Giáo Dục - Đào Tạo - Kỹ thuật - Kinh tế The Development of Oral Communication Skills: A Comparative Study of EU and Japanese University Students 2020 – 2021 EU Studies Diploma Programmes (EU-DPs) Yukiko JOZAKI (Student ID No. 3GS18005E) Research Paper Advisor: Narahiko INOUE 20th August, 2020 ii Abstract This paper presents a comparative analysis of English language competence of university students in Belgium and Japan in order to provide Japanese learners with suggestions on becoming independent and self-regulated learners in a global community. The paper aims to explore the challenges of Japanese university students in oral communication in English. A series of questionnaires were administered to three groups of university students in two countries (n=30, n=154, and n=26) to evaluate the students'''' self-assessment of their communication skills in English. The surveys investigated oral production (speaking) and spoken interaction in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR), and oral communication strategy (OCS) use. The data were quantitatively analyzed to capture the English competence of the Japanese subjects in comparison with the Belgian subjects, and supplemental follow-up interview was conducted. The results show significant differences in overall English language competence between Belgian and Japanese students according to six scales presented by the CEFR, self-assessment of production and interaction activities, as well as specific OCS use according to Oral Communication Strategy Inventory (OCSI) (Nakatani, 2006). The findings reveal the general challenges Japanese university students face and how they view their English skills in the context of English as a lingua franca (ELF) in academia, as well as the impact of different roles of English in the two countries on students with different sociolinguistic backgrounds. Keywords: CEFR, EFL, ELF, Plurilingualism, Oral Communication Strategy (OCS), Questionnaire Survey iii Table of Contents 1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….......1 1.1 Purpose of the paper …………………………………………………………………..1 1.2 Background ………………………………………………………………………….1 1.2.1 Japanese university students’ low self-assessment of their English communication skills ...1 1.2.2 Internationalization of Japanese universities …………………………………….2 1.3 Related studies ………………………………………………………………………..4 1.3.1 Foreign language learning in Japan ……………………………………………...4 1.3.2 The models of English …………………………………………………………...8 1.3.3 The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) …….12 1.3.3.1 Plurilingualism as a value of the CEFR ……………………………………14 1.3.3.2 Approaches of the CEFR …………………………………………………..16 1.3.3.3 Self-assessment and its application ………………………………………..21 1.3.4 Strategic behavior and studies in the field of strategy ………………………….22 1.4 Research Questions ………………………………………………………………….27 2. Methodology …………………………………………………………………………..…27 2.1 Subject Groups ……………………………………………………………..………..27 2.1.1 Group 1 ………………………………………………………………………….28 2.1.2 Group 2 ……………………………………………………………………….....28 2.1.3 Group 3 ………………………………………………………………………....28 2.2 Questionnaires for the Study ……………………………………………………..….29 3. Studies ………………………………………………………………………………..….31 3.1 Study 1: General Language Competence of Japanese University Students according to CEFR Scale 3.1.1 Purpose of Study 1 …………………………………………………………......31 3.1.2 Method of Study 1 ………………………………………………………….….31 3.1.3 Findings of Study 1 ……………………………………………………….…... 31 3.2 Study 2: Self-assessment on Two CEFR Activities: Oral Production (Speaking) and Spoken Interaction 3.2.1 Purpose of Study 2 ……………………………………………………………..34 iv 3.2.2 Method of Study 2 ……………………………………………………………..35 3.2.3 Findings of Study 2 ……………………………………………...……………..36 3.3 Study 3: Oral Communication Strategy Use ………………………………………..39 3.3.1 Purpose of Study 3 ……………………………………………………………..39 3.3.2 Method of Study 3 ………………………………………………………….….39 3.3.3 Findings of Study 3 …………………………………………………………….40 3.3.3.1 Frequency of OCS use …………………………………………………...40 3.3.3.2 Frequency of speaking and listening strategy use ………………………...42 3.3.3.3 Negative strategy ………………………………………………………….47 3.3.3.4 Nonverbal strategy ………………….……………………………………..49 3.4 After the Survey Interview ………………………………………………………….52 4. Results and Discussion ………………………………………………………………….54 4.1 Survey 1 Research Question: How competent are the Japanese subjects in English based on the six CEFR scales? ………………………………...54 4.2 Survey 2 Research Question: How do the Belgian and Japanese subjects differ in their self-assessments of two CEFR communication activities? …….55 4.3 Survey 3 Research Question: How do the Belgian and Japanese subjects differ in their self-assessments of oral communication strategy (OCS) use? ……56 5. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………….57 Acknowledgements References Appendix 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the paper This paper aims to examine the challenges and setbacks Japanese students face in their trajectory of learning English as a foreign language (EFL) or as a lingua franca (ELF) in higher education settings. In addition, the paper aims to explore suggestions to make students autonomous and confident language learners by examining self-evaluations of Japanese students and their counterparts in the EU. The survey was conducted at two national universities, one in Japan and one in a Dutch-speaking district in Belgium, where students belong to different sociolinguistic settings: monolingual and plurilingual. The comparative survey between the Japanese subjects and their counterparts in the EU on English competence and strategies for handling communicative tasks allows the study to induce the sociolinguistic impact on foreign language acquisition. The preliminary survey for this research revealed that Japanese university students have low self-assessment of their speaking and listening skills. Accordingly, this paper analyzes how subjects in these two countries perceive their English language competence using targeted Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) activities, as well as how they cope with speaking and listening tasks with oral communication strategy (OCS). This study aims to find out specific activities or challenges that lead Japanese learners to give a low self-assessment of their oral communication skills. 1.2 Background 1.2.1 Japanese university students’ low self-assessment of their English communication skills The study used a survey to examine English language competencies and self-assessment of Japanese students enrolled in undergraduate-level English language education. This preliminary survey discovered that the students reported low self-evaluations of their English skills, in particular speaking and listening – skills that directly relate to communication activities. The subjects were asked to self-assess their English language skills in four categories – speaking, listening, writing, and reading – using a 6-level Likert scale (0 = very weak, 1 = weak, 2 = somewhat weak, 3 = somewhat strong, 4 = strong, 5 = very strong). Table 1 shows the mean values of the self-assessment by 183 first-year university students (Q-under). The result shows that the respondents generally recognize their respective English skills as weak rather than as strong, with mean values as follows: speaking: 1.72, listening: 2 2.12, writing: 2.58, and reading: 2.91. There is a notable lack of confidence in skills relevant to oral communication, speaking and listening, compared with the less interactive skills of reading and writing. The lowest value observed is for speaking skills, with a mean of 1.72. Table 1 The survey includes open-ended questions asking the students to explain their reason for the score they gave. Quite a number of students pointed out a lack of experience in speaking English, both inside and outside the classroom. A social environment with less opportunity to speak English makes them feel insecure and less confident, even feel a sense of frustration or inferiority, when they communicate and interact in English. The subjects of the survey generally receive knowledge-intensive language education with the goal of passing entrance examinations for prestigious universities. The scores and responses regarding writing and reading skills show that the subjects have more positive opinions in these areas. Some comment that they are more accustomed to these skills through school curriculum and feel less time-pressured because the skills are not interactive. Despite the low self-assessment of their speaking and listening skills, the majority of the students wish to be linguistically competitive and recognize the importance of English as a language for global communication and its dominance in the academia. These students may still be at the stage where they can learn the language autonomously and independently considering their academic history so far. The preliminary survey implies the significance of providing learners opportunities to practice language skills. 