The School House The Newsletter of the JALT Junior and Senior High School Special

Interest Group 中学・高校外国語教育研究部会

IN THIS ISSUE 3. Robert Morel: From the Editor

Articles 4. David Ockert: Japanese JHS Students’ Willingness to Communicate: Dyads,

Meetings, Public Speaking and With Strangers

13. Aaron Hahn: L1 and test preparation in the ESL writing class

25. JALT Junior Conference Report: Jake Arnold (SIG Coordinator)

27. The Chalkboard: Upcoming Events

29. Submission Guidelines

ISSN 1881-0713

Volume 20, Issue 2

The School House

2

The School House

Coordinator Jake Arnold jakearnold@yahoo.com

Treasurer Sonoko Ogawa sonocomoco@hotmail.com

Program Chair Paul Nanton pnanton@gmail.com

Membership Chair Piers Marsh piersm@gmail.com

Publications Chair Robert Morel rcmorel@gmail.com

Volume 20, Issue 2

Editor Robert Morel

Kosei Girls’ Junior and Senior

High School

Junior Senior High School SIG Executive Board

3

From the Editor Welcome back to The School House. I’m happy to say that after a bit of a bump in our publishing schedule, we are back on track! The end of the school year is a busy time for everyone and I hope that the year wrapped up well for you all and that you have time for a much deserved break before starting the new term in April. This issue, we have an article by David Ocert examining what factors influence student’s willingness to communicate in English and some suggestions on how we can help students communicate more. Looking at writing in the high-school classroom, Aaron Hahn looks into the benefits and drawbacks of using Japanese to give student instructions. Both articles are especially worth a look for teachers concerned with student communication and L1/L2 use in class. Also, there are a number of events coming up before the new school year starts, so be sure to check out The Chalkboard (p. 27). Finally, if you are a junior or senior high school teacher, or a teacher in a different setting interested in writing an article, lesson plan, review, or other article for The School House, please contact us. The School House exists not only to spread information about teaching, but also to help teachers develop their research skills, awareness of issues in class, and writing. With that in mind, we can help teachers develop an article from the early stages on. So if you have an idea, let’s hear it! Robert Morel Editor As always, The School House is on the lookout for submissions. If you are interested in submitting an article, review, or other writing, please e-mail me at <rcmorel@gmail.com>.

RobertMorel

The School House

4

Japanese JHS students’ willingness to communicate: dyads, meetings, public speaking and with strangers David Ockert Nagano City Board of Education In the November/December issue of The Language Teacher, internationally renowned author and educator Jack Richards commented that “Affect refers to a number of emotional factors that may influence language learning and language use” (Richards, 2012, p. 49). These emotions may range from excitement and enthusiasm to boredom, stress and anxiety. The first two are commonly found in extroverted students everywhere, while the latter three are very often present in introverted and reticent Japanese students. In addition, the latter may hinder students desire to communicate in English. As Richards (2012) mentions, “Two important aspects of affect are anxiety and willingness to communicate.” (p. 49). Therefore, this paper reports the results from a willingness to communicate (WTC; McCroskey & Baer, 1985) survey, which tests for perceived Anxiety (nervousness), WTC and Confidence or perceived competence (see Hashimoto, 2002, p. 57) for 30 scenarios requiring the use of English. It has been found that “both language anxiety and perceived competence influence(d) WTC” (Hashimoto, 2002, p. 40). The results for this study reveal a low level of Confidence to speak English, WTC in English, and a high degree of Anxiety about using English in various contexts and with different types of receivers. Finally, a regression analysis determined whether Confidence and / or Anxiety are predictors of WTC amongst the students of JHS age and English learning level. The data presented herein indicate that Confidence has a strong impact on student WTC and are consistent with the results of research involving Japanese in high school (Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004) and university students (Hashimoto, 2002; Heffernan & Otoshi, 2011). The results and implications are discussed. Willingness to communicate The willingness to communicate (WTC) construct was first presented by McCroskey & Baer (1985). Since then, McCroskey and his associates have researched and reported extensively on WTC and the implications for second language (L2) learning (McCroskey, 1992; McCroskey & Richmond, 1987, 1991). WTC captures the major implications that

5

affective variables such as anomie (personal unrest, feelings of alienation and/or anxiety that come from lack of purpose or ideals), communication apprehension, introversion, reticence, self-esteem and shyness have in regards to their influence on communicative behavior (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991), resulting in the individual’s “readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2” according to MacIntyre, Clement, Dörnyei and Noels (1998, p. 547). McCroskey (1992) has broken down the interactions into contexts (public, meeting, group and dyad) and receiver (stranger, acquaintance and friend). In his research, the results for the various contexts differed by culture (McCroskey, 1992, pp. 19-20). Yashima and her associates have conducted research on WTC in the JEFL context. For example, the relationships between motivational orientations, motivation and proficiency (Yashima, 2000) and the relationship between motivation and willingness to communicate amongst university students (Yashima, 2002); the influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and L2 communication amongst high school students (Yashima et al., 2004); and the interplay of classroom anxiety, intrinsic motivation, and gender amongst university students (Yashima et al., 2009). In her 2002 study, Yashima found a positive, causal relationship between a latent variable, motivation (which was comprised of two indicator variables, desire and intensity) and the latent variable communication confidence (comprised of two indicator variables - communication anxiety, aka nervousness, and perceived communication competence) in the L2, which led to WTC. In addition, Yashima (2004) found that “self-confidence in communication in an L2 is crucial for a person to be willing to communicate in that L2” (p. 141). The role of Confidence as a predictor variable for WTC has also been found by Hashimoto (2002), Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide & Shimizu, (2004). In addition, Matsuoka’s (2004, 2005) results indicate that while WTC and proficiency are not correlated, confidence may predict English proficiency amongst Japanese college students. Since it remains the goal of The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT; 2003) “To develop students’ basic communication abilities such as listening, speaking, reading and writing, deepening their understanding of language and culture and fostering a positive attitude toward communication through foreign languages” (p. 1), the research results presented herein may help educators better understand exactly what students’ attitudes are toward English language based on context and audience.

