How to evaluate lls

The 32nd
Thailand TESOL
International Conference
Proceedings 2012
“Teacher Collaboration:
Shaping the Classroom of
the Future”
January 27-28, 2012
Imperial Queen’s Park Hotel
Bangkok, Thailand

I
President’s note
ThaiTESOL would like to welcome you to the Proceedings of the 32nd
ThailandTESOL
International Conference 2012 “Teacher Collaboration: Shaping the Classroom of the
Future”, held in Bangkok on 27-28 January 2012.
All the selected articles in the Proceedings this year have been peer-reviewed and edited by
our competent reviewers and editors. First of all, Rushita Ismail and Sarjit Kaur analyzed
the use of circumlocution strategies among ESL Malaysian learners at the intermediate high
and intermediate low levels of English oral proficiency in a university context. Secondly,
Mizuka Tsukamoto reported on the result of the questionnaire on how the students felt in her
target language-maximised classroom. Elizabeth Yoshikawa’s study will then suggest how
both the classroom pedagogy and in class activities could increase intrinsic motivation among
non-English major university students. Margaret M. Lieb described a language and culture
course, its design and implementation that sought to seek the issues of language and culture
in the globalized world. Hooshang Yazdani and Nahid Serajipour analyzed argument
structure in Iranian EFL student’s persuasive writing. Interestingly, Thomas Hamilton,
Richard Watson Todd, and Nuttanart Facundes examined two types of spelling errors
which had been largely overlooked in previous research and investigated how the potential
sources of interference might play a role in the errors. Thanin Kong-in investigated the
theory and the description of intonation in terms of its authentic phonetic and phonological
properties. Yasuo Nakatani critically discussed the evaluation methods of EFL learners’
strategy use. Last but not least, Yuka Ishikawa explored gender-discriminatory language and
gender-stereotyped images in Japanese junior high school English textbooks.
I would like to thank all the reviewers for their contributions to the review process. Many
thanks to the Proceedings Chair and the Editor for evaluating and editing these articles with
commitment and dedication. All these efforts from ThaiTESOL community make the
conference and proceedings a success.
Sincerely,
Nopporn Sarobol
President, ThaiTESOL

II
Editor’s note
Each year, the Annual International Thailand TESOL Conference brings together language
teaching practitioners and researchers from different countries. Not only does the conference
serve as a thriving forum for a wide range of thought-provoking and stimulating presentations
and workshops, but it also creates a convivial conference atmosphere.
We are delighted to inform our readership and contributors that the Proceedings of the 32nd
Annual International Thailand TESOL Conference 2012 are now available online. Under the
conference theme of Teacher Collaboration: Shaping the Classroom of the Future, the
Proceedings feature nine articles in which contributors share their rich teaching and research
experiences from a variety of socio-cultural contexts. This collection of articles, which
represents a comprehensive snapshot of the conference, offers our readership both theoretical
and pedagogical insights on current issues in TESOL in order to keep it abreast of
developments in the field. We therefore hope that our readership will find the articles
intellectually stimulating and pedagogically useful in their teaching and research activities.
On a final note, we would like to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation to all authors,
reviewers and IT specialists who worked tirelessly to bring the Proceedings to fruition. We
also look forward to exploring the theme of the 33rd
Annual International Thailand TESOL
Conference which will be held in January 25-26, 2013 in Khon Kaen, in next year’s
Proceedings.
Pramarn Subphadoongchone
Editor

III
Proceedings Chair
Singhanart Nomnian, Mahidol University
Editor
Pramarn Subphadoongchone, Chulalongkorn University
Reviewers
Anchalee Chayanuvat
Walailak University
Apisak Pupipat
Thammasat University
Chutamas Sundrarajun
Assumption University
Jiraporn Intrasai
King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology
Ladkrabang
Kanjana Charttrakul
Suan Dusit Rajabhat University
Kasma Suwanarak
National Institute of Development
Administration
Kenneth Murray
Ho Ngai College
Kornwipa Poonpon
Khon Kaen University
Kulaporn Hiranburana
Chulalongkorn University
Michael Alroe
Ngamthip Wimolkasem
King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology
North Bangkok
Nguyen Buu Huan
Can Tho University
Nisakorn Prakongchati
Kamphaeng Phet Rajabhat University
Paweena Phanthama
Maejo University
Peter Crosthwaite
University of Cambridge
Pragasit Sitthitikul
Walailak University
Prateep Kiratibodee
Burapha University
Sutida Ngonkum
Khon Kaen University
Sutthirak Sapsirin
Toshiyuki Takagaki
Onomichi University
Usa Intharaksa
Prince of Songkla University
Wiwat Puntai
Mahidol University
Yasmin Dar
University of Leicester
Yen-Chi Fan
I-Shou University

IV
Contents
Page
The Use of Circumlocution Communication Strategy in ESL Dyadic
Interaction
Rushita Ismail
Sarjit Kaur
Making It Happen: Managing an EFL Classroom of Low Proficiency
Students
Mizuka Tsukamoto
EFL Learners: Actively Increasing Classroom Participation through Raising
Intrinsic Motivation
Elizabeth Yoshikawa
Language and Culture for a Globalized World
Margaret M. Lieb
Argument Structure in Iranian EFL Student’s Persuasive Writing
Hooshang Yazdani
Nahid Serajipour
Reassessing Traditional Spelling Theories from a Second Language
Perspective
Thomas Hamilton
Richard Watson Todd
Nuttanart Facundes
An Exploration of Approach to Intonational Analysis and Speech Data
Collection
Thanin Kong-in
How to evaluate EFL learners’ strategy use
Yasuo Nakatani
Gender-discriminatory Language and Gender-stereotyped Images in
Japanese Junior High School English Textbooks
Yuka Ishikawa
1
16
30
43
62
77
95
109
126

1
The Use of Circumlocution Communication Strategies in ESL Dyadic Interaction
Rushita Ismail
Sarjit Kaur
Abstract
Recent research indicates that communication strategies can help to
overcome breakdowns in second language oral interaction. Among these
strategies, the circumlocution communication strategy is acknowledged to
be the most effective strategy in situations of compensating for gaps in the
linguistic knowledge of ESL learners. This study analyzed the use of
circumlocution strategies among ESL Malaysian learners at the
intermediate high and intermediate low levels of English oral proficiency in
a university context. All of the instances of communication strategies used
by the ESL learners in the six dyads were analyzed to identify the types of
circumlocution strategies used by the learners of each level. The analysis of
the ESL learners’ communication discourse revealed that compared to low
intermediate level learners, high intermediate level learners used more
types of circumlocution, such as making descriptions and using references
and examples. The pedagogical implications and implementation of
teaching circumlocution strategies suggest that the communication
strategies that learners use may be the characteristic of the stage of
language acquisition that they have reached.
Introduction
It is common for second language learners to use communication strategies (CSs
hereafter) when they find that the lexical items or structures they want to use in order to
convey their messages are not accessible in their linguistic knowledge. These CSs are the
alternative means of expression to convey the content of their messages through the use of
synonyms, descriptions, native language transfers, circumlocution, a word coinage, or even
gestures to compensate the unavailable target form (Poulisse et al., 1990; Dörnyei & Kormos,
1998). Recent research shows that Malaysian ESL learners employ circumlocution in
situations requiring identification of objects in picture-story narration (Rushita & Muria,

2
2006), oral interaction in mock job interviews (Fariza, 2008) and in telephone conversations
(Ting & Lau, 2008).
Circumlocution strategy is the alternative means of expression that allows the learner
and the interlocutor to work to achieve an agreement on meaning through the use of a
description. This category of strategy is a consequence of the use of the achievement strategy.
There have been various identifications of circumlocution being regarded as a
communication strategy or lexical repair strategy (Liskin- Gasparro, 1996; Paribakt, 1985;
Tarone, 1983).
Being one of the components of strategic competence (Canale & Swain, 1983),
circumlocution was initially considered by Tarone (1977: 198) to be “a wordily extended
process in which the learner describes the characteristics or elements of the object or action
instead of using the appropriate target language structure.” She categorized circumlocution
under paraphrase strategy. Later, it was defined by Savignon (1983: 310) as “the effective use
of coping strategies to sustain or to enhance communication.” It is a strategy on the learners’
use of two or more words instead of one in the form of descriptive periphrasis to convey their
meanings when they lack the desired target language item (Færch & Kasper, 1983; Varadi,
1983). Dörnyei and Kormos (1998: 361), however, define it as “exemplifying, illustrating, or
describing the properties of the target object or action.”
Circumlocution as an effective communication strategy
Second language (L2 hereafter) based strategies, namely circumlocution and
approximation, are known to be effective communication strategies compared to the
following L1-based strategies: transfer, code switching, literal translation, restructuring, word
coinage communication strategies (Bialystok, 1983; Haastrup & Phillipson, 1983). The extant
literature on second language acquisition provides evidence that proficient language learners
are able to circumlocute more effectively than less proficient language learners (Liskin-
Gasparro, 1996).
Numerous studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of different types of CSs
used by ESL learners. Effective use of CSs has been identified as being of crucial importance
for L2 learners in overcoming communication breakdowns (Faucett, 2001). For this reason,
most CS researchers find it relevant to enhance learners’ communicative effectiveness
through the use of CS in classroom instruction.