1.2.2 Internationalization of Japanese universities Globalization and its rapid progress make higher education institutions face not only an acceleration of student mobility but also an increase in global competition among universities. Officials and educational 3 institutions are focusing on bringing international students and researchers to Japan and sending Japanese students and researchers abroad. Universities are developing international courses and study abroad programs, setting up overseas offices to recruit eligible students, and promoting their institutions. All these efforts are aimed to boost Japanese universities’ global presence and the development and utilization of “global human resources.” This is a global trend observed not only in Japan but also in other Asian countries and EU member nations. Globalization is often discussed in line with the internationalization of higher education, where globalization and internationalization are often used interchangeably. The issue of internationalization of Japanese universities accompanies the issue of English language dominance in the academic community as a whole. In the context of the internationalization of universities, providing a high level of English language education and instruction is key. Higher education institutions, therefore, are responsible for providing language programs, including English as a medium of instruction (EMI) classes, and opportunities for students to develop English competence by contributing to international journals, presenting at international conferences, engaging in discussions with their counterparts globally, and respecting the cultures of their fellow international students, in addition to traditional academic English teaching in the classroom. In addition, requirements for potential future global talent include English language competence. According to Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology - Japan (MEXT), the concept of global human resources includes qualities such as "1. linguistic and communication skills; 2. self-direction and positiveness, a spirit for a challenge, cooperativeness and flexibility, a sense of responsibility and mission; and 3. understanding of other cultures and a sense of identity as a Japanese” (MEXT, 2011). As such, the Japanese government and MEXT built various efforts to internationalize Japan’s universities and foster global human resources to meet the needs of globalization (MEXT, 2014a: 68). The efforts include Top Global University Project, Inter-University Exchange Project (Re-Inventing Japan Project), Global 30 Project, Go Global Japan, and Japan Revitalization Strategy (MEXT, 2011: 2014a: 2016: 2017). Japan aimed to increase the number of international students studying in Japan to 300,000 by 2020 (the Global 30) (MEXT, 2008). A series of government-led initiatives aim to provide Japanese university students more opportunities to foster communicative ability through actual use of English, to become aware of 4 the diversity of the global societies, and to feel the reality of English in the internationalized educational settings. English language learning in internationalized universities will require sociolinguistic knowledge and strategic communication skills, in addition to language competence. Ota suggests the importance of international and intercultural content and dimension in the scope of internationalization of universities and proposes the definition of a term internationalization as “a multifaceted and multidimensional process integrating international, intercultural, and global content and dimensions into the functions and aims of higher education institutions and systems” (Ota, 2018: 92-23). This is partly because globalization encompasses diverse English use by people with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds as a lingua franca (ELF). The English language has more gravity as a common language than as a second (ESL) or a foreign language (EFL), as English has spread as a dominant global language or as the only means of communication (Seidlhofer, 2017). This is undoubtedly the case in academia. Opening Japanese educational institutions to more international students and faculties fosters students’ linguistic and communicative competence and raises cultural awareness and identity. This is undeniably the right direction for both the country and the students. The significance of foreign language learning is not limited to learners’ linguistic competence. In this regard, the government policy reflects the importance of fostering learners’ multidimensional perspectives along with sociolinguistic knowledge and effective communication skills. However, a brief review of government policies reveals the need for more research to understand learner preference and challenges in the learning process or communicative behavior in order to create effective policies and allow learners to benefit from the internationalization of universities. 1.3 Related studies 1.3.1 Foreign language learning in Japan Japanese students, in general, learn English as a foreign language (EFL) in school under the government curriculum guidelines through MEXT, with the exception of some private school with a special curriculum. Cohen states that, “Technically, learning a second language means that the language being learned is that which is spoken in the community in which it is being learned, while a foreign language is not spoken in the local community” Cohen (1998: 5). According to his definition, Japanese students learn English as a foreign 5 language (EFL) that is not spoken in their community; in other words, it is “not a part of everyday social or institutional communication” (Widdowson, 2016: 214). This generally means that the exposure to the target language is limited to specific settings, for instance, in classrooms. The English language does not have an indispensable function in Japanese society so that learners usually do not have enough opportunity to use the language in their daily activities nor practice in real-life settings. Japanese students are familiar with English as their school subject, but not as a dominant language for communication in the contemporary global community. As such, language classrooms play an important role in language learning in Japan. The dominance of English makes it an indispensable language regardless of the role it has in the community and the proficiency level of the speakers. Due to the importance of English in academia, Japanese students in higher education are required to read and write literature, attend and present at conferences, and participate in discussions that are conducted in English to be successful members of the academic community. As such, English is virtually the only option to apply for international conferences and prestigious academic journals, where “manuscripts which lack the ‘key’ (English-language) references are more likely to be turned down” (Tardy, 2004:249). Some studies investigate the changing role of English. For example, there is an argument that “English language education policies throughout Asia typically operate on a deficiency model, wherein differences from ‘native speaker’ English are viewed as flaws requiring educational correction” (Haswell Hahn 2018: 57). In Japan, English taught in classrooms is modeled as native-speaker (NS) norm. In addition, Murata conducted an attitude survey and found that Japanese students’ tendency to regard NS English as the norm is deep-rooted on a subconscious level (Murata et al., 2019: 19, translated by the author). This mindset was also observed in my preliminary survey of Japanese undergraduate students (n=183). This mindset assumes US and UK as the linguistic and cultural representation of the English language; however, it does not match the reality of contemporary use of English as a lingua franca and an international means of communication. In global communication, “in most communicative exchanges that involve language users from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, which variety of English is used depends on the speakers involved and is thus unpredictable” (Matsuda Friedrich, 2011: 333). Furthermore, communicative effectiveness in real-world conversation is very different from the correctness-based classroom reality (Seidlhofer, 2017). From a pedagogical standpoint, a native English speaker (NES)-based model is not 6 necessarily appropriate for non-native English speaker (NNES) learners, since failure to use “correct or accurate” forms conforming to the native English norm tends to make the speakers feel ashamed or lose confidence in their English skills. This was also observed in my preliminary survey, with low self- assessment of speaking and listening skills (see 1.2.1 Table 1). NNES should be more aware of diverse English spoken in various regions where social identities are more reflected, focus more on strategic behaviors to facilitate communication, and understand meaning by negotiation behavior rather than paying attention to the difference from NES. Some