
2. What is your favorite Japanese singer or group?
219
Lesson 10
1. What school rules did you have? Did you follow them?
2. What ruled did you have at home? Did you follow them?
Lesson 11
1. Is your hometown a safe place to live?
2. Do you think crime is a big problem in Japan?
Lesson 12
1. Do men and women have the same hobbies and interests?
2. Do men and women have the same strengths and weaknesses?
Appendix C: Materials for Treatment 2

Group A: Lessons 10-12 / Group B: Lessons 6-8
Reactions
Okay Really? Oh no!
I see. That’s interesting. Poor you!
Right. That’s great! That’s too bad!

Uh-huh. That’s amazing! I’m sorry to hear that.
Yeah. Wow! Well…
Appendix D: Example of Short Story

My favorite actress is Yuko Takeuchi. I think she is very beautiful. I met her at the airport last
week. She was kind enough to shake my hand.
220
Developing Learner Autonomy through
Self-Assessment Activities
Shalvin Singh
ABSTRACT
This article examines the use of self-assessment activities in Rikkyo University’s EDC program
and discusses ways in which they can be utilized to promote goal-setting and learner autonomy.
As the program’s aim of improving ‘English discussion skills’ may appear unclear to learners,
structured self-assessment activities can assist learners in internalizing strategies for the effective
development of fluency and communicative ability. A questionnaire was administered to 60
freshmen university students to investigate learner attitudes towards the utility and effectiveness
of self-assessment activities. While the response was largely positive, questions remain
regarding the appropriate balance of student- and teacher-assessment. It will be argued that self-
assessment activities are one tool instructors can use to clarify lesson aims, compliment
corrective feedback, and encourage autonomous learning.
INTRODUCTION
As Brown states “successful mastery of a foreign language will depend to a great extent on
learners’ autonomous ability both to take initiative in the classroom and to continue their journey
to success beyond the classroom and the teacher.” (2007, p. 52-53) Instilling learners with
principles and strategies they can employ to effectively articulate their thoughts and ideas is one
manner in which instructors can aid this development of learner autonomy. Inasmuch as a
learner-centered model of instruction emphasizes the granting of ‘ownership’ and ‘responsibility’
to learners, self-assessment activities can be one means of encouraging students to become
“active agents” in their own learning, trained to analyze and assess their performance
communicating in a foreign language. If learners, through reflection, self-assessment, and goal-
setting are able to ‘self-correct’ and improve upon their perceived linguistic and communicative
weaknesses, the opportunities for effective autonomous learning increase, parallel with
improvements in confidence and motivation (De Saint Leger, 2009).
“Self-check sheets” are one tool instructors can utilize to offer students the opportunity
to assess their own performance in EDC classes. These worksheets, which typically list in
checklist manner relevant “functions” and “communication skills,” grant learners the
opportunity to independently decide what the strengths and weaknesses of their previous
discussion performance were. Rikkyo University’s EDC program differs from the high school
English classes to which most of its freshmen enrollees are accustomed insofar as it assumes
students possess the tools to effectively communicate their ideas, but lack the techniques to do
so effectively. Japanese high school English lessons typically center upon the rules of English
grammar and memorization of vocabulary, tending to focus primarily upon accuracy (Kikuchi &
Browne, 2009; Nishino & Watanabe, 2008). In contrast, the EDC program seeks to aid students
in developing their “fluency and communicative ability” through small group discussions
(Hurling, 2012). To the extent this requires students reexamine principles internalized in high
school (e.g., the importance of accuracy) with those better suited to promoting deep, engaging
discussions (e.g. asking peers follow-up questions) self-check sheets are one tool instructors can
provide to clarify the distinct goals of the EDC program, and aid students in evaluating their own
performance through a distinct paradigm.
221
CONTEXT
Self-check sheets have been used with students of all levels in the EDC program, and can be
adjusted in complexity by adding and removing assessment categories, or by requiring more, or
less, detailed assessment (e.g. checkmarks versus rankings out of ten). This study will focus
upon Level Two and Three (mid-level) students, and their performance in Lessons 5 through 14
of their second semester of study.
TASK AND MATERIALS

The version of the self-check sheet used for this study focused only on the “functions” and
“communication skills” introduced in English Discussion Class (see Figure 1 below). Other
possible categories which may be relevant to improving discussion skills (such as active
participation, and balancing listener/speaker roles) were not included. As the “functions” and
“communication skills” varied every lesson, new versions of the self-check sheets were provided
to students each class.
PROCEDURE
Students were asked to complete self-check sheets with reference to their performance in two
extended discussions completed in the last 45 minutes of each regular lesson. Each student
received the lesson’s self-check sheet following Discussion 1. While instructions related to self-
check sheets were provided to students in each lesson, generally, students become accustomed to
the lesson’s procedure after two or three lessons. What follows is an overview of the typical
manner in which self-check sheets were used. A self-check sheet from Lesson 7 will be used for
this overview.
1) Immediately following Discussion 1, students individually completed their self-check

sheets by checking the “functions” and “communication skills” they used in the
previous discussion.
Functions and Communication Skills Discussion 1
Reporting Information (I heard / I read / I saw (that)…, {NAME} said (that)…)

Asking Others to Report (Where did you hear that? How do you know about that?)
Paraphrasing Others (Do you mean…? So, what you’re saying is…? So, in other words…?)
Paraphrasing Yourself (I mean… What I’m saying is… In other words…)
Possibilities (If…, because if…, for example if… If…?, What if…?)
Changing Topics (Does anyone want to comment/ask a question? What shall we discuss first / next?)
Checking Understanding (Do you understand/follow me? Sorry I don’t follow you... Can you explain?)
Agree/Disagree (I totally agree… I partly agree… I’m sorry, but I disagree… I see your point, but…)
Follow-up Questions (What..? Why..? Where..? Who..? When…? Are…? How..? Do..? Have..?) 0 1 2 3+
Reactions (Yes, Okay, Really? Interesting, That’s right, Uh-huh, Sure, Me too, Wow, etc.)
(Figure 1)
222
Shalvin Singh
2) Students then selected two strengths and one weakness (goal), which they wrote down
on their self-check sheets.
I did a good job using ___________________ and ___________________.
GOAL! My goal for the next discussion is to use ___________________ more.
(Figure 2)
3) Students then read aloud their strengths and “goal” for the next discussion to a partner.
4) The instructor would then provide approximately two minutes of feedback to students.
5) Students would then stand up and discuss a question, in pairs, related to the lesson’s
topic. Students would only be permitted to individually sit down after achieving the
“goal” twice (e.g., if the goal was to ask follow-up questions, only after they asked two
follow-up questions could they sit). For this study:
a. In 50% of lessons, students would each choose their own goal (from their self-
check sheets).
b. In 50% of lessons, the instructor would choose one goal that all students would
be required to achieve (based on the instructor’s assessment of students’
weaknesses).
Goal setting alternated week by week, i.e., if the instructor chose the goal for Lesson 6,
students would choose their own goal in Lesson 7.
6) Following Discussion 2, students would complete their self-check sheet, again using
checkmarks, and assess whether they achieved their goal, giving themselves a grade of
“A” “B” or “C.”
Reporting Information (I heard / I read / I saw (that)…, {NAME} said (that)…)

Asking Others to Report (Where did you hear that? How do you know about that?)
Paraphrasing Others (Do you mean…? So, what you’re saying is…? So, in other words…?)
Paraphrasing Yourself (I mean… What I’m saying is… In other words…)
Possibilities (If…, because if…, for example if… If…?, What if…?)
Changing Topics (Does anyone want to comment/ask a question? What shall we discuss first / next?)
Agree/Disagree (I totally agree… I partly agree… I’m sorry, but I disagree… I see your point, but…)
Reactions (Yes, Okay, Really? Interesting, That’s right, Uh-huh, Sure, Me too, Wow, etc.)
Did you achieve your goal? A B C

(Figure 3)
223
7) Last, students then discussed their performance in Discussion 2 with a partner based on
the three questions listed below.
1) What did we do well in Discussion 2?

2) Did you achieve your goal?
3) What can we do better in future discussions?
(Figure 4)
See Appendix A for a sample completed self-check sheet for a different lesson. Typically the
“standing” activity described above in step 5 would be used as part of a preparation activity for
Discussion 2. While there generally was sufficient time for all students to complete the activity
and sit down, there were a small number of cases in which, due to time constraints, the activity
had to be stopped before all students could sit down. Inevitably, students who stood while the
majority of their classmates sat faced added pressure, though in most cases seated students were
helpful to their standing peers. Even after completing the activity, students were required to
continue their discussion, regardless of whether other students were standing or seated.
QUESTIONNAIRE
A 12-item questionnaire was administered to students during the final lesson (Lesson 14) to
explore learners’ views on the usefulness and effectiveness of self-check sheets. 60 freshmen
English Discussion Class students in ten classes completed the questionnaire, all of whom
completed the above activity in Lessons 5 through 14. The questionnaires were completed
anonymously, and no time constraints were placed upon students for completing the
questionnaire. Each item was translated from English into Japanese. All items used a four-point
Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) except for items 11 and 12. See Appendix B
for the full questionnaire and results.
Self-Assessment Activities
“Self-check sheets
help me improve my
discussion skills.”
“Self-check sheets are

a good way for me to
evaluate my
performance in
English Discussion
Class.”
(Figure 5)
224
Shalvin Singh
As the above graph illustrates, students overwhelmingly saw advantages to using self-check
sheets in the classroom, with more than 90% of students agreeing that self-check sheets helped
improve their discussion skills. An almost equally high number thought self-check sheets were a
good way to evaluate their performance in English Discussion Class indicating the vast majority
of students saw value in self-assessment activities.
Assessing Strengths and Weaknesses
“I am good at
recognizing my
strong points.”
“I am good at
recognizing my
weak points.”
(Figure 6)
As can be seen in Figure 6, a significant number of students questioned their ability to accurately
assess their performance. While over 80% agreed they could effectively recognize their
weaknesses, less than 50% expressed the same confidence in recognizing their strengths. One
possible explanation might be the ease with which weaknesses, but not strengths, are displayed
in self-check sheets. While weaknesses can quickly be identified as those “functions” and
“communication skills” that remain unchecked, students may be asked to choose from a number
of different strengths, each of which they may have only used a handful of times in a discussion.
Another possibility is that while weaknesses may be viewed as the absence of using a “function”
or “communication skill,” strengths might be seen as the superior use of a “function” or
“communication skill,” which students may not feel as confident at being able to assess.
225
Student vs. Teacher Assessment
“My strong points

and weak points
are usually the
same as the strong
points and weak
points chosen by
the teacher.”
“Self-check sheets
are more useful to
me than my
teacher’s feedback.”
(Figure 7)
The vast majority of students, approximately 88%, felt that their personal assessment of their
discussion performance echoed that of the instructor’s, reflecting a consistency in feedback that
may help build confidence in students’ views on the validity of their own assessment.
Conversely, more than 70% of students believed that self-check sheets were not as useful as
feedback provided by the instructor. This may indicate that while students see value in using
self-check sheets, self-assessment activities are better viewed as a compliment to the instructor’s
feedback, rather than a replacement.
Goal Setting
“Who should usually choose the goal for practice activities after Discussion 1?”
48.3%
Teacher
Student
51.7%
(Figure 8)
There was substantial disagreement amongst students in regards to who should choose the goal
for the “standing” practice activity following Discussion 1. As mentioned previously, students
selected their own goals in 50% of lessons, while the instructor chose a common class goal in
226
Shalvin Singh
the remaining 50% of lessons. Nearly equal numbers felt the instructor should choose the goal
for practice activities as felt students should. From a learner’s perspective, advantages can be
seen for both. While some may prefer the instructor, as ‘expert,’ guide formative feedback,
others might prefer selecting individual goals that better suit their own needs as learners. The
mix described above, where students and instructors choose goals 50% of the time each, may be
one possible manner of addressing this ambivalence.
Balancing Feedback
“What percentage of feedback do you think should come from students/teachers?”
(Figure 9)
While the above results do not conclusively define what the ideal balance of feedback may be,
they may indicate that students appreciate a mix of types of feedback. Again, this likely reflects
the benefits of, on the one hand, having an ‘expert’ instructor provide general class feedback,
against the individual focus self-assessment activities allow.
DISCUSSION
The largely positive response to self-assessment activities may reflect the advantages they offer
students when compared to feedback provided solely by the instructor. Providing concise,
actionable feedback typically requires instructors focus on the issues most relevant to the
majority of students in a class. Inevitably, students’ individual strengths and weaknesses may
differ from those of their peers. While students agreed the feedback provided by the instructor
generally resembled their own assessments, self-assessment activities are one means of ensuring
a portion of feedback specifically examines students’ individual performance, allowing students
to set personal goals for future discussions. Such ‘student-centered feedback,’ while not a
substitute for feedback provided by the instructor, allows students to monitor their own
performance, and instructors to monitor students’ understanding of lesson aims and their
congruence with instructors’ expectations (Butler & Lee, 2010). Additionally, such activities
may aid students in better understanding the basis of feedback provided by the instructor. Even
in cases where the instructor’s feedback differs somewhat from students’ self-assessment, both
reference a set of behaviors linked to the ideal of a “good discussion.” In this regard, self-
assessment activities can compliment feedback provided by the instructor by promoting the
227
evaluation of class performance utilizing common underlying principles.

Dornyei (1994) notes that attaining goals motivates learners, and can be an effective
way for learners to monitor their level of progress. The self-check sheets used in this study asked
students to select weaknesses, to be regarded as future goals, seeking to link self-assessment
explicitly to goal setting. Goals were specific and achievable, yet challenging and useful,
reflecting principles most likely to result in improved future performance (Griffee & Templin,
1998). Students appeared conscious of the link between their self-check sheets and goal setting,
with 91.7% of students stating they attempted to achieve the goal selected in their self-check
sheets in Discussion 2 (see Appendix B). Evaluating their level of success in achieving goals
provided students with one means of measuring improvement and made explicit that self-
assessment need not focus solely upon the identification of strengths and weaknesses. The
activity described emphasized improvement achievable in a short time, within a single lesson.
However, self-assessment activities require only modest adjustments to facilitate progress over
longer periods of time. Having students choose numerous goals for future lessons, or goals that
are more challenging and complex are possible ways of modifying self-assessment activities to
encourage longer-term improvement, and more in-depth assessment.
CONCLUSION
While instructors typically view self-assessment activities positively, some state that
implementing such activities can pose challenges. Bullock (2010) notes that while instructors
agree that self-assessment activities are effective in increasing student motivation and raising
student awareness of strengths and weaknesses, they voice concern that such activities may be
time-consuming, difficult to integrate into lessons, and require some surrender of ‘control’ by the
instructor. While the activity described in this study consumed little class time and was fully
integrated into the lesson, questionnaire results similarly indicate that students view self-
assessment activities as useful but insufficient without the instructor’s feedback. Finding the
appropriate balance of feedback, and assessing the weight each ought to be assigned, remains
challenging, and may vary considerably from the perspective of both learners and instructors.
Though, the potential for coupling self-assessment activities with goal setting is apparent, further
research is required to determine whether student-selected goals or instructor-imposed goals are
more effective in improving student performance. Similarly, the impact of the activity examined
in this study on student motivation and on long-term student performance, while promising,
warrants further study. Nevertheless, such activities can be beneficial both as a means of
instilling learners with strategies to promote effective communication, and of encouraging
students to effectively assess their performance, set appropriate goals, and improve
independently. As Brown notes, effective teaching requires recognition of the “crucial objective
of helping learners to use the language outside the classroom” (Brown, 2007, p. 70, emphasis in
original). Encouraging students to autonomously assess their performance can be one means of
preparing students to take greater control and responsibility over their own language learning.
REFERENCES
Brown, H. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy.
(3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Bullock, D. (2010). Learner Self-Assessment: An Investigation into Teachers’ Beliefs. ELT
Journal, 65(2), 114-125.
Butler, Y. & Lee, J. (2010). The Effects of Self-Assessment Among Young Learners of English.
Language Testing, 27 (5), 5-31.
De Saint Leger, D. (2009). Self-Assessment of Speaking Skills and Participation in a Foreign
228
Shalvin Singh
Language Class. Foreign Language Annals, 42 (1), 158-178.

Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and Motivating in the Foreign Language Classroom. The
Modern Language Journal, 78 (3), 273-284.
Griffee, D. & Templin, S. (1998). Goal-Setting Affects Task Performance. In B. Visgatis (Ed.),
On JALT ’97: Trends & Transitions, (pp. 21-26). Tokyo: Japan Association for
Language Teaching
Discussion, 1, 1.1-1.10.
Kikuchi, K. & Browne, C. (2009). English Educational Policy for High Schools in Japan: Ideals
vs. Reality. RELC Journal, 40 (2), 172-191.
Nishino, T. & Watanabe, M. (2008). Communication-Oriented Policies Versus Classroom
Realities in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 42 (1), 133-138.
229
APPENDIX A-Sample Self-Check Sheet for Lesson 10
Self-Check Sheet (Lesson 10)

Giving Different Viewpoints (For {X}… From {X}’s point of view…) 
Asking for Different Viewpoints (How about for {X}? How about from {X}’s point of view?)
Reporting Information (I heard / I read / I saw (that)…, How do you know about that?) 
Paraphrasing (Do you mean…? So, in other words…? What I’m saying is… I mean…)
Possibilities (If…, because if…, for example if… If…?, What if…?) 
Changing Topics (Does anyone want to comment/ask a question? What shall we discuss first / next?) 
Agree/Disagree (I totally agree… I partly agree… I’m sorry, but I disagree… I see your point, but…) 
Reactions (Yes, Okay, Really? Interesting, That’s right, Uh-huh, Sure, Me too, Wow, etc.) 
I did a good job using Possibilities and Giving Different Viewpoints.
GOAL! My goal for the next discussion is to use Asking for Different Viewpoints more.
Giving Different Viewpoints (For {X}… From {X}’s point of view…) 
Asking for Different Viewpoints (How about for {X}? How about from {X}’s point of view?) 
Reporting Information (I heard / I read / I saw (that)…, How do you know about that?)
Paraphrasing (Do you mean…? So, in other words…? What I’m saying is… I mean…)
Possibilities (If…, because if…, for example if… If…?, What if…?) 
Changing Topics (Does anyone want to comment/ask a question? What shall we discuss first / next?) 
Checking Understanding (Do you understand/follow me? Sorry I don’t follow you... Can you explain?) 
Agree/Disagree (I totally agree… I partly agree… I’m sorry, but I disagree… I see your point, but…) 
Reactions (Yes, Okay, Really? Interesting, That’s right, Uh-huh, Sure, Me too, Wow, etc.) 
Did you achieve your goal? A B C