The School House

6

The current study examines Japanese JHS students’ levels of Anxiety, Confidence and WTC to use English in various communication contexts (dyads, small groups, meetings and public speaking) and three types of receivers (strangers, acquaintances and friends; see Barraclough, Christophel & McCroskey, 1988; McCroskey, 1992; and McCroskey & Baer, 1985). In addition, a regression analysis will determine to what extent either Confidence and / or Anxiety are predictors of WTC. Methods Participants The participants were 142 second year Japanese students at a junior high school in Nagano City, Japan. Two surveys were discarded since they were incomplete; the final sample consisted of 68 male and 72 female (N=140) students. Students were either 13 or 14 years old with the majority having reached 14 years at the time the surveys were administered. Instrument The WTC survey consists of three sections. The first section uses a 6-point Likert scale to test for confidence and asks the students to rate 30 scenarios related to using English in various circumstances from 1 (I absolutely don't think I could do that) to 6 (I think I could do that easily). The second section tests for nervousness and asks the students to rate the same scenarios from 1 (I would definitely not be nervous) to 6 (I'd be extremely nervous). The third section, for desire (to communicate in English), asks the respondents to rate the same scenarios from 1 (If I could, I'd run away!) to 6 (I would absolutely want to try that!). The surveys were translated into Japanese. Back-translation was used to determine the accuracy of the translation. The English and Japanese language surveys are in Appendices A and B, respectively. The WTC survey for this project was adapted from Matsuoka (2004), which was adapted from Sick et al. (2002). It has three sections, which test for Confidence, Anxiety and WTC. These sub-sections are similar to those developed and used by Barraclough, Christophel and McCroskey (1988), McCroskey, (1992), McCroskey and Baer (1985) and McCroskey and Richmond (1987; 1991).

7

Procedures The surveys were completed during regular class time in March, 2011. Student participation was voluntary and anonymous. The questionnaires were completed without a time limit. Both the SDT and the WTC surveys were completed in Japanese. The students were asked to provide their age and gender only. All students agreed to participate in the study. Grades were not affected by participating in the project. Results Means, standard deviations, correlation coefficients and Cronbach’s alpha of the WTC survey challenging items are presented in Table 1. These individual items are the four with the least amount of Confidence and WTC, and the most Anxiety. For these results, Confidence and WTC are in tandem: the higher the score, the more the participants endorse possessing this trait. On the other hand, for Anxiety, a low score indicates a low amount of this variable. In other words, low Anxiety and high Confidence and WTC scores are ideal. These results reveal four scenarios that are particularly difficult or emotionally challenging for these students: Item 17, Greet a group of medical professionals who came from the United States to visit your school; item 19, Stand in front of your class and talk about your memories of your summer vacation for two minutes; item 21, Take a small number of English speaking people sightseeing in Tokyo for one day; and item 30, Participate in an English language speech contest for Japanese students. Judges are native speakers. Not surprisingly, these scenarios involve speaking in public, in a group and with strangers. Table 1. The WTC survey sub-section Cronbach's alpha and challenging items’ Mean and SD (N=140)

Individual item statements Confidence Anxiety WTC (Whole sub-section Cronbach’s alpha) (.94) (.96) (.93) 17 Greet a group of medical professionals who came from the United States to visit your school.

2.00 [1.40] 4.78 [1.61] 1.77 [1.33]

19 Stand in front of your class and talk about your memories of your summer vacation for two minutes.

2.21 [1.28] 4.27 [1.71] 1.94 [1.15]

21 Take a small number of English speaking people sightseeing in Tokyo for one day.

1.96 [1.34] 4.48 [1.65] 1.98 [1.38]

30 Participate in an English language speech contest for Japanese students. Judges are native speakers.

1.80 [1.24] 4.64 [1.81] 1.64 [1.16]

In order to test the construct validity of the WTC survey scales, a principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted to test if the items on the three scales would cluster into sub-components as factors, hypothetically by either the context (public or private) or partner (dyad or group). Unfortunately, the scree plot indicated that two components

The School House

8

could be extracted; three components accounted for more than 50% of the variance; and seven components had eigen values greater than one. Additionally, the rotated component matrix failed to converge in 25 iterations. These results indicate that a more detailed attempt will have to be made to account for the internal validity of the instrument. The correlation matrix of Confidence, Anxiety and WTC can be seen in Table 2. Table 2. The correlation matrix of the three affective variables (N=140)

Mean SD Confidence Anxiety WTC

(Cronbach’s alpha) (.94) (.96) (.91)

1 Confidence 2.66 1.52 1

2 Anxiety 3.78 1.68 -.41* 1

3 WTC 2.34 1.38 .73* -.36 1

*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

In order to determine the antecedents of WTC to communicate in English, a regression analysis with WTC as the dependent variable was undertaken. Confidence and Anxiety were the independent variables. The only independent variable showing a significant predictive influence on WTC was Confidence, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. The result of regression analysis on WTC, confidence and anxiety (dependent variable: WTC)

Step Variables entered R squared beta t P

1 Confidence .53 .53 9.86 .000

Discussion and conclusions The students surveyed for this research project indicated a reluctance to use English in dyads with native speakers, and in front of a group, whether the group is made up of their peers or native speakers of English. Yet, previous results in the above mentioned studies have also shown that Japanese students are strongly motivated to learn English. Additional questions might ask, “Why would they hesitate to use their language skills in certain situations?” and “What can educators do to alleviate nervousness, increase confidence and desire to use English under similar conditions?” For example, in Yashima’s (2002) study, no significant path was found from L2 learning motivation to