studies suggest introducing EMI and ELF-oriented education. This is partly based on the view that the current English form and its use are beyond the traditional framework of the Three Circle Model (Kachru, 1985) and does not belong to any of the circles, with its function as a means of transcultural communication. According to the British Council, EMI is “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English” (Dearson, 2014: 4). The English language in EMI classes is “any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice” (Seidlhofer, 2011). This classroom situation corresponds to how people use English as a lingua franca (ELF) or a shared communication tool. Seeing the demographic and sociolinguistic reality today, “countless interactions worldwide take place every day in which only a small minority of native speakers of English, if any, participate” (Seidlhofer, 2017: 8-9) in most communicative exchange. The English in ELF is not an English of native-speaker norms, but it is an English spoken and used by people with diverse backgrounds as the “instrument of international communication,” which is the goal of English acquisition proposed by Seidlhofer (2017: 5, original italic by the author). The number of EMI classes has been increasing in Japanese universities due to promotion by MEXT (2011: 2014b). Numerous studies are being conducted on the English use in the classroom in the fields of EMI, ELF, TESOL, and World English, and papers in these fields agree that the E in EMI stands for English as a lingua franca (Murata, 2019: 20). A study conducted on multinational students (n=163) in EMI classes at one of the leading private universities in Japan revealed that the majority of the students had positive feedback on EMI classes and English use in the class (Murata et al., 2019: 23). The participants of the study commented that EMI classes not only helped improve their language competence but also brought them 7 opportunities to communicate with students with diverse backgrounds, mitigate the fear of making mistakes and sense of shame, and become less hesitant in discussing or speaking in public in English (Murata et al., 2019: 24-26). The study assumes that EMI classes promote learner experience in speaking English and help students build confidence. Some students in the study also demonstrated the development of ELF-oriented attitude and perceptions (Jenkins et al., 2011): that is, freedom from NS norm and placing more importance on effective communication and mutual understanding (Murata et al., 2019: 26-27). Adopting EMI classes and ELF-oriented education could be an option in university classrooms to help mitigate the sense of shame or difficulty by posing a model that helps learners to prepare for the reality of English as “as an instrument of the international community (Seidlhofer, 2017). Furthermore, some studies point out that the use of strategic behaviors is observed as well in international communication. Matsuda Friedrich observe language users from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds as they are “likely to employ various strategies to negotiate linguistic and other differences to make themselves mutually intelligible and to communicate effectively” (Matsuda Friedrich 2011: 333-334). The study implies that ELF learners are required to have a certain extent of sociolinguistic knowledge and intercultural understanding, as well as the application of communication strategy. We will examine strategic behaviors during communication in the following section. It is not too much to say that the process of foreign language learning will allow learners to have a plurilinguistic or multilinguistic view and contribute to developing their language resources. A publication from British Council adds, One of the main aims of policymakers, teachers, parents and students in implementing EMI is to internationalize the education on offer in their country, particularly in the higher education phase. The speed at which universities are internationalizing and English is being used as the academic lingua franca is accelerating. Ironically, EMI means that learning in English no longer means going to a UK or US university. (Dearden, 2014: 29) 8 As such, the reality of English in global societies is relevant to various pedagogical aspects, such as English language learning in Japanese universities, its internationalization, and the model of English for learning and teaching. English language education in Japan should reflect the contemporary use of the language and demographic and sociolinguistic aspects, while taking into accounts Japanese learners’ pedagogical background and general tendency to be anxious about deficiency and less confident in interactive communicative activities. Since this is a sensitive area of language learning, further research is required to make learning easier, more effective, and self-directed for the learners. 1.3.2 The Models of English With the acceleration of globalization and the development of information technology, English is most commonly used as the international communication language. This transition has increased English varieties used by people with diverse cultural backgrounds and national identities. It is acknowledged that the modern English language is a global language, with its emergence putting the language as a “triumph language” and developing a new paradigm that allows English “the new status as a global lingua franca and the new cultural, linguistic, political and economic issues surrounding English as it is used in a postmodern world” (Graddol, 2006). Graddol (2006) also suggested that the world will expect a confusing time characterized by four kinds of change: 1. ephemeral, 2. transitional, 3. the declining old paradigm, and 4. the rising new paradigm for 10 – 15 years, then gradually experience the rise of the new paradigm which reflect the reality and dynamics of the emerging new world order (Graddol, 2006: 66). In the context of current English use, the new paradigm has also created a phenomenon called “linguistic imperialism” (Graddol, 2006: 112), “linguistic hegemony” (Haswell and Hahn, 2018: 2), or “intellectual imperialism” (Fewer, 1997: 764) beyond the framework of international communication language. This transition to the new paradigm has understandably influenced English models for learners of the language. In the 1980s, Kachru (1985) developed the traditional Three Circle Model of World Englishes that categorized English into three concentric circles: 1. the Inner Circle, 2. the Outer Circle, and 3. the Expanding Circle according to “the types of spread, the patterns of acquisition, and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages” (Kachru, 1985: 12). This model has been influential to describe the spread of English and its varieties until today; however, it does not represent the subsequent 9 growth of English driven by globalization and information technology development. The number of Inner Circle native speakers (NS) who provide the “norm” of the English language is now outnumbered both by the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circles of non-native speakers (NNS). In the scope of World Englishes, Global Englishes, and a lingua franca, speakers embrace linguistic and cultural diversity for communication, so that the Inner Circle speakers not necessarily provide the norm, and the Outer and Expanding Circle speakers not necessarily develop and depend on the English provided by the Inner Circle speakers as Kachru described. This is because “social identities and networks that languages reflect and construct are becoming dispersed and less geographically tied”, causing the “destandardization” of English (Graddol, 2004: 1329- 1330). Thus, due to international communication beyond national borders, the English language functions “as a means of transcultural communication that ‘cuts across’ all three circles” (Seidlhofer, 2017: 8, original emphasis) and makes the distinction of the circles blurry. The Three Circle Model questions the model of English that should be used and learned in the contemporary world, and the reality of English makes language learners and teachers reconsider the norm as well as the sociolinguistic complexity of the language involved in a highly globalized and interacted world. With the transition to a new paradigm, more diversified varieties of English are prevailing and becoming widely accepted as practical communication languages. NNSs including EFL, ESL, and ELF speakers account for a big part of the English-speaking population so that NSs are not the majority and their norm is not the mainstream anymore. Both NSs and NNSs speak English as a lingua franca due to “the demographic and sociolinguistic reality today is that the vast majority of ELF users have first languages other than English” (Seidlhofer, 2017: 8-9). This situation makes more speakers see English as a common tool for global communication, and the trend makes NNSs unique existence who might not speak standard English but