1) What did we do well in Discussion 2?
2) Did you achieve your goal?
3) What can we do better in future discussions?
230
Shalvin Singh
APPENDIX B-Full Questionnaire with Results
%=Percentage of Respondents
(#)=Number of Respondents (Total Respondents=60)
Please answer the following questions based on your experience in English Discussion Class.
1=Strongly Disagree 2=Disagree 3=Agree 4=Strongly Agree
1) Self-check sheets help me improve my discussion skills.
1 2 3 4
セルフチェックシートはディスカッションスキルの向上に
0% (0) 3.3% (2) 68.3% (41) 28.3% (17)
役に立った。
2) Self-check sheets are a good way for me to evaluate my
performance in English Discussion Class. 1 2 3 4
セルフチェックシートはディスカッションクラスにおける 0% (0) 6.7% (4) 70% (42) 23.3% (14)
自分の能力を評価する良い手段だと思う。
3) I am good at recognizing my strong points 1 2 3 4
私は自分の長所を認識するのが得意である。 5% (3) 48.3% (29) 41.7% (25) 5% (3)
4) I am good at recognizing my weak points. 1 2 3 4
私は自分の短所を認識するのが得意である。 3.3% (2) 15% (9) 68.3% (41) 13.3% (8)
5) Talking to my partner about my performance
encourages me to improve in the next discussion
1 2 3 4
パートナーに自分のパフォーマンスについて話すことは、
1.7% (1) 21.7% (13) 56.7% (34) 20% (12)
次のディスカッションで自分の能力を向上させるのに役立
った。
6) Doing an activity after completing my self-check sheet
allows me to improve my discussion skills. 1 2 3 4
セルフチェックシートを完成させた後で何らかのアクティ 0% (0) 3.3% (2) 65% (39) 31.7% (19)
ビティーをすることは、自分のディスカッション能力を向
上させるのに役立った。
7) Students should choose their own goal for practice
activities after Discussion 1. 1 2 3 4
ディスカッション１の後で行う練習の達成目標を、生徒自 3.3% (2) 38.3% (23) 51.7% (31) 6.7% (4)
身で決めるべきだと思う。
8) During Discussion 2, I try to achieve the goal I chose in
my self-check sheet. 1 2 3 4
ディスカッション２の間、セルフチェックシートで設定し 0% (0) 8.3% (5) 66.7% (40) 25% (15)
た目標を達成できるように努力している。
9) My strong points and weak points are usually the same
as the strong points and weak points chosen by the
1 2 3 4
teacher. 0% (0) 11.7% (7) 80% (48) 8.3% (5)
自分で選んだ長所と短所は、講師が選ぶ長所と短所とだい
たい一致している。
10) Self-check sheets are more useful to me than my
1 2 3 4
teacher’s feedback.
1.7% (1) 71.7% (43) 25% (15) 1.7% (1)
セルフチェックシートは、講師から直接もらうフィードバ
ックよりも役に立つと思う。
11) Who should usually choose the goal for practice
activities after Discussion 1? TEACHER STUDENT
ディスカッション１の後の練習用達成目的を設定するのに 51.7% (31) 48.3% (29)
最も適しているのは誰だと思いますか。
12) What percentage of feedback do you think should come
from students (S) / teachers (T)? (e.g., If you think 50%
of feedback should come from students (S) and 50% 1 2 3 4 5
should come from teachers (T), choose “3”) 100%(S) 75%(S) 50%(S) 25%(S) 0%(S)
生徒自身からのフィードバックと講師からのフィードバッ 0%(T) 25%(T) 50%(T) 75%(T) 100%(T)
クのそれぞれの割合はどのくらいが適していると思います 0% (0) 8.3% (5) 66.7% (40) 25% (15) 0% (0)
か。(例：「生徒から 50％、講師から 50％」と思った場
合、3 に○をする)
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire!
231
From the Bottom, Up: Remodeling Maurice’s 4/3/2 Fluency
Technique
Nicholas Smith
ABSTRACT
This paper proposes a variation on Maurice’s 4/3/2 fluency technique (1983; 1986; 1994) with
the aim of helping English Discussion Course students generate more manageable and coherent
chunks of language. In the “top-down” (TD) styles of 4/3/2 or 3/2/1, speakers continually decide
which strands of content to extend or omit over three speech deliveries. While each time
reduction provides basic facilitative pressure, it is difficult to overlook the tendency of some
students to produce fractured utterances and tangled runs of speech. A practical solution, I will
argue, is to scaffold this technique through a “bottom-up” (BU) approach – a rearrangement of
the time sequence into four shorter deliveries that enables the speaker to better control and refine
their output. In comparing the two techniques, I hope to outline a useful alternative to the
effective, traditional 4/3/2 model.
INTRODUCTION
In order to understand the rationale behind a “bottom-up” (BU) approach, it is important to
consider the characteristics and conditions that comprise the competing academic notions of
“language fluency.” Let us begin by examining the consensus – or lack of – on what “fluency”
and the idea of a “fluent speaker” are. What do these terms mean and how do the language
teacher and learner recognize them? Because the speaker is articulating torrents of ideas and
content, we know it must be more than being able to speak fast.
In support of an intuitive, layman-oriented view of fluency, we might point to the
Oxford Dictionary’s choice of words “easily,” “articulately,” “gracefulness,” and “ease of
movement and style.” Scholars, naturally, expose a more nuanced range of understanding
beginning with Fillmore’s (1979) belief that fluency amounts to “the ability to fill time with talk,”
distinguished by a lack of pauses and hesitations, while for Pawley and Syder (1983) it signifies
“a native speaker’s ability to produce fluent stretches of discourse” (p. 91). But when we
account for a learner’s inter-language and degree of discourse competency, we realize the need
for a more concentrated view. To this end, Brumfit (1984), Rehbein (1987) and Schmidt (1992)
position fluency as the automatic retrieval, performance, and operation of the speaker’s language
system. More precisely, we can say that, “fluency means that the activities of planning and
uttering can be executed nearly simultaneously by the speaker of the language.” (Rehbein, 1987:
104). In view of these descriptions, Nation (1989) determines that fluency can be measured by
“the speed and flow of language production, the degree of control of language items, and the
way language and content interact.” This interpretation appears solid and concise, but there is
another aspect that is missing.
Lennon (2000) also writes about fluid and efficient movement of thought into language
but introduces us to an obvious but underexposed dimension of fluency in interaction – that of
the listener. Stating that “fluency reflects the speaker’s ability to focus the listener’s attention on
his/her message by presenting a finished product, rather than inviting the listener to focus on the
working of the production mechanisms” (1990: 391-392), Lennon gives us another angle from
which to view a speaker’s competency and ability to be understood.
From these attempts to fine-tune a definition of this multidimensional skill, we can
derive a more substantial view of language fluency. So to add to Oxford’s concise reading of
the term, which reflects our lay understanding of fluency – and very likely the one our students
232
Nicholas Smith
would reach for – the words that further inform the BU scaffolding approach to Maurice’s
technique are: “flow,” “smooth,” “control,” and “product.” Fortunately, characterizing a
fluency-building technique is less complicated, as we can be sure that for either TD or BU
exercises to be valid, two conditions must be present: pressure to speak, and a meaningful topic
to speak about.
CONTEXT
Nation has written extensively on the importance of fluency building, both in reading and
speaking contexts (2007; 2001; 1993; 1989) and he maintains that, as one of the four strands,
fluency should make up one fourth of a well-designed course. For Rikkyo University’s English
Discussion Course, fluency building and the goal of working toward automaticity can be said to
be a foundation principles. This is reflected in the organization and design of the syllabus and
material, and most visible in the attention and time given to TD fluency techniques in a lesson.
The value of these exercises extends to the presentation of target language, since the fluency
question can be designed with this segment in mind so as to generate the ideas and background
knowledge that gives the function phrases their context. Given the diverse range of learner levels
in the EDC course, however, and based on instructor observations of Level 2, 3, and 4 student
groups, the broad application of TD fluency activities is not without challenges, particularly with
respect to how learners produce language, what motivates them, and how learning anxiety might
affect this output.
Let us begin with the TD approach. Here, the inability of a sizable number of lower-
level students to organize their output and produce enough language to form a coherent and
whole idea brought about palpable discomfort in the 3-minute and 2-minute rounds. Some
speakers would break eye contact with the listener, apologize for their “mistakes,” appeal to the
listener or teacher for more input, hesitate excessively, or affect a contemplative stance while
effectively giving up their turn until the next round began. This behavior clearly suggested the
need to search for an alternative to the drawn out TD sequences of 180s/120s/60s or
120s/90s/60s.
In Levelt’s (1989) process of speech production, the speaker undergoes three
simultaneous processes: conceptualization, formulation, and articulation of their communicative
intention. For L2 learners, this process is complicated by the need to formulate and express
meaning using whatever limited range of L2 language tools they have in place. To account for
this, Ellis (2005) stresses the effects of rehearsal and planning. The idea of rehearsing, then, is
evident in the BU model’s reversal and modification of TD’s 3-rounds. The provision of four
deliveries of speech, divided conceptually between “practice” and “presentation,” ensures that
students are producing more manageable, easily repeatable language. As each delivery in the
practice rounds increases by 30 seconds, the speaker has the opportunity to repeat and refine
their previous utterances before expanding further. And while the TD variants attend to
primarily one strategy – reducing the spoken output with each delivery – BU seems to involve
conscious planning for the 1-minute “presentation” round, with the positive pressure to build
content, rather than cut it out. The challenges of formulating and articulating speech under
pressure can leave some learners feeling frustrated or unsuccessful if they are unable to generate
a clear idea or adequately express what they want to say. While they may not have a clear grasp
of their actual fluency gains at the micro-level, the ability to say one idea well might contribute
to an overall feeling of success and, consequently, a more positive view of fluency building
exercises.
BU scaffolding also starts from the question of “how much can a student remember
between 0-3 minutes?” Working on the notion that “less is more,” a BU approach aims to
233
generate less content, perhaps, but focus on a smoother delivery, while demonstrating a better
grasp and more control of one simple idea. For learners with a lower communicative
competency, this scaffolding approach helps to assimilate them by functioning as a sort of
beginner stage of fluency development, a preparation for generating longer stretches of discourse
over extended periods of time. Unlike higher-level learners, who appear to be more focused on
complexity, I have observed lower-level students to be more focused on accuracy, as they want
to refrain from making mistakes, employ target language more frequently, and work mainly with
the tools at their disposal at that point in the language learning process. However, informal
observations suggest that some prefer TD to BU, and visa versa. In addition, different groups of
Level 2, 3, and 4 EDC students experience stretches of “dead air” at different intervals using
both techniques – this is the point where the student feels the idea they have expressed has
reached its logical end, or that they are unable to expand or develop further strands due to
insufficient vocabulary or background knowledge, or a failure/inability to conceptualize their
original idea better.
PROCEDURE
The BU approach (60s/90s/120s/60s) follows the same procedure as the traditional TD exercise
but with two important distinctions: the additional delivery, and teacher talk in the set-up and
summary stages of the exercise will emphasize a “practice/presentation” aspect.
Step 1: Teacher introduces the fluency topic and elicits background knowledge from students.
Teacher explains how to perform the exercise in the speaker and listener roles.
Step 2: Students line up face-to-face in speaker/listener pairs. The fluency question is written on
the board (question cards are a practical alternative here)
Step 3: First delivery – 60 seconds. Listeners ask the question, speakers generate ideas, talking
for one minute.
Step 4: Second delivery – 90 seconds. Speakers rotate. Listeners ask the question and speakers
generate ideas, repeating their first delivery, but talking for one and a half minutes.
Step 5: Third delivery – 120 seconds. Speakers rotate. Listeners ask the question and speakers
generate ideas, repeating their first delivery, but talking for two minutes.
Step 6: Fourth delivery – 60 seconds. Teacher emphasizes increased speaking speed, fluidity,
and clarity in this final round: “Presentation time. Try to say your idea quickly, smoothly, and
clearly.” Speakers rotate and talk for one minute to the same listener as in the first delivery.
Step 7: Teacher briefly surveys the speakers as a way of reflecting on the practice and
presentation stages: “Okay, let’s think about at our presentation.” By a show of hands, speakers
would have the multiple choice of “I Disagree,” “I partly agree,” or “I Agree” in response to the
teacher statements, “I could say everything I wanted to say” and “I could say my idea smoothly.”
Optionally, the teacher could include the listener in the feedback by substituting the first
statement for “My idea was easier to understand than before” or “As a listener, I understood
what the speaker was trying to say.”
Steps 8-11: Speakers and listeners switch roles and repeat the process.
234
Nicholas Smith
Note that the speakers revert to one minute in the fourth delivery. While this satisfies
the requisite conditions for a technique that measures fluency (time reductions, pressure to
speak), the final one-minute “presentation” round also allows the teacher and student to monitor
the progress made over 4 ½ minutes of “practice.” What constitutes “progress” over this period?
Teacher and student perceptions may or may not differ, but we can say that comparing the final
minute to the first allows everyone to notice changes or improvements in clarity, fluidity, speed,
use of the language and, as Fillmore generalizes, the ability to fill time with talk. For the teacher,
it would be worthwhile observing the student with the lowest communicative competence and
considering the following statements: “The student appeared more/less anxious,” “The student
made noticeably more/less pauses in the final minute,” and “The student finished the final
minute with a more/less “complete” idea than in the first four minutes.”
VARIATIONS
The time constraints of an EDC lesson limit what can be explored or expanded in just one
fluency-training session, but that is not to say the teacher is without options, the most immediate
of which involves providing feedback on student performance, content, and understanding of
this exercise. Students could be asked to share some ideas that they heard. This would
accentuate the role of the listener in this exercise and might generate additional knowledge for
the language function presentation to follow.
A noticeable disadvantage of the BU sequence is that some students “crash” around the
90-second mark of the third delivery. A possible explanation is that they have focused more on
refining and repeating their initial idea, to the neglect of expanding the initial idea, exhausting
reasons, or giving more examples. A practical solution might be to include a language formula
on the board, for example “Opinion + Reason/Example” with a stronger emphasis on the
“because” and “for example” as a way of building more flow-sustaining chunks of speech.
CONCLUSION
In the context of the EDC classroom, a bottom-up approach to Maurice’s widely implemented
4/3/2 technique involves speaking for 5 ½ minutes over shorter time blocks, the most noticeable
feature being the rearrangement of time reductions into 30-second additions. Initially, I applied
these changes in reaction to the noticeable anxiety and fragmentary output of a sizeable number
of speakers. However, experimenting with a BU technique in Level 2, 3, and 4 classes has lead
me away from the idea of BU fluency as a replacement for Maurice’s technique, and further
toward BU fluency as an efficient scaffolding technique with a limited period of application.
Through informal observation, it is likely that a BU approach is most effective as a
means of introducing learners to the idea of oral fluency, and that its value lies in conditioning
them to manage the facilitative pressure of the longer top-down exercises (3/2/1 or 2/1.5/1, for
instance). If applied in the early stages of the first semester BU scaffolding might affect a
positive outlook toward fluency building, train students to effectively formulate ideas, and help
automatize the first wave of function phrases (“I think… because… for example… if…”). For a
significant minority of students, it might also lessen the unease brought on by extended stretches
of “dead air” and hesitation.
Above all, this activity would benefit from a more critical application and broad
quantitative-based evaluation. Now that I have discussed the learning context and reasons for
why a BU approach merits attention, the follow-up to this proposal will be to see if this variant
yields any gains in what we might agree are two important strands in fluency: coherent output
and smooth delivery. In view of this, two over-arching questions come to mind: one “Does a
BU fluency sequence help learners formulate more coherent ideas?” and, more specifically,
235
“Does a Bottom-Up approach to fluency reduce pauses in the final delivery?” By reaching some
understanding in these areas, we could apply this technique more correctly to fluency training in
the English discussion classroom.
REFERENCES
Arevart, S, & Nation, P. (1993). Adjusting fluency and grammar through repetition. In J. W.
Oller, Jr. (Ed.), Methods that work: Ideas for literacy and language teachers. Second
Edition. (pp. 297-302). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.).
Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3-36).
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language learning,
40, (pp. 387-412).
Lennon, P. (2000). The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach
(Ed.). Perspectives on fluency (pp. 25-42). Michigan: The University of Michigan
Press.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking; from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Maurice, K. (1983) The fluency workshop. TESOL Newsletter 17, (p. 429).
Maurice, K. (1986). Speed up your speaking classes: Two techniques aimed at fluency. In K.
Maurice, K. Prapphal, & S. Wongbiasaj (Eds.), Methods and techniques that work -
1986 Convention Papers (pp. 73-86). Thai TESOL.
Maurice, K. (1994). The fluency workshop. In K. Bailey, & L. Savage (Eds.), New ways in
teaching speaking (pp. 2-4). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Nation, P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17(3), 377-384.
University Press.
Nation, P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in language learning and teaching, 1(1), 1-11.
Pawley, A. & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and
native-like fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Langauge and
communication (pp. 317-331). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Rehbein, J. (1987). On fluency in second language speech. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach
(Eds.), Psycholinguistic models of production (pp. 97-105). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 14, (pp. 357-385).
236
Increasing Group Cohesion through
the Use of the Learning Circle
David Truxal
ABSTRACT
Based on the principles of willingness to communicate (MacIntyre, Baker, Clement & Conrod,
2001) and the language ego (Brown, 2007), the following activity is designed: 1) to lower
students’ anxiety and stress; 2) to set the stage for group formation and cohesion; and 3) to allow
the teacher and students to learn, remember, and use each other’s names. It has been designed to
help foster a more cohesive classroom environment and is conducted by the teacher and students
forming a circle and sharing personal information with one another. By conducting the activity
in a lighthearted way, students should feel secure to take risks in class and realize that mistakes
are not only okay but a crucial part of the language learning process. The activity was evaluated
through careful observation that was recorded in a teaching journal. The results suggested that
there were positive effects on group cohesion.
INTRODUCTION
Reflected in this activity are a few instructional principles. First is the principle of willingness to
communicate (WTC). Defined by MacIntyre et al. (2001) as “the intention to initiate
communication, given a choice” (p. 369), WTC combines concepts such as self-confidence and
anxiety, as well as risk-taking and self-efficacy. Generally speaking, as students become more
self-confident and as their anxieties are allayed, they become more willing to experiment with
and to take necessary risks with their language learning. As many researchers have found that
learner anxiety is closely related to WTC (Brown, 2007; Dornyei, 2005; Lightbown & Spada,
2006; Macintyre, 2007; Yashima, 2002), it is possible that reducing learner anxiety could
thereby increase students’ WTC (Truxal, 2013). Thus it is important to create an atmosphere in
the classroom “that encourages students to try out language….” (Brown, 2007, p. 74).
Closely allied to WTC, the second principle reflected in this activity can be affectionately
called “the warm and fuzzy” principle (Brown, 2007, p. 72), or can more appropriately be
termed the “Language Ego” (Brown, 2007, p. 72). As anyone who has learned a second/foreign
language can attest, there are times during language learning that can be exceedingly difficult to
say the least. As Brown (2007) states, “as human beings learn to use a second language, they
also develop a new mode of thinking, feeling, and acting- a second identity” (p. 72). Thus when
people struggle to develop a “second self” (p. 73), their new language ego “can easily create….a
sense of fragility, a defensiveness, and a raising of inhibitions” (p. 72). Thus it is critical that the
teacher provides affective support and that patience and empathy are openly and clearly
communicated so that intelligent adults are not reduced to “babbling infants in a second
language” (Brown, 2007, p. 72).
The last principle involved in this activity is related to Richards’ (2005) idea of
collaboration and sharing. Learning a foreign language, or even a first language for that matter,
is an endeavor that requires a lot of sharing of information both on the part of the interlocutor
and listener. Thus, as Richards (2005) states, it is quite important that the classroom is seen as a
community “where learners learn through collaboration and sharing” (p. 10). Having learners
become comfortable enough with each other so that they are able to share information is of the
utmost importance in a foreign language learning environment.
237
The introductory lesson of any class, and especially a foreign language class, can be a
source of anxiety and stress for students at Rikkyo University in the English Discussion Class
(EDC) context since they are freshman and are meeting each other for the first time. In the case
of the EDC program, students we can be “overwhelmed by the expectation of sustaining long
discussions” (Hunter, 2012, p. 2-23) in English. They are adjusting to many new routines and
challenges in their lives, both inside and outside of the classroom, and a discussion class in
English can add to their overall stress level. Thus, one of the primary goals of this activity is to
create and foster a relaxed learning environment by lowering students’ anxiety and stress. It is
hoped that the relationships that form in the first five weeks of the semester will carry through
for the remainder of the semester and allow the students to form cohesive and productive groups.
These first weeks are especially important, and according to Ehrman and Dornyei (1998), “some
basic characteristics and the foundations of further development become firmly established in
those early days” (p. 110).
Though the idea of group cohesion has been with us for many years, it is a characteristic
of human interaction that is quite elusive in nature. Although authors such as Mullen & Copper
(1994) have found that cohesiveness is composed of three factors (i.e. interpersonal attraction,
commitment to task, and group pride), cohesiveness still today does not have very well-
standardized or well-validated measures (Hogg, 1992). Defined by Festinger, Schacter, and
Beck as “the attractiveness of the group for its members” (as cited in Libo, 1953, p. 2),
cohesiveness has actually been the subject of more research than any other aspect of group
culture. As Dornyei and Murphey (2004) posit, “this reflects the general belief of scholars that
the closeness and ‘we feeling’ of a group is a key factor – if not the key factor – in determining
every aspect of the group’s life” (p. 62). Forsyth (2010) says that cohesiveness “can lay claim to
being group dynamics’ most theoretically important concept” (p. 117). Ehrman and Dornyei
(1998) state that members of a cohesive group “are more likely than others to participate actively
in conversations and engage in self-disclosure or collaborative narration, which are basic student
behaviors in efficient communicative second language tasks” (p. 251). It is also possible that
cohesion acts as a “lubricant” that “minimizes the friction due to the human ‘grit’ in the system”
(Mullen & Copper, 1994, p. 213).
The first time a group forms, there can be many common, unpleasant feelings that
learners experience. Some of these feelings include: “general anxiety, general lack of
confidence, anxiety about using the L2 and anxiety about not knowing what to do
(comprehending)” (Dornyei & Murphey, 2004, pp. 14-15). Thus, conscious efforts need to be
made by the teacher in order to “facilitate the creation of cohesive groups” (Ehrman & Dornyei,
1998, p. 211). Creating a “stress-free…cooperative classroom environment” (Nation & Newton,
2009, p. 19), is an important principle in second language teaching and one that should be
striven for to achieve in every lesson. The importance of reducing language anxiety (Young,
1991) cannot be understated and according to MacIntyre (1995), it is possible that more stressed
students “will not learn as quickly as relaxed students” (p. 96). Yashima (2007) states that one
of the ways to encourage students to be more willing to communicate in English is to design
EFL lessons that “reduce anxiety and build confidence in communication” (p. 63). Thus to help
develop cohesive groups, the teacher’s role should be one of empathetic facilitator (Brown,
2007; Dornyei & Murphey, 2003) whose job is to “establish a friendly climate and manage
group anxiety” (Dornyei & Murphey, 2003, p. 51). Thus it is hoped that this activity will be
helpful in setting the stage for group formation and cohesion since the students will be forming a
cohesive group right from the start which, correspondingly, should result in “better, less
inhibited, and more communication” (Hogg, 1992, p. 41) with students who are more willing to
try out and use language in their discussions.
238
David Truxal
As Dornyei and Murphey (2003) posit, the most important factor in “fostering
intermember relationships is learning about each other as much as possible, which involves
sharing genuine personal information” (p. 20). They go on to say that remembering student
names and having “students learn each other’s names…is a powerful rapport-building tool for
the classroom” (p. 28). Thus with this activity, by the end of the first lesson, both the teacher
and the students should know each other’s names and will have learned some basic, personal
information about each other. Forsyth (2010) states that communication of personal information
is termed self-disclosure, and it serves “the important function of helping members to get to
know one another” (p. 130). Ehrman and Dornyei (1998) contend that one of the functions of an
icebreaker activity such as the one described in this paper is to establish personal relationships
by learning a little about other group members. This paper is thus concerned with the idea of
creating an environment that positively leads to group/class cohesion.
CONTEXT
This activity is suitable for the goals of the EDC program mainly in two ways: 1) by helping to
foster student’s collaborative learning; and 2) by helping to promote students’ fluency by
reducing anxiety and possibly, increasing students’ WTC. Though there is a demand on
memory with this activity, it is suitable for all four levels of EDC student since there are no
particularly strong language demands. The activity should be conducted in the first five to ten
minutes of a normal EDC lesson since it is designed to lessen student anxiety and set the stage
for group cohesion for the remainder of class. The teacher should decide if the activity will be
used for just the first class or for the first four to five weeks of the semester.
TASKS AND MATERIALS