3
Studies on the effectiveness of CSs were initiated by researchers such as Bialystok
and Frohlich (1980), Palmberg (1982) and Bialystok (1983). In their studies, they
demonstrated the use of a systematic way to obtain CS elicitations from L2 learners and they
used a group of independent judges to review the comprehensibility of these strategies. It was
not their intention to look into the effectiveness of the CSs. Later, Bialystok and Frohlich
(1980) and Bialystok (1983) compared the communicative value of L2 against L1-based
strategies. Their studies revealed that L2-based strategies which involve description of the
specific features of the intended object such as circumlocution strategies proved to be the
most effective ones. L1-based strategies such as code switching strategies seemed to be less
effective. The results of their analyses also suggest that the best strategy users are flexible in
their strategy selection and use CS in various combinations.
A subsequent psycholinguistic study was carried out by Poullisse et al. (1990) on this
same issue when they compared the comprehensibility of different types of CSs identified on
the basis of cognitive processing. The results of their study revealed that a combination of
holistic and analytic strategies is likely to be comprehensible as compared to the combination
of transfer and holistic strategies. It has been understood that these findings are complicated
and cannot be generalized as they suggest that the comprehensibility of a certain
compensatory strategy depends to a large extent on the context in which is it used.
Following these trends on the effectiveness of studies on CSs, Chen (1990), Marrie
and Netten (1991) and Jourdain (2000) studied the correlation of CS effectiveness to the
learners’ proficiency level. Chen’s (1990) study on Chinese English as a foreign language
(EFL) learners found that effective use of CSs varies according to the learners’ English
language proficiency. Marie and Netten’s (1991) study shows that the ability to make use of
more effective CSs develops together with the learners’ interlanguage system. On the other
hand, Jourdain (2000) reveals that higher proficiency level students are able to use CSs more
effectively than lower proficiency level students. The CS that high proficient learners use is
circumlocution.
Below is an example of the use of circumlocution CS among ESL learners whereby the
learner’s intention is to communicate the meaning of the word ‘puddle’:

4
Example 1:
1 L1: it doesn’t look like: : a hole, what do you call this? ... water... thing
2 and then..have you put the water thing
3 L2: no
4 L1: what should I say...here?
5 L2: a hole or.....
6 L1: i think it’s a... hole.. fill with.. water
7 L2: a puddle lah!
8 L1: haa..ya.
9 L2: okay...... a puddle of.. water.
Initially the learner uses a number of CSs, such as ‘water thing’, ‘what should I say
here?’, ‘I think a hole fill with water’, to convey the intended meaning of the word ‘puddle’.
However, the message is successfully communicated when the learner (L1) circumlocutes
effectively in line 6. The object of referent has been described due to the lack of the precise
term for ‘puddle’.
Language learners are inclined to circumlocute in several different ways. In this study,
the segment of interaction between the learner and interlocutor to establish mutual agreement
on the meaning ‘puddle’ is referred to as a CS segment. This segment is identified when a
lexical problem arises and a CS needs to be used to resolve conflicts between the learner and
interlocutor in the interaction.
The aim of this study was to analyse learner-learner interaction focusing on
circumlocution CS segments in order to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the different types of circumlocution communication strategies used to
overcome breakdowns in dyadic learner- learner oral interaction?
2. Do learners of different levels of oral English proficiency use circumlocution
communication strategies differently?
Methodology
There were 12 participants in this study and they were paired in two different groups
of three low intermediate - low intermediate dyads and three high intermediate - high
intermediate learner dyads based on their national Malaysian University English Test
(MUET) scores. The MUET is a test of English proficiency and it is widely used for
university admissions in Malaysia. The scores by students on the four language skills of

5
listening, reading, writing and speaking are graded in six bands, with Band 6 the highest and
Band 1 the lowest. In this study, learners who obtained a Band 4 in their MUET were
considered as ‘high intermediate’ learners while those who obtained a Band 3 were classified
as ‘low intermediate’ learners. At the time of the study, all the subjects were at least 23 years
old, had learned English for the past 15 years and were categorized as learners who spoke
English infrequently in their daily lives or only spoke English in selected contexts.
There were a total of 15 common objects and actions to be described by the learner to
the interlocutor in the picture story narration task. These objects were selected on the basis of
a previous pilot study, which ensured that such objects would pose frequent linguistic
difficulties to both high intermediate and low intermediate level learners. The following
lexical items were presented in the narration task: hat, handle bar moustache, puddle, bus-
stop sign, speeding, manhole cover, approaching, fire hydrant, streetlight, post-box, bent,
sling-bag, striped, suspenders, and shoe off. These objects were included in the learners’
picture story narration but were absent from the interlocutors’ version. In this study, the
researchers compared how the different dyads used the circumlocution communication
strategy as they communicated the same set of pre-selected referents to each other.
The dyads were seated across the table with a low barrier used as a separation. They
were not supposed to look at each other’s picture and the learner had to describe as accurately
as possible the objects that are missing from the interlocutor’s picture. The session was
recorded and the oral data was transcribed. Instances of types of circumlocution strategies
were identified and analysed. The dyads spent an average of 30 minutes to complete the
required task.
Data Analysis
Initially, the data were examined and studied in search of lexical difficulties on the 15
target objects and actions. When they were identified, three types of circumlocution CS
(description, making reference to an action, and resorting to examples) were found to be the
common ones used by the learners. They are the common procedures used by learners to
describe, illustrate and exemplify the target object or action (Dörnyei & Kormos, 1998).
Descriptions
In compensating for the lack of the desired target language item, learners usually use
two or more descriptive words to convey their meanings in oral interaction. In example 2, the
learner refers to the general physical properties of a fire hydrant by describing the most

6
relevant features of the intended referent such as the shape, colour, location and function of
the intended referent. However, in other instances, sizes too are mentioned as shown in
example 3.
Example 2: H3-H3: fire hydrant
REFERENT: fire hydrant
INTERLANGUAGE DATA:
1 A: yes there’s a erm... a fi:re (..) what you call that?
2 B: can you describe?
3 A: when there’s a fire at certain shop or certain place,
4 B: hmm
5 A: the: fire guy or the firemen just just take the (..) pipe and {put it there} you
6 know
7 {A’s HH put together}
8 B: oh i know the thing but i don’t know how to describe it maybe it’s {the T shape}
9 {B’s RH draws
10 letter T}
11 A: yes yes usually {it’s yellow in colour}
12 {A nods xn}
13 B: is it red?
14 A: there’s no colour here but [in a real]=
15 B: [ is it yellow]?
16 A: yes in real life sometimes yellow
17 B: and usually firemen will (..) put a hose
18 A: yes a [hose]=
19 B: [at the side] and water will flow
20 A: yes and behind of the: : this guy is looking at one car behind of him,
21 B: (….) can you can you help me about the thing?
22 A: t- hose
23 B: heh!
24 A: (…) i’m not so sure about that pili bomba (fire hydrant), fi:re
Example 3: H2-H2: street light
REFERENT: Street light/lamp post
INTERLANGUAGE DATA:
1 A: in the sixth picture, there’s a lamp (..) a road lamp (.) a big one a tall one still
2 there’s a pathway
3 B: wait wait in the sixth picture
4 A: yap
5 B: again? there’s a tall lamp right?
6 A: ya a tall lamp
7 B: lamp *post*

7
Making reference to an action
In employing circumlocution, learners also at times make reference to an action by
describing its result. In example 4, the result ‘shoe on the right side of the lane’ of the
intended action ‘shoe off’ is mentioned instead. This happens when learners are not able to
describe the actual action.
Example 4: H1-H1: shoe off
REFERENT: Shoe off
INTERLANGUAGE DATA:
1 A: on the right side of his leg, there is no shoes (.) on, on both of the leg but
2 suddenly there is a shoe on the right side of the lane , near near
3 B: the shoe is not worn
4 A: yes
5 B: it’s just [{B put HH together and point to the left]}
6 A: yes it’s [just beside]
Resorting to examples
Learners have also been found to resort to examples of people, occasions or events related
to the object or quality they desire to communicate. In the following example, the learner
makes a reference to a well known actor who uses this item in the movie that both
interlocutors are familiar with.
Example 5: L1-L1: braces
REFERENT: suspenders/braces
INTERLANGUAGE DATA:
1 A: then he is wearing (..) a: : what they call that like a: : (…) you see the
2 movie “Spreadlight”?
3 B: yes
4 A: what Ashton Kutcher like to wear?
5 B: {braces}
6 {B touches his chest}
7 A: hah!
8 B: braces
9 A: is he wearing that?
10 B: no he’s not wearing
11 A: ya Ashton Kutcher and others like wearing this,
12 B: okay

8
The instances on the use of circumlocution are very frequent among the second language
learners in this study. They are formulated in a single turn as shown in example 4 or in
several turns as in example 2. The analysis of data in the current study also reveals that the
interlocutor plays a major role in the communicative success of the strategy with the various
number of turns made. Agreement on meaning is successfully achieved when the learner and
the interlocutor co-construct the circumlocutive description.
Findings and Discussion
From the data analysis, it has been found that the type of information and the form of
a circumlocution strategy constituted in second language generally depends on the nature of
the intended target referent, the context of the interaction and the interlocutors’ resources in
the target language. Table 1 below shows the types of circumlocution CSs used by the high
intermediate ESL learners:
Table 1: Use of Types of Circumlocution CS by High Intermediate Level of English
Proficiency Learners
Types of circumlocution Using
Descriptions
Making
Reference
Resorting
Examples
High Intermediate Level Learners
H1 5 4 4
H2 6 2 1
H3 4 1
Total 15 7 5
There is a striking difference between the high intermediate level learners and low
intermediate level learners in the use circumlocution strategies as a whole. Generally, high
intermediate level learners used more circumlocution strategies than the low intermediate
level learners (27 segment instances compared to 13 segments) as seen in Table 1 and Table
2. This result coincides with studies carried out by Corrales and Calls (1989), Liskin-
Gasparro (1996) and Salamone and Marsal (1997) which clearly demonstrated that