with distinct cultural and linguistic backgrounds of their first language. For an instance, one of the innate potentialities make them unique and special is that “they are already communicatively capable in their language(s) and can, therefore, extend this capability by drawing on English as a resource to extend their communicative repertoire” (Seidlhofer, 2017: 20). Studies on the role of English in the academic community suggest that “international graduate students represent future influential users of English” (Tardy, 2004: 253) because of the demographic future of English and possible language change over time (Graddol, 2006; Tardy, 2004; Widdowson, 2016). Another noteworthy aspect of ELF is the neutrality in its nature, in 10 addition to its diversity and uniqueness. Tardy mentions by citing Kaplan (2001) that “an additional and separate argument is that English’s ‘pluricentric’ nature has allowed its varieties flourish, in turn leading to its success as a global language” (Tardy, 2004: 249). It is reasonable that the spread and acceptance of diversified English and its standing as a lingua franca will be further developed by reflecting the benefits and speakers’ capabilities. The reality of English dominance, however, gives rise to controversy such as “academic imperialism” (Fewer, 1997: 764), “linguistic hegemony” (Haswell and Hahn, 2018: 2), or even a “linguistic carnivore” (Tardy, 2004: 263). A specific case observed in academia is that English became a language for international publication. Current English dominance makes non-Inner Circle (Kachru, 1985) researchers “increasingly less likely to publish in their mother tongue, and their English-language publications are cited more often” (Tardy, 2004: 250). Fewer (1997: 764) warns that this monoglot publication practice results in “academic imperialism”. Although the term “imperialism” may be rather strong, this is a cause for concern for researchers who would like to avoid falling into a mono-linguistic and monopolized view. As mentioned above, NNSs, potentially influential users of English with unique backgrounds, should be proud of taking their multilinguistic or plurilinguistic views into their activities including academic publication. Controversial arguments on the dominance of the English language entail a reconsideration of the educational model. Japanese education policies have operated with the aim of NES competence and conformity to their norm based on the “deficiency model, wherein differences from ‘native speaker’ English is viewed as flaws requiring educational correction” (Haswell Hahn, 2018: 57). Some researchers encourage introducing ELF to EMI classes in higher education and as language used in a globalized world (Murata, 2019; Murata et al., 2019) in a bid to reflect the need and reality of the language in the classrooms through a learner-oriented perspective. Such research explores the best possible way to take advantage of the resources NNSs have and the merits of English to mitigate the controversies and misunderstandings related to the language. The benefit of introducing ELF to classrooms is the potential to prevent learners’ negative attitudes toward their English variability, as well as to overcome the concerns regarding a monopolized view caused by the global supremacy of English. However, studies show that sociolinguistic diversity should be adopted with caution in language classrooms, as merely showing the reality of global English use is not sufficient, partly due to negative images on some specific language varieties among Japanese university 11 students (Haswell, 2017; Haswell Hahn, 2018: 63). Further studies are required to explore learner preferences and attitudes toward foreign language communication in order to suggest an appropriate pedagogical model. One of the significant aspects of foreign language learning is to provide learners different views from their L1-based pre-existing views and flexibility to respond to real situations. This can help build real language competence and capability rather than attempting to fill in the gap created by deficiency with native speaker models. Various studies suggest possible pedagogical models for the future. These suggestions can be divided into two categories. The first category recommends: a) prioritizing facilitation of interactive communication, such as giving more time to learning which is linked communication and communication strategies, proactive listening, and accommodation skills (Haswell Hahn, 2018: 10; Matsuda Friedrich: 339; Seildhofer, 2017: 20), b) providing students with opportunities to use English in ELF environments, and experience and realize the importance, difficulty, and joy of communicating across cultures (Murata, 2019: 21), and c) raise awareness of learner autonomy to develop strategies for using their linguistic resources (Widdowson, 2016: 222). The second category is a shift from correctness-oriented NS models to intelligibility-oriented practice (Crystal, 2012; Graddol, 2006; Haswell Harn, 2018; Murata, 2019: 21; Seidlhofer, 2011: 2017; Widdowson, 2016). The shift is achieved by emphasizing communicative appropriateness over conformity to correct linguistic forms which focus on receiving and mimicking a fixed standard (Haswell Hahn, 2018: 10; Seildhofer, 2017: 20). This seems to coincide with communication and language learning in the scope of plurilingualism advocated by the Council of Europe (CoE). The CEFR developed by the CoE incorporates diverse culture into foreign language learning due to the idea that communicative language competence includes not only linguistic competence (CoE, 2001: 13) but also communication skills, strategic behaviors, and sociolinguistic understanding parallel to linguistic skills. Previous studies have attempted to explore and provide possible models of English and accommodate the preferences and needs of learners and teachers, as well as national educational policies, producing some useful findings and successful recommendations. Contemporary English is a shared language for people in global societies where diverse language varieties, cultures, and social identities coexist. With the emergence of a new paradigm, as proposed by Graddol (2006), the role of English will continuously evolve as global societies change, suggesting that one model does not fit nor work effectively for all learners. Accumulated 12 knowledge from numerous previous studies implies that learners, especially university-level learners who have already achieved a certain level of competence, have to be autonomous and self-regulatory as their competence evolves, and should think about which specific skills they require. Piccardo (2018) suggests that “using learners’ personal language(s) of origin to scaffold their metalinguistic reflection, …, are extremely powerful to enhance senses of self-efficacy and autonomy.” (Piccardo, 2018: 13). A single model is not universal nor suitable for all learners; rather, learner specific models are necessary. As such, the attitude of a specific group of learners must be clearly understood. 1.3.3 The Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR) This section will give an overview of the CEFR (CoE, 2001) issued by the Council of Europe, introducing a summary of some key features of the CEFR that are relevant to the aims of this paper. The CEFR is a framework developed by the CoE, originally designed to apply to any European languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001). The CEFR covers some practical matters, “such as describing language policies, developing syllabuses, designing courses, developing learning materials, creating examstests, marking exams, evaluating language learning needs, continuousself-assessment, and teacher training programs” (Tono, 2017, 31). As such, the framework’s unique and innovative nature widely spread outside the EU. The first page of the CEFR opens with the following remarks: The Common European Framework provides a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe. It describes in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to do in order to use a language for communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively. The description also covers the cultural context in which language is set. The Framework also defines levels of proficiency which allow learners’ progress to be measured at each stage of learning and on a life-long basis. (CoE, 2001: 1) This excerpt expresses that the CEFR not only presents a pedagogical guideline but also encourages an action- oriented approach for learning to be an effective communicator as a member of society, to raise cultural 13 awareness during the process of foreign language learning, and for life-long progress and achievement in multiple activities and stages. In addition, North suggests that “an action-oriented approach suggests focusing on relevant content and experiences, systematically including holistic activity so that learners can develop strategic competence” (North, 2007: 656). The underlying