One of the most beneficial aspects of this activity for the teacher is that no special materials or
preparation are needed or required nor any specific language concepts or skills need to be taught.
That being said, the teacher should ensure that there is enough space in the class to make the
circle. Also, the teacher should know, or have a list, of the information topics (e.g. food you
dislike, country you want to visit, etc.) the students will be sharing for the duration of the
activity. Since the teacher will be participating in the activity, it might be a good idea for the
teacher to briefly study the student roster and faces beforehand to become a bit familiar with the
students in the class.
PROCEDURE
The activity begins with the teacher forming the students in a circle, most likely at the front of
the classroom. There are two to three parts to the activity: 1) student introductions; 2) conduct
the activity in counterclockwise direction; 3) conduct the activity in clockwise direction. If
teachers will be using this activity after the first day, then part one can be skipped.
Step 1: After the quiz, quickly assemble students in a circle. Tell students we are going to play
the “Learning Circle.” The teacher first greets the class (e.g. “Good morning”) and
explains how to do the activity.
Step 2: The teacher begins the activity by introducing him/herself (e.g. name) and saying where
they are from. So for example, “I am David Truxal. I am from Chicago.” The students
continue to introduce themselves until everyone has done so.
239
Step 3: After the students have introduced themselves, the second part of the activity begins by
the student to the immediate left of the teacher saying their first name and their answer to
the topic of choice (e.g. food you like). The student does not need to use complete
sentences, e.g. “My name is Yuki. I like ramen.” If the student uses complete sentences,
the teacher can model exactly what to say e.g., “Yuki, ramen.” The teacher then
continues by saying the previous students’ information and his/her own, e.g., “Yuki,
ramen; David, tonkatsu.”
Step 4: The activity continues this way (i.e. counterclockwise) so that every successive student
repeats both the previous information and their own. Along the way, hints, gestures,
partial information, or even whole answers can be given to students who are having
trouble. I like to give a bit of brief group applause at the conclusion of each part of the
activity.
Step 5: Now that the students know how to do the activity, complete the third part of the
activity whereby the last student from part two begins by once again repeating his or her
name and a different topic of choice (e.g. country you want to visit) so that the teacher is
one of the last to take a turn.
Step 6: The activity continues this way (i.e. clockwise) so that every successive student repeats
both the previous information and their own. Again, along the way, hints, gestures,
partial information, or even whole answers can be given to students who are having
trouble remembering the answers.
VARIATIONS
As stated above, the Learning Circle can be conducted on just the first lesson, at any time during
the semester, or for any length of time (e.g. for the first few weeks of the semester) during the
semester. It could be said that the activity’s primary purpose would be as an icebreaker,
especially if only used on the first class. But if the activity is used in say the first four or five
weeks of class, the activity should also serve the purpose of creating a more cohesive classroom
environment due to students learning about basic information each other. Of course, if the
activity is performed in multiple classes, the teacher will need to provide new information and
the students will not have to introduce themselves as they did in the first part of the activity in
the first class.
Most likely, it will only be necessary to include one new piece of information each week,
instead of two (i.e. as in the first lesson) as the activity should not take much more than a few
minutes. As there are practically innumerable topics to use, it is up to the teacher to decide what
is most appropriate as long as it is interesting and relevant to the students.
A variation of step 5, the third part of the activity, can be to begin by instead of the last
student from part two to starting the circle, having two students “rock, paper, scissors” or “jan,
ken, pon” to see who starts. This adds a bit of fun tension to the atmosphere as the relief on the
face of the student who loses is palpable. It also gives the students a bit of autonomy, instead of
the teacher simply deciding who goes first.
REFLECTIONS
I have used this activity in every one of my classes during the first five weeks of class for the
past two semesters. Some of the topics I have included are: “food you dislike”, “favorite class at
university”, “favorite toy/game as a child”, “food you like”, “country you want to visit”,
240
David Truxal
“favorite place in Japan”, “if you could do any hobby what would it be”. From my observations,
I have found that the students especially enjoy the topics of food you dislike and country you
want to visit. They are often very interested in knowing what food their fellow classmates find
not so enjoyable or where they would like to go in the world.
As Hunter (2012) states and also from my observations, in almost all cases, students react
well to this activity as it often “captures and then releases the nervous energy present on the first
day of class” (p. 2-26) as well as energy that is present in many of the first classes of either
semester. There is visible relief on students’ faces when they successfully complete their turn,
especially the last person who has to remember all of the students’ names and pieces of
information. As stated above, one variation is to have the students jan, ken, pon to see who goes
first instead of the teacher assigning the first turn. This lightens the atmosphere as it is
something the students are familiar with. Often, the losing student apologizes to the person, or
people next to him/her since they will have the greater memory load.
Since the goal of the learning circle is to lower stress and create greater group cohesion, if
a student cannot remember another student’s name or piece of information, the answer can be
whispered, pantomimed, or hinted at by the teacher or another student, just so long as the student
does not stand in silence for too long. In my classes, I have often forgotten and even pretended
to forget information which results in a lightening of tension. I think it is important for the
students to see the teacher making mistakes and that if it is alright for the teacher to make
mistakes, it is alright for them as well. Mistakes are an important part of the language learning
process and if the tone in the class is one that fosters student comfort and security, students
should feel that their mistakes are no problem.
I think that one of the reasons this activity is seemingly successful in bringing the group
together is simply for the fact of the entire class standing together for the simple task of
remembering each other’s name and a simple piece of information. I say this in contrast to other
ice-breakers that are routinely used in language classes, e.g. “Find Someone Who” in which it
can be uncomfortable for students to ask each other questions, one on one, in the first lesson of
the semester. Because this activity is simple and involves the whole class (plus the teacher)
doing it together, I feel that a sense of camaraderie, however slight it may be, is created. EDC
teachers are often distraught that their students don’t get along and have a general lack of
togetherness. While I can’t say for certain that this activity will help students to get along, it
does seem that as for creating a sense of togetherness, the learning circle has a definite place in
the EDC classroom.
For future investigation it might be useful to look at classes that use this activity for the
first weeks of class versus classes that do not. Then, it might be possible to ascertain what
relation or effect, if any, the learning circle has on increasing group cohesion in the EDC
classroom.
REFERENCES
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy.
(3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern
Dornyei, Z. & Murphey, T. (2004). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge:
Ehrman, M. E. & Dornyei, Z. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics in second language education:
241
The visible and invisible classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Group dynamics. (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness. Great Britain: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Hunter, C. (2012). Name circle and memory challenge: Setting the stage for a positive class
environment. New directions in teaching and learning English discussion, Vol. 1.Tokyo:
DTP Publishing.
Libo, L. M. (1953). Measuring group cohesiveness. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
MacIntyre, P. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply
to Sparks and Ganschow. Modern Language Journal, 26/3, 90-99.
MacIntyre, P. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the
decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 564-576.
MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Clement, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to
communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369-388.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and
performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227
Nation, I. S. P. & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. New York:
Routledge.
Richards, J. (2005, March). Materials development and research-Making the connection. Paper
presented at a colloquium on research and materials development, at the TESOL
Convention, San Antonio, TX
Truxal, D. (2013). The use of names and greetings in English Discussion Class: An investigation
of group cohesion. New directions in teaching and learning English discussion, Vol. 1,
Issue 2. Tokyo: DTP Publishing.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL
context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 54-66.
Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language
anxiety research suggest? The Modern Language Journal, 75, 426-439.
242
Formulaic Language and the 3/2/1 Fluency Development
Activity: Scaffolding L2 Fluency through the Development of
Linguistic Complexity
Samuel David Warren
ABSTRACT
As Lennon (2000, cited in Derwing and Rossiter, Munro, Thomson 2004: 660) points out, there
are many other factors that influence fluency beyond simple temporal measures: speech rate and
counts in pauses and hesitations. Yet, according to Mora (ed. Munoz 2006), these are often the
commonplace default metrics typically associated with measuring fluency development among
L2 learners still in place today. This paper endeavors to explore the construct of fluency beyond
a static, one-dimensional, linear cause-and-effect variable of L2 proficiency. Rather, examining
it as a multi-dimensionalism, interconnected and interdependent part of a broader—complexity,
accuracy, fluency (CAF)—construct of L2 proficiency, and the role formulaic language and
scaffolding schema—incorporated within a fluency development activity such as the 3/2/1
activity—may play in linking the development of linguistic complexity to fluency development.
INTRODUCTION
This paper examines the question: In a ‘language-focused learning environment’, can
scaffolding—with formulaic-language, within the traditional 3/2/1 fluency-development
activity—contribute to L2 learner fluency development, by promoting the development of L2
linguistic complexity? Not by employing the 3/2/1 activity simply to focus on traditional
temporal variables commonly associated with the measurement of L2 fluency development—
reductions in the number of pauses and hesitations produced by L2 learners, as Mora (ed. Munoz
2006) points out are among the standards of nonnative speech production which receive the most
attention with regard to fluency—but rather by augmenting the activity in such a way that it
facilitates an increase in the length and complexity of L2 talk produced during the 3/2/1 activity,
which may assist in enhancing L2 learner fluency through the development of L2 linguistic
complexity. If L2 instructors are utilizing the traditional 3/2/1 activity to guide L2 learners
through the production of more complex linguistic units, they may also be inadvertently
contributing to L2 learners’ development of more native-like fluency—relative to a listener’s
perceptions of L2 fluency production. Considering the attitudes of EDC instructors toward such
an approach is also worth investigating, as many EDC instructors may find such an approach to
fluency development incorporates a type of structured practice into what should be a free-
flowing and completely unguided activity (DeKeyser, 2010). That is to say, EDC instructors may
view fluency development—ideally, development that is designed to foster spontaneous oral
production—and structured scaffolding as mutually exclusive, and counter-intuitive.
If fluency development is considered as only part of a broader, multi-dimensional
construct of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF), then the 3/2/1 fluency development
activity may be well positioned to facilitate the creation of L2 linguistic complexity, by
facilitating the construction of more complex utterances between L2 learners’ pauses and
hesitations. This may occur if a scaffolding schema of formulaic-language is being incorporated
within the activity itself. These formulaic language chunks act as sentence frames, onto which
new content may be attached, or as pragmatically specialized units that have developed specific
pragmatic functions (McCarthy 2005). As McCarthy (2005) further points out, these language
243
chunks are retrieved whole; they do not need to be created anew each time; they are part of the
automaticity which enables effortless accuracy and smoother, more fluent speech—insofar as
fluency is perceived as effortless and smooth speech production. These chunks, according to
McCarthy (2005), are typically spoken quickly and as one tone unit; “they are thus part of
phonological fluency as well as lexicogrammatiical fluency. This seems to be supported by
Chambers (1997), who speaks to being able to find a mechanism, which enables L2 learners to
begin producing longer and more complex units of L2 in an effort to enhance fluency:
L2 users process utterances in shorter segments and these segments increase in length
as fluency develops. What we need to discover is what enables L2 users to produce
longer segments.
A scaffolding schema of formulaic language chunks—incorporated within the traditional 3/2/1

fluency development activity—may function as the enabler Chambers suggests we need to find.
CONTEXT
Some of the factors which affect levels of motivation among L2 learners can often be associated
with communicative success in the L2: comprehensibility in the L2; willingness to communicate,
and perhaps most noteworthy, oral proficiency—usually referred to as fluency (Derwing, Munro,
and Thomson, 2007). As such, incorporating formulaic-language scaffolding into a traditional
3/2/1 activity would benefit any L2 learner who hasn’t yet mastered the procedural knowledge
necessary to effortlessly negotiate the L2 through a cognitively automatic process. As these
types of L2 learners first need the support of working within declarative knowledge before being
able to move into such procedural knowledge—and subsequently automaticity—the 3/2/1
activity—augmented with formulaic-language schema—should always be conducted at the
outset of EDC classes. Doing so affords L2 learners the opportunity not only to work with
declarative knowledge at first, and then move into procedural knowledge and automaticity, but
also provides L2 learners the opportunity to recycle some of their newly constructed utterances
created during the 3/2/1 activity while speaking in subsequent group discussions.
TASKS AND MATERIALS

The Fallen P Fluency Scaffold (FPFS): Schema designed to accompany the traditional 3/2/1
activity, and drawn on the whiteboard (Figs. 1 & 2). Speakers should always be facing the
schema while they negotiate the two fluency questions delivered by the listener.
PROCEDURE
The method of incorporating formulaic-language scaffolding schema within the 3/2/1 fluency
activity—is an accretion to the standard 3/2/1 technique described by Maurice (1983, cited in
Nation 1989: 378), which I have employed and experimented with over the course of several
academic semesters in my freshman English Discussion Classes (EDC). The term for the
formulaic-language scaffolding schema—drawn on the whiteboard before commencement of the
activity—is something I term the Fallen P Fluency Schema (FPFS) (Fig. 1). On this—initially
linear—schema are sets of points, each point corresponding to a lexical bundle of (previously
taught) poly words or function phrases, which serve functions such as offering an opinion (e.g.,
In my opinion… I’m not sure but I think…), offering a reason to support the opinion (e.g., One
reason is… It’s mainly because…), supporting the opinion/reason with an example (e.g., For
example… For Instance…), and talking about possibilities (e.g., If I could… If I were… If I
had…), etc. This simple schema encourages and facilitates the use of formulaic-language chunks
244
Samuel David Warren
by L2 learners. These chunks perform as sentence frames, onto which, L2 learners can affix
other (previously taught) poly words and function phrases such as sharing experiences (e.g.,
when I was younger…two weeks ago… last month…), connecting ideas (e.g., like you said… as
you said…), discussing different viewpoints (e.g., from a student’s point of view… for working
moms…), and balancing opinions (e.g., one advantage is… one disadvantage is…). If L2
learners cycle along the entire length of the schema, arriving at the (If…) statement terminus,
before their speaking period (4 minutes, 3 minutes, or 2 minutes) has expired, they have been
explicitly—before commencement of the activity—encouraged to loop back into the schema
from the (If…) statement to the reason point (Fig. 2). This presents L2 learners with the
challenge of expanding on content while building longer utterances. Providing a new reason for
the (If…) statement at the terminus of the FPFS, should take the L2 learners into a direction of
new content-synthesis, while not compromising the integrity of the 3/2/1 activity itself—the
speaker repeating the same content, in less time, with new interlocutors.
Opinion Reason Example If
In my opinion… One reason is… For example… If…
When I was When I was

younger… younger…
I heard/read/saw… I heard/read/saw…
From a child’s From a child’s

point of view… point of view…
Figure 1: Initial FPFS scaffolding schema to accompany the
traditional 3/2/1 fluency development activity, which may help
contribute to the construction of longer and more complex L2
utterances between pauses and hesitations during the 3/2/1 activity.
Opinion Reason Example If
In my opinion… One reason is… For example… If…
When I was When I was

younger… younger…
I heard/read/saw… I heard/read/saw…
From a child’s From a child’s

point of view… point of view…
245
Figure 2: FPFS scaffolding schema to accompany the traditional 3/2/1 fluency

development activity, where after running through opinion, reason, example,
and If…statement—time remaining—L2 learners are encouraged to loop back
through the schema, providing a “reason”, and “example” for the “if” statement.
VARIATION
During the 3/2/1 activity, should the speakers stop moving along the length of the FPFS—thus
stop producing meaningful content—the listeners can facilitate anxiety among the speakers to
move along the schema, by using reactions which encourage the speaker’s forward momentum,
e.g., (Go ahead!), (Go on!), (Please continue.), (Well?), (What else?), (Anything else?), and
(And then?). These reactions should be pre-taught by the L2 instructor, and there use can be
further encouraged by printing them on the backs of fluency question strips, which the listener
uses to ask the fluency questions from. Using these reactions are particularly useful in giving the
listeners an alternative to asking follow-up questions, should the speaker stall, or stop speaking
altogether. Also, should the fluency questions be (Yes/No) questions rather than (Wh…)
questions, L2 instructors can instruct L2 learners to first answer Yes/No, and then move on to
their opinion. This can also be illustrated on the FPFS by the addition of an extra language frame
placed at the beginning of the schema, which covers some of the common and frequent verbs
used to initiate Yes/No questions.
Yes/No? Opinion Reason Example If
Can you…?
Do you…?
Are you…?
Have you
ever…?
Does your…?
Figure 3: Initial FPFS scaffolding schema to accompany

the traditional 3/2/1 fluency development activity, with the
inclusion of a Yes/No Question sentence frame.
REFLECTIONS
Ejzenberg (2000, cited in Derwing et al.: 658) has suggested that L2 learners will be perceived
as being more fluent in an interaction with a native speaker (NS), than in other situations
because they [L2 learners] are able to scaffold on the productions of the interlocutor. McCarthy
(2005: 4) also alludes to scaffolding taking place between L2 interlocutors: “Speakers contribute
to each others’ fluency; they scaffold each other’s performance and make the whole conversation
flow. There is confluence in the talk, like two rivers flowing inseparable together.” Swain (1985,
cited in Donato, 1995: 34) also speaks to this need for interaction in L2 fluency development.
Pointing out that a “learner’s interlanguage system is stimulated by two process engendered in
246
Samuel David Warren
interaction—first, the need for comprehensible input to the learner; and second, the challenge for
the learners to grammatically structure their output.” However, during a fluency development
activity such as the 3/2/1 activity, the listeners—those L2 learners delivering the fluency
questions—are explicitly directed not to engage in discourse with the speakers—learners
answering the fluency questions, and therefore, delivering the talk—ask follow-up questions, or
ask the speaker any other questions that lie outside the realm of the fluency questions assigned.
The function of the listeners is to simply ask the fluency questions and react to the speaker’s
talk, e.g., (Oh!), (I see), (That’s interesting.), (Wow!), (Really?), (Great!), and so forth. In this
way, the speaker will be able to repeat the same talk—answers to the fluency questions—with a
new interlocutor, under a tighter time constraint, with each successive change in partner. Thus,
according to Nation (1989), affecting L2 fluency development as a function of an increased rate
of speaking from the first to the third delivery, and a decrease in the number of false starts and
hesitations. Therefore, the 3/2/1 activity could be construed as an activity, which doesn’t
necessarily reflect a genuine, or real-word exchange in discourse between two interlocutors. As
such, it may be lacking in a crucial element that Ejzenberg, Donato and McCarthy associate with
what is taking place in a discourse exchange between two or more interlocutors, which is the
ability of each to scaffold on the L2 production of the other(s). Here, scaffolding refers to the
support that is provided learners. It enables learners to accomplish tasks and develop new
understandings that they would not quite be capable of managing on their own (Hammond and
Gibbons, 2001). It is within this premise—L2 learners scaffold from the production of other
interlocutors—I suggest a formulaic-language scaffolding schema incorporated within the
traditional 3/2/1 activity, acts as that other interlocutor, whom, L2 speakers would otherwise be
using to scaffolding from during a real-world discourse exchange.
During the 3/2/1 activity the FPFS acts as the silent, supportive partner, if you will, in
the absence of a real-world discourse exchange—where L2 interlocutors might otherwise be able
to assist in the developing complexity of their own output by scaffolding from other
interlocutors— assisting L2 learners in developing and delivering more complex,
comprehensible, and cohesive output that has been built onto the scaffolding schema of
formulaic language chunks. Such formulaic-language chunks act as sentence frames onto which
L2 learners can attach other lexically bundle and previously learned function phrases, while
working to develop more in-depth and meaning-focused content. This is the type of temporary
support structure L2 instructors need to provide L2 learners with, in order to assist them in the
development of new understandings, new concepts, and new abilities in L2 usage (Hammond
and Gibbons, 2001). Hammond and Gibbons (2001) also point out “it is by participating in such
activities that students are pushed beyond their current abilities and levels of understanding, and
it is then that learning occurs and students are able to ‘internalize’ new understandings. The
FPFS provides such support, but it challenges as well. It challenges L2 learners to formulate
output of greater complexity than the traditional method of employing the 3/2/1 activity. This is
a particularly salient feature of the FPFS, as the FPFS—incorporated within the traditional 3/2/1
activity—present L2 learners with the additional challenge of developing more complex and
longer utterances, while supplying a high degree of support as they do so. Mariani (1997, cited
in Hammond and Gibbons 2001:16) points out that it is when the learning context provides both
high challenge and high support that most learning takes place. In learning contexts where there
is a high challenge but inadequate or low support, learners are likely to fail at the task, as the
demands of the task may be beyond their capabilities (Mariani 1997, cited in Hammond and
Gibbons 2001:16). With a low challenge and high support, learners will operate within their
comfort zone. They may enjoy the class as well as the activity, but are unlikely to learn much or
further enhance the development of their L2 proficiency (Fig. 4). EDC students may fall into this
247
category. They may begin to become indifferent to the 3/2/1 activity after having repeated it
over several lessons, seeing it as routine, and thus performing the activity while operating within
the comfort zone that Mariani speaks of. Presenting the traditional 3/2/1 activity with an FPFS
incorporated within it may avoid this by facilitating a slightly higher task challenge to L2
learners while performing the activity. At the same time, reducing the cognitive demands on
students’ processing, freeing them up to devote more attention to the formation of the language
produced. Without the schema, students are tasked with thinking about the language as well as
the syntactical structure in which to deliver it.
Challenge
Demands too high; Extension of

learning and
failure likely capability
Low motivation; boredom Comfortable/Easy;