9
circumlocution is used more frequently among high level proficiency learners than low level
proficiency learners.
Table 2: Use of Types of Circumlocution CS by Low Intermediate Level of English
Proficiency Learners
Types of circumlocution Using
Descriptions
Making
Reference
Resorting
Examples
Low Intermediate Level Learners
L1 2 1 1
L2 3 1
L3 4 1
Total 9 3 1
The amount of description used by both groups of learners is the highest; 16 segments
were used by the high intermediate level learners and 9 segments were used by the low
intermediate level learners. Learners prefer to use the strategy of providing descriptions
rather than using the strategies of making references and resorting to examples. High
intermediate level learners displayed 7 segments in making reference and 4 segments in
resorting to examples. On the other hand, low intermediate level learners displayed less
number of segments; 3 in making reference and 1 in resorting to examples.
From this data, it is apparent that the use of description circumlocution is prevalent
among these groups of ESL learners. As the use of descriptive strategies encompasses the
various features of the items such as the shape, size, colour, location and function of the
intended referent, the learners are able to successfully describe the target items by using
relevant features of the object.
The use of making reference is not as preferable as using descriptive strategies. In
making reference, learners were found to have used this strategy in compensating for lexis
which involves actions. As seen in Table 3, target referents such as ‘approaching’, ‘bent’,
‘speeding’ and ‘shoe off’ were commonly communicated through the strategy of making
reference. Here, as the learners were unable to describe the actual actions, they made

10
reference to the actions by describing the result of the actions or movements instead. The
message, however, was communicated successfully.
The least preferable circumlocution type of strategy is resorting through examples.
This strategy requires both interlocutors to have common ideas or knowledge on the target of
referents as learners tend to opt to people, occasions or events that they both are familiar
with. In resorting to examples, the segments used by high intermediate level learners were
made to the people; ‘British guy wears’ for ‘hat’, ‘a bag like Helmi’s’ for ‘sling bag’. In
resorting to occasions or events, these learners made statements on ‘kids always wear’ for
‘suspenders’ and ‘Enchanted movie’ for ‘manhole cover.’ There was only one segment
displayed by the low intermediate level proficiency learners and they resorted to people when
they mentioned ‘Ashton Kutcher like to wear’ when the learner meant ‘suspenders’.
Conclusions and Considerations for Future Research
The results of the present study show that regardless of the different levels of English
proficiency, these learners share similar types of circumlocution strategy. This study
demonstrates that the use of the types of circumlocution strategy to compensate for the
linguistic knowledge among these two groups of learners (high intermediate and low
intermediate level of English proficiency) is highly comparable.
When there is a lexical difficulty and learners need to use a circumlocution CS,
learners resort to three common types of circumlocution strategies for successful
communication of the message. Moreover, learners, depending on their proficiency levels,
may take quite an active role in making descriptions, references and citing examples in their
oral communication. The finding of this study coincides with the earlier studies which
revealed that the use of these strategies is the effective types and were used by the proficient
level learners (Jourdain 2000; Liskin-Garparro 1996).
High intermediate and low intermediate speaking interlocutors resort to the same types
of circumlocution strategies but with different frequency. This seems to suggest that the
proficiency level of the learner plays an important role on the learner’s strategy choice. In the
context established for the purposes of the present study, high intermediate level learners’
interaction offer more opportunities for second language learning lexical input than low
intermediate level learners’ interaction.

11
There are a number of interesting questions that could possibly be raised based on
these conclusions. First, do learners of different language background or gender use different
types of circumlocution strategies? Secondly, if making descriptions, reference and making
examples are necessary for effective circumlocution, could direct teaching facilitate the
acquisition of these strategies?
The results of this study are based on the analyses of a limited amount of data collected
in an experimental setting which cannot be generalized to other types of contexts. However, it
sheds light on how ESL learners utilize different types of circumlocution strategies in oral
communication of meaning. This facilitates our understanding on the opportunities that
circumlocution may offer for second language learning.
It has been found that circumlocution plays an important role in the process of second
language learning despite its popularity in language teaching materials (Faucett 2001). Many
researchers have suggested the benefits of incorporating circumlocution in ESL classrooms
through certain task-based activities (Chen, 2006; Salomone & Marsal, 1997; Brooks, 1992)
and instructional activities such as crossword puzzles and describing strange objects
(Willems, 1987). Not only are the learners able to receive more language input and improve
their language ability, but they may also develop their conversational ability and the channel
of conversation may remain open as learners will not give up when they encounter
deficiencies in their linguistic knowledge. When circumlocution strategies are effectively
adapted and implemented, these activities may offer students many language practice
opportunities which may enhance the process of their language acquisition.
The Authors
Rushita Ismail obtained her M.Sc. TESOL from Central Connecticut State University and
her B.A. Linguistics from the University of Iowa, USA. She is currently a Ph.D candidate at
the School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia. She is attached as a senior lecturer to
the Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA Penang. Her research
interests are in the areas of SLA and communication.
Sarjit Kaur is Associate Professor and Programme Chairperson of the English Language
Studies Section at the School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Her research areas
include Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), workplace literacies,
multiliteracies approach, postgraduate education, and policy research in higher education.

12
References
Bialystok, E. (1983). Some factors in the selection and implementation of communication
strategies. In C. Færch, & G. Kasper, Strategies in Interlanguage Communication
(pp. 100-118.). New York: Longman.
Bialystok, E., & Frohlich, M. (1980). Oral communication strategies for lexical difficulties.
Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 5, 3-30.
Brooks, F. (1992). Can we talk? Foreign Language Annals, 25(1), 59-71.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 89-112.
Chen, S.-Q. (1990). A study of communication strategies in interlanguage production by
Chinese EFL learners. Language Learning, 40, 155-187.
Chen, Y.(2006). Foreign Language Learning Strategy Training in Circumlocution. Paper
presented at the International Symposium on Chinese Pedagogy and Operational
Strategies for Chinese Programs in the 21st
Century. Retreived June 2011 from
http://140.118.33.1/ETD-db/ETD-search/view_etd?URN=etd-0622111-173426
Corrales, O., & Call, M. E. (1989). At a loss for words: The use of communication strategies
to convey lexical meaning. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 227-240.
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (1998). Problem-solving mechanisms in L2 communication: A
psycholinguistic perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 349-385.
Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In
C. Færch, & G. Kasper, Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (pp. 20-60).
New York, NY: Longman.
Fariza, M.N (2008). Communication strategies in ESL interaction. (Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis). University of Malaya, Malaysia.

13
Faucette, P. (2001). A pedagogical perspective on communication strategies: Benefits of
training and an analysis of English language teaching materials. Second Language
Studies, 19, 1-40.
Haastrup, K., & Phillipson, R. (1983). Achievement strategies in learner/native speaker
interaction. In C. Færch, & G. Kasper, Strategies in Interlanguage Communication
(pp. 140-158). New York: Longman.
Jourdain, S. (2000). A native-like ability to circumlocute. The Modern Language Journal, 84,
185-195.
Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (1996). Circumlocution, communication strategies and the ACTFL
proficiency guidelines: An analysis of student discourse. Foreign Language Annals,
29, 317-30.
Marrie, B., & Netten, J. E. (1991). Communication strategies. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 47, 442-62.
Palmberg, R. (1982). Non-native judgments of communicative efficiency: An experiment in
communication strategies. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 6, 79-92.
Paribakht, T. (1985). Strategic competence and language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 6,
132-146.
Poulisse, N., Kellerman, E., Ammerlaan, T., & Bongaerts, T. (1990). System and hierarchy in
L2 compensatory strategies. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen, In
Developing Communicative Competence (pp. 163-178). New York: Newbury
House.
Rushita, I., & Muria, K.M. (2006, December). An Investigation into the communication
strategies employed by the ESL Malay learners at Malaysian universities. Paper
presented at CLaSic 2006, Singapore.
Salomone, A. M., & Marsal, F. (1997). How to avoid language breakdown? Circumlocution!
Foreign Language Annals, 30, 473-484.