9

WTC. However, a significant path (.41) was found from motivation to L2 communication confidence. Future research questions might inquire as to what type of activities the students enjoy and what, if any, correlations exist between Confidence, Anxiety, WTC and approaches to pedagogy in the EFL JHS classroom in Japan. In addition, another line of inquiry may show that the ability to increase student Confidence, and therefore WTC, may improve student spoken language fluency – a primary goal of the Japanese education system (MEXT, 2003). Teacher / facilitators may try and involve the students in ‘low-anxiety’ activities in pairs and one-on-one interviews with assistant language teachers (ALTs) to lower anxiety and gradually increase confidence, too. There are several limitations to the present study. First, the data presented herein is from self-reported surveys and not observations of actual behavior. Second, the students are all from the same school and therefore a sample of convenience. Therefore the results should not be generalized to Japanese JHS students; however, since the results are similar to those found by other researchers both in Japan and abroad, it can be taken that Confidence is the greatest predictor of WTC for this age group. Also, the students were not aggregated for gender in this study, but a future study could certainly take this into consideration. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank the students and teachers who helped with this research project; Bob Calfee for his assistance with the statistical analysis; and the members of JALT, as this project was made possible with the aid of a JALT Research Grant. Any errors are the author's. References Barraclough, R. A., Christophel, D. M., & McCroskey, J. C. (1988). Willingness to

communicate: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Research Reports, 5(2), 187-192.

Clement, R., Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. E. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The effects of context, norms and vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22(2), 190-209.

DGardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London, GB: 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.

The School House

10

Otoshi, J., & Heffernan, N. (2011, September). An analysis of a hypothesized model of EFL students’ motivation based on self-determination theory. The Asian EFL Journal, 12(3), 66-86.

MacIntyre, P. D., Clement, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.

Matsuoka, R. (2005). Willingness to communicate among Japanese college students. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics (pp. 165-176).

Matsuoka, R. (2004). Willingness to communicate in English among Japanese college students. In Proceedeings of the 9th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics (pp. 165-176).

McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly, 40, 16-25.

McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985, November). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey, & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129-156). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view. In M. Both-Butterfield (Ed.), Communication, cognition and anxiety (pp. 19–44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

MEXT. (2003). The course of study for lower secondary school. Retrieved on February 23, 2011 from <http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/03/17/1303755_013.pdf>

Richards, J. C. (2012). Some affective factors in Language teaching. The Language Teacher, 36(6), 49-50.

Sick, J. & Nagasaka, J. P. (2000). A test of your willingness to communicate in English (Japanese version): Unpublished questionnaire.

Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 55–66.

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, 119-152

11

Author Biodata David Ockert has a BA in Japanese and pre-law from James Madison College, Michigan State University and a MEd from Temple University. When not enjoying outdoor time with his family in Nagano, he enjoys classroom research and sharing the results with others. Appendix A. The WTC survey sub-section Cronbach’s alpha, item mean scores and standard deviations (N=140)

Sub-section affective variable tested (Whole sub-section Cronbach’s alpha)

Confidence* (.94)

Anxiety** (.96)

WTC* (.93)

1) Asking a Japanese teacher for a copy of an audio recording. 3.24 (1.36) 2.93 (1.39) 2.96 (1.29)

2) Complaining to a Japanese teacher that the speed of the listening test was too quick to catch. 2.85 (1.67) 3.18 (1.58) 2.58

(1.49)

3) Complaining to a native teacher that the speed of the listening test was too quick to catch. 2.36 (1.36) 3.68 (1.67) 2.17 (1.16)

4) Giving a reply for an American television program covering student life in Japan. 2.31 (1.37) 4.57 (1.59) 2.38 (1.64)

5) Making a telephone call in order to make a reservation at a hotel in English speaking country. 2.34 (1.36) 4.21 (1.58) 2.17

(1.22)

6) Interviewing a native English speaker for an article in the school paper. 3.17 (1.36) 3.62 (1.44) 2.71 (1.34)

7) Asking a pair work partner for the time now. 3.85 (1.70) 2.68 (1.43) 3.17 (1.44)

8) Speaking to a foreigner sitting next to you on the train. 2.16 (1.52) 4.24 (1.67) 2.09 (1.36)

9) Asking a native English speaking teacher the meaning of a word. 3.55 (1.47) 3.17 (1.44) 3.08 (1.34)

10) Making a phone call to invite a friend who can speak only English to a party. 2.44 (1.40) 3.69 (1.66) 2.34 (1.27)

11) Asking a native teacher for a handout given when you were absent from class. 3.05 (1.45) 3.16 (1.52) 2.70 (1.17)

12) Talking to your pair work partner about a TV program which you watched. 3.09 (1.66) 3.07 (1.55) 2.68 (1.43)

13) Stand in front of the entire class and talk about a TV program which you watched. 2.24 (1.33) 4.19 (1.73) 1.99 (1.31)

14) Helping a foreigner that looks troubled because he cannot read a restaurant menu. 2.66 (1.45) 4.06 (1.58) 2.54 (1.39)

15) Asking a foreigner for the time when you do not know it. 3.06 (1.60) 3.62 (1.57) 2.76 (1.36)

16) Help a troubled foreigner because he cannot understand what the salesclerk says at the supermarket. 2.61 (1.35) 3.96 (1.49) 2.58

(1.38)

17) Greet a group of medical professionals who came from the United States to visit your school. 2.00 (1.40) 4.78 (1.61) 1.77

(1.33)

18) In front of your class, answer a native teacher's questions about your trip during summer vacation. 2.34 (1.37) 4.19 (1.63) 2.08

(1.26)

19) Stand in front of your class and talk about your memories of your summer vacation for two minutes. 2.21 (1.28) 4.27 (1.71) 1.94