and behavior problems
likely little learning likely
Support
Figure 4: Framework of learning contexts
Adapted from Hammond, J. and Gibbons, P. (2001), What is Scaffolding? In Hammond, J. (ed.) Scaffolding: Teaching
and Learning in Language Literacy Education pp.13-26, Primary English Teaching Association: Australia.
Another salient feature of the FPFS is that—within the construct of CAF theory—it
exploits the interconnectedness of L2 complexity development and L2 fluency development—
where they can occur concurrently and complimentary of each other. The link between
complexity and fluency is central to a multi-dimensional CAF theory, separating them out—as
stand-alone, one dimensional constructs—when attempting to develop L2 proficiency through
fluency building activities such as the 3/2/1 activity, may be analogous to facilitating the
development of health through exercise, without considering the variable of personal diet.
One notable argument against scaffolding with formulaic-language is presented by
Myles (2012). She suggests that such formulaic-language sequences “give a misleading
impression of fluency development in L2 learners at a stage when learners’ productive grammars
are in fact very simple, approximate and non-fluent.” Due to the fact that their internal structure
has not yet been analyzed into its constituents, they cannot be used productively elsewhere.
248
Samuel David Warren
However, I would disagree, as this point runs contrary to what I observer taking place in my
EDC discussion classes. Frequently, during the two subsequent discussions which follow the
3/2/1 activity later in Discussion Class, I regularly here longer and more complex L2 utterances,
which were constructed from the FPFS during the 3/2/1 activity, being recycled in the
subsequent group discussions—that is, being used productively elsewhere. This may indicate
that some degree of learning has actually taken place, as Ellis (2009) maintains that learning can
be demonstrated when learners show that they can transfer what they have learned to a new task,
which may, to some degree, refute Myles assertion to the contrary.
REFERENCES
Chambers, F. (1997) What do we mean by fluency? System, 25/04, 535-544.
DeKeyser, R. (2010) Practice for second language learning: don’t throw out the baby with the
bath water. International Journal of English Studies. 10/1, 155-165.
Derwing, T.M., M.J., Munro, M.J., Thomson, R.I. (2007) A longitudinal study of ESL learners’
fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics. 29/3, 359-380.
Donato, R. (1994) “Collective scaffolding in second language learning.” In Lantolf, J.P. and
Appel, G. (eds.) Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, New
Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. pp.34-56
Ellis, R. (2009) The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency,
complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics. 30/4, 474-509.
Hammond, J. and Gibbons, P. (2001) “What is scaffolding?” In Hammond, J. (ed.) Scaffolding:
teaching and learning in language and literacy education. NSW, Australia: Primary
English Teaching Association. pp. 13-33.
McCarthy, M. (2005) Fluency and confluence: what fluent speakers do. The Language Teacher,
vol.29, 26-28.
Munoz, C. (ed.) (2006) Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Great Britain: Cromwell
Press Ltd.
Myles, F. (2012) “The role played by formulaic sequences in early interlanguage development.”
In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., and Vedder, I. (eds.) Dimensions of L2 performance and
proficiency: complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Co. pp.71-94.
Nation, P. (1989) Improving speaking fluency. System, 17/3, 377-384.
Nation, P. (2007) The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1/1, 1-12.
249
Goal-Oriented Self-Checklists: Principles, Practice &
Evaluation
Ian Wash
ABSTRACT
This paper is focused on the expanded use of self-checklists as a classroom activity in English
Discussion Class (EDC). The aim is to illustrate how self-checklists can be extended beyond
basic monitoring to be used in a more goal-oriented way. It examines learner autonomy and
intrinsic motivation as the core instructional principles behind the activity then provides an
outline of the course and classroom context in which goal-oriented self-checklists promote both
principles. Details of the materials needed, preparation required and procedure to be followed to
complete the activity are provided to aid instructors that wish to replicate and use the activity in
their classrooms. This is followed by an outline of how the activity could be adapted for
variation or to meet the needs of higher and lower ability level learners. Finally, the activity is
evaluated based on instructor observation and students’ written responses to several activity-
related open-ended questions.
INTRODUCTION
Self-checklists are often used by EDC instructors primarily as a tool to monitor student
performance in extended discussions. Implementation of self-checklists provides a basis for
formative assessment, defined as “a continual growth cycle [that] includes monitoring the
students’ speaking, diagnosing the students’ strengths and weaknesses, supplying the students
with new or paraphrased strategies, and allowing the students to use that feedback to improve.”
(Tuttle and Tuttle, 2011, p.18). Within this growth cycle, self-checklists provide EDC students
with a tool to independently identify functions and communication skills they can improve on in
discussions and monitor their own progress. However, the functionality of self-checklists can be
extended beyond facilitating the identification of areas for improvement and into a more
advanced form of reflection which guides goal-setting strategies (Ibid, 2011, p.23). Given that
the whole process is carried out independently, it is possible that formative assessment through
the use of goal-oriented self-checklists could foster a sense of learner autonomy that motivates
students to improve with less reliance on external regulation.
One influential area of motivation that has gained currency in the field of education is Self-
Determination Theory (SDT), defined by Deci and Ryan (2002, p.5) as “human tendencies
towards active engagement and development”. In other words, SDT examines the process of
will-power in individuals, or in our case, learners. Many theories of motivation treat intrinsic
motivation and extrinsic motivation as being largely exclusive of one another. However, SDT
places them on a continuum in which Intrinsic Motivation (self-determined) and Amotivation
(nonself-determined) sit either side of the varying degrees of Extrinsic Motivation (Ibid, 2002,
p.16). Individuals that complete activities autonomously out of their own individual interest or
satisfaction and without need for external regulation are classified as intrinsically motivated and
autonomous. A review of studies in which SDT was applied to educational settings indicates
that students benefit from autonomy-supportive teachers that encourage intrinsic motivation, for
example by allowing students task flexibility (Reeve, 2002, pp.185-186).
Autonomy in the classroom enables flexibility and empowers learners to take control of their
own learning and set individual goals. Instructors can reduce learner dependency through guided
practice and an allowance of creativity within limited forms by taking on the role of a facilitator
(Brown, 2007, p.71). In other words, teachers must envisage themselves more as “a guide on the
250
Ian Wash
side” rather than “a sage on the stage”. Educationalists have long advocated autonomy in
learners that breaks away from a top-down instructional approach and veers towards a position
that encourages participation, dialogue and critical thinking in individuals, not only as students
in the classroom but also as critically aware participants in society (Freire, 1996, p.55). In EDC
classes there are several opportunities for learners to exercise autonomy, for example allowing
learners to determine the trajectory of their group discussions or by removing scaffolding. A
number of EDC studies have identified the use of self-checklists for formative assessment as
being a key moment to engender autonomy. (Langley, 2012, pp.4-57; Ragsdale, 2012, pp.4-104;
Timms, 2012, pp.2-39).
Intrinsic motivation in learners can be driven and achieved through successful completion
of autonomously-set goals connected to useful and challenging tasks. Dörnyei and Ushioda
(2001, p.21) emphasise proximal sub-goals (shorter-term goals e.g. using more phases in a
discussion) as opposed to distal goals (e.g. completing the EDC course) as these have a
powerful motivating function in that they mark progress, provide immediate incentive feedback
and promote self-efficiency in students. Goal Setting Theory originated in the field of industrial-
organisational psychology by Locke and Latham (2006, p.265) to explain the motivational
behaviour of an organisation’s labour force. The principles and explanatory power of Goal
Setting Theory were soon embraced by psycho-linguists and integrated into to the L2 learner
motivation paradigm (Oxford and Shearin, 1994, p.19). However, recent criticisms of goal-
setting in the management field have questioned the appropriateness of goal-setting as an over-
prescribed and distracting process. It is claimed that goal-setting has “gone wild” and can
unintentionally narrow the focus of individuals, sacrifice the quality of material produced,
emphasize the cost of failure, and restrict creativity (Ordóñez, Schweitzer et al. 2009, pp.6-9).
Despite those claims, English language instructors and programmes continue to view goals as
instrumental in validating the purpose of classroom activities and setting-out clear objectives for
lessons and courses. In the view of many EDC instructors, goal-setting through formative
feedback has proven to be a very successful method of improving student performance in
extended group discussions (Brinham, 2013, p.14; Kuromatsu, 2013, p.155; Ragsdale, 2013,
p.206).
CONTEXT
The self-checklist activity was implemented across all classes in the first semester. This activity
can be applied universally amongst learners although lower level students may need additional
teacher assistance at the beginning to complete the activity effectively and efficiently.
Encouraging students to set individual Function Goals (FG) and Communication Skill
Goals (CSG) prior to extended group discussions is a good fit with the overall lesson goals given
that in each week's lesson students aim to practice using function phrases or review a
communication skill. Also, the FG and CSG that students set themselves are compatible with
several of the course objectives, and subsequently with the overall goal of EDC as set out below
in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Course Goal and Objectives 2 and 3 of EDC

Goal: You will learn to participate effectively in English discussions.
Objectives: 2. You will learn functions commonly used in discussion and other daily situations.
3. You will learn to develop your speaking fluency and communication skills
Student Handbook (2013, p.3)
251
Adding FGs and CSGs to discussions creates a cascading system of goals in which
learners can see that what they are doing in the classroom is related specifically to the goals of
the course. This approach is consistent with the understanding that by formulating the course
goals into real-world pedagogical tasks (in this case group discussions with FG and CSG)
learners can identify with them more readily (Nunan, 1988, p.130). Specific goals that are
simultaneously challenging, achievable and focused provide learners with a clear sense of
direction. If students only have the course goal, which is somewhat complex, or only assigned
themselves the vague goal of passing the course, it may lead to “tunnel vision”, in which the
focus is on achieving the goal rather than acquiring the skills to reach it (Locke and Latham,
2006, p.226).
Course goals and lesson goals are assigned goals but FG and CSG are autonomously
guided goals because students have freedom to select which functions and communication skills
they wish to improve on through the process of using self-checklists to evaluate their
performance. Encouraging deeper student involvement in the evaluation process is important
because “ In a learner-centred system, learners can be sensitized to their role as learner, and can
also be assisted to develop as autonomous learners by the systematic use of self-assessment.”
(Nunan, 1988, p.130). This creates a bottom-up approach to reaching pedagogical goals that is
necessary to achieve lesson goals and provides a counter-balance not just to the more top-down
oriented course goals and objectives laid down by the faculty, but also to teacher-centred
feedback. The content and process aspects of deepening the levels of autonomy by promoting
“awareness” of more general lesson goals and encouraging “involvement” in pedagogical goals
are outlined below in Figure 2.
FG and CSG were set every lesson during student-centred feedback after the first
extended discussion was completed and a self-checklist had been administered. This form of
self-assessment allowed learners to identify their weaknesses after assessing their own
performance. It has been argued that feedback is most effective when it provides concrete
suggestions for improvement, and when students are encouraged to constantly self-assess and
change strategies to transform weaknesses into strengths (Tuttle and Tuttle, 2011, pp.28-29).
This is a crucial period of the lesson because it allows learners to prepare for the second and
longest discussion which forms a major part of what they are graded on and acts as a
culmination of the skills and ideas that students have accumulated during the class.
Figure 2. Autonomy: Two Levels of Implementation in EDC

Level Content Process
1. Awareness Learners are made aware of the pedagogical Learners identify strategy implications of
goals and content of the material they are pedagogical tasks and identify their own
using (e.g. EDC Lesson Goals) preferred learning styles/strategies (e.g.
how to fit functions, communication
skills and content into discussions)
2. Involvement Learners are involved in selecting their goals Learners make choices among a range of
from a range of alternatives on offer (e.g. options (e.g. identifying weak points)
selecting FG and CSG)
Adapted from Nunan (1997, p.195)
TASK AND MATERIALS

Self-checklists (see Appendix 1) were designed for ease of use and the process of goal-setting
was implemented gradually in the first few lessons of the semester to allow learners that were in-
experienced in self-assessment to familiarise themselves with the new system. The self-checklist
252
Ian Wash
sheets were produced and photocopied before class. These were quick and easy to create and
edit which allowed new functions to be added each week and other alterations to be made on an
ad hoc basis. Prior to setting goals, learners first complete their self-checklist to log their
performance in Discussion 1. After several lessons of practicing setting FG and CSG, a few
students sometimes still needed a prompt to remind them to set goals for the next discussion. At
first, no level of frequency was decided for FG and CSG, but in order to make the goal more
specific and quantifiable it was decided that the target for FG would be set at x3 and for CSG x4.
These particular frequencies were chosen to be compatible with the way that the tri-semesterly
Discussion Test is monitored and graded. However, later on in the semester as more functions
were added, the frequency for the FG was reduced to x2 to encourage students to use a wider
variety of functions.
PROCEDURE
The following is a step-by-step guide to administering the Self-checklist and having students set
individual FG and CSG.
1. After Discussion 1, teacher gives each student a self-checklist.

2. Students check the number of times they used both the listener and speaker phrases for each
function, and the frequency of Communication Skills use.
3. Teacher prompts students to identify a weak point for both Functions and Communication
Skills and formulate these as a FG and CSG.
4. Students write their FG and CSG for Discussion 2.
5. Students prepare for and participate in Discussion 2.
6. After Discussion 2, students once again complete a self-checklist for Functions and
Communication Skills used.
7. Using their self-checklist, students can see if they completed their FG and CSG and put a
check mark next to the goal they achieved.
8. Teacher praises students that completed goals and urges those that didn’t to keep their written
goals and strive to achieve them in the next lesson’s discussion.
It may be noteworthy to remark that during step 5, learners sometimes opted to complete
the self-checklist during Discussion 2 to help them keep constant track of their progress. This
was accepted as an individual style although learners that chose this strategy seemed to gain no
perceivable advantage over those that completed their checklist in step 6.
VARIATIONS
There are a variety of ways in which this activity could be adapted for students with different
levels of ability. Teachers could have more involvement in goal setting with lower-level learners
that require more guidance and benefit from the provision of accurate goals. Lower-level
students could use the Function Phrases list at the back of their textbook to help them remember
other phrases belonging to that function group during discussions. Students that really struggle
to use functions in discussions could select a specific phrase (e.g.“What shall we discuss next?”)
from the Function category and set that as their FG for discussion 2. The teacher could then
individually drill that phrase to the student to increase the likelihood of FG completion. Higher
level students could be given further flexibility choose the quantity for their FG and CSG to
increase the challenge. Another way to adapt the activity for stronger students could be to give
them the option to set two FG and forgo the CSG so they have freedom to concentrate more on
functions. The final variation could be especially useful late in semester 2 as most able students
have mastered the Communication Skills and may find it unnecessary to set goals for them.
253
Minor changes could also be introduced to add variation to the activity and make it less
repetitive. After setting FG and CSG for the second discussion, students could be grouped
together with those that have seemingly compatible Function Goals e.g. Putting a student whose
FG is Ask about Possibilities with another student whose FG is Talk about Possibilities. Another
possibility is to have students tell their goals to their Discussion 2 group members beforehand to
raise awareness and group cooperation. A final suggestion is to adapt the activity into a peer-
assessment format in which learners could complete their partner’s checklist and set goals for
their partner.
REFLECTIONS
The activity was monitored over the course of semester two. In the final lesson, three classes (20
students) were selected at random and invited to answer five open-ended questions (see
appendix 2) to support the evaluation of the activity. Throughout the course of the second
semester, students gradually became accustomed to using the self-checklist, and then to setting
their own FG and CSG.
On the whole, reaction to the activity was positive and it was observed that the majority of
learners gave greater consideration to their strong and weak points after Discussion 1. Nearly all
students that participated in the questionnaire agreed that it was important to complete FG and
CSG. Some of the more frequently cited reasons for doing so were that goal-setting facilitated
deeper and smoother discussions, generally boosted their English discussion skills, and allowed
students to improve on individual weak points and achieve personal fulfillment. One student
mentioned the possibility that focusing on function usage could be of use to her in future English
speaking situations. However, several students thought that completing goals was not important
because discussions benefit more from a flexible approach whereby students have freedom to
use only language that naturally fits into the discussion. In other words, that FG and CSG push
learners to force irrelevant phrases into their discussions at moments when an alternative and
more useful phrase would be more befitting to the discussion flow. Irrespective of this, goal-
setting via formative feedback continues to be an effective method of encouraging more frequent
usage of functions and communication skills in EDC lessons.
One observation made during the early stages of setting FG and CSG was that a few learners
were sometimes mistakenly setting their strong points as goals rather than their weak points, or
constantly selecting the easier/older functions as FGs and neglecting more recent functions. This
led the instructor to intervene and prompt students or sometimes set their goals for them.
Questions 3 and 4 of the questionnaire attempted to gain some insight into whether learners
thought it was effective to have teacher involvement in the goal-setting process. Most
respondents clearly stated that they preferred to set their own FG and CSG as it was felt that the
student has a clearer idea of their own individual weak points and some mentioned that setting
their own goals was somewhat more rewarding. Amongst ambivalent respondents and a further
few that preferred goals set by the teacher, comments suggested that instructors were perhaps
better placed to take a more objective and professional stance on the best goals to set.
Particularly interesting was that the level 4 class responses included more support for teacher
intervention stating that FG and CSG set by the instructor can be more accurate and challenging.
On the whole however, it remains evident that having students set their own performance goals
is a key opportunity for EDC instructors to promote learner autonomy.
This evaluation indicates that goal-oriented self-assessment is one of a variety of activities
that can make a positive contribution towards developing English discussion skills and oral
fluency. Positive responses from students in favour of independently-set FG and CSG are
consistent with the findings of research into SDT in education mentioned earlier and validate the
254
Ian Wash
usefulness of extending self-checklists beyond being merely a monitoring tool. When learners
select their own goals they build a sense of ownership of those goals and develop a deeper
willingness to strive to achieve them. As one respondent put it, “Determining our own goals
generates ambition and motivation. Without a clear target, discussions may descend into idle
chatter.” Another student commented that without independently set goals she would become
lazy and less motivated. It is possible then, that by introducing self-checklists that guide learners
to a greater degree of flexibility and responsibility in the goal-setting process, instructors may be
able to install a deeper sense of intrinsic motivation in students that engenders self-determined
behavior.
REFERENCES
Brinham, A. D. (2013). "Promoting Higher Incidence of Function Use." New Directions in
Teaching and Learning English Discussion 1(2).
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy,Pearson Longman.
Center for English Discussion Class (2013). English Discussion Class Student Handbook. C. F.
E. D. C. Rikkyo University.
Deci, E. L. and R. M. Ryan (2002). Overview of Self-Determination Theory: An
OrganismicDialectical Perspective. Handbook of Self-Determination Research. E. L. Deci
and R. M.Ryan. Rochester NY, University of Rochester Press.
Dörnyei, Z. and E. Ushioda (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation, Longman.
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Penguin.
Kuromatsu, M. (2013). "Feedback Strategies from a Student's Perspective." New Directions in
Teaching and Learning English Discussion 1(2).
Langley, D. (2012). "Exploring Guiding Principles of Feedback with Students and Teachers."
New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 1.
Locke, E. A. and G. P. Latham (2006). "New Directions in Goal-Setting Theory." Current
Directions in Psychological Science 15(5).
Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner-Centred Curriculum, Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and Adapting Materials to Encourage Learner
Autonomy.Autonomy & Independence in Language Learning. P. Benson and P. Voller.
London, Longman.
Ordóñez, L. D., M. E. Schweitzer, A. D. Galinsky and M. H. Bazerman (2009). Goals
GoneWild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over-Prescribing Goal Setting, Harvard
Business School.
Oxford, R. and J. Shearin (1994). "Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoetical
Framework." The Modern Language Journal 78(1): 12-28.
Ragsdale, J. (2012). "Improving Function Phrase Use and Developing Learner Autonomy: Using
Self-Check Sheets." New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 1.
Ragsdale, J. N. (2013). "Comparing Two Methods of Using Self-Check Sheets for Formative
Assessment." New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 1(2).
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-Determination Theory Applied to Educational Settings. Handbook of Self-
Determination Research. E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan. Rochester NY, University of
Rochester Press.
Timms, L. (2012). "Self-Reflection as a Means of Student-centered Feedback." New Directions
in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 1.
Tuttle, H. G. and A. Tuttle (2011). Improving Foreign Language Speaking Through Formative
Assessment, Eye on Education.
255
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Lesson 6 Self-Checklist
CHECKLIST
Check (O) the Functions and Communication Skills you used. O = 1 time, OO= 2 times, OOO = 3 times etc.
Functions Discussion 1 Discussion 2

ASK for EXAMPLES (e.g. For example?)
GIVE EXAMPLES (e.g. For example…)
ASK for REASONS (e.g. How come? )
GIVE REASONS (e.g. It’s mainly because…)
ASK for OPINIONS (e.g. What’s your opinion?)
GIVE OPINIONS (e.g. In my opinion…)
Communication Skills
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS (e.g. What kind of…? / When….?)
CHECK UNDERSTANDING (e.g. Sorry, I don’t understand.)
AGREE / DISAGREE (e.g. I disagree….)
Goal Completed ?
Function Goal for Discussion 2: (3 times)
Comm Skill Goal for Discussion 2: (4 times)
Appendix 2: Open-ended questions
Please write your answers in JAPANESE
Name (ローマ字) …………………………………………… Date …………………. Class ………………..
1. Did you complete your Function Goal and Communication Skill Goal in Discussion 2
today? Why/Why not?
あなたは今日のディスカッション2で、ファンクションの目標やコミュニケーシ
ョンスキルの目標を完了しましたか？なぜ？
2. Is it important to complete your Function Goal and Communication Skill Goal in

Discussion 2? Why/Why not?
ディスカッション2の中でファンクションの目標やコミュニケーションスキ
ルの目標を完了することは重要ですか？なぜ？
3. Is it better to set your own Function Goals and Communication Skill Goals? Why/Why
not?
256
Ian Wash
あなた自身のファンクションの目標と、コミュニケーションスキルの目標
を設定した方が良いですか？なぜ？
4. Is it better for your teacher to set your Function Goals and Communication Skill Goals?
Why/Why not?
あなたのファンクションの目標と、コミュニケーションスキルの目標はあ
なたの先生が設定したほうが良いですか？なぜ？
5. What other activities or features of EDC help improve your discussion performance?
英語ディスカッションクラスで、他にはどのような活動や特徴(物事)があ
なたのディスカッションパフォーマンスを向上させるのを助けますか？
257
Student-Centered Self-Monitoring for Equal Participation
Kayoko Yamauchi
ABSTRACT
Reticence or unbalanced participation in the context of English as a foreign language (EFL)
education in Japan has been an enduring challenge that most teachers face regardless of class
size. Therefore, this study examined the effectiveness of using plastic chips as a means to
visualize all students’ performance in helping raise students’ self-consciousness toward equal
participation in a small-size discussion to seek ways to encourage two types of Japanese EFL
students, both dominant and reticent ones, to self-monitor and acquire the social skills necessary
to conduct a more constructive, balanced discussion. Over nine weeks, four out of six classes
showed desirable outcomes with this activity, and further data analysis indicated that this type of
consciousness-raising activity has a relatively short-term effect for most classes.
INTRODUCTION
According to Hurling (2012), in order to achieve one of the main goals of having an extended
discussion of 16 minutes among three to four participants in English Discussion Class (EDC),
“such discussions must be balanced, interactive and constructed by all participants” (p.1-2).
Since a positive correlation between active participation and higher academic achievement is
irrefutable, it might be safe to say that the success of students’ performance in a small group
setting like EDC relies heavily on their active participation, namely equal participation (Tsou,
2005; Shaaban, K. & Ghaith, G., 2005).
However, in such a small group an interactive learning environment can also have “the
potential to reinforce a severe educational and social problem” if some problematic students are
either academically or socially excluded from the interactions (Cohen et al., 1998). Yamauchi
(2013) attempted to counter a similar negative trend with reticent students in EDC, whose
inactive participation in discussions tended to affect other participants negatively, and suggested
the importance of building teamwork among students where peer support could occur naturally
without teacher intervention. Munby (2005) also examined turn-taking mechanisms in particular
in EFL small group discussion activities at a Japanese University and observed ineffective turn-
taking that lead to highly uneven participation. While reticent students seem to be a trend in
EDC (Doe et al., 2013), overly confident, talkative students can dominate discussion and cause a
further imbalance in participation (Munby, 2005). This can also create an unproductive learning
environment.
This problem is not unique to the Japanese University EFL context. A number of studies
have addressed East Asian students’ reticence or low participation more generally as a problem
with cognitive, psychological, sociocultural factors, as well as negative previous learning
experiences (McGuire et al., 1996; Osboe et al., 2007; Saito & Ebsworth, 2004; Tsou, 2005;
Williams & Andrade, 2008). Tsou (2005) points out that few of these studies present possible
remedies to avert this enduring issue. However, because most studies report on this issue in a
prevalent teacher-fronted, large-size EFL classroom setting, many suggest that it may be
beneficial for EFL educators to ponder this undesirable tendency of East Asian EFL learners in a
small-size EFL classroom setting (Osboe et al., 2007; Saito & Ebsworth, 2004; Shaaban &
Ghaith, 2005; Tsou, 2005; Williams & Andrade, 2008). Therefore, this activity was designed to
contribute to this body of research by monitoring and evaluating students’ imbalanced
participation in the EDC environment, which has notably fewer classroom participants compared
to the studies cited above.
258
Kayoko Yamauchi
PRINCIPLES
The main goal of this activity was to help promote the awareness of all kinds of students
including both dominant and reticent ones towards equal participation in order to balance their
participation in a small classroom environment. Many studies in applied Cooperative Learning
(CL) have dealt with a problem with students’ unequal participation and found relatively
positive outcomes (Cohen et al., 2009; McGuire et al., 1996; Shaaban & Ghaith, 2005). Shaaban
& Ghaith (2005) also report on CL’s effectiveness in ESL/EFL contexts and discuss equivalent
goals with this activity, namely facilitating equal participation, creating positive attitudes
towards other learners, encouraging solidarity among team members towards the same goal, and
setting a supportive learning environment. McGuire et al. (1996) summarize nine key elements
of a cooperative lesson: Positive Interdependence, Team Formation (“Cooperative groups
usually consist of 2-4 members”), Accountability, Social Skills, Structures and Structuring,
Distributed Leadership, Group Autonomy, Group Processing, Face to Face Promotive
Interaction (p.61). Although all nine elements are important, Positive Interdependence,
Structures and Structuring, Accountability, Social Skills, Group Autonomy, and Group
Processing in particular were purposefully and carefully incorporated in designing this activity.
First, Positive Interdependence assures every member of a group of success by giving
the same goals, sharing the resource, competing for a reward, forming an identity, and having a
role or outside enemy. In this activity, all students in groups would be explicitly aware of equal
participation as a joint goal by looking at plastic chips that they share as resources. In this way,
they are able to self-monitor their level or participation. These chips were used as rewards and
called ‘idea coins’ so as every learner could understand its concept easily. As its name implies,
each coin represents one speaker’s idea that has been contributed to the group during a
discussion (which also integrates the Structures and Structuring element). Also, by having two
groups compare and compete against a better result of an activity in class and rewarding them
with class recognition, they should be able to form independent group identities. Second, the
element of Accountability that takes into account both individual and group grades would also
be achieved by using tangible, quantifiable plastic chips as individual performance assessment as
well as calculating the distribution of the chips at the end of an activity. Dishon and O’Leary
(1984) encourage teachers to emphasize the explicit teaching of social skills since social skills in
students’ native language and a foreign language do not transfer naturally (McGuire et al., 1996,
p.61). As the positive effectiveness of explicit teaching of communicative competence was often
mentioned in other studies (Kubota, 1995; Williams & Andrade, 2008), the author hoped that the
use of tangible, quantifiable chips would help students visualize how equally or unequally each
student was participating in a discussion, indirectly pushing all students to be aware of equal
participation. Lastly, the elements of Group Autonomy and Group Processing were also
promoted in this activity where students were encouraged to answer reflective questions in order
to encourage students to be self-aware of both desirable and undesirable behaviors.
TASKS AND MATERIALS