concepts of the CEFR include plurilingualism, an action-oriented approach, self-assessment of proficiency levels by grid and descriptor, and organized use of strategies. Negishi et al. (2012) state that “the CEFR is accepted as an international standard for language teaching and learning” partly because “it is comprehensive in terms of skills and range of language proficiency” and its concepts (Negishi, Takada, Tono, 2012: 136-137). Those concepts are well-presented and widely known, and make the CEFR unparalleled to other frameworks, such as the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). Originally, the CEFR developed following the CoE language policy and its principles of advocating plurilingualism, which include: That the rich heritage of diverse languages and cultures in Europe is a valuable common resource to be protected and developed, and that a major educational effort is needed to convert that diversity from a barrier to communication into a source of mutual enrichment and understanding. (CoE, 2001: 2) In addition, CoE’s political objectives in the field of modern languages include “to promote mutual understanding and tolerance, respect for identities and cultural diversity through more effective international communication” (CoE, 2001: 3). Although these ideas were originally developed for the European context, we believe they can be applied to Japanese foreign language education. Studies in sociolinguistics show the increasingly plurilingual nature of discourse. Regional diversity and heritage in terms of culture, language, and policy is a phenomenon observed not only in the EU but also in East Asia and Asia-Pacific regions. Some studies have examined the compatibility of the CEFR with English language education in Japan, and development and modifications of usable models are in progress (Negishi et al., 2012; Tono, 2017). Piccardo et al. (2019) suggest that the CEFR and its concept of the learner-user as a plurilingualpluricultural social agent imply a 14 paradigm shift in language education (Piccardo et al., 2019: 18). This paper overviews the key CEFR concepts from the following perspectives: 1. plurilingualism as a value of the CEFR, 2. approaches of the CEFR, and 3. self-assessment and application for research. 1.3.3.1 Plurilingualism as a value of the CEFR The plurilingualism in which the CoE emphasizes its importance reflects linguistic plurality in language learning. Since the 1980s, studies in language education have proposed several new concepts, including multi-competence, translanguaging, and polylingualism. All these notions have contributed to conceptualizing linguistic plurality and highlighting issues related to multilingualism. Subsequently, “the limits of the term multilingualism have become increasingly evident when it comes to capturing the dynamic aspects of language use or the holistic and hybrid nature of linguistic phenomena and practice” (Piccardo, 2018: 6). Criticism has arisen regarding the underlying conception of languages as separate entities, which is the most widespread view of the term multilingualism (Piccardo, 2018: 6). The concept of plurilingualism was introduced by the CoE as an effective approach to language learning. In terms of the definition, the CoE clearly distinguishes the definition of plurilingualism from that of multilingualism. Multilingualism is defined as: The knowledge of a number of languages, or the co-existence of different languages in a given society. Multilingualism may be attained by simply diversifying the languages on offer in a particular school or educational system, or by encouraging pupils to learn more than one foreign language, or reducing the dominant position of English in international communication. (CoE, 2001: 4) On the other hand, plurilingualism takes a more holistic approach and emphasizes the fact that: As an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands, from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of other peoples (whether learnt at school or college, or by direct experience), he or she does not keep these 15 languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. (CoE, 2001: 4) The definitions set by the CoE imply that multilingualism does not focus on relationships between languages or flexibility in language use, while plurilingualism puts the relational principle at the core (Piccardo, 2018: 7). In a plurilingual approach, the learner keeps both hisher mother tongue and language(s) learned in the same mental compartment as linguistic and cultural resources; therefore, the learner can interrelate and interact with these linguistic resources to build hisher plurilingual communication competence. For instance, Piccardo states that, “a multilingual classroom is one in which there are children who speak different mother tongues”, while “a plurilingual classroom is one in which teachers and students pursue an educational strategy of embracing and exploring the linguistic diversity present in order to maximize communication and hence both subject learning and plurilingualpluricultural awareness” (Piccardo, 2018: 7). According to the CEFR, plurilingual and pluricultural competence refers to “the ability to use languages for the purposes of communication and to take part in intercultural interaction, where a person, viewed as a social agent, has proficiency, of varying degrees, in several languages and experience of several cultures” (CoE, 2001: 168). This is because “it is a central objective of language education is to promote the favorable development of the learner’s whole personality and sense of identity in response to the enriching experience of otherness in language and culture”(CoE, 2001: 1). Furthermore, “as a social agent, each individual forms relationships with a widening cluster of overlapping social groups, which together define identity” (CoE, 2001: 1). We believe that the idea of plurilingualism and its introduction to language learning help create an environment for building an identity as a global citizen, as well as confidence for learners whose target language is deficient only within the native speaker model. Thus, plurilingualism aims to achieve communicative competence through an action-oriented approach in which language is learned and used through various activities in real life as “a social agent”. Communicative competence is built by experiencing cultural awareness through language learning including the learner’s own language(s) and culture(s), where significance is placed more on what the learners can do with the language rather than setting native speakers as models. This approach is based on the idea that 16 language acquisition is a lifelong activity through various settings and different stages of life with various social contexts. Tono describes the concept as, “those who can hold and accept plural languages and cultures in them, make the best decision according to the scenes and situations based on the plural linguistic and cultural understanding, those are the individuals who can cross the linguistic and cultural barriers, and realize genuine peace” (Tono, 2010: 60: translated by the author). The plurilinguistic value rooted in the linguistic plurality in the EU is not a familiar idea for many learners of English as a foreign language in Japan. However, Japanese foreign language learners recognize that the importance of linguistic plurality with respect for identity and cultural diversity. 1.3.3.2 Approaches of the CEFR This section overviews specific approaches of the framework. Some of the taxonomic components may overlap because of its nature and the complexity of human language. First and foremost, one of the unique features of the CEFR and its approaches is its taxonomic nature. The framework says that “the taxonomic nature of the Framework inevitably means trying to handle the great complexity of human language by breaking language competence down into separate components” (CoE, 2001:1). The overview should start with the concept of two dimensions of communicative proficiency: horizontal and vertical. The CEFR conceptualizes communicative proficiency in terms of what the learner- user can do in a second language in two dimensions, horizontal and vertical, which are represented by the well-known “Common Reference Levels: self-assessment grid” (CoE, 2001: 26-27); the self-assessment grid summarizes proficiency by six scale levels and by five communicative activities. 1. Horizontal dimension This dimension is a representation of the action-oriented approach. It “views users and learners of a language primarily as ‘social agents’, i.e. members of society who have tasks (not exclusively language- related) to accomplish in a given set of circumstances, in a specific environment and within a particular field of action” (CoE, 2001: 9). In the CEFR documents, the terms horizontal dimension and action- oriented approach are used interchangeably. The horizontal dimension summarizes proficiency through 17 five communicative activities: listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, and writing (Little, 2007: 646). 