(1.15)

20) To buy a rare CD sold only overseas, call a CD store in the United States by telephone to order one. 2.39 (1.40) 4.19 (1.67) 2.21

(1.30)

21) Take a small number of English speaking people sightseeing in Tokyo for one day. 1.96 (1.34) 4.48 (1.65) 1.98 (1.38)

22) Call your host family and thank them for letting you stay with them. 2.55 (1.36) 4.09 (1.51) 2.54 (1.39)

23) Tell your pair work partner in English the way to a place using a map. 2.59 (1.45) 3.63 (1.53) 2.45 (1.28)

The School House

12

24) Say five English words which start with S to your pair work partner. 3.80 (1.68) 2.66 (1.52) 3.23 (1.54)

25) Ask a native English speaking teacher to copy a CD. 2.64 (1.37) 3.54 (1.58) 2.38 (1.13)

26) Ask the meaning of a word to a Japanese teacher using classroom English. 2.91 (1.35) 3.21 (1.49) 2.61 (1.15)

27) Stand and tell your entire class five words using classroom English. 2.61 (1.49) 3.81 (1.67) 2.11 (1.25)

28) Talk to your pair work partner about your memories of summer vacation for two minutes. 2.49 (1.40) 3.60 (1.68) 2.21 (1.32)

29) Help a foreigner who looks troubled at the station. 2.43 (1.35) 4.25 (1.61) 2.24 (1.34)

30) Participate in an English language speech contest for Japanese students. Judges are native speakers. 1.80 (1.24) 4.64 (1.81) 1.64

(1.16)

Adapted from Matsuoka (2004), which was adapted from Sick et al. (2002).

*The six lowest scores (in bold) indicate the scenarios in which students have the least amount of confidence and desire to speak.

**The six highest scores (in bold) indicate the scenarios in which the students would feel the most nervous and are in bold face.

13

L1 and test preparation in the ESL writing class

Aaron Hahn Fukuoka University The use of L1 is often rejected in TESOL literature, despite there being a lack of solid research confirming the benefits of such a course. This has lead to a number of countries implementing educational guidelines that discourage L1 use. In order to address concerns about whether or not this is a prudent course, this study examined the use of varying amounts of translation from L2 into L1 in Japanese high school writing courses. It was found that specific prescriptive rules, designed to improve student performance on high-stakes entrance tests, may not be adequately relayed if classes are taught primarily or exclusively in L2.

Introduction

The use of students’ native language in the second language classroom is often positioned in second language acquisition literature as something between an inconvenient necessity and a wholly undesirable thing to be avoided or outright banned. So naturalized is the rejection of L1 use that, in many cases, it is simply unmentioned, making it difficult for teachers and researchers to seriously contemplate its use (Cook, 2001). When the matter is discussed, it is often associated with stigmatized terms replete with gestures of moral judgment (Levine, 2003). Second language teachers are disciplined to not only reject L1, but to reject it so entirely that sometimes when we do use it we feel guilty (Cook, 2001), as if we have betrayed our ideals for pragmatism. While arguments denying the value of L1 in the EFL/ESL classroom tend to dominate our discussions, there is a counter-narrative which argues that there is a legitimate space for managed use of L1. Inclusion of L1 has been supported on a variety of grounds, such as concerns that L1 exclusion leads to demotivation (Stables and Wikeley, 1999) and evidence that limited use of L1 can enable students to more efficiently complete tasks while still engaging in meaningful L2 practice (Storch and Wigglesworth, 2003). While there has been some research done on measuring the amount of L1 used in classrooms (for example, Macaro, 2001) and on trying to tease out teacher motivations for including or excluding L1 (Gorsuch, 2000; Kang, 2007), there has not been much in the way of empirical research that directly examines the effects of L1 usage on L2 acquisition. A 2002 review article of research on L1 and L2 usage explicitly called for more

The School House

14

“process-product studies…to determine the relationship between teachers’ TL [target language] and L1 use and students’ TL proficiency and achievements” (Turnbull and Arnett, p. 212). While it is certainly true that isolating the effects of L1 usage among the countless variables involved in any given language teaching situation is nearly impossible, having at least some understanding of the consequences is necessary in order to make well-founded decisions in curriculum design. The present study aims to provide a small step towards answering this call by looking at the results of varied amounts of L1 instruction in high school English writing classes in Japan. This information may be particularly useful for practitioners in countries like Japan where the national government is attempting to compel teachers to use more English in EFL classes.

National language policy and L1

Teachers in public schools are not necessarily free to make their own decisions about how much or when to use L1. The educational policies of a number of countries explicitly require (or at least encourage) decreasing or eliminating L1 use from foreign language classrooms (Macaro, 2001; Nunan, 2003). However, as Gorsuch (2000) explains, national educational policies often have less to do with the improvement of education based upon sound research than they do with political expediency. In 2009, for the fourth time in the last several decades, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) modified the Course of Study, which is a national curricula that public schools are expected to follow. The high school guidelines come fully into effect in April 2013, and involve major changes to many subjects, including a complete reorganization of the high school English curriculum. For example, whereas courses were previously divided by skill type (e.g., Oral Communications, English grammar/reading, and Writing courses), the new curriculum requires integration of all four skills into each class (MEXT 2008; Tahira 2012). One of the changes causing significant consternation among high school English teachers, and the most relevant to the present discussion, states, “When taking into consideration the characteristics of each English subject, classes, in principle, should be conducted in English in order to enhance the opportunities for students to be exposed to English, transforming classes into real communication scenes” (MEXT, 2008, Article 3.1). Despite the strident message, it has been reported that MEXT’s actual intention isn’t nearly as absolute. At a talk hosted by Eigo Kyoiku (a Japanese magazine about English teaching), a MEXT official stated that there are appropriate times for the use of Japanese in the classroom, such as when explaining the rules of English grammar (Tahira, 2012, p. 6).