Tsou (2005) argues that facilitating turn-taking in conversation leads to greater student-to-
student interaction and overall academic performance. Therefore, monitoring students’ active
speaking turns can benefit the students with more interactive participation and higher
performance overall. As shorter turns are easier for all participants to retain and respond to, a
desirable turn should not exceed more than two minutes. This is based on the assumption that
during a 10-minute discussion with three or four participants, all students should be able to take
at least two speaking turns. The activity detailed here requires 20 plastic chips (‘idea coins’) per
group of four as tangible rewards for contributing an idea to the group. In order to conduct this
259
activity smoothly, it is recommended to have these chips in a container for ease of use. Second,
two to three reflective questions tailored to this activity should be prepared to purposefully
instigate student-centered performance evaluation; for smooth transition, it is recommended to
prepare those questions on paper provided at the outset of the activity. In addition to these
materials provided to students, the instructor should informally track students’ progress through
observation during the activity and provide appropriate feedback. (For a sample observation
sheet, see APPENDIX 1.)
PROCEDURE
Of 14 weeks of general EDC semester, this activity was planned during Weeks 1 to 5, followed
by the first Discussion Test 1(DT1), implemented during Weeks 6 to 8, followed by the
Discussion Test 2 (DT2) in Week 9 and Discussion Test 3 (DT3) in Week 13. The activity was
not implemented between DT2 and DT3, though data was collected in DT3 to observe the
possible long-term effects of the activity.
The steps of implementation are:
1. Make a copy of DT1 Score Sheet for future reference.
2. Present and model the procedure of the activity before you start a regular 10-minute
discussion.
3. Conduct the discussion. In Weeks 6 and 7, remind students to collect ‘idea coins’ as
they discuss.
4. After the discussion, students will be asked to answer three reflective questions that
include: ‘How many “idea coins” did you collect?’; ‘As a group, did everyone share
ideas?’; ‘As a group, did everyone share ideas equally? Why?’ for a couple minutes.
The instructor will monitor the reactions or comments toward this activity.
5. The instructor asks for and write the number of idea coins that each person has collected
next to each name on the board as shown below, and calculate the range of idea coins
(the range = the maximum number of idea coins minus the minimum number of idea
coins) for each group. Emphasize “the smaller the range is, the better” for equal
participation and using students’ self-reflection, give brief teacher-fronted feedback.
Figure 1 illustrates this concept. (Student names are pseudonyms.)
Figure 1
Group 1 Group 2
Asca 5 Hiroaki 3
Mana 3 Yurika 1
Keita 2 Naoki 5
Ken 4 Chie 0
Range=5-2=3 Range=5-0=5
6. Keep the record of numbers on the board by the end of the class for future reference.
7. After Discussion Test 2 (DT2) and Discussion Test 3 (DT3), make a copy of Score
Sheet for future reference.
8. Analyze the data.
VARIATIONS
Based on student level, discussion quality, and student need, you can adopt this activity in many
ways. For lower levels, you can adopt this activity by minimizing the number of reflective
questions or adding extra practice in pairs. For higher levels or outperforming groups, you can
260
Kayoko Yamauchi
challenge them by not only focusing on equal participation but also the quality of other students’
behaviors. For instance, rather than focusing on the number of ‘idea coins,’ you can add
‘question coins’ or ‘comment coins’ to facilitate other positive behaviors for equal participation.
In addition, you can restate or change reflective questions based on student level or reaction
towards this activity as a way of specifying what they have done successfully or poorly for equal
participation. Lastly, if you want to raise awareness of equal participation spontaneously in your
lessons, you can also consider conducting this activity not every lesson, but during review
lessons, or after discussion tests.
DISCUSSION
Initially a total of 48, which fell to 43 university freshman students (20 male, 23 female) due to
insufficient attendance, participated in this study. Since this imbalanced participation issue was
observed across levels, six different EDC classes from three different proficiency levels were
chosen: two high-intermediate level II (14 participants), two intermediate level III (22
participants), and one high-beginner level IV (7 participants).
For the data collection, two kinds of quantifiable data were analyzed: the number of ideas or
comments (speaking turns) in three discussion tests and the number of ‘idea coins’ through
informal observational notes during regular classes, as they signified the parameters of content
as quantified on a test. Those data were analyzed in three ways:
1. The first data analysis was a comparison among three discussion tests’ results to find
out if the range of participation turns was decreased or increased (Table 1). The range of
participation turns was calculated by counting the number of ideas or comments on each
test (the range = the maximum number of ideas or comments minus the minimum
number of ideas or comments) for each group.
2. The second data analysis was a comparison between the ranges of participation turns in
the Discussion Test 1 (DT1) and that of regular lessons (RL) to see if there were any
correlations between the test performance and performance during practice (Table 2).
Since there was a time gap between 16-minute discussion of DT1 and 10-minute
discussion of experimental regular lesson discussions, the comparison was conducted by
looking at participation rate per minute.
3. The third data analysis was a comparison within three regular lessons to identify the
pure effect of this activity without factoring in test anxiety (Table 3).
When comparing the range of participation turns in DT1 with that of DT2 and
DT3, both desirable outcomes and undesirable outcomes were observed. Furthermore, two types
of desirable outcomes were observed among different groups: short-term improvement (ranges
decreased from DT1 to DT2, but this trend did not continue to DT3) and long-term improvement
(ranges decreased from DT1 to DT3). As you can see in Table 1, four out of six classes apply to
this positive outcome including both short-term and long-term improvement (Class 1, 2, 3, and
6). By comparing only the average participation turns from DT1 to DT2 and DT3, however, only
the comparative participation turns from DT1 to DT2 show an improvement, which could imply
that there was short-term improvement immediately following the implementation of this
activity only. (Note: This activity was conducted after DT1 and before DT2.) On the other hand,
this activity also produced undesirable outcomes by increasing the range of participation turns
from DT1 compared to both DT2 and DT3. In Table 1, you can see that two out of six classes
performed this outcome (Class 4 and 5). In other words, the expected benefits of this activity on
equalizing participation among dominant and reticent students were observed only short-term,
which implies this activity’s transferability from regular lessons to a testing environment is
261
limited to the short-term and may be exacerbated by test anxiety, though further research would
need to confirm this effect.
Table 1
Range of Ideas and Comments in Discussion Tests
DT1 DT2 DT3 Average Outcomes
Class 1 3 1.5 4 2.8 short-term improvement from DT1 to DT2
Class 2 2 2.5 1.5 2.0 long-term improvement from DT1 to DT3
Class 3 3.5 2.5 3.5 3.2 short-term improvement from DT1 to DT2
Class 4 3 3.5 9.5 5.3 undesirable increase
Class 5 1.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 undesirable increase
Class 6 6.5 2.6 2.3 3.8 long-term improvement from DT1 to DT3
Average 3.3 2.7 3.9 3.3
Table 2 reveals the relationship between the results of regular lessons and the discussion
tests. It was assumed that if the regular lesson participation rate per minute were shorter than that
of DT1, the outcomes of this activity would be positive because the decrease of the participation
rate per minute could indicate the success in raising students’ awareness towards equal
participation in regular lessons. The data shows positive results of this activity in regular lessons.
While the average DT1 participation rate per minute was 0.21, the regular lesson participation
rate per minute was 0.1. This shows that overall students participated more equally during the
regular lessons than DT1, which implies most students were aware of participating the
discussion equally compare to DT1 with the implementation of this activity. The most successful
class was Class 6. While the average decrease of all six classes was 0.11, this class’s
participation rate decreased by 0.34.
Table 2
Range Comparison between Discussion Tests and Regular Lessons
DT1 Participation Rate/min RL Participation Rate/min DT Outcomes
Class 1 0.19 0.1 – decrease Desirable
Class 5 0.09 0.2 – increase Undesirable
Average 0.21 0.1 – decrease
Table 3 shows more detailed learning effects during the regular lessons excluding one
powerful external variable: test anxiety. Two following hypotheses can be considered:
A. If groups had successful learning experiences during the regular lessons (identified by a
range of less than 1 for equal participation and are indicated with * in Table 3), the
outcomes in the discussion tests would be positive.
B. If the range of distribution of ‘idea coins’ in Lesson 7 (L7) or Lesson 8 (L8) decreased
compared that of Lesson 6 (L6) (highlighted in Table 3), this expected performance in
the regular lessons would lead to the desirable outcomes in the following discussion
tests (DT2 and DT3).
262
Kayoko Yamauchi
For hypothesis A, only Classes 2, 3, 4, and 6 had successful learning experiences (2 times each).
Nevertheless, it shows that regardless having or not having those successful learning experiences,
Class 1 outperformed while Class 4 underperformed during all DTs. For hypothesis B, three
classes (4, 5, and 6) decreased the range of ‘idea coins’ distribution compared with L6. However,
both Class 4 and 5 undesirably performed in DT. Thus, this hypothesis does not prove this
activity effective. Nevertheless, comparing the average range of ‘idea coins’ between L6 and L7,
the average ranges decreased the most, and so are considered successful learning experiences as
defined in hypothesis A above. This can be worth noting as a short-term effect of this activity.
Table 3
Range of ‘Idea Coins’ within Regular Lessons
L6 L7 L8 DT Outcomes
Class 1 1 1 1 Desirable
Class 2 0.5* 0.5* 2 Desirable
Class 3 0.5* 0.5* 1 Desirable
Class 4 2 0.5* 0.5* Undesirable
Class 5 2.5 1 2.5 Undesirable
Class 6 0.5* 0* 1.5 Desirable
Average 1.17 0.58* 1.42
Notes: The symbol * indicates relatively successful learning experiences
The highlighted sections indicate the range of L7/L8 decreased from L6.
CONCLUSION
The above quantitative data results show relatively desirable outcomes for this research. The
comparative analysis among three discussion tests indicates that four out of six classes improved
their performance, particularly for a short-term from DT1 to DT2. In addition, the comparative
analysis of participation rates between DT1 and the three regular lessons showed students were
more aware of equal participation during the regular lessons than DT1. The last comparative
analysis among three regular lessons also suggest that the activity had a short-term effect from
Lesson 6 to 7, which was the first and second time this activity was implemented and practiced,
although successful learning experiences during the regular lessons did not correlate with the
outcomes in the discussion tests.
Therefore, it might be safe to say that this activity could be applied in a small-size EFL
classroom to combat typical East Asian students’ reticence or low participation. Nevertheless,
from its considerable short-term effects for a majority of classes and the contradicting relation
between the regular lessons and the discussion tests, this activity does not necessarily need to be
implemented regularly. In other words, this activity is recommended to implement in regular
lessons when you want an instant, short-term, result for better participation behaviors. Based on
these initial observations, this activity should be modified to capture the short-term benefits and
attempt to transfer them to a testing environment in addition to creating a more lasting impact on
equalizing participation.
REFERENCES
Cohen E.G., Lotan R.A., Scarloss, B.A., and Arellano, A.R. (1999). Complex instruction: Equity
in cooperative learning classrooms. Special Issue: Building Community Through
Cooperative Learning in Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 80-86. DOI:
10.1080/00405849909543836
263
Doe, T., Hurling, S., Livingston, M. & Moroi, T. (2013). New Directions in Teaching and
Learning English Discussion, 1(2).
Discussion, 1, 1-2.
Haley, M.H. (2004). Learner-centered instruction and the theory of multiple intelligences with
second language learners. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 163-180. Teachers College,
Columbia University.
Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. The
Institute for Research in Language Teaching, 9, 35-67.
McGuire, S., Thornton, P., & Kluge, D. (1996). Cooperative learning at the post-secondary level
in Japan. In Cornwell, S., Rule, P., & Sugino, T. (Eds.), JALT96 Conference
Proceedings: Crossing Borders, 60-67.
Munby, I. (2005). Turn-taking in an EFL discussion task. Hokkai-Gakuen Organization of
Knowledge Ubiquitous Through Gaining Archives, 31, 167-193.
Osboe, S., Fujimura, T. & Hirschel, R. (2007). Student confidence and anxiety in L2 speaking
activities. Languaging, 10, 32-35.
Saito, H. & Ebsworth, M.E. (2004). Seeing English language teaching and learning through the
eyes of Japanese EFL and ESL students. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 111-124.
Shaaban, K. & Ghaith, G. (2005). The theoretical relevance and efficacy of using cooperative
learning in the ESL/EFL classroom. TESL Reporter, 38(2), 14-28.
Tsou, W. (2005). Improving speaking skills through instruction in oral classroom participation.
Foreign Language Annals, 38(1). 46-55.
Williams, K.E. & Andrade, M.R. (2008). Foreign language learning anxiety in Japanese EFL
university classes: Causes, coping, and locus of control. Electronic Journal of Foreign
Language Teaching, 5(2), 181-191.
Yamauchi, K. (2013). Support for reticent learners and L2 identity. New Directions in Teaching
and Learning English Discussion, 1(2), 45-49.
APPENDIX
1. Sample Monitoring Note
264
Using Manipulatives to Promote Proper Floor Management in
English Discussion
Davey Young
ABSTRACT
Negotiating transition relevance places (TRPs) is a necessary skill for successful floor
management in any language (Sacks et al., 1974). The differences in turn-taking rules between
languages can make mastery of this skill difficult for learners of English. Activities that parse
and scaffold these rules with prefabricated chunks of language can improve automaticity and
interactional competence across the language and culture gap. This paper describes one such
activity that uses a manipulative to attempt to bolster use of turn-taking phrases in English
discussion. Instances of these phrases in a testing environment were counted and measured
against total speaking turns to derive percentages of turns taken or relinquished with a target
phrase among two experimental and one control group over a seven week period. The results
indicate that using a manipulative to introduce turn-taking phrases at TRPs may lead to their
sustained deployment and more successful floor management generally in free production.
INTRODUCTION
The difficulties that language learners have managing the floor and taking turns in an L2 are
well documented (Cook, 1989; Dörnyei and Thurrell, 1994). Young (2013) further found that
failing to open the floor at the completion of a speaking turn negatively impacts the entire group.
More specifically, when a Japanese speaker of L2 English fails to mark the end of their turn,
next speakers (NSs) must first determine that the floor holder has finished his/her turn and then
self-select to speak next. Therefore failure to pass the floor places a significant communicative
burden on the rest of the group: firstly, identifying that the current speaker (CS) has completed
his/her turn and, secondly, managing the selection of the NS.
This burden often leads to a stilted, unnatural procession of speaking turns. When the CS
fails to select the NS, the NS often self-selects from the CS’s right in the seating position
(Munby, 2005). Tracking the turn order of four Japanese learners of English, Munby found that
eight of 16 turns passed directly to the right in a 13 minute discussion, positing that “[g]enuine
instances of self-selection are rare in this conversation perhaps because of the predictability of
the circular turn-taking practice.” Fujimoto (2010) argues that such patterned turn-taking among
Japanese speakers arises from the need to establish a hierarchy within the group. Itakura and
Tsui (2004) contend that this hierarchy is closely tied to gender, and that the gender dominance
of Japanese male speakers is attributed to a “self-oriented conversation style,” supported and
perpetuated by Japanese female speaker’s “other-oriented conversation style.” Thus, this
dynamic is mutually constructed. Harumi (2001) also notes that silence may arise from a
problem with turn-taking, as silent students may not be properly allocated a turn or have
difficulty claiming a turn. Whatever the cause, by relying on patterned speaker changes dictated
by the L1 or cultural background, students perpetuate an unnatural style of discourse in English
discussion. To address this complex problem, one must design and employ an activity that
encourages students to engage in a more natural pattern of discourse that does not rely on the
defaults related to sitting position, social hierarchy, or gender while simultaneously allowing
ample opportunities for each group member to be allocated and/or claim a speaking turn.
The current study was conducted within English Discussion Class (EDC), a compulsory
course for first year students at Rikkyo University “with the intended result that EDC students
will be able to exchange opinions with others in order to share their culture and beliefs with both
265
native and non-native speakers in English” (Hurling, 2012). The course is communicative in
nature and teaches students function phrases for oral performance, which are “largely derived
from Dornyei and Thurrell’s direct approach to conversation instruction (1992; 1994) as well as
Kehe and Kehe’s speaking text Conversation Strategies (1994)” (Hurling, 2012). These phrases
are what Celce-Murcia (2007) refers to as “those fixed and prefabricated chunks of language that
speakers use heavily in everyday interactions,” specifically the subsets of routine and lexical
frames within formulaic competence. Celce-Murcia further lists “how to get, hold, and
relinquish the floor” as a dialogic genre of conversational competence, a subset of interactional
competence. Naturally, these aspects of broader communicative competence manifest differently
across languages, which can cause significant L1 interference when learning an additional
language. It is useful, then, to consider how these elements of communicative competence are
manifested at the dialogic level between Japanese and English.
Tanaka (2000) notes that the beginning of a speaking turn in English is important for
projecting the shape of the turn, whereas in Japanese turn-endings “are critical for turn
projection.” In an extensive comparison between turn-taking in English and Japanese, Furo
(2001) found that English employs a more collaborative floor with more frequent floor changes
occurring before complex transitional relevance places (CTRPs)1 while the Japanese floor has
more changes occurring at CTRPs. In addition, Furo notes that Japanese speakers tend to “invite
interlocutors’ backchannels by using questions and sentence final particles that function to
establish a collaborative relationship with interlocutors,” which sheds some light on how turn-
endings are so important for turn projection in Japanese. In a conversation analysis of native
speakers using their L1, Kitamura (2001) observed that participants often allowed a period of
silence between turns rather than overlapping speaking turns, creating simultaneous speech. If
Hutchby and Wooffitt (2008) are correct in their assertion that transitional relevance places
(TRPs)2 are projected, then the Japanese floor indeed cannot have floor changes before TRPs, as
this placement would paradoxically precede its own projection.
METHOD
Expecting EDC students to perform speaker changes before TRPs without being familiar with
the “routine and lexical frame” of the English floor could be unrealistic: rather, activities should
first aim for speaker changes at TRPs in accordance with the Japanese floor. The activity
described in this study is based on the findings of Sacks et al. (1974), who propose two
straightforward rules for how turns are allocated at a TRP; the first rule is further subdivided into
three operations:
1) At a TRP
a. If the CS selects a specific NS, that NS should take a turn.
b. If CS does not select a NS, any NS may self-select.
c. If neither rule (a) nor rule (b) is employed, CS may extend his/her turn.
2) Rules 1(a)—(c) operate again for the next TRP.
Munby outlines various, mutually inclusive floor-passing mechanisms that occur at TRPs within
an L2 English discussion among L1 Japanese students. These include asking a question,
nomination of NS, completion of the grammatical clause, termination of hand gestures, use of
phrases, falling intonation, and code-switching. Celce-Murcia (2007) states “a communicative
focus, which includes mastery of systems such as conversational turn-taking and speech-act sets,
means that many set phrases and other formulaic elements of language use also need attention.
Generally for each social move or function, there is a stock of potential utterances.” The
challenge is to find a way for Japanese EFL students to slot prefabricated English lexical chunks
266
Davey Young
into the Japanese routine frame. In keeping with EDC curriculum, students receive several such
sets for a variety of social moves and functions.
In week seven of semester one of English Discussion Class, students learn a set of
function phrases for Joining a Discussion (Doe et al., 2013). All but the lowest level students3
are taught six phrases in total: four for Joining a Discussion, and two for Asking Others to Join a
Discussion.
Table 1
Functions for Joining a Discussion and Asking Others to Join a Discussion
Joining a Discussion Asking Others to Join a Discussion
Can I start?
Can I make a comment? Does anyone want to comment?
Can I add something? Does anyone want to add something?
Can I ask a question?
The functions for Joining are deployed when NSs want to close the floor and self-select (claim a
speaking turn). The functions for Asking Others are deployed when CSs want to open the floor
for the NS (terminate their speaking turn). Viewed from the perspective of a TRP in the Japanese
floor, we can see that a CS first deploys a function for Asking Others to Join the Discussion
(opening the floor/initiating the TRP), followed by a NS deploying a function to Join the
Discussion (closing the floor/terminating the TRP).
The operational nature of Sacks et al.’s rules for speaker changes at TRPs allows for these
functions to be easily input, forming the rules of speaker changes in EDC:
1) CS opens the floor by Asking Others to Join the Discussion.
2) Once the floor is open or if rule 1 is not employed, NS self-selects by using a
function to Join the Discussion.
3) If neither rule one nor rule two is employed, CS extends his/her turn.
Obviously, the function phrases in question are not the only methods by which turn
allocation can be actualized. Indeed, even after being taught several sets of proscribed function
phrases, EDC students may use a variety of phrases and paralinguistic strategies to negotiate turn
order and pass the floor (Munby, 2005; Young, 2013). In teaching the Joining phrases to EDC
students, the challenge for EDC instructors is to temporarily constrain the use of these additional
strategies to guarantee repeated use of the target phrases in order to increase the probability of
successful retention and automaticity.
Activity: “Pass the Mic”