2. Vertical dimension This is a dimension of different levels on the proficiency scale. This dimension introduces a composition of six scales to define communicative proficiency: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2, where the six scales are common reference levels for learner achievement. Each scale describes in general terms what the learner can do and in terms of respective language activities (reception, production (oral andor written), interaction, and mediation), and language tasks. Descriptions of the “can-do statements” are written using general and positive wording, so that descriptions have no compulsory nature. The six reference levels in three bands (basic, independent, and proficient) are a representation of a trajectory of foreign language learning from the onset of the learning to the lifetime career path in the public, personal, educational, and occupational domains. (CoE, 2001: 1). The B1 level is designated as a threshold level beyond which learners become independent users of the language. The Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT) is planning a reform of English language education that aims to “make it possible to attain B1 competency by the end of upper secondary school” (Tono, 2017: 32-33). Figure 1 The Common Reference Levels (CoE, 2001: 23) 3. Can-do statementsdescriptors CEFR provides illustrative descriptors to assess learner level. The “can-do” descriptors are provided for these language activities: reception, interaction, and production. Six levels of descriptors are not used for all three activities, as “some activities cannot be undertaken until a certain level of competence has been reached, whilst others may cease to be an objective at higher levels” (CoE, 2001: 25). For instance, oral 18 production (speaking) sustained monologue, putting a case (e.g. in a debate), has only two levels, B2 and B1 (CoE, 2001: 59). Therefore, this activity cannot be undertaken until a learner reaches the B2 or B1 level of proficiency. As mentioned above, the CEFR proficiency descriptors are always positive, even for lower levels “in terms of what the learner can do rather than in terms of what they can’t do”, with the following set of guidelines: positiveness, definiteness, clarity, brevity, and independence (CoE, 2001: 205- 206). 4. Self-assessment grid with “illustrative descriptors” The self-assessment grid summarizes learner proficiency through the vertical dimension (six scale levels) and the horizontal dimension (five communicative activities). The CEFR intends to use its framework for planning self-directed learning including self-assessment, as well as raising awareness of the learner’s current level of knowledge, self-setting of feasible and worthwhile objectives, and selection of materials (CoE, 2001: 6). The self-assessment grid with illustrative descriptors defines standards and criteria for the learner to assess hisher proficiency by level and by activity. Therefore, the learner can self-assess hisher communicative performance and linguistic knowledge by using a grid of activities, while determining which scale is relevant to their needs and the appropriateness and feasibility for their pedagogical purposes. According to the CEFR, self-assessment, that is, judgment about your own proficiency is “an effective complement to tests and teacher assessment (CoE, 2001: 191)”, and “the main potential for self-assessment … is in its use as a tool for motivation and awareness-raising: helping learners to appreciate their strengths, recognize their weaknesses and orient their learning more effectively” (CoE, 2001:192). This paper conducted a survey based on learners’ self-assessments, introducing some of the interaction and production activities according to the guideline of the framework. 5. Communicative activities There are five communicative activities: listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, and writing (CoE, 2001: 26-27 Table 2). This study uses spoken production (speaking) and spoken interaction activities and self-assessment grids for a comparative self-assessment survey (Refer to chapter 2 for details). 6. Language activities The CEFR set up four language activities: reception, production (oral andor written), interaction, and mediation (CoE, 2001: 14). These activities activate communicative language competence of the 19 learner-user. To carry out communication and learning tasks, it necessitates the specific domain of processing along with the use of strategies (CoE, 2001: 15). The framework describes the activities as follows (CoE, 2001: 14): Reception includes “silent reading and following the media. It is of importance in many forms of learning (understanding course content, consulting text-books, works of reference, and documents)”. Production has “an important function in many academic and professional fields (oral presentation, written studies, and reports), and particular social value is attached to it (judgments made of what has been submitted in writing or of fluency in speaking and delivering oral presentations)”. Interaction is where “at least two individuals participate in an oral andor written exchange in which production and reception alternate and may in fact overlap in oral communication. Not only may two interlocutors be speaking and yet listening to each other simultaneously. Even where turn-taking is strictly respected, the listener is generally already forecasting the remainder of the speaker’s message and preparing a response. Learning to interact thus involves more than learning to receive and to produce utterances. High importance is generally attributed to interaction in language use and learning given its central role in communication”. Mediation “makes communication possible between persons who are unable, for whatever reason, to communicate with each other directly. Translation or interpretation, a paraphrase, summary, or record, provides for a third party (re)formulation of a source text to which this third party does not have direct access. Mediating language activities – (re)processing an existing text – occupy an important place in the normal linguistic functioning of our societies”. 20 7. Communicative language competences: linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic The CEFR differentiates communicative language competences from general competences. General competences are “those not specific to language, but which are called upon for actions of all kinds, including language activities”, while communicative language competences are “those which empower a person to act using specifically linguistic means” (CoE, 2001: 9). The CEFR regards competence as a composition of linguistic, sociolinguistic, and pragmatic components. Linguistic competence, which includes “lexical, phonological, syntactical knowledge and skills and other dimensions of language as system”, “not only to the range and quality of knowledge but also to cognitive organization and the way this knowledge is stored and to its accessibility” (CoE, 2001: 13). Sociolinguistic competence refers to “the sociocultural conditions of language use”, and “the sociolinguistic component strictly affects all language communication between representatives of different cultures, even though participants may often be unaware of its influence” (CoE, 2001: 13). This competence is concerned with “the knowledge and skills required to deal with the social dimension of language use since language is a sociocultural phenomenon” (CoE, 2001: 118). Pragmatic competences are concerned with “the functional use of linguistic resources, drawing on scenarios or scripts of interactional exchanges. It also concerns the mastery of discourse, cohesion and coherence, the identification of text types and forms, irony, and parody” (CoE, 2001: 13). 8. Domains Domain refers to “the broad sectors of social life in which social agents operate” (CoE, 2001: 10) and language activities are contextualized within. The CEFR adopts major categories relevant to language 21 learning and teaching and uses fourfold classification of public, personal, occupational, and educational domains (CoE, 2001: 14). Each domain is referred to as follows: The public domain refers to everything connected with ordinary social interaction, …. Complementarily, the personal domain comprises family relations and individual social practices. The occupational domain embraces everything concerned with a person’s activities and relations in the exercise of hisher occupation. The educational domain is concerned with the learningtraining context where the aim is to acquire specific knowledge or skills. (CoE, 2001: 15) As mentioned above, the approaches of the CEFR are multifold and cover extensive areas of competence. Human language competence is so complex that it requires a wide scope of approaches to properly assess and grasp it. Figueras argues that the success of the CEFR provided “a common currency” for governments and applied linguists who wanted t...