15

This advice, however, has not been transformed into official guidelines or directives and made available directly to classroom teachers. Since such advice would only be the very beginnings of articulating an actual methodology balancing L1 and L2 usage, many teachers are at a loss as to how to proceed. Previous studies have shown that one of the reasons that teachers and schools in Japan don’t follow the Course of Study as written is that they lack training in the details of implementing CLT and other similar methodologies (Gorsuch, 2000; Fennelley and Luxton, 2011). Additionally, teachers sometimes legitimately disagree with MEXT changes due to concerns about their own English ability, the need to prepare students for university entrance exams, and beliefs about what students are capable of or willing to do (Brown and Wada, 1998; Taguchi, 2002). As a result, national level policy often fails to translate into classroom level change (Gorsuch, 2000); we can easily guess that the same is likely to happen with the new “English in principle” plan unless MEXT provides clear direction backed by research that demonstrates why this plan is better for students.

Research context

This study took place at a public, high-academic high school in Kyushu, Japan. “High-academic” refers to the fact that placement into the school via competitive entrance exams is difficult (the school is ranked as one of the top five public schools in its prefecture); it also refers to the fact that nearly all of the students go on to attend four-year universities. This school has approximately 400 students in each of three grades, with each grade divided into ten classes of about 40 students. Students are assigned to classes randomly—there is no grouping by academic level, though second and third year students are split between science majors (including hard sciences, engineering, and medicine) and humanities majors (including literature, English, history, and other non-science fields), with approximately 70% of students in the science track. Almost all of the English lessons at this school are conducted by Japanese Teachers of English (JTEs). These classes are generally taught in Japanese using the Grammar-Translation method. While one survey of high school teachers in another prefecture found that English was used approximately 40 per cent of the time (Brown & Wada, 1998), I would informally estimate that the teachers at this school spoke in English less than 20 per cent of the time.

The School House

16

I was the Assistant Language Teacher (ALT) at this school, working through the JET Programme. This program, organized by the national government, recruits native-English speakers from foreign countries to improve Japanese teachers’ English language ability and teaching skills, as well as to provide a person students are compelled to interact with in English (Gorsuch, 2002). ALTs always team-teach with a JTE for both legal and practical reasons. The present study drew data from a six-lesson sequence on writing English essays for the university entrance exams taught to second-year students during the 2011-2012 school year. While exam questions typically require students to write between 80 and 150 words in English, the course sequence began with two classes in the spring trimester which focused on shorter writing (40 word, single paragraph) under the presumption that students had probably written very little in English longer than a single sentence. The students also had to complete two practice mini-essays at home, which were commented on and returned to the students after summer break. In the fall trimester, students had three classes covering classification of common test essay types, a description of how essays are graded, qualities of successful essays, simple templates for organizing essays, and a step-by-step plan for how to manage their time during the test. The classes combined lecture-based prescriptive instruction with student practice and evaluation. While a practice-heavy process-oriented approach to essay writing is generally preferable, it was necessary for the lessons to be mostly prescriptive and product-oriented because of the very short time allotted, the extremely specific goal of improving student performance on the university entrance exam, the lack of prior exposure to English essay writing among students, and the predilections of the JTEs. After completion of the lesson sequence, in a class near the end of the fall term, we briefly reviewed the content of the five previous classes, and then students wrote a practice essay. We paused several times throughout the writing to remind students of some hints (though none that directly related to the research questions). The specific question assigned to students was as follows:

Mistakes and failures provide us with a chance to learn something new. In an English essay of about 80 words, write about one unforgettable mistake or failure that you have experienced and explain in detail what you have learned from it and its effects.

17

All ten of the classes were team-taught by me and one of four different JTEs. While the lessons plans were identical for the classes and they were primarily lead by me, the actual implementation of the lessons varied quite significantly based on the teaching style of each JTE. Teacher A translated over 90 per cent of what I said to the students (note that in all of the classes, I spoke almost entirely in English). He understood both the material and my explanations well enough to provide high-quality instantaneous translations. He believed that students did not have adequate listening ability to follow any of my explanations, and thus he needed to translate almost all of my words into Japanese. Rather than translate what I said, Teacher B usually attempted to elicit summaries of my explanations from the students, sometimes in English and sometimes in Japanese, choosing different ability levels of students depending on the particular point being covered. In cases where he did speak in L1, he only provided summaries rather than word for word translations. His stated goal was to make sure that the most critical information was conveyed to students in L1, while still attempting to encourage L2 listening practice. Teacher C was enthusiastic about trying new methods to improve student tests scores, but lacked experience with CLT and student centered classes. This made it difficult for him to reach the same level of L2 usage as Teacher B. He tried to elicit answers, but was less precise about matching students with question difficulty, and had more of a tendency to revert to translation than Teacher B. Teacher D had me teach the class mostly on my own, adding explanations in Japanese less than a third of the time of the other teachers. I did raise the issue that the lessons had been designed to require some translation, since the lessons were too difficult and too fast for the students to understand entirely in L2. However, he said that he wanted the students to practice listening, and either did not agree or understand my concerns or the focus of the class. Because of these differences, the amount of L1 used varied significantly. Teacher A’s three classes were approximately half English, half Japanese, and the students could understand everything even if they completely ignored or were unable to process the English. Teacher D’s two classes were over 80 per cent English, and students without

The School House

18

strong listening skills should have been at a disadvantage. Teacher B’s and C’s classes (two and three classes, respectively) were in between. This coincidental difference provided an opportunity to explore the effects of the mixed use of L1 and L2 by comparing the results of each teacher’s students on the final practice essay.