In addition to the above considerations based on research in conversation and discourse analysis,
any communicative classroom activity must necessarily follow relevant pedagogical principles.
Firstly, this activity described here follows Brown’s (2007) principle of the Language-
Culture Connection by bridging English speech-acts and the Japanese style of turn-taking with
floor changes occurring at TRPs. It also draws attention to this social move through a final
awareness-raising component. Hutchby and Wooffitt (2008) note that Sacks et al.’s rule-set
“operates as an oriented-to set of normative practices which members use to accomplish orderly
turn-taking.” While the English and Japanese styles of turn-taking are certainly different, they
are not incompatible. Hutchby and Wooffitt further point out the “close relationship between the
temporal, sequential and inferential orders” of turn-taking. “Pass the Mic” allows each student
to parse out and reassemble these orders in a way that makes sense to them.
267
Secondly and with regard to Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences,

supplementing a more traditional classroom paradigm composed of the teacher presenting the
target phrases and feedback either orally or in writing, the kinesthetic and visual aspects are
incorporated to create a more holistic mode of transmitting information to students (Gilakjani,
2012). A manipulative prop can achieve this balance in targeting learning styles while also
confining floor management to the target phrases by tying the use of said phrases to the
operation of manipulating the prop. The activity “Pass the Mic” does just this by providing a
tactile, manipulative framework in which the function phrases are singularly employed
according to Sacks et al.’s (1974) rules for speaker changes at TRPs while clearly designating
the speaker role to all participants. Speakers receive tactile reinforcement of their speaking role,
which other participants can easily confirm visually.
Finally, the activity follows Brown’s (2007) principle of Automaticity by providing
students with frequent opportunities to repeat “fixed and prefabricated chunks” from a
manageable set of potential utterances that perform the turn-taking functions of taking and
relinquishing the floor. The activity is designed to first draw attention to a stimulus (in this case,
a toy microphone), which is linked to the use of the target phrases. This is in keeping with
Logan’s (1992) hypothesis that “the effects of automaticity occur after the effects of attention-
[…] that automaticity is postattentive.” By manipulating the stimulus (“passing the mic”)
students are able to tangibly feel when they take and pass the floor and by extension attach the
physical movement to the social one. The awareness-raising component is in part intended to
shift attention from the manipulative itself to the speech act it is meant to represent, in addition
to the communicative context in which it is manipulated. The ultimate aim is to improve floor
management by increasing automaticity and sustained use of the target phrases in free
production.
At the outset of Discussion One (a ten-minute discussion following controlled practice of
the target function phrase) in week seven, the instructor places a home base for the microphone
at the center of each discussion group’s table (Appendix A). A prop microphone is then placed
on top of the home base. Students are then given the rules for “Pass the Mic.”
The rules for “Pass the Mic”—designed in accordance with Sacks et al.’s (1974)
modified rules for speaker changes in EDC—are as follows:
1) Whoever says “Can I start?” will take the microphone first.
2) When you finish speaking, use an Asking Others to Join function and place the
microphone back on the home base.
3) To speak, take the microphone using a Joining the Discussion function. You only
need to hold the microphone when you are a speaker. You do not need to take the
microphone to ask, “Can I ask a question?” or any follow-up questions.
During the activity, it is the instructor’s responsibility to ensure that each group follows
the above rules. When students do not follow the rules, simply pointing at the microphone
should be sufficient to correct the behavior.
At the end of Discussion One, the instructor passes out a slip of paper (Appendix B).
Students are then instructed to think for a moment before filling in the blank and then to
compare their answers with those of the other members of their group and to add the numbers
together to see if they equal 100%. The main purpose of this final stage of the activity is to raise
students’ awareness of their ability to perform the discourse function of turn-taking. Secondarily,
it is meant to raise students’ awareness of both their level of participation and that of the other
members of their group. Through such awareness-raising, students are more likely to continue
relevant positive behaviors (effective floor management and equalized participation through use
of the target function phrases) in the future, as “awareness activities are also important in
268
Davey Young
making clear the boundaries of expected behavior” (Kellas, 2012). The goal of this awareness-
raising is further emphasized through brief teacher-fronted feedback.
RESULTS
To investigate the effects of this activity in EDC, twelve classes of seven to eight students were
divided into three groups: two experimental groups and one control. The two experimental
groups differed in the number of times they performed the activity. The first experimental group
performed the activity three times in total: once each in weeks seven, eight, and nine. The
second experimental group performed the activity only once in week seven. The control group
did not perform the activity. To quantify the effects of the activity, the author counted the
number of speaking turns4 during two discussion tests5, as well as the instances of function
phrases used to successfully join and ask others to join the discussions, to derive the percentages
reflected in the tables below.
Table 2
Percentage of Speaking Turns Initiated with a “Joining the Discussion” Function
Group Test 2 Test 3
Experimental 1 (Activity in weeks 7, 8, and 9) 84.6% 68.5%
Experimental 2 (Activity in week 7 only) 81.6% 74.5%
Control (Did not receive activity) 69.7% 72.2%
Table 3
Percentage of Speaking Turns Terminated with an “Asking Others to Join” Function
Group Test 2 Test 3
Experimental 1 (Activity in weeks 7, 8, and 9) 57.1% 23.6%
Experimental 2 (Activity in week 7 only) 68.4% 39.8%
Control (Did not receive activity) 49.5% 15.6%
To control for the variable of controlled practices across the three groups during the weeks of the
study, any students who were absent during this period were eliminated from the data set. This
resulted in a relatively uniform 25 to 27 reliable samples for each group.
Logistical practicalities made it untenable to measure the percentage of each student’s
speaking time in a testing environment, and so the effects of the activity on equalizing
participation are not quantified in this study. However, as the results of the student survey of the
“Pass the Mic” activity reflect, students from both experimental groups reported in week seven
that the activity raised their awareness of participatory levels.
Table 4
Mean Answers to Survey Questions (Appendix B)
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3
3.362069 3.517241 3.689655
DISCUSSION
As the percentages in Tables 2 and 3 reflect, the control group routinely performed equally well
or worse than both experimental groups in both Joining and Asking Others to Join the
Discussion. Comparing the results from Test 2 to Test 3 across all groups, it seems that the
effects of “Pass the Mic” have only a short-term effect on increasing the instances of using a
269
Joining the Discussion function phrase. However, the activity clearly appears to have a longer-
term effect on increasing instances of Asking Others to Join the Discussion at the completion of
a speaking turn. The largest differential in the derived percentages of speaking turns either
initiated or terminated with a target phrase is between the second experimental and control
groups’ termination of a speaking turn in Test 3: 39.8% and 15.6% respectively, a difference of
24.2%. Such a significant difference suggests that “Pass the Mic” indeed leads to an increase in
sustained use of function phrases for Asking Others to Join the Discussion in free production.
This in turn alleviates the previously noted (Young, 2013) communicative burden placed on the
rest of the group when a CS fails to clearly open the floor (identifying the completion of a CS’s
speaking turn and managing the selection of an NS).
It is also worth noting that across all groups, the instances of Asking Others to Join at the
end of a speaking turn are fewer than Joining the Discussion at the outset of speaking turn. This
difference could have many, mutually inclusive reasons:
1. CSs have other stock phrases at their disposal that can be used instead, such as Asking
for Opinions6 or Asking Others to Connect7.
2. A CS uses another floor-passing mechanism such as nomination of a NS, a termination
of hand gestures, or other such paralinguistic cues (Munby, 2005).
3. The NS is seizing the floor before it is opened by the CS (that is, before the termination
of the TRP).
The possibility of the third reason above is an intriguing one. Remembering Hutchby and
Wooffitt’s (2008) assertion that Sacks et al.’s rules for turn-taking are oriented-to and normative,
it follows that if the NS is seizing the floor before the completion of the CS’s turn, then the
participants may in fact be orienting to a more English floor with speaker changes occurring
before TRPs. This would corroborate a supposition made by Kern (2009) in a conversation
analysis of turn-taking within a 20 minute, task-based English discussion of seven students at a
Japanese University.
In addition, the second experimental group—which performed the activity only during
the week of the initial presentation of the target phrases—notably had the highest instance of
both joining and asking others to join using a target phrase with regard to total number of
speaking turns on the third discussion test. It may be that using “Pass the Mic” to ensure the
target function’s use over several weeks provides a crutch by which students relate the activity to
the performance of the function and are thus less likely to deploy the target phrases without the
aid of the microphone in free production. This hypothesis reinforces the notion that the
manipulative microphone is best suited for temporarily restricting floor-passing mechanisms to
the target phrases and raising awareness of how and why they are deployed. In other words,
prolonged use of the manipulative prop may strengthen the association between the function
phrases and the prop itself as opposed to the association between the function phrases and the
speech act that the microphone is meant to represent. In this study, performing the activity only
once—during the initial presentation of the function phrases—appears to have been the best
method for drawing an appropriate association between the prop and the speech act, thereby
improving students’ ability to cooperate in discussion by successfully deploying mutually
known function phrases to manage the floor in free production.
Students’ overall reaction to “Pass the Mic” appeared positive. In addition, the activity
had the unanticipated benefit of mutual accountability for following the rules, thereby ensuring
proper deployment of the function phrases. Whenever a participant neglected to follow the rules
of the activity (deploy a function phrase), another participant would invariably correct this
behavior by reminding the student of the microphone. In this way, students held each other
accountable for following the guidelines of the activity and so ensured deployment of the
270
Davey Young
function phrases at the appropriate time. Moreover, this mutual accountability seemed to prompt
more reticent students to speak, as they became obligated to produce content after using a phrase
for Joining the Discussion. This observation suggests that “Pass the Mic” succeeds in increasing
the overall level of participation, at least within the context of English Discussion Class, and
supports the earlier assumption that “equipping and encouraging students to pass the floor by
using directed questions at TRPs will allow participatory students to involve non-participatory
students, as well as encourage uncooperative8 students to cooperate by passing the floor”
(Young, 2013). Table 4 further supports this assertion.
VARIATIONS
“Pass the Mic” can be modified to target Sacks et al.’s (1974) first type of speaker change (CS
selects NS) while precluding the second type (NS self-selects). To do this, the Home Base
should be removed from the table and the rules modified as follows:
1) Whoever says “Can I start?” will take the microphone first.
2) When you finish speaking, use a function phrase for Asking for Opinions or Asking
Others to Connect, along with the name of the person to whom you pass the
microphone.
This alternate version targets relinquishing the floor only (as opposed to taking and
relinquishing the floor) by forcing students to end each speaking turn with a directed question. It
may be better suited for shy or low level groups in which students rarely self-select to speak and
can also be used during weeks two and eight of the first semester of EDC when Asking for
Opinions and Asking Others to connect are respectively introduced. This version may better
promote equalized participation among certain groups and encourage group cohesion by
requiring students to use names. However, care must be taken to ensure that students do not
revert to a more patterned and hierarchal turn order tied to seating position or gender, thereby
preventing orientation to a more English floor.
Another variation is to use the original rules as a formative feedback activity rather than
during a full-fledged discussion. In this case, “Pass the Mic” is reserved to correct the behavior
of students who are not using the target phrases for Joining a Discussion. This variation can be
used after the first or second discussion in week seven (when the target phrases are first
introduced), week eight (a review lesson), or even in week nine (a discussion test lesson). This
has the benefit of maintaining a more natural context for group discussion, which is otherwise
altered by the structure of the activity itself. However, using the activity in this way may
significantly cut into class time normally reserved for other activities.
CONCLUSION
The data collected here suggests that turn-taking activities utilizing manipulatives can increase
the frequency of target function phrases as measured through sustained use in free production of
speech. This increase makes students more cooperative in negotiating turn order and managing
the floor in group discussion. Furthermore, the student survey results indicate that “Pass the Mic”
successfully raised awareness of participation and eased turn-taking in English discussion, in
effect making students more cooperative in addition to more participatory. However, since the
awareness-raising aspect of “Pass the Mic” may draw attention to non-participatory students,
there could be negative washback from this and similar activities, creating anxiety for these
students and in so doing perpetuate their behavior of non-participation. Furthermore, Harumi’s
(1999) call for instructors to respect Japanese students’ use of silence could potentially preclude
beneficial teacher intervention, further exacerbating this negative washback. This concern may
be moot, however, as Kellas (2012) found by using a variety of activities to raise awareness of
271
turn-taking and participation in EDC that “in most cases, for both dominant and quiet students,
participation scores improved” in regular lessons. This indicates more equalized participation
stemming from awareness-raising activities, as both reluctant and dominant participatory
behaviors are penalized in the scoring of regular lessons. Nevertheless, the effects of “Pass the
Mic” on participation levels still need to be quantified and analyzed. Further research will also
need to be conducted on whether this activity also increases accuracy. Finally, while the data in
Tables 2 & 3 suggest that “Pass the Mic” may have the unanticipated effect of orienting students
to a more English floor, conversation analysis should attempt to confirm this shift by taking pre-
and post-test measurements of the amount and extent of instances of overlapping speech around
TRPs.
It is also worth reiterating that “Pass the Mic” is designed to increase the frequency of a
small selection of stock phrases at TRPs (rather than before TRPs, as is the case in English
discourse) while minimizing alternative mechanisms for floor management. While this creates
smoother and more effective discussion in the classroom while minimizing wasted talk-time, a
side effect may be the formation of unnatural conversational habits that do not transfer out of the
EDC classroom (Young, 2013). However, as Seedhouse (1996) argues, an “institutional variety
of discourse produced by a speech community […] convened for the institutional purpose of
learning English” is far more realistic for English language learners and teachers alike. Some
students have referred to the collection of EDC function phrases as Rikkyo-ben [Rikkyo dialect],
and while EDC instructors may all agree that the prevalence of these curricular function
phrases—Celce-Murcia’s (2007) “prefabricated chunks”—can lead to unnatural patterns of
discourse, it enables students to communicate successfully at least within the institutional
framework. In this way, EDC’s function phrases for Joining a Discussion help achieve the
course goal of students being able to hold an extended discussion in English (Hurling, 2012).
This research calls for further investigations as to how well so-called Rikkyo-ben transfers to
other environments and contexts outside of the university. An institutional pattern of discourse is
preferable so long as it is compatible with more natural patterns outside of a closed classroom.
NOTES
1
Furo (2001) defines CTRPs as “conjunction points among grammatical, intonational, and
semantic completion points.”
2
CTRPs are alternatively referred to as TRPs in the literature, and will be referred to as such
here.
3
Level 4 students learn three phrases for Joining the Discussion and one phrase for Asking
Others to Join the discussion.
4
Furo (2001) notes the difficulty in defining what constitutes a speaking turn. In keeping with
EDC curriculum as pertains to scoring a speaking turn on discussion tests, this paper considers a
turn as an utterance containing two or more grammatical clauses and carrying semantic weight
(content).
5
Discussion Test 2 held in week 9 and Discussion Test 3 held in week 13.
6
“What’s your opinion?” and “What do you think?” (Doe et al., 2013).
7
“What do you think of {my/name’s} idea?” and “Does anyone (do you) agree with
{my/name’s} idea?” (Doe et al., 2013).
8
Young (2013) draws a distinction between participation and cooperation in English discussion:
‘participation’ means engaging actively as a speaker and a listener, ‘cooperation’ means using
the curricular function phrases to mark and perform speech acts.
272
Davey Young
REFERENCES
Brown, D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. (3rd
ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language
teaching. In E.A. Soler and M.P.S. Jorda (Eds.), Intercultural language use and
language learning (41-57). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Doe, T., Hurling, S., Livingston, M., & Takayama, I. (2013). What do you think?: Interactive
skills for effective discussion 1, Book III. (4th ed). Tokyo, Japan: DTP Publishing.
Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1994). Teaching conversational skills intensively: Course content
and rationale. ELT Journal, 48(1), 40-49.
Fujimoto, D. (2010). Connecting EFL group discussions to research. Retrieved from
http://ir-lib.wilmina.ac.jp/dspace/handle/10775/913
Furo, H. (2001). Turn-taking in English and Japanese. New York: Routledge.
Gilakjani, A.P. (2012). Visual, auditory, kinaesthetic learning styles and their impacts on
English language teaching. Journal of Studies in Education, 2(1), 104-13.
Harumi, S. (1999). Japanese learners of English and their use of silence. Retrieved from
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/eal/jl-archive/jl-bestof/23.pdf
Harumi, S. (2001). The use of silence by Japanese EFL learners. Retrieved from JALT
Conference Proceedings Archive: http://jalt-
publications.org/archive/proceedings/2001/027.pdf
Discussion, 1(1), 1.2-1.10.
Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Itakura, H. & Tsui, A.B.M. (2004). Gender and conversational dominance in Japanese
conversation. Language in Society, 33(2), 223-48.
Kellas, R. (2012). Balancing discussion and improving turn-taking. New Directions in Teaching
and Learning English Discussion, 1(1), 2.27-2.30.
Kern, J.Y. (2009). To follow or to flout? Communicative competence and the rules of turn
taking. The Language Teacher, 33(9), 3-9.
Kitamura, N. (2001). Politeness phenomena and mild conflict in Japanese casual conversation.
Retrieved from the University of Sydney eScholarship Repository:
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/844?mode=full
Logan, G.D. (1992). Attention and preattention in theories of automaticity. The American
Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 317-39.
Munby, I. (2005). Turn-taking in an EFL discussion task. Studies in Culture. 31, 167-93.
Retrieved from http://hokuga.hgu.jp/dspace/bitstream/123456789/1423/1/JINBUN-31-
4.pdf
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation
of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Seedhouse, P. (1996). Classroom interaction: possibilities and impossibilities. ELT Journal,
50(1), 16-24.
Tanaka, H. (2000). Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Young, D. (2013). Whose turn is it? Participation and passing the floor. New Directions in
Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 1(2), 50-4.
273
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
I held the microphone for _____% of the discussion.
私はディスカッション中＿＿％マイクを持ちました。
Please complete the survey below. (下記の質問に答えてください)
4 = Strongly agree（強く同意する） 3 = Agree（同意する）
2 = Disagree （同意しない） 1 = Strongly Disagree （強く同意しない）
1. Playing “Pass the Mic” made me more aware of how much I participate in group discussion.
（「マイクをわたそう」を通して、自分がどれだけディスカッションに参加しているかを実
感することができた）
4 3 2 1
2. Playing “Pass the Mic” made me more aware of how much others participate in group discussion.
（「マイクをわたそう」を通して、他のメンバーがどれだけディスカッションに参加してい
るかを実感することができた）
4 3 2 1
3. Playing “Pass the Mic” made it easier for everyone to take turns speaking.
（「マイクをわたそう」によって、みんなが順番に会話に参加できるようになった）
4 3 2 1
274
SECTION FOUR
Classroom Research
Do EDC Instructors Share Similar
Teaching Beliefs?
Paul Garside
ABSTRACT
The idea behind this project was to ascertain how similar English Discussion Center (EDC)
instructors are in terms of their teaching philosophies, and to explore the implications of this
with regard to working in a program with a unified curriculum. Based on their answers to a
questionnaire, instructors were placed into one of the three main conceptions of teaching, as
defined by Zahorik (1986). Although a significant degree of diversity was found, no common
background factors among instructors who were placed in the same category were identified. A
further objective was to consider how useful these teaching conceptions are as a method of
classifying teachers according to their teaching beliefs.
INTRODUCTION
By any standard the English Discussion program at Rikkyo University can surely be classed as
conforming to a unified curriculum. All teachers use the same textbooks and are trained to teach
in accordance with the principles of the course, with the goal of improving students’ oral
communicative competence in a discussion-based setting. However, the teaching staff on the
EDC program consists of approximately 40 teachers, who vary not only in terms of age and
nationality, but also in terms of teaching experience, educational background, and personal
foreign language study and acquisition. Working within such a diverse community on a daily
basis, I began to wonder to what extent there also exist disparities between overall ‘teaching
philosophy’ among the members of staff.
As with all teaching, language teaching can be viewed from a scientific, a philosophical,
or an artistic viewpoint. Indeed Zahorik (1986) classifies conceptions of teaching into these three
main categories: ‘Science-Research’, ‘Theory-Philosophy’, and ‘Art-Craft’. Put briefly,
‘Science-Research’ conceptions of language teaching tend to be derived from research and
empirical investigation. Therefore an instructor who believes in following a tested model of
teaching, or replicating the behavior of teachers who are proven to be effective, may lean
towards this category.
In contrast, ‘Theory-Philosophy’ conceptions are based on “what ought to work or what
is morally right” (Zahorik, 1986, p.22) This encompasses both ‘theory-based’ approaches, such
as Communicative Language Teaching and the Silent Way, as well as ‘values-based’ approaches.
An instructor who prioritizes what they believe should happen in the classroom, ahead of the
results of empirical research, may tend towards this category.
Finally, ‘Art-Craft’ conceptions emphasize the role of the individual. Rather than
committing to a single method of teaching, proponents of this approach argue that a teacher is
more likely to achieve their full potential if they try to remain flexible and view each situation as
unique.
If it is found that there are indeed substantial philosophical differences among EDC
teachers, can they be ascribed to any common background factors, such as amount of teaching
experience, nationality etc.? Richards (2002) argues that the conceptions mentioned above could
actually be seen as “forming a continuum”. As such, the evidence-based ‘Science-Research’
conception would provide an initial point of reference for less experienced teachers. With more
experience they may develop support for a particular theory or set of values (‘Theory-
Philosophy’). Finally, still greater experience may lead to an appreciation of individual
277
situations inherent in the ‘Art-Craft’ approach. In this way, the teacher may be seen to have
progressed from a ‘top-down’ to a ‘bottom-up’ approach to teaching, or at least to a hybrid of
the two. If this were indeed the case, perhaps we would expect less experienced teachers to tend
towards ‘Science-Research’ conceptions, while those with more substantial experience may
gravitate towards ‘Art-Craft’ ones.
This study’s research questions, therefore, can be stated as:
1) To what extent do EDC teachers differ in terms of their ‘teaching philosophy’?
2) Can any such differences be attributed to common ‘background’ factors?
METHOD
Participants
As the intention was to make the study as comprehensive as possible, all EDC instructors were
invited to participate. 30 instructors chose to do so, representing about 75% of the overall
teaching staff. Of the 30 participants, 24 were native English speakers and the remaining 6 were
Japanese. 21 were men and 9 women. In terms of ESL teaching experience, they varied from 1.5
to ‘about 20 years’, with the average being 7.7 years. For reasons of privacy, it was not deemed
appropriate to ascertain precise ages.
Procedure
The instrument used to gather data was in the form of a questionnaire (see appendix). Following
analysis of a pilot study, the final questionnaire was divided into 3 sections: ‘Background
Information’, Teaching Philosophy’ (further sub-divided into ‘Courses’, Lessons’ and
‘Students’), and ‘EDC Course / Classes in General’. The ‘Teaching Philosophy’ section was the
main one used to categorize instructors and for this purpose a multiple choice section was
included. The statements in this section were chosen so that an equal number (four each)
primarily related to each of the three categories. For example, the statement ‘A language
course’s objectives should be based on empirical research and data’ was included because
agreement in this instance could be said to indicate a tendency towards the Science-Research
conception of teaching. Similarly, a respondent indicating agreement with the statement
‘Language learners should learn things other than language skills in class’ could be said to have
shown a tendency towards the Theory-Philosophy conception, since it suggests a broader
‘values-based’ approach, rather than a purely empirical one. Lastly, agreement with the
statement ‘Teachers should be free to deal with situations in class the way they feel is most
appropriate’ could indicate an Art-Craft tendency, in which flexibility of approach is emphasized.
A tally was kept of all responses to the multiple-choice section and respondents were
placed in the category to which they indicated most agreement overall, as shown in Table 1
below. When a respondent’s answers indicated equal suitability for two categories, they were
assigned a half value to both. In one case, the respondent’s answers indicated suitability to all
three categories equally. That person’s results have been omitted from the graph.
As well as the multiple-choice questions, respondents were given the opportunity to
expand on their answers. These comments, along with the answers to the ‘EDC Course / Classes
in General’ questions were used for two purposes; firstly as a way of providing supporting
material to check the accuracy of the categorizing exercise, and secondly to provide some richer
insight into the topic, i.e. to “convey the flavor of responses” (Aldridge & Levine, 2001, p.102).
Answers from the initial ‘Background’ section were then analyzed to see if any patterns
could be discerned regarding what kind of instructors adhered to the various teaching beliefs.
278
Paul Garside
The questions themselves had to be worded very carefully, as this can clearly influence
participant responses. For example, when commenting on the statement, ‘It is important to learn
from effective teachers and replicate their behaviour’ one instructor wrote:
The word ‘replicate’ forced me to circle disagree. However if you said “learn from effective
teachers, then try out and see how their techniques might be adapted to your teaching style” I
would strongly agree with this.
While I would argue that this comment validates the choice of the word ‘replicate’, as it was
intended to express a Science-Research conception, it highlights the importance of the question
wording.
RESULTS
Based on their answers to the multiple choice questions in the questionnaire, the 30 respondents
were divided into the Zahorik categories as indicated below.
Table 1: The EDC teaching staff as divided by Zahorik’s classification of teaching conceptions
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Art-Craft Theory-Philosophy Science-Research
These results suggest that there is indeed a substantial diversity of teaching beliefs among the
EDC teaching staff, although the overall tendency was towards the Art-Craft category. In most
cases, respondents’ additional comments tended to support the initial categorization (based on
the multiple-choice section). For example, the following are taken from respondents placed in
the Art-Craft category:
… teachers should have as much freedom to experiment with methods as possible, since they
have the most observational data to draw upon and need to be most invested in these methods.
(Course) objectives should have an empirical base but should include the needs of the students
as well, even if those needs aren’t based on research and data.
279
… good teachers should be able to utilize their skills and experience to teach on any program,
even on ones which may be based on beliefs that are different from one’s own.
Each teacher is different and will need to adapt what they learn from others into a teaching
practice that best fits who they are as a teacher.
I often deviate from my lesson plan depending on the needs of the class…
These comments tend to support the idea that teachers should be flexible in the way they deal
with teaching situations, which is a key component of the Art-Craft conception.
The second-most common category (albeit by a tiny margin) was Theory-Philosophy.
Here are some comments from respondents who were placed in that category:
From my Master’s, the core philosophy behind my teaching has had a strong emphasis on
learner autonomy. Teaching at EDC has reinforced this philosophy and introduced me to more
ways to help my learners to be more autonomous, such as self-assessment and peer reflection.
Ideally, a critical thinking aspect would become part of the discussions.
(students) should be exposed to new ideas too.
Such comments suggest a desire to integrate the instructor’s personal belief or theory into the
lessons (with the best of intentions of course!) This is consistent with a Theory-Philosophy
mindset.
There were fewer comments that seemed to support a Science-Research conception. The
following comment came from a respondent placed in that category:
Possibly the criteria for the discussion tests (could be changed). I don’t always feel that high
discussion test scores necessarily correspond to the kind of discussion / communicative behavior
that we should be aiming for.
It seems to hint at an empirical approach, although the phrase ‘we should be aiming for’ could
also indicate a values-based conception.
Indeed it would be misleading to suggest that all comments neatly reflected the category
into which the respondent had been placed. For example, the following comment came from
someone who placed squarely in the Art-Craft category yet, at least in this instance, suggests a
Theory-Philosophy mindset:
I would like the (course) content to remain closely connected to students’ experiences but extend
more to contentious social and global issues … I would like this course to challenge students to
think beyond themselves more often and to think about what they hope for in society.
However, overall it is fair to say that most comments tended to support the initial categorization.
With regard to the question of whether any differences in teaching beliefs can be
attributed to common background factors, No such evidence could be found. Respondents
placed in all three categories varied in terms of ESL teaching experience, formal teaching
qualifications, foreign language proficiency, and nationality - in other words all of the factors on
which they were questioned! One particularly stark example is that the respondents with the
280
Paul Garside
least ESL teaching experience (1.5 years) and the most (‘about 20 years’) both placed in the
same category (Art-Craft).
DISCUSSION
First of all it is important to stress that, due to the qualitative nature of this study, any general
conclusions must be drawn very carefully. Indeed Zahorik himself acknowledges that these
conceptions of teaching are to some extent “arbitrary frameworks”. Bearing this in mind, what
conclusions can be drawn from this study? If we accept the hypothesis that there is a substantial
diversity of teaching beliefs among the EDC teaching staff, surely this has implications for a
program based on a unified curriculum, such as the EDC. For example, do instructors feel
restricted by having to conform to such a program? The following instructor comment serves to
highlight this point:
I feel I sometimes want to talk about my opinions or share my experiences … Sometimes