Introduction
Purpose of the paper
This paper aims to examine the challenges and setbacks Japanese students face in their trajectory of learning English as a foreign language (EFL) or as a lingua franca (ELF) in higher education settings In addition, the paper aims to explore suggestions to make students autonomous and confident language learners by examining self-evaluations of Japanese students and their counterparts in the EU The survey was conducted at two national universities, one in Japan and one in a Dutch-speaking district in Belgium, where students belong to different sociolinguistic settings: monolingual and plurilingual The comparative survey between the Japanese subjects and their counterparts in the EU on English competence and strategies for handling communicative tasks allows the study to induce the sociolinguistic impact on foreign language acquisition The preliminary survey for this research revealed that Japanese university students have low self-assessment of their speaking and listening skills Accordingly, this paper analyzes how subjects in these two countries perceive their English language competence using targeted Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) activities, as well as how they cope with speaking and listening tasks with oral communication strategy (OCS) This study aims to find out specific activities or challenges that lead Japanese learners to give a low self-assessment of their oral communication skills.
Background
1.2.1 Japanese university students’ low self-assessment of their English communication skills
The study used a survey to examine English language competencies and self-assessment of Japanese students enrolled in undergraduate-level English language education This preliminary survey discovered that the students reported low self-evaluations of their English skills, in particular speaking and listening – skills that directly relate to communication activities
The subjects were asked to self-assess their English language skills in four categories – speaking, listening, writing, and reading – using a 6-level Likert scale (0 = very weak, 1 = weak, 2 = somewhat weak, 3
= somewhat strong, 4 = strong, 5 = very strong) Table 1 shows the mean values of the self-assessment by
183 first-year university students (Q-under) The result shows that the respondents generally recognize their respective English skills as weak rather than as strong, with mean values as follows: speaking: 1.72, listening:
2.12, writing: 2.58, and reading: 2.91 There is a notable lack of confidence in skills relevant to oral communication, speaking and listening, compared with the less interactive skills of reading and writing The lowest value observed is for speaking skills, with a mean of 1.72
The survey includes open-ended questions asking the students to explain their reason for the score they gave Quite a number of students pointed out a lack of experience in speaking English, both inside and outside the classroom A social environment with less opportunity to speak English makes them feel insecure and less confident, even feel a sense of frustration or inferiority, when they communicate and interact in English The subjects of the survey generally receive knowledge-intensive language education with the goal of passing entrance examinations for prestigious universities The scores and responses regarding writing and reading skills show that the subjects have more positive opinions in these areas Some comment that they are more accustomed to these skills through school curriculum and feel less time-pressured because the skills are not interactive
Despite the low self-assessment of their speaking and listening skills, the majority of the students wish to be linguistically competitive and recognize the importance of English as a language for global communication and its dominance in the academia These students may still be at the stage where they can learn the language autonomously and independently considering their academic history so far The preliminary survey implies the significance of providing learners opportunities to practice language skills
Globalization and its rapid progress make higher education institutions face not only an acceleration of student mobility but also an increase in global competition among universities Officials and educational institutions are focusing on bringing international students and researchers to Japan and sending Japanese students and researchers abroad Universities are developing international courses and study abroad programs, setting up overseas offices to recruit eligible students, and promoting their institutions All these efforts are aimed to boost Japanese universities’ global presence and the development and utilization of
“global human resources.” This is a global trend observed not only in Japan but also in other Asian countries and EU member nations
Globalization is often discussed in line with the internationalization of higher education, where globalization and internationalization are often used interchangeably The issue of internationalization of Japanese universities accompanies the issue of English language dominance in the academic community as a whole In the context of the internationalization of universities, providing a high level of English language education and instruction is key Higher education institutions, therefore, are responsible for providing language programs, including English as a medium of instruction (EMI) classes, and opportunities for students to develop English competence by contributing to international journals, presenting at international conferences, engaging in discussions with their counterparts globally, and respecting the cultures of their fellow international students, in addition to traditional academic English teaching in the classroom
In addition, requirements for potential future global talent include English language competence According to Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology - Japan (MEXT), the concept of global human resources includes qualities such as "1 linguistic and communication skills; 2 self-direction and positiveness, a spirit for a challenge, cooperativeness and flexibility, a sense of responsibility and mission; and 3 understanding of other cultures and a sense of identity as a Japanese” (MEXT, 2011)
As such, the Japanese government and MEXT built various efforts to internationalize Japan’s universities and foster global human resources to meet the needs of globalization (MEXT, 2014a: 68) The efforts include Top Global University Project, Inter-University Exchange Project (Re-Inventing Japan
Project), Global 30 Project, Go Global Japan, and Japan Revitalization Strategy (MEXT, 2011: 2014a: 2016: 2017) Japan aimed to increase the number of international students studying in Japan to 300,000 by 2020 (the Global 30) (MEXT, 2008) A series of government-led initiatives aim to provide Japanese university students more opportunities to foster communicative ability through actual use of English, to become aware of the diversity of the global societies, and to feel the reality of English in the internationalized educational settings
English language learning in internationalized universities will require sociolinguistic knowledge and strategic communication skills, in addition to language competence Ota suggests the importance of international and intercultural content and dimension in the scope of internationalization of universities and proposes the definition of a term internationalization as “a multifaceted and multidimensional process integrating international, intercultural, and global content and dimensions into the functions and aims of higher education institutions and systems” (Ota, 2018: 92-23) This is partly because globalization encompasses diverse English use by people with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds as a lingua franca (ELF) The English language has more gravity as a common language than as a second (ESL) or a foreign language (EFL), as English has spread as a dominant global language or as the only means of communication (Seidlhofer, 2017) This is undoubtedly the case in academia
Opening Japanese educational institutions to more international students and faculties fosters students’ linguistic and communicative competence and raises cultural awareness and identity This is undeniably the right direction for both the country and the students The significance of foreign language learning is not limited to learners’ linguistic competence In this regard, the government policy reflects the importance of fostering learners’ multidimensional perspectives along with sociolinguistic knowledge and effective communication skills However, a brief review of government policies reveals the need for more research to understand learner preference and challenges in the learning process or communicative behavior in order to create effective policies and allow learners to benefit from the internationalization of universities.