14
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report.
In D. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. H. Crymes, On TESOL’ 77: Teaching and Learning
ESL (pp. 194-203). Washington D.C.: TESOL.
Tarone, E. (1983). Some thoughts on the notion of 'communication strategy'. In C. Færch, &
K. Gabrielle, Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (pp. 61-74). London:
Longman.
Ting, S. H., & Lau, S. Y. (2008). Lexical and discourse based communication strategies of
Malaysian ESL learners. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 4, 18-34.
Varadi, T. (1980). Strategies of target language learner communication: Message adjustment.
International Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 59-72.
Willems, G. (1987). Communication strategies and their significance in foreign language
teaching. System, 15(3), 351-364
Appendix
Data collected for the study
Table 3: Examples drawn from High Intermediate Level- High Intermediate Level
Dyads
Target Referents H1- H1 H2-H2 H3-H3
hat British guy wears
handle bar moustache a big black
moustache
puddle when it’s raining small drain water a place where there is
water
bus- stop sign octagon shape
speeding fast, a long smoke
manhole cover circle with two dots round shape,
Enchanted movie
there’s a drain, two
dots on the cover
approaching, coming
closer
too close closing enough
fire-hydrant yellow T- look pipe, firemen hose look like a T

15
thing
streetlight a tall one
post box a normal post-box the one that you put
mail in there
a letter, big red box
bent not really fell down traffic light looks like
falling down
want to fall
sling-bag a bag like Helmi’s
striped with the line zebra
suspenders kids always wear
shoe off shoe is not worn
Table 4: Examples drawn from Low Intermediate Level- Low Intermediate Level
Dyads
Target referents L1-L1 L2-L2 L3-L3
hat
handle bar moustache
puddle a bit of water a hole fill with water a small pool of water
bus- stop sign
speeding moving like so fast fast movement,
something moves
fastly
manhole cover A subway like
people go down
metal on the road
approaching, coming
closer
fire-hydrant yellow one for the fire fighter
streetlight high rise lamp
post box
bent move a little bit
sling-bag
striped horizontal lines
suspenders Ashton Kutcher like
to wear

16
Making It Happen: Managing an EFL Classroom of Low Proficiency Students
Mizuka Tsukamoto
Abstract
Language use in an EFL classroom is an ongoing debate among teachers.
Some have supported the idea of maintaining the Target Language (TL)
only approach in order to enhance learner development, while others have
stated that use of the learners’ L1 has a crucial and facilitating role in the
language classroom. This paper will introduce a study that was conducted
in a Japanese university. Despite the low proficiency level of the students, I,
the teacher researcher, managed a classroom where the students were
allowed limited amount of L1 use. Following the introduction of past
research on language use in language classrooms, I report on the result of
the questionnaire on how the students felt in my TL-maximised classroom.
The findings have implications that action research or further qualitative
research would play an important part in considering the students’
perspectives towards an efficient and effective EFL learning environment.
Introduction
What language to use when teaching language is an ongoing debate. The decision
may sometimes be set by the institution, while in other contexts, the instructor has the
freedom to choose which language to speak: the students’ L1, the target language (TL), or a
mixture of both. Institutions may have different expectations depending on what the
instructors’ first language is (the term native speaker will not be used in this paper, as the
writer has difficulty in defining what constitutes a native speaker of a language). How much
TL is used can range from allowing a certain amount of L1 use to a strict TL-only. Whether
the language policy is set by the institutions or by individual instructors, teachers tend to have
mixed attitudes, as was found in a study by McMillan, Rivers and Cripps (2009).
In Japan, this debate may be boosted by the curriculum recently announced by the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Technology and Science (MEXT), in which they strongly
encourage English classes in high schools to be taught in English (MEXT, 2008). The

17
Ministry noted that the instruction should be given in English to maximise the students’
exposure to the target language (2008). Seeing that this is happening in high schools, it seems
quite reasonable that English classes at the university level be conducted in English; however,
whether or not this English-only approach enhances effective language learning remains
questionable. According to the Central Council for Education (2008), in Japan more than
60% of university teachers are concerned about the apparent decline of the students’
academic abilities. Ford (2009) notes that some students enter universities without
fundamental English skills. In addition, due to the diverse methods that are now available for
entering universities, some students are admitted to university without taking English exams.
The study described in this paper took place in English as Foreign Language (EFL)
classrooms at a Japanese private university, where all the instructors are expected to use
English in classrooms; however, this rule is not made explicit by the institution. Therefore,
instructors seem to use whatever language they find “suitable” for the proficiency level of the
students.
I have always tried to maintain “TL-maximised” classes. However, the term
maximised seems rather vague, since the possible amount of TL is rather subjective. For my
own approach, I have considered a “TL-maximised classroom” as one in which all teacher-
student interactions are conducted in English. In the class examined in this study, students
were given the freedom to occasionally use Japanese when they had to interact with other
students during activities. However, they were expected and required to communicate with
the instructor in English only. This preference for maintaining teacher-student interactions in
TL comes from my own experience of studying in classes taught only in English and
recalling the sense of achievement I felt in that learning situation.
As mentioned above, the issue of the first-year university students’ generally low
proficiency in English has forced me to think how to manage my EFL classes, especially
given the fact that the institution does not specify explicitly what language to use. This
question has, for the last few years, made me wonder whether “English-only interaction” with
the students works or not. Do the students prefer to have an English-only classroom? What do
students think about the teacher’s use of language in the EFL classroom? What do students
like or dislike about the instructor’s use of English in class?

18
The present study was conducted to inquire into student perceptions of the teacher’s
use of language in EFL class. Specifically, I was interested in whether or not the students
with low proficiency in English were comfortable in class, and what they found was useful or
not useful in their instructor’s choice of language. This paper will first briefly review
historical views towards this issue: the monolingual approach and the bilingual approach.
After presenting results from a questionnaire given to the students, I will discuss my findings,
some limitations to the study, and implications for further research into the issue of TL
language and L1 use in EFL classes.
Benefits of a Monolingual Approach
The monolingual approach has long been prescribed by official policies in the field of
English Language Teaching (Macaro, 2001; Phillipson, 1992). The main reason offered by
supporters of a monolingual approach is exposure to the target language (Krashen, 1987;
Turnbull, 2001). Krashen (1985) insists that the students’ L1 should not be used in the
classroom in order to maximise the exposure of the target language. He states that the entire
lesson, or as much as possible, should be in the TL, and that there is a measurable
relationship between comprehensible input in TL and proficiency. In a more recent study,
Ellis (2005) asserts that the more TL exposure students receive, the faster they learn.
Indeed, students in an EFL environment do not have much exposure to either input or
output in the TL, because it is not a necessary component in their daily lives. Therefore, it is
quite natural that teachers want to provide as much exposure as possible in the classroom.
Turnbull (2001) similarly argues that the use of the students’ L1 in the classroom takes away
the opportunity for the students to have contact with the TL. Littlewood (1992) insists that if
the teacher does not use the TL in the classroom, learners will not be convinced that the
language they are learning is an effective means of communication in the real world. It is
only through actual modelled usage that the students acknowledge the worth of the L2.
Ellis (1985) also highlights the importance of using the TL for both language-related
and classroom management functions. He argues that:
In the EFL classroom, however, teachers sometimes prefer to use the
pupils’ L1 to explain and organize a task and to manage behaviour in

19
the belief that this will facilitate the medium-centred [language-
related] goals of the lesson. In so doing, however, they deprive the
learners of valuable input in the L2. (p.133)
Burden (2000) believes that a considerable amount of language learning is lost
when the students’ mother tongue is used, as students’ only regular exposure to English is in
the classroom. Seen from the teacher’s side, in research done by Macaro (1997), teachers did
not state any pedagogical value in using the learner’s L1 and further stated that students’ L1
is “clearly something that gets in the way of L2 learning” (p.29).
Benefits of a Bilingual Approach
Though some may feel L1 use slows the acquisition of a TL and is a waste of time,
others see judicious use of it as a necessary element for learner support. The reasons for the
bilingual approach could be categorised into the following: to maintain a comfortable
classroom atmosphere, to promote the students’ comprehension, and to use class time
efficiently. Polio and Duff (1994) point out that the use of L1 can be useful for creating a
relaxed atmosphere in the classroom. Burden uses an ‘English-only approach’ for his classes;
however, he also notes that he began to feel ‘remote’ from the students because there was
little natural conversational interaction in either English or Japanese (2000). He also found
that starting his class with the L1 provides students with a sense of security and validates the
learners’ lived experiences, allowing them to express themselves. Learners were thus more
willing to experiment and take risks with English (Burden, 2000). According to Nation
(1990), exclusion of students’ L1 is a criticism of the language and this apparent deprecation
has harmful psychological effects on learners. Auerbach (1993, 1994) notes that the manner
in which the L1 is managed in the classroom may create tension and that monolingual
policies tend to reflect political reasons more than pedagogical reasons.
The second reason for using the L1 in class is to increase students’ comprehension.
Atkinson (1993) states, for example, that for many learners, occasional use of the L1 gives
them the opportunity to show that they are intelligent and sophisticated people (p.13).
Learners who are less confident tend to keep their opinion to themselves out of fear of
making mistakes and being embarrassed; however, this does not mean that they are not smart.
Auerbach (1993) similarly argues that a bilingual policy is not only effective but also

20
necessary for adult ESL students: she reviews recent studies of L1 use in ESL classes that
demonstrated positive results. She finds that the use of L1 has a successful effect in lowering
the students’ anxiety levels and other affective barriers for students (Auerbach, 1993).
Krashen (1982) points out that exposure to comprehensible input is crucial for successful
language acquisition. If the students cannot understand what the instructor says, they will not
be comfortable in proceeding with a task or retaining it in their mind. He also states that
quality bilingual education provides students with knowledge and literacy in their first
language, which indirectly but powerfully aids them as they strive for English proficiency
(Krashen, 1987). Cook (2001) argues that teaching should take advantage of the many L1- L2
connections that learners naturally make in their minds. Harbord (1992) similarly states that
students will also naturally equate what they are learning in the TL with their L1, so trying to
eliminate this process will only have negative consequences.
Turnbull (2001) suggests that maximizing the TL does not and should not mean that
there is harm in the teachers using the students’ L1. As he puts it, “a principle that promotes
maximal teacher use of the TL acknowledges that the L1 and TL can assist each other
simultaneously.”
Atkinson (1987) promotes time-saving as one of his principal arguments for using the
L1 in class. Explaining a certain activity in the L1 may take only a few minutes, whilst trying
to explain the activity in the TL could take two or three times the amount of time. On a
practical level, the most frequent justification given by teachers for L1 use is that time saved
by communicating in the “mother tongue” can be used more efficiently, such as for the
activity itself, rather than instructions and explanations.
Teacher and Student Use of the L1 in Classes
Researchers have noted that the use of L1 has several different functions in class,
depending upon who is speaking it. Auerbach (1993) suggests thirteen possible occasions for
using the mother tongue as a teaching resource, which include classroom management,
language analysis, and discussion of cross-cultural issues.
Among teachers of foreign language, Duff and Polio (1990) found a range of L1 use.
One teacher almost never used the L1 (English) in the classroom, primarily because of