teachers can inspire students by giving some of their experiences. However, I never talk about
myself.
In fact, of the 30 respondents, 10 instructors said that their teaching philosophy had not
significantly changed, since joining the EDC program, as represented by the following
comment:
My philosophy has changed only slightly. If anything, many of my beliefs and practices have
been reinforced through teaching in the program.
However, 17 instructors wrote that their teaching philosophy had changed considerably, with the
following being two particularly dramatic examples:
I think I was a talkative teacher before I started teaching EDC classes. Now I am trying very
hard not to help (the students) too much, not to support them until they really need it … my
teaching philosophy has changed a lot!
The program has certainly dramatically enhanced my personal development, made me a MUCH
better teacher than I ever was before…
This suggests that having a unified curriculum can actually lead to a convergence of previously
more diverse teaching beliefs, particularly if the program is widely seen as having value among
its staff. When asked to suggest ideas for changes to the program, most tended to be either very
minor, or related to further study and how to build on what the students had already learned
through the program itself.
The fact that no correlation could be found between length or type of ESL experience and
stated teaching belief suggests that Richards’ argument that Science-Research conceptions can
provide a starting point for less experienced teachers is not borne out by the reality. If many
teachers actually begin with an Art-Craft conception, rather than moving towards one over time,
this may also have implications for teacher training. Perhaps initial training should focus partly
on the pros and cons of such an approach. To what extent is experience actually necessary in
terms of being able to be deal creatively with various classroom situations? When is it preferable
to refer to a tested model or empirical data?
281
Finally, to what extent can we say that Zahorik’s classification of teaching conceptions
offers a useful way to categorize instructors in terms of their teaching beliefs? While teachers’
beliefs and behaviours will of course overlap to some degree, it may at least give some insight
into the priorities of the individual. Indeed it is perhaps on the individual level that it has greatest
relevance. Tsui (2003), among others, emphasizes the importance of individual self-reflection,
which Farrell (2007) claims represents a ‘bottom-up’ approach to professional development. If
an individual can identify broadly into which category they belong, it may assist in the
perception of how their beliefs relate to those of their colleagues, or other teachers in general.
For example, an instructor who finds they have most in common with the ‘Theory-Philosophy’
conception might have cause to re-examine where such beliefs originate from and whether or not
they are valid or appropriate. Conversely, someone who finds they generally have an ‘Art-Craft’
conception of teaching may benefit from considering what the merits of this are, as opposed to a
more ‘Science-Research’-based approach, and so on.
Limitations
Although great care was taken in constructing and refining the questionnaire, it necessarily
involves an interpretation of the Zahorik classification system, which therefore adds a further
layer of subjectivity.
Furthermore, while some instructors placed quite clearly in a certain category, others
were virtually on (or in a few cases actually on) the border between different categories. There is
therefore bound to be a significant amount of overlap in respondents’ answers. This is illustrated
in the example, mentioned earlier, of the ‘Art-Craft’ instructor who demonstrated ‘Theory-
Philosophy’ tendencies.
In order to be able to gain more detailed information about instructors’ teaching beliefs,
it would be necessary to conduct interviews on an individual basis. The researcher would then be
able to ask respondents to clarify particular answers, rather than relying on voluntary comments,
as in this study. Watching lesson videos would also be beneficial, as it would give an indication
of the relation between teaching philosophy, as stated by the instructor, and the reality of their
teaching; what Farrell calls the disparity between “espoused theories” and “theories in action”.
CONCLUSION
This study does suggest a significant diversity of teaching beliefs among the EDC teaching staff,
although just over half of respondents tended towards the Art-Craft category. The questionnaire
responses, however, do not suggest any inherent conflict between such diversity and a unified
curriculum, as represented by the EDC. In fact, in this case, the existence of a unified curriculum
actually appears to have led to some degree of convergence of teaching beliefs.
As is the case with such qualitative research, care must be taken when trying to draw
general conclusions. In the absence of further data, it may be more beneficial for each instructor
to reflect individually on their approach and on the merits of that and other approaches, as part
of an ongoing process of self-reflection and professional development.
REFERENCES
Aldridge, A. & Levine, K. (2001). Surveying the social world: principles and practice in survey
research. Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what
language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching 36, 81-109 doi:
10.1017/S0261444803001903.
Dornyei, Z. & Taguchi, T. (2002). Questionnaires in second language research: construction,
282
Paul Garside
administration, and processing. New York: Routledge.

Farrell, T. S. C. (2007). Reflective language teaching: from research to practice. New York:
Continuum.
Richards, J. C. (2002). Theories of teaching in language teaching. J. C. Richards & W. A.
Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching (p.706-725). Cambridge, U.K.:
Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: case studies of second language
teachers. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Zahorik, J. A. (1986). Acquiring teaching skills. Journal of teacher education, 37:21, 21-25
doi: 10.1177/002248718603700204.
APPENDIX
Teaching Philosophy Questionnaire
a) Background Information
1. How long have you been teaching English as a foreign language?

2. What teaching qualifications do you have?
3. What experience do you have of learning foreign languages (including compulsory
education)?
4. What level of proficiency do you have in any foreign languages?
Please circle a, b, c, or d. In all cases a = strongly agree, b = agree, c = disagree, d = strongly
disagree
b) Teaching Philosophy: Courses

1. It is important to follow a fixed curriculum in language teaching.
2. A language course’s objectives should be based on empirical research and data.
3. It is important that any course I teach is based on beliefs that are similar to my own.
4. Teachers should be free to deal with situations in class in the way they feel is most
appropriate.
c) Teaching Philosophy: Lessons
1. It is important to learn from effective teachers and replicate their behaviour.
2. It is important to focus on language form, not just language fluency, during EDC
lessons.
3. My teaching style reflects my personality.
4. I often depart from my lesson plan, depending on the needs of the class.
d) Teaching Philosophy: Students
1. It is essential that all EDC students improve their discussion skills as much as possible.
2. Language learners should learn things other than language skills in class.
3. It is essential that students have a positive experience in class.
4. It is essential to develop a good rapport with students.
Please comment on any answers you wish to expand on in the box below.
e) EDC course / classes in general
1. What is your definition of a successful EDC lesson?

2. To what extent has your teaching philosophy changed since you started teaching EDC
classes?
283
3. If you could change anything about EDC classes / the EDC course, what would you
change?
284
Collaborative Dialogue in the Form of Language Related
Episodes during EDC Students’ Discussions
Paul Landicho
ABSTRACT
This paper is a pilot study that analyzed collaborative dialogues that took place between EDC
(English Discussion Class) students, specifically through the use of LREs (Language Related
Episodes), during their (12-16 minute extended) discussions. Watanabe and Swain (2007)
proposed the notion of ‘collaborative dialogue’ as an interaction where “learners work together
to solve linguistic problems and/or co-construct language or knowledge”. These interactions
involve more of a focus on language form (Storch, 1997), usually through the use of meta-
language, particularly in writing-based courses. As such, due to the ephemeral nature of
(extended 12 to 16 minute) discussions and the way in which the students in the EDC course are
taught ways to negotiate meaning amongst themselves, it is predicted that there will be more of a
focus on meaning with regards to these LREs. These behavioral tendencies will be discussed
further in this paper, particularly within the context of Expert-Novice relationships (Ford, 2004)
that commonly take place between EDC students during their discussions.
INTRODUCTION
One of the core principles of the EDC course is its learner-centred setting (Nunan, 1988), which
shifts the focus from students simply being passive learners to the needs of learners in small
groups through communicative activities requiring information sharing and negotiation of
meaning (Ant n, 1999). That is, by nature, instructors should be facilitators (Jacobs &
McCafferty, 2006), and as such, interventions by instructors are minimized, or even discouraged,
particularly during group discussions. This ‘hands-off’ approach by the instructor encourages
students to work together, especially whenever there is a breakdown in communication. To
handle such breakdowns during their discussions, students have been taught several strategies,
including checking understanding, and paraphrasing. This appears consistent with the idea of
‘collaborative dialogue’, which Watanabe and Swain (2007) defined as the way in which
“learners work together to solve linguistic problems and/or co-construct language or knowledge”.
In their research, they found that this has a positive effect on the development of L2 learners’
proficiency.
In this study, learner-learner collaborative dialogue was analyzed, where almost all of
these interactions took place between an Expert and a Novice. Reichert (2012) points out that
this Expert-Novice pairing is an established concept in Second Language Research (SLA), as it
is consistent with Vygotsky’s perspective to L2 learning (i.e. Zone of Proximal Development)
where the Novice needs the Expert’s assistance in order to learn, and as such, is a major factor in
the creation of learning opportunities exclusively between L2 students, as opposed to those that
take place between an L2 learner and a teacher or native speaker.
In his study, Amirkhiz et al. (2013) identified three main types of LREs, namely Form,
Mechanics, and Lexis-oriented LREs, which his students produced during collaborative writing
tasks. He concluded that Form-oriented LREs were the most frequent of the three types, as these
LREs deal with grammatical accuracy. In a similar fashion, these three categories of LREs will
also be used in this study, and instances of each type of LRE will be highlighted.
However, the production of LREs is only possible when the dynamic between group
members is very amiable. Thus, in many cases, the instructor may need to take some care and
responsibility when forming groups. This is in line with Dobao’s (2012) suggestion that the most
285
important factor is that the two members of a dyad take up a more collaborative approach.
However, there is no guarantee that this will always lead to a successfully resolved LRE.
In addition, Storch (1997) showed in her study that examined peer-editing tasks, there
was more of a focus on language-related issues within the ESL learners’ discussion. The
participants chose to concentrate on grammatical issues rather than discuss ideas. As such, the
type of collaborative task had a major effect on what kind of issues the collaborators would
discuss. In addition to this, the L2 proficiency of the learners has also been a major factor
affecting the quantity of LREs that are produced. This was shown in Williams’ (1999, 2001)
study where she compared the number and types of LREs produced by eight ESL learners
among four different proficiency levels through a number of activities. She found that the
number of LREs tended to increase in relation to the level of the course.
Leeser (2004) in a similar fashion, explored how the use of collaborative tasks
encourages learners to produce such LREs, which in turn, has a positive effect on learners’ L2
development. He also points out how this positive effect is maximized when the LREs occur
predominantly between lower and higher proficiency learners that are grouped together, rather
than pairs with relatively equal L2 proficiency. Furthermore, he explains that LREs largely occur
within the context of a communicative task in the L2, meaning they are not decontextualized
discussions about language. If this is the case, then a learner’s proficiency will have an effect on
the types of LREs produced, and thus, will converge around ‘gaps’ or ‘holes’ in a learner’s
interlanguage.
Following this, Watanabe and Swain (2007) looked into the effects of L2 proficiency
differences between pairs and patterns of interaction on L2 learning through the examination of
collaborative dialogue and post-test performance. In terms of LREs, they discovered that
Expert/Novice pairs produced more LREs than both dominant/passive and expert/passive pairs.
According to Ford (2004), these expert and novice participant statuses continually shift as
interaction proceeds where an ‘Expert’ is momentarily classified as “more-knowing” (rather than
“all-knowing”), while a ‘Novice’ may be one who is momentarily constituted as “less-knowing”
(rather than “not-knowing”) (as cited in Jacoby and Gonzales, 1991). Watanabe and Swain
(2007) also concluded that pairs who were comfortable working together, on average, produced
more LREs than those with a non-collaborative orientation.
On the whole, all these studies have concentrated on the study of LREs among both
ESL and EFL learners. In spite of this, a study has yet to be carried out to investigate the
occurrence of LREs among learners in a discussion-based classroom, especially one that
highlights what strategies students have been using to repair breakdowns during discussions and
assist other group members. This study represents an initial effort to investigate the following
questions:
What types of Language Related Episode (LREs) would take place among L2 learners in a
discussion-based classroom, namely between students in EDC classes? Why might LREs not
always be successful?
METHOD
Participants
This study involved twelve different intermediate to higher-intermediate level discussion classes
whose members were predominantly Japanese, although there were a few students from South
Korea and China. Regardless of their nationality, all learners were non-native speakers of
English, and were at the final stage of completing the one-year EDC course, which is
compulsory for all first year students. As such, all interactions in the classroom were in the
students’ L2 (i.e. English). Another noteworthy commonality between all the students was that
286
Paul Landicho
this was their second semester in the EDC course, which meant that students already had the
necessary tools to be able to both repair and offer assistance to other group members whenever a
breakdown in communication occurred during their discussions.
Instrumentation
To be able to analyze the verbal interactions of the participants, the pair talk between the Experts
and Novices during their discussions was recorded either digitally via an IC recorder placed in
the middle of the group’s table, or via informal handwritten notes as the instructor was listening.
These were then transcribed, and later examined more closely.
Naturally, more LREs were expected to occur during discussions about difficult topics,
and thus were chosen to be more closely scrutinized in this study. These themes ranged from
groups having to discuss gender inequality and stereotypes to discussions on the merits of the
death penalty. This was in direct contrast to discussions about topics which students were either
already familiar with, such as fashion, or had everyday personal experience with, for example
talking about university life, so were deemed unnecessary before the study began.
Data Collection Procedure