Hypothesis

Despite the radical differences in teaching style, it was hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between classes in terms of basic writing competency. Given that the sequence was only a total of 260 minutes and that it focused more on conceptual issues than basic writing skills, it seemed unlikely that there would be any substantive effects in the length of the essays in terms of words, sentences, or T-units, or that there would be any measurable difference in the number of lexicogrammatical errors across classes. Additionally, comparing error rates provided an indirect check on students’ underlying language ability, since a comprehensive measurement including listening ability was deemed impossible given time and school policy. On the other hand, it was hypothesized that there would be differences in some aspects of the essays for which explicit directives were given in class. One point in particular that was readily measurable was judging whether or not the students used multiple paragraphs in their essays. As mentioned, during the fall semester, students were provided essays templates which they were told to use to organize their essays; these templates explicitly required the use of multiple paragraphs.1 Based on the templates, for this description essay, students should have used at least two paragraphs—one to describe the mistake or failure, and a second to describe what they had learned from that mistake or failure. An introductory paragraph was optional in the template for this question type. Thus, students who understood, remembered, and followed the template, and who had sufficient time and ability to answer both parts of the question should have used either two or three paragraphs in their essay. By measuring whether or not students used paragraphs, and comparing the success rate between the teachers, this study sought to determine the consequences of using varying amounts of translation to L1 in the classroom. It was hypothesized that there would be a direct correlation between the amount of L1 the students received and their use of paragraphs in their final assignment. Under this hypothesis, students learning from Teacher A should have had the largest amount of paragraph use and those with Teacher D should have had the least. The performance of students with the mixed-use Teachers B

19

and C were hypothesized to fall somewhere in the middle.

Results

Of the 400 students enrolled in the second grade, 391 completed the practice essay assignment at the end of the course sequence. Of those, 37 responses were too short to determine whether or not students used paragraphs (the majority of these were under 40 words). The remaining essays (N = 354) were hand-counted for number of words, sentences, and T-units. Average results aggregated by instructor are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Counts combined by teacher

Teacher Number of scored responses

Average number of words

Average number of sentences

Average number of

T-units

A 99 67.14 5.591 6.389

B 72 73.00 6.424 7.118

C 111 69.60 5.978 6.887

D 72 68.51 6.688 7.340

The students in Teacher A’s classes had the lowest average number of words, sentences, and T-units. Two-tailed unpaired t-tests were computed to determine for which pairs of teachers the differences in counts were statistically significant;2 those results are summarized in Table 2. The only pairs for which the differences were significant were for all three measurements for the pairing of A and B, for sentence and T-unit counts for the pairing of A and D, and for number of sentences for the pairing of C and D. In addition, when Teacher A is compared to the other three teachers combined the difference between the number of sentences and T-units written are both statistically significant (p = 0.0127 and 0.0036, respectively).

Table 2. p values for unpaired t-tests for three counts

Pairing Words Sentences T-units

A + B *0.0149* *0.026* *0.0147*

A + C 0.2506 0.0965 0.0544

A + D 0.5670 *0.001* *0.0014*

B + C 0.1562 0.1052 0.4660

The School House

20

B + D 0.0779 0.4313 0.5401

C + D 0.6497 *0.0130* 0.1500

In order to measure the lexicogrammatical level of the students, the number of grammatical, vocabulary, and spelling errors in each essay were recorded. Table 3 contains the average error rate per word, sentence, and T-unit, and Table 4 compares the teachers to look for statistically significant differences. Only three pairings (Teachers A and C and Teachers A and D in errors per sentence and Teachers A and B in errors per T-unit) were statistically significant. In addition, when Teacher A is compared with the other three teachers combined, errors per sentence (p = 0.0033) and errors per T-unit (p = 0.0231) were both statistically significant.

Table 3. Average error rates by teacher

Teacher Number of errors Errors per word Errors per sentence

Errors per T-unit

A 10.505 0.159 1.951 1.688

B 10.402 0.146 1.736 1.581

C 9.649 0.143 1.673 1.467

D 10.597 0.158 1.622 1.472

Table 4. p values for unpaired t-tests for comparisons of error rates

Pairing Words Sentences T-units

A + B 0.2001 0.1034 0.3426

A + C 0.0562 *0.0106* *0.0193*

A + D 0.9368 *0.0112* 0.0516

B + C 0.6638 0.5754 0.2756

B + D 0.3176 0.3922 0.3732

C + D 0.1279 0.6468 0.9546

Table 5 compares the students based on whether or not they used multiple paragraphs. Here, we can see a very clear distinction. More than half of Teacher A’s students who completed an essay used multiple paragraphs, whereas only about one third of the rest of the students did. Comparisons of the use of paragraphs using Fischer’s exact test show a statistically significant difference between Teacher A and each of the three other teachers

21

(p values of 0.005, 0.004, 0.003 for comparisons with B, C, and D, respectively) as well as when comparing A to the other three teachers combined (p < 0.0001).3

Table 5. Students by paragraph

Teacher Responses with paragraphs

Responses without paragraphs

Percentage with paragraphs

A 55 44 55.56%

B 24 48 33.33%

C 28 83 33.73%

D 23 49 31.94%

Analysis

The results suggest that consistent use of L1 to explain all necessary portions of the lesson had a strong positive effect on the students’ adherence to at least one aspect of the instruction. Since use of multiple paragraphs likely correlates with a higher test score, students who had Teacher A could be said to be better prepared for the free composition portion of the university entrance exams. Extending that logic in the context of the upcoming curriculum changes in Japan, compelling teachers to teach primarily in L2 may have negative consequences on entrance exam preparation. Note that Gorsuch (2000) found that the need to prepare for university entrance exams was the number one factor influencing teachers to not adapt previous MEXT changes, and we can imagine a similar result now. The data does not indicate, however, any particular advantage for the mixed use classrooms compared to the nearly “English only” classroom (Teachers B and C versus Teacher D), at least with respect to this one measurement. So while the hypothesis that Teacher A’s students would follow the explicit instructions to use paragraphs more often than those who had less L1 instruction was confirmed, the further hypothesis that those who received a medium level of L1 would do better than those with who received very little was not. However, there is a converse concern with respect to the students’ error rates and length of responses. Not only was there no positive benefit in lexicogrammatical performance with reference to receiving more L1 input, there was a negative correlation in some of the