21
institutional policy. At the other end of the spectrum, one teacher used the L1 ninety percent
of the time for grammar explanations and during lectures on content, such as history and
culture. Atkinson (1987, p. 244) offers three reasons for allowing limited L1 use in the
classroom:
1. A learner-preferred strategy: given the opportunity, learners will choose to
translate
without encouragement from the teacher;
2. A humanistic approach: it allows them to say what they want; and
3. An efficient use of time: L1 strategies are efficient in terms of time spent
explaining.
In sum, L1 is used by teachers in these instances: giving directions, explaining
concepts, and explaining L2 grammar (Duff & Polio, 1994; Macaro, 2001; Rolin-Ianzizi &
Brownlie, 2002); carrying out classroom management duties (Duff & Polio, 1994; Macaro,
2001; Rolin-Ianzizi & Brownlie, 2002); explaining concepts which do not exist in L2 (Duff
& Polio, 1994); and for efficiency and the saving of class time (Cook, 2001; Duff & Polio,
1990).
Students, on the other hand, use L1 when they interact with other students, either in
pairs or small groups (Swain & Lapkin, 2000), and during long instructional sequences given
by the teacher (Macaro, 2001).
Research method
Participants
The participants of the study were female first-year intermediate-level students at a
Japanese university. The students were streamed into different classes according to the result
of the proficiency test they had taken in prior to the semester. The 16 students in this
examined class were in the lowest proficiency class. The stated goal of the class was the
development of the four language skills (reading, listening, speaking and writing).

22
Tool
A paper-based questionnaire was administered to the students on the last day of class.
I felt that anonymity would encourage students to answer honestly and to express their
personal experiences and thoughts. I also felt that open-ended questions would produce the
most personally relevant, self-driven answers. All 16 students in the examined class
completed a questionnaire.
The questions were written in both English and Japanese, but students were allowed
to write their comments in Japanese. I assumed that this would enable students to write their
honest feelings about the class. The comments quoted below are edited for spelling and
grammar, unless otherwise specified. One student answered in Japanese; I translated her
answers for this paper.
The following four questions from the questionnaire directly relate to language use in
the classroom, so the discussion will focus on these questions. However, only a few students
wrote comments for Q4, which overlapped Q2, so those Q4 responses are included in the
discussion of Q2.
Q1. Did you feel the instructor needed to use Japanese in class?
Q2. If yes, when did you feel the need?
Q3. What was good about the instructor using English in class?
Q4. What was not good about the instructor using English in class?
Results and Discussion
Students’ views towards language use in classrooms
Q1 asked “Did you feel the instructor needed to use Japanese in class?” As seen in
Table 1, 14 students (87%) answered “No.” Next, they were asked, “If yes, when did you feel
the need?” 2 students wrote comments. Among the reasons were, “activity instructions”,
“when the teacher explained about final exams”, and “to explain what I thought was
difficult.” However, they also noted that they were able to understand what they were
supposed to do as they actually got into the activity or by asking the instructor for further
explanation. They also had the opportunity to check their comprehension with their

23
classmates in Japanese. Had the students been banned from using Japanese to check
comprehension, it might have led them to confusion or demotivation. As Harbord (1992, p.
352) writes, “if students are unfamiliar with a new approach, the teacher who cannot or will
not give an explanation in the L1 may cause considerable student demotivation.” Swain and
Lapkin (2000) also found in their research that students used L1 when they interacted with
another in pairs or small groups. Allowing room for the use of Japanese amongst themselves
may have contributed to the students not feeling the need for the instructor to use Japanese.
Thus, we could conclude that student motivation and willingness to study may be affected by
the balance of language use in the EFL classroom.
It is probably worth noting the one student wrote that she did not feel the need for
Japanese; writing in Japanese, she explicitly noted that if the instructor had used Japanese in
class, she would have overused Japanese herself and not tried to use English.
Burden (2000, 2001) in both of his studies found that students at Japanese universities
preferred their teachers to use English, not only when giving instructions and explaining
grammar and class rules, but also when providing a rationale for class activities and checking
for understanding.
Table 1: Q1. Did you feel the instructor needed to use Japanese in class?
Intermediate (n=16)
Yes No
Q1 2 (13%) 14 (87%)
Positive aspects of the instructor’s use of English in classroom
Q2 asked, “What was good about the instructor using English in class?” The
responses to this question can be classified into the following five categories:
1. development of listening skills,
2. development or motivation to develop speaking skills,
3. learning the usage of words,
4. creation of a collaborative learning environment, and
5. providing a “role model”.

24
Development of listening skills
The most common response from the students on Q2 was that they felt they were
able to develop better listening skills. One student mentioned, “I was able to hear the correct
pronunciation of the word and learn how to use the word.” As noted earlier, Littlewood
(1992) insists that if teachers do not use the target language, students will not be convinced to
accept the foreign language as an effective means of communication. Through the use of the
TL in class, students are able to acknowledge the language as a tool for communication.
Development of speaking skills
Other responses to Q2 included, “We can make habit to speak in English only. It was
hard for me to speak English but now I use English as more as possible. Then now I can
speak English little by little” (unedited original comment) and “It made me speak in English
when talking to the teacher” (unedited original comment). One remarkable comment from a
student was that when she was put in a situation where she had to speak in English to
communicate with the teacher, she realised that she could actually “use” English. Along with
the previous student’s comment, this example suggests a positive result from the teacher
using English-only.
Establishment of a collaborative learning atmosphere
Interestingly, a few students wrote “collaborative atmosphere” as one of the good
points of an English-only classroom. Indeed, “collaborative learning” seemed to be a
consequence of teacher-student interactions in English. A student who understood the
teacher’s instructions would repeat them in Japanese and another student would make a
comment, often to check for clarification or to voice a different interpretation. As I was able
to understand what the students were saying and what was going on in the classroom, I could
still control the learning atmosphere. I was comfortable in letting the students work together
to help each other. If the students were off-track, I could provide better-scaffolded
instructions. This kind of repetition produced a collaborative learning atmosphere in the
classroom. Students seemed comfortable in asking one another for help. It certainly
consumed time in class and was on the opposite end of the continuum of “efficient” usage of
class time that Atkinson (1987) argued for in his discussion of using the L1 in order to
promote time efficiency.

25
Instructor as a role model
Providing a role model, in consequence, was another good point that the students
brought up. In spite of the fact that my first language is not English, all my interactions with
the students were restricted to English; this seems to have inspired and motivated the
students. Comments from students included, “My teacher is Japanese, but she did not speak
Japanese. I want to be like her.” and “I thought I have to improve English to communicate
with my teacher.”
To enable students’ comprehension, the language used in the classroom was graded.
However, one of the students wrote, “The teacher sometimes used easy words.” No further
comment or reference was made, but perhaps, this student expected the classroom language
to be kept at the “standard” level and let the students ask more questions to the teacher for
clarification.
Conclusion
This small study was prompted by my concern about putting too much pressure on my
students by insisting that teacher-student interactions be in English only. In addition, I was
interested in the students’ perception of my use of English-only in my classes. In contrast to
this worry, the questionnaire results revealed that most students did not feel the need for the
writer/me to use Japanese in class. They seemed to be pleased to be able to practice English
speaking and to develop their listening skills. It seemed that the students were satisfied with
the writer’s/my use of English in class, and I was able to fulfil my intention to increase their
exposure to the TL.
There were some limitations to the study. First, students’ positive comments towards
our English-only interaction reflected only a subjective awareness that their listening and
speaking skills had developed. However, there is no clear evidence that the students actually
became more proficient in English, though one intermediate student commented, “I could not
understand what the teacher was saying but now I can. My listening skill has improved.” Had
the student’s listening skill really developed? If yes, to what extent had it developed?
Another limitation was concerned with the nature of the participants and class. The
students were in a required class, so they had no choice about attending this particular class.
The students’ responses may have been different if the class had been an elective class. In

26
addition, responses might have been different if the class had been a content-based class,
which tends to require more explanation about the content from the teacher.
There were some methodological weaknesses as well. Data collected through
questionnaires are important and useful; however, additional interviews with some of the
students may have provided more in-depth data. This was a dilemma that I faced when
designing the study. As my interactions with the students were in English even outside the
classroom, I found it difficult to decide whether to conduct the interviews in English or
Japanese. Had the interviews been conducted in English, would the students have been able
to respond in the way that they wished? The paper-based questionnaire did not specify in
which language the students were to write their comments. As seen in the discussion above,
only one student chose to write her comment in Japanese. The majority wrote the comments
in English, though in simple sentences or phrases. Maybe, they did not feel to write in
Japanese, as they wanted to write simple comments, or they might have thought that simple
comments were enough to express themselves. On the other hand, they might have ended up
writing in simple words due to their lack of vocabulary but wanted to write in English. Once
again, a follow-up interview may have enabled clarify these questions.
One finding of this study was that classes taught with a TL-only approach by a
teacher whose first language is not English provides a positive role model for the students.
For further study, it would be worthwhile to look into whether a teacher’s first language has a
different effect on what elements the students regard as positive in their language classes.
It may also be worthwhile to conduct an action research project in an English-only
classroom, in which the students are required to interact in English only with each other, to
investigate student - student interaction, as well as student - teacher interaction. Would the
students in this case have the same positive attitudes towards English-only interaction with
the teacher? Would there be differences in attitude depending on the focus of the class? This
kind of action research project would enable teachers to see when and what kind of assistance
in L1 students feel is necessary, and could also lead to establishing more effective learning
environments for Japanese college students of English.