Data collection took place during the Fall semester of 2013. Although the participants knew they
were being recorded for research purposes, the actual purpose of the study was not explained to
them at any point. This was done in order to avoid unnatural interactions between group
members, thus helping to maintain the integrity of the LREs being produced during the
discussions. Another important point is that even though there were between three to five
members in each discussion group, only the LREs between two of those members were analyzed,
particularly LREs where there was a distinct Expert-Novice dyad verbal interaction that took
place.
These interactions included and were not limited to an Expert correcting a Novice; an
Expert offering advice; a Novice asking for help from the Expert; as well as a Novice correcting
them self. The instructor in no way facilitated any of these interactions, although there may have
been feedback drawing a small amount of attention to such interactions, which would only occur
after the discussion had finished.
Data Analysis
As mentioned by Swain and Lapkin (2002), an LRE is defined as any part of collaborative
discourse in which the peers talked about the language they were producing or had produced,
and the corrections they made to their own language or their partner’s. Before coding of the
transcripts for language related episodes took place, the researcher made sure to read the
transcripts several times. This was done to enable an accurate categorization of the collected
LREs. Plus, the instructor’s supervisor was on hand to check the results of these analyses in
order to help support this accuracy even further.
The total number of classes that were observed was twelve in the Fall semester, and
each class consisted of fourteen lessons, which featured either two main discussions or one
discussion test. At the same time, the first of these fourteen lessons was an introductory lesson,
which was used for students to have the opportunity to become familiar with each other, as well
as, review the structure and requirements of the course itself. Accordingly, any LREs that may
have taken place in this time were not used in this study.
287
RESULTS
This study used the same types of LREs as identified in the study of Amirkhiz et al. (2013).
These three types of LREs were categorized as: Lexis-oriented LRE, Mechanic-oriented LRE,
and Form-oriented LRE. However, one factor, which was different, was to what extent was the
LRE successfully resolved. Of all the LREs collected, several were chosen below to highlight
what kinds of LREs take place in a typical discussion in an EDC classroom.
1. Lexis-oriented LREs (LO-LREs) are mainly to do with word choice, meaning, or alternative
ways of expressing an idea. The following LREs are examples of LO-LREs:
(LO-LREs dealing with the function label’s meaning)
Extract 1
NOVICE: What is ‘Different Viewpoints’?
EXPERT: How about for ‘blah blah blah’?
NOVICE: How about for old people?
Extract 2
NOVICE: What is ‘Paraphrase’?
EXPERT: In other words…
NOVICE: In other words, Japanese people should speak English.
These LREs can be seen as being initiated by the Novice as he/she couldn’t remember
how to use a particular function (formulaic phrases that EDC students are taught to help them
have clearer, deeper or smoother discussions). The Novice’s prompt can be seen as a direct
request for the Expert’s assistance about the label of the function. As such, the Expert helps the
Novice by demonstrating with one actual function phrase. With this, the Novice is then able to
perform the function successfully. Such an LRE usually took place during the preparation stages
of the Discussion, particularly during stations activities where the students are prompted to use
certain functions. These functions are usually ones which the instructor has identified as
potentially problem functions due to either the students’ inability to use them during previous
discussions or the complexity of the function itself.
(An LO-LRE dealing with L1 usage)
Extract 3
NOVICE: Ikebukuro is near Rikkyo Daigaku.
EXPERT: University?
NOVICE: Rikkyo University.
Here is another type of LRE that was identified between two L2 learners, where the Expert
picks up on the Novice using L1 (i.e. Japanese). This is then rectified by the Expert when she
hints at the English equivalent of this word (i.e. university). The Novice then makes the
necessary adjustment based on this Expert’s suggestion, which is similar to the previous
successfully resolved LREs. What’s interesting to note, however, is that unlike the previous LRE
types, the Novice is unaware of making an error until the Expert’s intervention.
As expected, LO-LREs were the most frequently occurring out of all three types.
288
Paul Landicho
2. Mechanics-oriented LREs (MO-LREs), which in a discussion-based classroom context

would mainly occur when dealing with pronunciation. Things such as spelling and punctuation
would mainly be dealt with in a writing-based course, thus are quite rare in the EDC classroom.
(An MO-LRE dealing with pronunciation)
Extract 4
NOVICE: Women are very road.
EXPERT: road?
NOVICE: Loud.
In this particular LRE, the Novice unknowingly mispronounces a word, which leads to the
formation of a nonsensical sentence. The Expert immediately repeats this possibly
mispronounced word (i.e. road) in order to ask for clarification from the Novice with the use of
rising intonation. This then allows the Novice a chance to realize his error and thus, correct his
mispronunciation by providing the intended word with the correct pronunciation (i.e. loud).
3. Form-oriented LREs (FO-LRE) are those that mainly deal with grammatical accuracy. This
could be in terms of form and verb tense, articles, prepositions, linking devices and word order.
The following LRE is an example of a FO-LRE:
(An FO-LRE dealing with word form)
Extract 5
NOVICE: ...because it’s really benefits to the wife.
EXPERT: Benefits or beneficial?
NOVICE: Sorry, because it’s really beneficial to the wife.
As expected, this type of LRE was the least frequently occurring LRE, which is in stark
contrast to what would normally happen in a writing-based course. The main cause of this is that
discussion-based courses are more ephemeral by nature. Thus, there is less emphasis on this kind
of LRE.
Although the majority of LREs are successfully resolved, Dobao (2012) mentions that
there is still a possibility that an LRE will be unsuccessfully resolved as shown in the following
LRE.
(An LO-LRE dealing with missing content)
Extract 6
NOVICE: I think one stereotype about women is (thinking)
EXPERT: Do you think one stereotype about women is they have to do housework?
NOVICE: Um, I don’t know.
(An LO-LRE dealing with function usage and content)
Extract 7
289
NOVICE: One advantage about men earning money for the family is in Japan, they have
a better chance of getting a good job than women.
EXPERT: I see. What is one disadvantage?
NOVICE: One disadvantage is (thinking), I don’t know.
Even with a function being properly used, unsuccessful LREs can still occur, but are usually
more related to content rather than function. This is particularly evident if the idea may have
been conceived by the Novice before the lesson, but was then prompted for an additional idea,
which in this case, leads to a slight hesitation, and eventually an abandoned turn.
After analyzing the types of LREs produced during students’ discussions, it was evident
that the majority of LREs were of the LO-LRE kind, such as those that involve a function label’s
meaning or ones that involve a shift away from L1 usage. The reason for this may be due to the
way the EDC course is structured in that there is a strong requirement on the use of functions for
students to be able to negotiate meaning, expand on ideas, and navigate turns throughout their
discussions.
With regards to LREs that were unsuccessfully resolved, this may have been due to
these students relying too much on ideas that they prepared before the lesson. Hence, such
students may have simply had a difficult time to expand on their ideas, especially in such a short
space of time, right after receiving assistance by an Expert. Another possible rationale for this
could be illustrated by Morita (2004) in the way she talks about how such reticent students may
be using this avoidance technique (e.g. saying “I don’t know” or in more extreme cases, being
silent) as a face-saving strategy. Although they seem to be unperturbed in giving their prepared
opinions, this strategy could explain why these kinds of students will generally rely on other
members to initiate group discussions. As such, these opinions will be shared only after being
prompted by another member. Thus, instructors should identify such students as early as
possible in their classes and be sensitive when addressing their needs.
In a following study, it would be interesting to continue to analyze the types of LREs
that take place, as well as how they differ during the Spring semester, which will be the first
semester for new students to the course. Also, to allow for a more focused analysis, it might be
more beneficial to limit the study to just one class, preferably with students of differing level of
L2 proficiency. Further research is also needed, particularly with regards to the frequency of
each type of LRE that occurs between Expert-Novice dyads. As this study was a qualitative
study, it would also be interesting to conduct a quantitative study of LRE occurrences during
both the Spring (first) semester and Fall (second) semester, in order to compare which semester
produced more LREs, monitor what percentage of these LREs were successfully resolved, and
reflect on what factors may have lead to this difference.
CONCLUSION
Based on the LREs that were collected and analyzed by the researcher, there is a strong
indication that L2 learners in a discussion-based classroom are more than capable of dealing
with breakdowns in communication. This challenges the teacher-centred style of teaching that
usually takes place in the Japanese elementary and high school classroom. Thus, interventions
by the instructor at the tertiary level may possibly be seen by some people as unnecessary,
although this scenario could only occur once the L2 learners have been given the necessary tools
to deal with such situations. Furthermore, such absences of teacher intervention could also be
considered essential to support the development of proficiency in the learners’ L2.
290
Paul Landicho
REFERENCES
Amirkhiz, S. Y. Y., Bakar, K. A., Baki R., Mahmoudi, L. & Samad, A. A. (2013). EFL/ESL
Learners’ Language Related Episodes (LREs) during Performance Collaborative
Writing Tasks. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3) 473-479.
DOI:10.4304/jltr.4.3.473-479
Ant n, M. (1999). The Discourse of a Learner-Centered Classroom: Sociocultural Perspectives
on Teacher-Learner Interaction in the Second-Language Classroom. The Modern
Language Journal, 83(3), 303-318. DOI: 10.1111/0026-7902.00024
Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative Dialogue in Learner-Learner and Learner-Native Speaker
Interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 229-256. DOI: 10.1093/applin/ams002
Ford, S. (2004). “How do you become a samurai?”: Shifting Expert-Novice Relationships in
ESL Chat Room Conversation. SLS 680E: Language Socialization as an Approach to
SLA.
Garcia, M. F. (2007). Tasks, Negotiation and L2 Learning in a Foreign Language Context. In
M.d.P.G. Mayo (Ed.), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning (p.69-90).
U.K.: Cromwell Press Ltd.
Jacobs, M. J. & McCafferty, S. G. (2006). Connections between cooperative learning and second
language learning and teaching. In Richards, J. C. (Ed.), Cooperative Learning and
Second Language Teaching (p.18-29). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, Y. J. & McDonough, K. (2008) The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative
dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research,
12(2), 211-234. DOI: 10.1177/1362168807086288
Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language
Development. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue.
Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55-81. DOI:10.1991/1362168804lr134oa
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating Participation and Identity in Second Language Academic
Communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573-603. DOI: 10.2307/3588281
Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner-Centred Curriculum. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press.
Reichert, T. & Liebscher, G. (2012). Positioning the Expert: Word Searches, Expertise, and
Learning Opportunities in Peer Education. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 599-609.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01397.x
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair
interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL
learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121-142. DOI:
10.1177/136216880607074599
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-Generated Attention to Form. Language Learning, 49(4), 583-625.
DOI: 10.1111/0023-8333.00103
291
The Effects of Pre-task Planning Time on Japanese L2
Discussion Students’ Learner Outcomes
Matthew Wilson
ABSTRACT
This study explores the effect of pre-task planning (specifically ‘performing a similar task’
(Prabhu, 1987) time on learner outcomes for L2 learners. In order to complete sixteen minute
discussions, Japanese first year university students were given either a six minute pre-task
activity or a ten minute pre-task activity. The students were assessed during the discussion task
phase using the departmental student assessment form and a MANOVA test was used to
compare learner outcomes under the two time conditions. Analyses showed that the students’
subsequent language production in terms of fluency and complexity was not affected by the
different conditions.
INTRODUCTION
Pre-task activities have become an important part of ESL learning and recently there have been a
number of studies dedicated to assessing the role of pre-task variables. Pre-task length and
structure have come under scrutiny with a mixture of results. On the one hand, reviews and
research (Ellis, 2005; Foster & Skehan,1996; Wendel, 1997; Ahangari & Abdi, 2011) have
shown that pre-task planning is beneficial. On the other hand, researchers such as Wigglesworth
(2000, 2003) and Elder & Iwashita (2005) have suggested that pre-task activities can have a
negligible effect or can in fact be detrimental to learner performance.
When evaluating the affects of pre-task planning on learner performance much attention
has been given to pre-task planning’s effects on production in terms of fluency, accuracy and
complexity (Ellis, 2014). Mystkowska-Wiertelak’s research (2011) suggests that improvements
in accuracy and fluency can be made through task repetition. Mehrang & Rahimpour (2010)
have also shown that improvements in complexity can be made. However, Mehrang and
Rahimpour (2010) have also shown pre-task planning to have no impact on accuracy and fluency.
This paper explores the effect of the pre-task planning variable of time on learner
outcomes in terms of fluency and complexity within Rikkyo University English Discussion
Class (EDC) classes. In order to measure differences in language output, an in-house assessment
procedure that evaluates ‘content’ (ideas and additional comments), ‘communication’ (reactions,
agreeing & disagreeing, negotiation of meaning) ‘questions’ (turn taking, follow–up questions
and other questions) and ‘function phrase use’ (a total of six types of discussion phrase are
taught over the course of a semester) has been used. This paper operates on the assumption that
content, questions and function phrase use are similar to if not always identical to Ellis’
conception of ‘complexity’ while communication, as used here, shares commonalities with Ellis’
conception of ‘fluency’(Ellis, 2014).
Research Question
This research addresses the following question:
What is the effect of pre - task planning time on learner outcomes?
292
Matthew Wilson
METHOD
The participants in this study consisted of first year university students (n=80, 43 females, 37
males) participating in the EDC convened at Rikkyo University, Tokyo. All but one of the
students were Japanese. The proficiency of the students ranged between upper and lower
intermediate i.e. levels 2 and 3 on a 1 to 4 scale; 1 being classified as high ability. Placement in
these classes had been based on TOEIC scores.
Ten classes were observed. The maximum number of students in each class was nine. The
official minimum allocation was seven students although due to lapsed attendance some of the
classes had only six students attend. Observations were made of lessons taking place in weeks
six, seven, eight, ten and eleven of a fourteen week semester.
Each ninety minute lesson followed the same schedule: a brief written (eight question)
quiz followed by new discussion phrase introduction and practice. This would then be followed
by two discussions, each of which was preceded by preparation activities. The second discussion
(sixteen minutes in length; three to four student groups) was proceeded by a station activity
whereby students walked around the room in pairs, although occasionally in a group of three if
there were an uneven number of students in the class, from ‘station to station’, stopping for a
fixed period of time at a station in order to discuss a topic or answer a question.
Voice recorders were used to record each of the following sixteen minute discussions.
Afterwards, class assessments of the discussions were conducted using the in-house assessment
form that noted all content (ideas and additional comments), communication (reactions, agreeing
& disagreeing, negotiation of meaning) questions (turn taking, follow–up questions and other
questions) and function phrase use (a total of six types of discussion phrase are taught over the
course of a semester).
Each week, half the classes were taught under condition 1 and half under condition 2. In
condition 1, students were given two minutes and thirty seconds at each station. This made a
total of ten minutes task preparation time. In condition 2, students were given one minute and
thirty seconds at each station. This made a total of six minutes task preparation time. Conditions
were alternated from week to week. In the case of those lessons which were given six minutes
preparation time, the additional four minutes was used for feedback. The two different
preparation times reflects the variation in preparation times commonly used by EDC instructors.
RESULTS
A one – way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine the
effect of the of two pre-task study times (six minutes and ten minutes) on the four dependent
variables, content production, question production, communication skills, and function
production. No significant differences were found between the two pre-task study times, Wilks’s
Ʌ = 0.99, F(4, 357) = 1.19, p=0.31. The multivariate Ƞ2 based on Wilk’s Ʌ was very weak, 0.13.
Table 1. below contains the means and standard deviations on the dependent variables for the
two groups. Considerable overlap can be seen of the confidence intervals of the two conditions
for each of the variables.
293
Table 1
The Mean, Standard Deviation and Confidence Intervals for Each of the Dependent Variables:
Content, Questions, Communication and Functions
Dependant Preparation Mean Std.Error 95% Confidence

Variable Time Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Content 1 5.957 .167 5.628 6.286
2 5.533 .183 5.174 5.893
Questions 1 7.239 .292 6.664 7.813
2 6.855 .319 6.227 7.482
Communication 1 13.858 .554 12.768 14.947
2 13.830 .605 12.640 15.021
Function 1 11.868 .378 11.124 12.612
2 11.758 .413 10.945 12.570
Figure1: Incidences of content markers in Figure 2: Incidences of question markers in

16 min discussions. Preptime 1 indicates 16 min discussions. Preptime 1 indicates
condition 1 (10 mins prep). Preptime 2 condition 1 (10 mins prep). Preptime 2
indicates condition 2 (6 mins prep). indicates condition 2 (6 mins prep).
294
Matthew Wilson
Figure 3: Incidences of communication Figure 4: Incidences of function markers in

markers in 16 min discussions. Preptime 16 min discussions. Preptime 1 indicates
1 indicates condition 1 (10 mins prep). condition 1 (10 mins prep). Preptime 2
Preptime 2 indicates condition 2 (6 mins
indicates condition 2 (6 mins prep).
prep).
DISCUSSION
The results show that there is no effect on the four dependent variables of content, question
output, function output and communication when task preparation time is set at six minutes or at
ten minutes. This is illustrated in figures 1 – 4 which show a clear overlap in upper and lower
bounds for each of the variables. Although this research does not eliminate the possibility of
pre-task benefits, the findings suggest extending pre-task time will not improve the complexity
or fluency of L2 learners. If we are to accept that pre-tasks may have some benefit, we may
surmise that these benefits can be delivered in a shorter time rather than a longer time.
The findings of this study correspond to those of Wigglesworth (2003) and Elder &
Iwashita (2005) whose research has shown that pre-tasks have a limited effect on accuracy and
fluency. Both these studies focused on the affects on students being tested although it should be
noted that in the case of Wigglesworth’s research, IELT’s testing was under analysis i.e. very
controlled conditions. However, this does not necessarily mean that we should see differences in
terms of fluency and accuracy compared to this research paper. On the other hand, a significant
difference between these studies and the current one is the focus on ‘pre-task strategic planning’
rather than pre-task ‘performing a similar task’. Further research needs to be to done to identify
whether or not the effects of both task type are the same.
The work of Ahangari & Abdi (2011) has shown that pre-task planning can improve
accuracy which conflicts with results of this paper. However, once again, Ahangari & Abdi
looked at strategic pre-task planning rather than performing a similar task pre-task planning.
This may suggest that strategic pre-tasks might be more beneficial, however it should be noted
that Ahangari & Abdi compared ten minute planning time with zero planning time. It seems
quite likely that the six minute planning time condition considered in this study was sufficient to
improve student performance which is to say that even a small amount of time may be
beneficial to improving accuracy.
If as some suggest, pre-tasks contribute to framing the main task (Lee, 1999, cited in Ellis,
2014), it may be possible that most framing gains were made in the earlier part of the course;
prior to week six when this research paper’s observations were made. A possible explanation is
295
that students already familiar with the format of the lessons would receive fewer of the benefits
of framing.
We might reasonably ask if the purpose of discussion pre-tasks is to improve either
departmentally assessed skills and/or to improve general production fluency, accuracy and
complexity, is it not possible to reduce all preparation time by four minutes? This could be
particularly relevant to discussion test lessons when the instructor has to choose between
minimal preparation time with two discussions or a longer preparation time with only one
discussion, in order to prepare the students for the test discussions.
To further explore the impact of time on language production, a study focusing on
preparation time less than the six minute preparation time could be carried out. Such a study
might continue to use pre-tasks ‘performing a similar task’ but possibly consider the impact of
four minute preparation time on fluency and accuracy.
CONCLUSION
Increasing pre-task preparation time for intermediate level students may not have any effect on
improving complexity and fluency, if we consider content, functions phrases, questions and
communication skills to be indicative of these learner outcomes. ESL instructors should be
aware that in order to increase accuracy and to improve fluency, alternatives to longer pre-tasks
based upon ‘performing a similar task’ should be considered.
REFERENCES
Ahangari, S. & Abdi, M. (2011). The effect of pre-task planning on the
accuracy and complexity of Iranian EFL learners’ oral performance. Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences 29, 1950–1959. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.445
Ellis, R. (2014). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Elder, C. & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). An investigation of the effectiveness and
validity of planning time in Part 2 of the IELTS speaking test. Research Reports, Vol. 6.
Retrieved from IELTS website:
https://www.ielts.org/pdf/Volume%206, %20Report%201.pdf
Elder, C. & Iwashita, N. (2005). Planning for test performance: Does it make a
difference?. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.
219-238) Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamin.
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on
second language performances. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323.
doi: 10.1017/S0272263100015047
Mehrang, F. & Rahimpour, M. (2010). The impact of task structure and
planning conditions on oral performance of EFL learners. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3678-3686. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.572
Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2011). Task repetition as a way of enhancing oral
communication in a foreign language. In M. Pawalak, E. Waniek-Kilimczak, & J.
Majer(Eds.), Speaking and Instructed Foreign Language Acquisition (pp. 245-257).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters
Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency
level on oral test discourse. Language Testing. 14, 85 – 106.
doi:10.1177/026553229701400105
296
発行日 2014 年 3 月 31 日
ISSN 2186-8220
発行者立教大学英語ディスカッション教育センター
〒171-8501
東京都豊島区西池袋 3－34－1 6 号館 5F
電話 03-3985-4051
編者 Tim Doe
Stephen Hurling
Yukiyo Kamada
Matthew Livingston
Takako Moroi
製作・印刷立教プリンティングステーション
〒171-8501
東京都豊島区西池袋 3-34-1 立教大学池袋キャンパス 5 号館 1F
電話 03-3985-2955・FAX 03-3985-3964

New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion - Volume 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion - Volume 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion - Volume 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright©2014 Center for English Discussion Class

SECTION 1 – English Discussion Class

Japanese University Students' Perceptions of Native

Instructors’ Views on EDC Class Size ................................................................................ 21

SECTION TWO – Teaching Journals

The Communication Skills of “Good Language Learners”

Strategies to Deal with Reticent Classes ........................................................................... 57

Why Code-switch? An Analysis of EDC Students’ L1 Use during Discussion .................... 64

Collaborative Paraphrasing and Willingness to Communicate in English Discussion ...... 76

“I don’t care” – the Crossfire in the EDC Classroom ......................................................... 83

Can Motivation Be Disruptive? .......................................................................................... 94

An Attempt to Help and Introverted Student to Join a Group Discussion ........................ 98

Language Anxiety, Tension, and the Fashioning of L2 Selves ......................................... 103

Targeting and Teaching Appropriate Vocabulary:

Effective Ways to Reduce L1 Usage and Raise L2 Usage ................................................ 115

Examining for the 3/2/1 Minutes Fluency Activity

Reflections on Willingness to Communicate in an EDC Classroom ................................ 135

Japanese L1 Use in a University EFL Communicative Classroom: Purpose, Function and

Attempting to Increase Function Phrase Use

Checking for Understanding: A Reflective Analysis of a Teaching Journal ..................... 155

To What Extent Can We Allow Students to Use L1 in EDC? ............................................ 162

Why Do Students Use Japanese? .................................................................................... 174

An Examination of Extreme Shyness in EDC Classes ...................................................... 181

Accounting for Learners’ Positive Behavior Using

SECTION THREE – Classroom Activities

Using Written Feedback to Facilitate Self-Regulation .................................................... 204

Introducing Reaction Phrases to be an Active Listener .................................................. 213

Developing Learner Autonomy through Self-Assessment Activities .............................. 221

Goal-Oriented Self-Checklists: Principles, Practice & Evaluation ................................... 250

SECTION FOUR – Classroom Research

The Effects of Pre-task Planning Time on Japanese L2 Discussion Students’ Learner

To determine whether these increases were significant, two repeated measures

New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion

Willingness to Communicate Questionnaire Items (Japanese)

Confidence to Communicate in English Questionnaire (English Translation)

Table 1. GTEC Scores* of the Subjects

Table 2. GTEC Scores of the Subjects

Table 3. Q21. My teacher is energetic.

Table 4. Q22. My teacher grades consistently.

Table 5. Q34. My teacher is humorous.

Table 6. Q37. My teacher does not show favoritism.

Table 7. Q28. My teacher is strict.

Table 8. Q30. My teacher is very formal.

Table 9. Q6. My teacher uses effective teaching methods.

Table 10. Q19. My teacher is cheerful.

Table 11. Q24. My teacher is interesting.

Table 12. Q31. My teacher is fun.

15. My teacher ensures that students actively participate.

Current Class Size

Why “8” Works

Figure 2. Total responses for each item.

“Small class size allows us to monitor closely and to maintain an English-only

Section 2: Reasons for EDC’s popularity among students

Section 3: Effectiveness of 9-student classes

are typical of this section:

“By far the biggest problem is monitoring. It is difficult to hear 3 X 3-student

Section 4: 10-student classes under the current curriculum

Section 5: Necessary curriculum adjustments for 10-student classes