The School House

22

teacher pairings. Teacher A’s students wrote significantly fewer sentences and T-units, and also had higher error rates per sentence and T-unit than students in the other three teacher’s classes. It is highly unlikely that the exposure to five classes of English without a corresponding translation (especially since Teachers B and C provided or elicited partial translations) somehow improved student lexicogrammatical ability. Students in all classes completed the same amount of writing practice and received the same amount of written feedback; in other words, even though students in Teacher A’s classes received relatively less L2 verbal input, they didn’t receive any less written input or produce less writing during the lessons. It is possible, though, that there is a larger difference between these teachers in how they teach the rest of the writing classes that is affecting student performance. Perhaps Teacher A routinely gives students the answers’ rather than allowing them to work them out themselves, resulting in slower development towards grammatical accuracy. Alternatively, it may simply be that the students in those classes began with a lower average level of English writing ability. While a longitudinal study that measured students’ change in performance over time would ideally help answer this question, this would not be practical in a public high school due to restrictions placed by administrators on what research can be conducted, as well as the fact that students are exposed to a number of different instructors of the course of several years, making any multi-year data highly noisy

Discussion

In one sense, these results are not surprising—students who are given explicit instruction about a particular point in their native language are of course more likely to remember and utilize that point. At the same time, there is no doubt that English classes in Japan do need more English—it is likely that most researchers would agree that teaching English classes 60-90 percent in Japanese is less effective than using at least some communicative work in English. But the transition needs to be done carefully, particularly if there are no corresponding changes to high stakes tests such as university entrance exams. Whenever teachers, schools, or even national governments seek to alter the L1/L2 balance, they need to take into account the entire language learning system and educational culture. To enable better decisions founded in actual data rather than just theory, more research is needed—ideally longitudinal research involving a wide variety of students—that can help us answer the questions of when and how to use L1 in the EFL classroom.

23

Notes

1.While the instructions for the test questions do not explicitly require the use of paragraphs, and no grading criteria are released by the universities, the recommendation to use paragraphs was based upon methods I had used while teaching at a test prep school in the United States. The argument is that essays which are broken into paragraphs are easier to understand for the grader and are perceived as more organized, and thus will receive a higher score. 2. t-tests were calculated using the GraphPad QuickCalcs Web site, http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/ttest1.cfm 3. Fischer’s exact tests were calculated using the GraphPad QuickCalcs website, http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/contingency1.cfm

References

Browne, C., & M. Wada. 1998. Current issues in high school English teaching in Japan: An exploratory study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 11, 97–112.

Cook, V. 2001. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivante, 57, 402-23.

Fennelly, M. and R. Luxton. 2011. Are they ready? On the verge of compulsory English, elementary school teachers lack confidence. The Language Teacher, 35(2), 19–24.

Gorsuch, G. 2000. EFL educational policies and educational cultures: Influences on teachers’ approval of communicative activities. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 675–710.

Gorsuch, G. 2002. Assistant foreign language teachers in Japanese high schools: Focus on the hosting of Japanese teachers. JALT Journal, 24. 5–32.

Kang, D.-K. 2007. The classroom language of a Korean elementary school teacher: Another look at TETE. System, 36, 214-26.

Levine, G. 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, 343-64.

Macaro, M. 2001. Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 531-48.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT). 2008. The course of study for secondary school. Tokyo: Mombusho. English translation of

The School House

24

Section 8 on Foreign Languages available from MEXT at http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/youryou/eiyaku/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/11/1298353_9.pdf.

Nunan, D. 2003. The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 589–613.

Stables, A. and F. Wikeley. 1999. From bad to worse? Pupils’ attitudes to modern foreign languages at ages 14 and 15. Language Learning Journal, 20, 27-31.

Storch, N. and G. Wigglesworth. 2003. Is There a Role for the Use of the L1 in an L2 Setting?. TESOL Quarterly , 37, 760-70.

Taguchi, N. 2002. Implementing oral communication classes in upper secondary schools: A case study. The Language Teacher Online, 26(12). Retrieved from http://www.jalt-publications.org/old_tlt/articles/2002/12/taguchi (accessed 9 April 2012).

Tahira, M. 2012. Behind MEXT’s new Course of Study Guidelines. The Language Teacher, 36, 3-8.

Turnbull, M. and K. Arnett. 2002. Teachers’ uses of the target language and first languages in second and foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 204-18.

Aaron Hahn will be an Associate Professor at Fukuoka University beginning in spring, 2013. He holds a Master's degree in Rhetoric and Writing Studies: Teaching of Writing from San Diego State University in California. His research interests include the process of training and identity formation for new JET ALTs, the intersection of gender and second language instruction, and the connections between research in TESOL and Rhetoric/Basic Writing for native speakers.