27
The author
Mizuka Tsukamoto teaches at various universities in Kansai region, Japan. Her research
interests include teacher education, use of language in an EFL classroom, and learner
development. She can be contacted at: <mizukawk@gmail.com>.
References
Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource? ELT
Journal, 41(4), 241-247.
Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching in the target language: A problem in the current orthodoxy.
Language Learning Journal, 8, 2-5.
Auerbach, E. (1993). Re-examining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly,
27, (1), 9-32.
Auerbach, E. (1994). The author responds ….. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 157-161.
Burden, P. (2000). The use of the students’ mother tongue in monolingual English
“conversation” classes at Japanese universities. The Language Teacher, 24 (6), 5-10.
Burden, P. (2001). When do native English speaker teachers and Japanese college students
disagree about the use of Japanese in the English conversation classroom? The
Language Teacher, 25(4), 5-9.
Central Council for Education (2008). Gakushi katei kyouiku no kouchiku ni mukete
[Towards Establishing an Education for Bachelor Degree]. Available from
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/shingi/toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2008/
12/26/1217067_001.pdf.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57, 402-423.
Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education. Harlow: Longman.
Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign
language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 74, 154-166.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3).
Available from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/May_2005_Conference_Ellis.php

28
Ford, K. (2009). Principles and practices of L1/L2 use in the Japanese university EFL
classroom. JALT Journal, 31(1), 63-80.
Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal, 46(4), 350-
355.
Krashen, S. D. (1981) Second language acquisition and second language learning. New
York: Pergamon Press
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman: London.
Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in the second language acquisition. New
York: Pergamon Press.
Levine, G. S. (2003) Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use,
first language use and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. Modern Language
Learning, 87, 344-364.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Littlewood, W. (1992). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Macaro, E. (2001). Analyzing student teachers’ code-switching in foreign language
classrooms: Theories and decision making. Modern Language Journal, 85, 531-548.
McMillan, B., Rivers, D. J., & Cripps, T. (2009). The L1 in the L2 classroom: University
EFL teacher perceptions. The Language Teacher, 33(10), 6-7.
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology). (2008).
Koutougakkou Shidouyouryouan [High school Educational Guidelines]. Available
from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shototu/news-cs/081223.htm.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL
Journal, 5(3). Available from http://asian-efl.com/june_2003_pn.pdf.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural politics of English as an international language.
Longman : London
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

29
Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language
classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation.
Modern Language Journal, 78, 313-326.
Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Brownlie, S. (2002) Teacher use of learners' native language in the
foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/Revue
Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 58(3), 402-426.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first
language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251-274.
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second language and foreign teaching,
but…. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 531-540.

30
EFL Learners: Actively Increasing Classroom Participation through Raising Intrinsic
Motivation
Elizabeth Yoshikawa
Abstract
This paper examines the use of gender-discriminatory language and
gender stereotypes seen in twelve English textbooks for Japanese
junior high school students. The textbooks were all screened by the
Japanese government (MEXT), which declares that one of the goals of
English education in Japan is to foster the ability to make impartial
judgments and cultivate a rich sensibility. The study investigates five
interrelated research questions, focusing on courtesy titles for women,
and descriptions and illustrations of males and females at work, at
home, and at school. The results of the study have revealed several
discriminatory expressions and illustrations, which may reconstruct
and maintain gender stereotypes. Although gender-fair titles Mr. and
Ms. are used in all the textbooks surveyed in this study and Ms.
accounts for almost 70% of the total number of titles used for women,
Ms. is used only for female teachers, who are always under a male
principal, and other women who are not teachers are addressed with
Mrs. or Miss. Both descriptions and illustrations associate men and
boys with paid work, study, and sports, and women and girls with
unpaid housework, childrearing, and cooking.
Introduction
Japanese businesses are becoming more concerned with their place in the global
market. In this light, a working knowledge of English is going to become more important,
and already it is becoming more common for companies to require that their employees have
a working knowledge of English. In line with this, the Japanese Ministry of Education,
Culture, Science and Technology (hereafter, MEXT) has over the last few years implemented
various policies which stress the communicative value of English education at the
compulsory education level (MEXT 2003, 2011). At the university level, this shift towards
Japanese with English communicative abilities is an additional extrinsic force on students.
However, while the demands on extrinsic motivation are increasing, it is equally important
that the needs of students’ intrinsic motivations are met. This paper focuses on how through
individual and collaborative learning tasks, students’ intrinsic motivation can be raised.

31
Through focusing on both individual and group learning, students take the English
knowledge that they already possess and build upon. This would then create a positive
situation which enables students to develop a deeper understanding of English as a foreign
language (EFL) and allows them to share their development of their language skills. In the
current Japanese situation, the extrinsic forces must not be the sole factor for learning EFL;
students’ intrinsic motivations must also be satisfied otherwise the MEXT’s goal of achieving
Japanese with English communicative abilities will fall short.
A typology of motivation and pedagogy
In any L2 classroom, at any time within the class or throughout the duration of the
course, there are a number of motivational forces at play. These forces do have direct
consequences not only for individual classes, but also for students’ overall achievement in the
course. In Japan, a major force on learning EFL is extrinsic motivation. To create a better
learning environment, it is up to instructors of EFL in Japan to foster students’ intrinsic
motivations, and this can be achieved through a pedagogy which employs collaborative
learning.
There are several external forces at play in EFL learning in the Japanese situation.
Once they reach university, Japanese students have had six years of accuracy based,
instrumental learning. In this situation, Donnery (2009) explains that in Japan, language is
equated to a mathematical code, one which students must create a formula to break the code
and subsequently understand it. In this type of classroom, the focus is placed on grammar
acquisition of the second language (L2), and conversation in the L2 is almost non-existent
(Baker & MacIntyre, 2003). This situation would not foster students’ engagement with the
topic; furthermore, many students would also lack inherent interest in the subject. Here, the
primary source of motivation would be extrinsic. As Dörnyei (2001) states, extrinsic
motivation “involves performing a behaviour as a means to an end; that is, to receive some
extrinsic reward (e.g. good grades) or to avoid punishment” (p.27). This definition of
extrinsic motivation would definitely fit the current Japanese education model. At the
university level, regardless of their major, all students must successfully complete first and
second year English classes to fulfill graduation requirements. In these classes, there is an
additional external regulator; students must attend a certain percentage of classes to pass the

32
course. A situation like this is bound to create negative feelings towards the learning of
English. Many students only come to class because they have to. Without this extrinsic force,
there is no reason for students to learn EFL, and as Noels, Pelletier, Clement and Vallerand
(2003) suggest, the incentive for these students to study English would cease. Sadly, it is still
common to find EFL classes which do not attempt to foster a learning situation beyond these
external forces. In any L2 learning situation, but perhaps most particularly in situations where
the L2 is being learnt as a foreign language, it is necessary to appeal to other motivational
forces so that the students may accomplish the goal of acquiring the L2.
In language learning, students need time to develop what they are learning in a way
that is relevant to them. Therefore, students should have challenging tasks that enable them to
both personalize the new knowledge and internalize it. If instructors foster this type of
learning situation, students will maximize their pleasure and enjoyment in the task which in
turn will foster language acquisition. Dörnyei (2001) defines intrinsic motivation as the
“behaviour performed for its own sake in order to experience pleasure and satisfaction, such
as the joy of doing a particular activity or satisfying one’s curiosity” (p.27). In any L2
classroom, the pedagogy fostering students’ intrinsic motivation must be done so in terms of
stimulating students to complete tasks and gain new knowledge through the exploration of
new ideas and concepts in the L2. This would allow students’ L2 knowledge to increase and
give students a greater sense of accomplishment. Therefore, the instructor must carefully
consider the tasks that will stimulate their students and in turn maximize the students’
intrinsic motivation to learn. This would imply that activities should be challenging, at a level
similar to Krashen’s (1982) classic i+1 where the difficulty of the input is increased in
incremental stages; but students also have freedom of choice or of direction, in which they
will perform the task at hand. Accordingly, it is the instructor’s obligation to create an
intrinsic motivational situation which encompasses a low-stress, conscious learning
atmosphere. This would enable students to increase their own EFL confidence and, therefore,
their EFL competence.
It is these forces of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations together that can lead to
successful language learning. Deciand Ryan (1985) argue that it is necessary for the
instructor to foster in students language competence, where the students are able to relate to
each other in the L2, and have a degree of autonomy. To put it bluntly, motivation strategies
are an integral part of classroom pedagogy. A saying attributed to Confucius states “Tell me