25

JALT Junior / Senior High School SIG National Conference Report

The Junior / Senior High School SIG, along with the Teaching Children SIG, was once again involved in the organization and running of the JALT Junior part of the JALT National Conference. It was a good conference for the SIG as we had a lot of space in a good position and plenty of people came. Also, the quality of the presentations (at least the ones I saw) was extremely high and the level of enthusiasm for change and development was infectious. Conference goers left with a good impression of our group and a more positive attitude towards junior and senior high school teaching in general. We were lucky to have a large space this year in which to set up our table and the position of this lobby between the elevator and the presentation rooms meant that a lot of JALT Junior participants made their way past at some point during the day. We were therefore able to let lots of people know more about what the SIG is and what we do, give out flyers for our February teacher development event, and collect names of people interested in joining the SIG. We had a space for a discussion wall, on which participants could post comments on threads and the world champion balloon artist made a balloon sculpture to brighten things up. The main theme of this year’s junior / senior high school related presentations was the implementation of the new Course of Study in high school next year. How this implementation can be realized is obviously an important issue in schools all over Japan at this time. There were presentations showing how change had been implemented, highlighting the difficulties and some of the techniques that were used to encourage, and sometimes even force change. Data showing that a more communicative approach actually improved test scores for trial classes was revealed. Mombusho accredited textbooks were again under attack for having all their instructions in Japanese and focusing too heavily on grammar rather than meaning. We also learnt about teacher training in which teachers become students again to try and better understand how we learn and how we should be teaching!

Our Balloon Girl!

The Discussion Wall

The School House

26

The SIG’s two main events – our AGM and the Forum - were very active, if not massively well attended! Discussion at the AGM resulted in the election of our new membership chair, Piers Marsh. Welcome on board Piers! There was also some discussion about a collaborative event between the Teaching Children SIG and the JSHS SIG. With our own Teacher Development event with Tokai upcoming in February and our increased involvement  in  the  PAN  SIG  Conference  next  year,  we  realized  we  don’t  have  the  person-­‐power  to  pull  

off  another  event  but  a  joint  event  with  the  Teaching  Children  SIG  is  

something  to  think  about  for  the  future!  Our  90  minute  Forum,  "Putting  

language  policy  into  practice  effectively"  was  a  lively,  sometimes  heated,  

presentation  and  discussion,  again  about  the  implementation  of  the  Course  

of  Study,  focusing  on  the  need  for  collaboration  between  teachers  in  order  to  push  forward  change  in  

our  classrooms.  

 

So,  all  in  all,  a  successful  conference  for  the  SIG  and  for  the  junior  and  senior  teachers  who  attended.  

We  look  forward  to  next  year’s  JALT  Junior  in  Kobe  in  November.  

 

     

The SIG Table

27

The Chalkboard (upcoming events)

Saturday, March 2

Teaching Guidelines

Time: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Speaker: Aurora Dobashi

Organization: Filipino English Teachers in Japan (Nagoya)

Location: Okazaki City, Aichi Prefecture

Saitama 2 Teaching Guidelines Seminar

Time: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Speaker: Aurora Dobashi Lori Ligon Armano Simbulas

Organization: Filipino English Teachers in Japan (Saitama)

Location: Fujimino City, Saitama Prefecture

Sunday, March 3

Digital Illustration Workshop

Time: 10:00 AM - 11:30 AM

Speaker: Paul Richardson

Organization: The Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators (SCBWI) Tokyo

Location: Tokyo, Tokyo Metropolis

Monday, March 4

Teaching Speaking English

Time: 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM

Speaker: Thomas Santos, Regional English Language Officer, Embassy of United States Embassy in Seoul

Organization: Japan Association for Language Education and Technology

Location: Fukuoka City, Fukuoka Prefecture

Wednesday, March 6

ELT Chat on Twitter

Time: 9:00 PM - 10:00 PM

Speaker: Group discussion on Twitter

Organization: ELTChat

Location: Online, Online (Online Event)

The School House

28

Saturday, March 9

Between a rock and a hard place: What are our students doing on Facebook and YouTube?

Time: 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM

Speaker: Neil Millington

Organization: Kitakyushu Chapter of the Japan Association for Language Teaching

Location: Kitakyushu City, Fukuoka Prefecture

Sunday, March 10

APRICOT Plaza 2013: 15th Anniversary (Tokyo)

Time: 11:15 AM - 4:50 PM

Speaker: Mikiko Nakamoto, Yukako Manta, Kierryn Bowring, Kyoko Uchiyama, and Kidzania Tokyo

Organization: Apricot Publishing

Location: Tokyo, Tokyo Metropolis

Sunday, March 17

ETJ Tokyo workshop (March)

Time: 1:00 PM - 5:00 PM

Speaker: tbc

Organization: ETJ Tokyo (English Teachers in Japan)

Location: Tokyo, Tokyo Metropolis

Saturday, March 30

Presentation by Keiko Koda

Time: 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM

Speaker: Keiko Koda (Carnegie Mellon University)

Organization: Fukuoka Chapter of the Japan Association for Language Teaching

Location: Fukuoka City, Fukuoka Prefecture

Sunday, March 31

'What Should Every EFL Teacher Know?': A Morning with Paul Nation (Tokyo)

Time: 9:00 AM - 11:45 AM

Speaker: Paul Nation

Organization: Compass Publishing Japan

Location: Tokyo, Tokyo Metropolis

29

The School House Call for Papers All submissions and/or inquiries should be made to Robert Morel: rcmorel@gmail.com Features Featured articles should relate to junior and/or senior high school English education in Japan. They should be well designed and researched. The Plan This segment is designed for teachers to present lesson activities that they have found to be successful in their junior or senior high school classes. Include reasons why the lesson activity was devised, observed results of the lesson activity, and if possible any information regarding EFL theory that applies to the activity. Classroom Theory How different areas of EFL theory can be applied to junior and senior high school English pedagogy. Articles should be well designed and researched. Autoethnography Column “Insider ethnography” that combines teachers’ personal experiences with research. Unlike other submissions, articles should be sent to mitsmail1@gmail.com Connected Classroom Articles that focus on different technologies incorporated into classroom lessons, such as PowerPoint presentations, web-sites, blogs, etc. Conference Reviews Reviews of conferences or individual presentations. Book and Commentary Reviews of textbooks. Teacher resource books, audio resources, etc. The Chalkboard This segment provides information on conferences, speeches, workshops, and so on that our members are involved in or that pertains to junior high and senior high school EFL education.