33
and I will forget. Show me and I may remember. Involve me and I will understand.” This
would suggest that while the extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are factors in language
learning, a pedagogy which encourages students to take the knowledge that they already
have, working together with their instructor and classmates will in turn foster a situation
where students are not only using the new language, but are also internalizing it. This in
effect would be created, using a collaborative learning situation.
There are two key points to the collaborative learning classroom. First, the focus is on
learning together through the process of completing a common task. Students in groups work
together, and through the very act of doing this, they create the process where they are the co-
creators of their new knowledge (Lantolf & Thorne, 2009; Oxford, 1997). Secondly, through
the process of negotiation for understanding, and through peer teaching, and the very act of
using their EFL to discuss a topic in their groups, students are able to come to a deeper
understanding of the topic than if they are working individually (Donato, 2004; Lantolf &
Thorne, 2009; Oxford, 1997). In the EFL classroom, a deeper understanding of both English
and the culture of the native speaking teacher for the students comes from the opportunity to
discuss, negotiate, and reflect on the topic at hand. Thus, it is both the instructor and the
students working in their groups together who are the co-constructors of knowledge, and
together they enter into a learning community, where the culture of the native English
speaking instructor, and that of L1 host culture are combined and reshaped in the confines of
their classroom. This overall process not only enhances the EFL learning experience, but
allows for the development of communication skills, a wider vocabulary base, and leads to
overall retention of both the class material and students’ co-created knowledge.
Reflections on the classroom situation
In any EFL class, communicative learning tasks can stimulate student’s motivation to
learn. I teach compulsory English classes to first and second year Economics students,
studying at a major university in the Kansai region of Japan. Classes are large, with on
average 35 students of various EFL abilities in one class. Male students, in these classes
typically outnumber female students with an average ratio of 4:1. Although these students are
studying Economics, a traditionally English based subject, students typically have low
interest in English. Additionally, in this teaching circumstance, it is not uncommon for some

34
EFL instructors to assume their non-English majors automatically have a lower motivation to
study EFL. This, however, is not necessarily true. While it can be true that many non-English
majors do have lower EFL abilities than students who are majoring in English, many students
have often not had the opportunity to build up their confidence to use English. Without this
confidence, students are unable to freely converse in English, and accordingly many students,
as well as instructors, use the text book as a crutch. Students, however, need to be encouraged
to become pro-active learners (Brown, 2002; Sansone & Smith, 2001). This could be
achieved in part if learning strategies are in place, such as structured conversation within a
collaborative learning framework, which would allow students to develop their language
skills with the English they have already retained, and encourages them to become proactive
learners.
It is particularly important for students in the Economics Department to develop their
English skills. English is widely used as a common language for information technology in
the economic market, especially for sharing knowledge and information. What many
Japanese students are unaware of is that when they enter this market, it is highly likely that
they will be using English as a common language of interaction (McKenzie, 2008).
Furthermore, in this business situation, it is more likely that these students will be conferring
in English with other non-native speakers of English. Therefore, it is necessary that the
instructor fosters communication skills in compulsory English classes at university, as called
upon by the changes in Japanese education policies mentioned above. This would include
increasing students’ knowledge of vocabulary. The more ability students have to
communicate outside of the classroom, the more successful they will become in the business
market. My previous research (Yoshikawa, 2010) suggests that students are highly aware of
the extrinsic forces upon them to study EFL at university. Their intrinsic interest in English,
however, is primarily for entertainment reasons, including understanding English movies,
videos or music, travelling abroad, or reading discipline related materials. This leads to two
challenges for me as the instructor in creating a class which appeals to students’ intrinsic
motivations. First, it was very difficult to appeal to my non-English major students’ leisure
activity goals for using EFL. Second, as my students majored in Economics, it was also
important that students had a strong foundation for building their English skills for their
future career use, as Aoki (2011) and Torikai (2011) state, English is necessary in the global
economic market.

35
In the creation of any pedagogy for the EFL classroom, there are six main points to
consider. These are: creating a positive learning situation, variety, student autonomy,
expectation, time, and personalization. While the first three are self explanatory, the latter
three need further clarification.
First, in regards to expectations, the most basic interpretation is obvious. Students will
need to be orientated to the task so that they are fully aware of what they have to do.
Depending on the students’ EFL level, this may require that instructions are given out in
stages. However, there is a side of expectations that is often ignored by both instructors and
students. Many instructors do not take the time to specifically go over with the students, their
own goals for the course. If this is done, students can easily make connections to how what is
being done in class is in part achieving the instructor’s goals. Furthermore, students
themselves must set goals. However, it is not enough for students to only express their goals.
Students must also create a plan of action that includes steps that they can take daily or
weekly to achieve their goals.
Next, time is a multifaceted concept. Firstly, it is important for Japanese students to
be given adequate time to complete projects. Most Japanese students have a minimum of ten
other classes to attend each week. On top of their course load, extra-curricular club activities
can be very draining. Therefore, they do not have much time to complete much homework,
and incomplete homework assignments could hamper the progress of the following class.
This would dictate that students should be given some in class time to start homework
assignments which would also allow for students to question the instructor about parts of the
assignment they do not understand. What students are unable to accomplish in class must be
done as homework.
Secondly, there is another aspect of time which is equally important. That is, time for
discussions. Discussions between students allow them to make use of their specific technical
knowledge or discipline related linguistic items with each other, using the instructor as a
facilitator. During this time, students together are taking the new language presented to them
and are making it their own and subsequently internalizing it. In this way students in groups
are the co-coordinators of their new EFL abilities.
Finally, textbooks can be a point of de-motivation. Students are often not motivated to
talk in EFL classes, simply because they lack involvement in the topic. Many topics in their

36
texts seemingly do not apply to the students’ lives. It is the responsibility of the instructor to
create a bridge from the topics in the text to the students’ lives, so that the language that they
are learning becomes alive for them, and is seen as potentially useful. Hence, it is essential
that links between the topic as presented the textbook and students’ cultural knowledge or
personal situations are created. To increase students’ intrinsic motivation, it is essential that
the textbook be personalized.
The cycle of classes
In the EFL classroom, several teaching typologies are usually employed throughout
individual lessons and the course as a whole. The following is a brief outline of how my
classes are broken down into cycles. These cycles start with teacher-centered lessons and lead
towards collaborative learning activities.
The first lesson in a cycle is a textbook lesson. As students need to be orientated to the
topic, a typical class may start with schema building activities. These activities orientate
students to the topic by getting them to think about what they already know about the topic in
their native language, and what they can say about it in English. Schema building activities
for a more complicated topic may include a pre-reading task; however, the most common
approach is in the form of interview questions. Pre-tasks such as schema building activities
not only prepare students for a particular topic but also orientate students to the topic
culturally (Nunan, 1999). Once students have been orientated to the topic, it would lead to the
teacher centered portion of the class, which is an approach typically employing teaching by
transmission (Peters & Armstrong, 1998). At this stage, the primary sources for information
come from the teacher and the textbook while the students focus on individual learning. Here,
the instructor may discusse related issues to the topic and get the class involved in exercises
in the target language through listening and speaking tasks. This would include introducing
new vocabulary as well as a review of the grammar points. At this point, the lesson is at the
i+1 level, the information is new and slightly challenging.
The second lesson in a cycle requires the personalization of the textbook either to the
students’ personal interests as a class, or their common cultural knowledge. In this stage,
students are taking their newly acquired knowledge from the previous lesson, and are making
it their own knowledge. In essence, the knowledge is at the i+1 level. While the activities in

37
this level may be mentally demanding, students are taking the information they already
possess and working with it in new ways. Therefore, technically, the information is not new,
but reworked. This does not mean that students are not learning or processing information.
What they are doing is making the test material their own. Personalization as Lantolf and
Thorne (2009) and Lee (2002) suggest allows students to easily make connections to what
they are learning. Furthermore, students are making connections with how this information,
as both Wang and Nowlan (2011) and Yoshikawa (2010) describe, can be currently used by
them now or how they could potentially use it in the future.
The use of visual aids, such as showing short YouTube clips is an excellent way to
arouse students’ interests. Showing YouTube clips chosen so as to make a link between the
topic and the students’ country, in this case Japan, gives the topic relevance to the students.
Through the first lesson in the cycle, the instructor comes to an understanding in what ways
the topic is of interest to the students. Showing clips that reinforce students’ interests
expressed in the previous class, in tandem with clips which depict issues which students
might not be conscious of allows students to gain greater insight and understanding of the
topic. In addition this would also allow students to comprehend the possible implications the
topic has for them. After viewing the clips, students are asked to discuss them with their
small groups, particularly what they found interesting and surprising about the clips. After
their discussion, where students collaborate to gain greater EFL insight to the topic, students
then do small group assignments.
The next phase encourages autonomy. Students are given a written assignment. The
assignment is set within the parameters of the grammar points and vocabulary of the unit. The
students are always given two or three choices for their assignments; however, they also have
the freedom to choose their own option, as long as it falls under the umbrella of the topic of
the unit. Given that assignment would necessitate students do some research, they are
required to hand in their assignments at the beginning of the following class. In this way,
students are developing their EFL knowledge with their groups, in a way that is relevant to
them. At this time, the instructor can correct common mistakes and handle pragmatic issues
with the class. By following this method, students gain the confidence to use English in a safe
and structured setting, allowing opportunities for intrinsic motivation to increase.
Two factors are at play at this time. Students’ collaborative efforts increase as they
develop a deeper understanding of the topic and a better ability to discuss the topic in

38
English. This in turn fuels their intrinsic motivation, as English classes are seen as more
enjoyable and while challenging not as difficult. Overall, students’ confidence to use English
is increasing. This ultimately cumulates in the third part of the lesson, where students are
given the opportunity to demonstrate both their English skills and knowledge to the class.
After completing two or three cycles of first textbook and second YouTube lessons, students
choose the assignment from one of these lessons that they feel most confident with and give a
presentation to the class.
Presentations are an integral part of EFL classes. Presentations can be done
individually or in groups. Students should have the option to do their presentation in the way
that they are most comfortable in using their English skills; including to prepare a short video
of themselves using English to show to the class, to perform a skit or role-play, to prepare a
PowerPoint presentation, or to simply make a speech. Presentations encourage students to use
their linguistic and communicative abilities, as well as their creative abilities. While doing a
presentation in English is no doubt challenging for students, they allow students to express
their “intrinsic interest in learning activities and positive attitudes towards learning” (Dörnyei,
2001, p. 27). Through presentations, students have the opportunity to learn how to describe
their culture using their EFL skills. As students’ comments on my class suggest, from the end
of term class assessment survey, they appreciate the opportunity to do presentations: “Doing
presentations makes my English up” and “I can tell everyone one about my culture.” The
collaborative effort comes into play here, as students working with their groups, must not
only decide together which topic to present on, but also negotiate how they will do so.
Students must ensure that when they do their presentations, they use the English that they
know, and that their classmates in the audience will understand. Finally, presentations are a
lifelong skill. Students in their future careers will at some point have to do presentations. The
more practice they have had before this time, the better equipped they will be for the future.
This process allows students view English not only as something that they must complete to
fulfill graduation requirements. Through the breaking down of the class structure into cycles,
students become aware of the relevance of English to their own personal situations. This then
stimulates a circular continuum where students’ motivation increases as classes become more
relevant, which in turn increases their English proficiency; as students gain more fluency in
English, their confidence increases.

39
Conclusion and implications
Due to pressures from the business market, Japan is in the process of changing its
English language curricula. Businesses in Japan are demanding that their perceptive
employees have better communication skills in English. Universities are adjusting to this
demand with a shift focusing on communication classes. While the requirements of
businesses are changing, many students as of yet do not understand the implications that
these demands will have for them. Therefore, many instructors are not only in the position of
teaching communicative English to their students but also having to enlighten students about
the demands of the market. Typically, students are often reluctant to take part in discussions
if they feel they have no educational value for them either in the present or in the future. A
clear explanation of the rationale of the tasks, and the personalization topics are important
ways of counteracting this.
Language classes by nature require a variety of teaching methods. In my classes
specifically, the process of breaking the class into cycles was important for these Japanese
Economics major students. First, presenting new information is initially an instructor-
centered activity where the instructor imparts relevant based content and the focus is on
individual learning. Then students have a base to work from where they can develop this new
knowledge through collaborative learning activities working together with their instructor and
then with other students. Once students have had the opportunity to develop their EFL skills
on the topic, students would be in a position to work autonomously with the topic at hand,
cumulating in student presentations. This process would allow greater opportunities for
students to connect with the linguistic data either with their own cultural knowledge or to
their specific majors. Given the current ELF focus in Japan, it is essential that Japanese
students are allowed opportunities to take the knowledge that they have already gained and
build upon it. This would then create a positive situation where the instructor is able to raise
students’ confidence in their EFL skills which will in turn influence Japanese students’
general EFL performance and enhance their future goals. Thereby the MEXT’s goal would be
met and Japanese students would become more proficient EFL speakers with English abilities
to use in the marketplace.

40
The Author
Elizabeth Yoshikawa has been living and working in Japan for over 12 years. She
worked at Kwansei Gaukin University in the Economics Department for four years, teaching
4-skills and essay writing. Her current research interests lie in student/ instructor motivation
and creating pro-active learning situations.
References
Aoki, M. (2011, Jan. 6). Japan far behind in global language of business. Japan Times.
Retrieved from http//www.japantimes.com
Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2003). The role of gender and immersion in
communication and second language orientations. In A. Cumming & Z. Dörnyei
(Eds.), Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning. (pp. 65-96).
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Brown, J. D., Robson, G., & Rosenkjar, P. R. (2002). Personality, motivation, anxiety,
strategies, and language proficiency of Japanese students. In Z. Dornyei & R.
Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition. (pp. 361-398).
Manoa, Hawaii: University Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 24, 284-302.
Donnery, E. (2009). Testing the waters: Drama in the Japanese university EFL classroom.
Scenario, 1. Retrieved from http://publish.ucc.ie/scenario
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education
Limited.
Imai, Y. (2010). Emotions in SLA: New insights from collaborative learning for an EFL
classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 278-292.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New Jersey,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

41
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2009). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second
language development (3rd
ed.). Oxford: University Press.
Lee, I. (2002). Project work made easy in the English classroom. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 59(2), 282–90.
McKenzie, R. M. (2008). The complex and rapidly changing sociolinguistic position of the
English language in Japan: A summary of English language contact and use. Japan
Forum, 20(2), 267-286.
MEXT. (2011). Realizing the Education Sought by the New Course of Study. Retrieved from
http://www.mext.go.jp/english/elsec/1303500.htm
MEXT. (2003). Regarding the establishment of an action plan to cultivate “Japanese with
English Abilities.” Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/03072801.htm
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). Why are you learning a
second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. In A.
Cumming & Z. Dornyei (Eds.), Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language
learning. (pp. 33-63). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boson, MA: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three
communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal,
81, 443-456.
Peters, J. M., & Armstrong, J. L. (1998). Collaborative learning: People laboring together to
construct knowledge. In I. M. Saltiel, A. Sgroi, & B. G. Ralph (Eds.), New directions
for adult and continuing education, 79, 75-85.
Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (2001). Interest and self-regulation: The relation between having
to and wanting to. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation (pp. 341-373). San Diego: Academic Press.
Torikai, K. (2011, January 22). Japan needs new paradigm of English education. Asahi,
Retrieved from http://www.asahi.com

42
Wang, M., & Nowlan, A. (2011). Increasing Japanese university EFL students’ motivation
through communication with international students. In K. Kato & S. Gilfert (Eds.)
Annual Research Report of the Language Center, 14, 63-84.
Yoshikawa, E. (2010). A survey of student motivation: Key motivating factors for pro-active
learners. Journal eX, 7, 47-73.

43
Language and Culture for a Globalized World
Margaret M. Lieb
Abstract
Globalization brings with it unprecedented opportunities for people from
distant cultures to connect with each other. This has been largely facilitated
by the emergence of English as an international language which, in turn,
has raised a variety of evolving issues with implications for ELT pedagogy.
These include the need for intercultural communication skills, appreciation
of cultural diversity, preservation of indigenous languages, and fostering
cross-cultural understanding. In short, a globalized world requires not only
linguistic fluency, but also cultural fluency. This paper describes a
language and culture course, designed and implemented for the first time in
spring, 2011, which seeks to address these issues. In addition to providing
information on the teaching context, this paper describes the rationale for
the selection of goals and topics, outlines the pedagogical approach and
assessment techniques, and offers examples of student feedback.
Introduction
The age of globalization is unique in world history. Never before has the global
community been so interconnected, nor has communication across cultures, borders, and
continents been so effortless. This presents great opportunities and great challenges.
Globalization offers the perfect opportunity to foster cross-cultural understanding, goodwill
and global solidarity, while also eliminating prejudice, ethnocentrism, and suspicion. Cross-
cultural exchange of ideas opens minds, enriches experience, and enables people everywhere
to experience an enhanced vision of reality. Cultural diversity offers values that might serve
to construct happier, more humane societies through the exploration of each culture's values,
its universe of symbols, its desires and creativity (Marti, 1996). Globalization, however, also
brings with it inherent challenges, including the danger of cultural imperialism and the
potential for marginalization of indigenous languages and cultural values (Lieb, 2010;
Mufwene, 2008). Furthermore, while globalization has largely been facilitated by the

44
emergence of English as an international language, many would agree that linguistic fluency
alone is insufficient for a globalized world. Cultural fluency is key, including intercultural
communication skills, appreciation of cultural diversity, preservation of indigenous languages
and cultures, and cross-cultural understanding.
Against this backdrop, the number of university intercultural communication and
culture studies courses has dramatically increased over the last four decades (Rogers, Hart,
Miike, 2002). This paper describes one such course, Language and Culture, that was
implemented for the first time in spring, 2011 at a university in Tokyo, Japan. In addition to
providing information on the teaching context, this paper describes the rationale for the
selection of goals and topics, outlines the pedagogical approach and assessment techniques,
and offers examples of student feedback.
Teaching context
Language and Culture is being offered in the School of Global Japanese Studies, a
new department established in April, 2008, which enables students to study Japanese culture
from a global perspective. To enhance students' ability to "contribute to the global
community", the department offers "intensive English language education and international
studies" (Meiji University, 2011). The department envisions that graduates will understand
other cultures and societies, become aware of Japan’s place in the world, and actively share
their knowledge about Japan with others (Meiji University, 2011). In April 2011, the School
of Global Japanese Studies established an English-based B.A. for international students in
which students take all their course credits through English. Language and Culture is part of
the international studies component of this program.
Considerations
Several issues were considered in the planning and implementation of this course.
These include the need for intercultural communication skills, the distinction between
cultural literacy and cultural fluency, and ongoing intercultural issues in Japan.
Intercultural communication skills
The American anthropologist, Edward T. Hall, is widely regarded as the founder of
intercultural communication research. According to Rogers, Hart, and Miike (2002), when
the United States emerged as a world power after World War II, its military dominance was

How to evaluate lls

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to How to evaluate lls

Similar to How to evaluate lls (20)

More from Hamizah Osman

More from Hamizah Osman (16)

How to evaluate lls