Related studies
1.3.1 Foreign language learning in Japan
Japanese students, in general, learn English as a foreign language (EFL) in school under the government curriculum guidelines through MEXT, with the exception of some private school with a special curriculum Cohen states that, “Technically, learning a second language means that the language being learned is that which is spoken in the community in which it is being learned, while a foreign language is not spoken in the local community” Cohen (1998: 5) According to his definition, Japanese students learn English as a foreign language (EFL) that is not spoken in their community; in other words, it is “not a part of everyday social or institutional communication” (Widdowson, 2016: 214) This generally means that the exposure to the target language is limited to specific settings, for instance, in classrooms The English language does not have an indispensable function in Japanese society so that learners usually do not have enough opportunity to use the language in their daily activities nor practice in real-life settings Japanese students are familiar with English as their school subject, but not as a dominant language for communication in the contemporary global community As such, language classrooms play an important role in language learning in Japan
The dominance of English makes it an indispensable language regardless of the role it has in the community and the proficiency level of the speakers Due to the importance of English in academia,
Japanese students in higher education are required to read and write literature, attend and present at conferences, and participate in discussions that are conducted in English to be successful members of the academic community As such, English is virtually the only option to apply for international conferences and prestigious academic journals, where “manuscripts which lack the ‘key’ (English-language) references are more likely to be turned down” (Tardy, 2004:249)
Some studies investigate the changing role of English For example, there is an argument that
“English language education policies throughout Asia typically operate on a deficiency model, wherein differences from ‘native speaker’ English are viewed as flaws requiring educational correction” (Haswell & Hahn 2018: 57) In Japan, English taught in classrooms is modeled as native-speaker (NS) norm In addition, Murata conducted an attitude survey and found that Japanese students’ tendency to regard NS English as the norm is deep-rooted on a subconscious level (Murata et al., 2019: 19, translated by the author) This mindset was also observed in my preliminary survey of Japanese undergraduate students (n3) This mindset assumes US and UK as the linguistic and cultural representation of the English language; however, it does not match the reality of contemporary use of English as a lingua franca and an international means of communication In global communication, “in most communicative exchanges that involve language users from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, which variety of English is used depends on the speakers involved and is thus unpredictable” (Matsuda & Friedrich, 2011: 333) Furthermore, communicative effectiveness in real-world conversation is very different from the correctness-based classroom reality
(Seidlhofer, 2017) From a pedagogical standpoint, a native English speaker (NES)-based model is not necessarily appropriate for non-native English speaker (NNES) learners, since failure to use “correct or accurate” forms conforming to the native English norm tends to make the speakers feel ashamed or lose confidence in their English skills This was also observed in my preliminary survey, with low self- assessment of speaking and listening skills (see 1.2.1 Table 1) NNES should be more aware of diverse English spoken in various regions where social identities are more reflected, focus more on strategic behaviors to facilitate communication, and understand meaning by negotiation behavior rather than paying attention to the difference from NES
Some studies suggest introducing EMI and ELF-oriented education This is partly based on the view that the current English form and its use are beyond the traditional framework of the Three Circle Model (Kachru, 1985) and does not belong to any of the circles, with its function as a means of transcultural communication According to the British Council, EMI is “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English” (Dearson, 2014: 4) The English language in EMI classes is “any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice” (Seidlhofer, 2011) This classroom situation corresponds to how people use English as a lingua franca (ELF) or a shared communication tool Seeing the demographic and sociolinguistic reality today, “countless interactions worldwide take place every day in which only a small minority of native speakers of English, if any, participate” (Seidlhofer, 2017: 8-9) in most communicative exchange The English in ELF is not an English of native-speaker norms, but it is an English spoken and used by people with diverse backgrounds as the
“instrument of international communication,” which is the goal of English acquisition proposed by Seidlhofer (2017: 5, original italic by the author)
The number of EMI classes has been increasing in Japanese universities due to promotion by MEXT (2011: 2014b) Numerous studies are being conducted on the English use in the classroom in the fields of EMI, ELF, TESOL, and World English, and papers in these fields agree that the E in EMI stands for English as a lingua franca (Murata, 2019: 20) A study conducted on multinational students (n3) in EMI classes at one of the leading private universities in Japan revealed that the majority of the students had positive feedback on EMI classes and English use in the class (Murata et al., 2019: 23) The participants of the study commented that EMI classes not only helped improve their language competence but also brought them opportunities to communicate with students with diverse backgrounds, mitigate the fear of making mistakes and sense of shame, and become less hesitant in discussing or speaking in public in English (Murata et al., 2019: 24-26) The study assumes that EMI classes promote learner experience in speaking English and help students build confidence Some students in the study also demonstrated the development of ELF-oriented attitude and perceptions (Jenkins et al., 2011): that is, freedom from NS norm and placing more importance on effective communication and mutual understanding (Murata et al., 2019: 26-27) Adopting EMI classes and ELF-oriented education could be an option in university classrooms to help mitigate the sense of shame or difficulty by posing a model that helps learners to prepare for the reality of English as “as an instrument of the international community (Seidlhofer, 2017)
Furthermore, some studies point out that the use of strategic behaviors is observed as well in international communication Matsuda & Friedrich observe language users from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds as they are “likely to employ various strategies to negotiate linguistic and other differences to make themselves mutually intelligible and to communicate effectively” (Matsuda & Friedrich 2011: 333-334) The study implies that ELF learners are required to have a certain extent of sociolinguistic knowledge and intercultural understanding, as well as the application of communication strategy We will examine strategic behaviors during communication in the following section
It is not too much to say that the process of foreign language learning will allow learners to have a plurilinguistic or multilinguistic view and contribute to developing their language resources A publication from British Council adds,
One of the main aims of policymakers, teachers, parents and students in implementing EMI is to internationalize the education on offer in their country, particularly in the higher education phase
The speed at which universities are internationalizing and English is being used as the academic lingua franca is accelerating Ironically, EMI means that learning in English no longer means going to a UK or US university (Dearden, 2014: 29)
As such, the reality of English in global societies is relevant to various pedagogical aspects, such as English language learning in Japanese universities, its internationalization, and the model of English for learning and teaching English language education in Japan should reflect the contemporary use of the language and demographic and sociolinguistic aspects, while taking into accounts Japanese learners’ pedagogical background and general tendency to be anxious about deficiency and less confident in interactive communicative activities Since this is a sensitive area of language learning, further research is required to make learning easier, more effective, and self-directed for the learners
With the acceleration of globalization and the development of information technology, English is most commonly used as the international communication language This transition has increased English varieties used by people with diverse cultural backgrounds and national identities It is acknowledged that the modern English language is a global language, with its emergence putting the language as a “triumph language” and developing a new paradigm that allows English “the new status as a global lingua franca and the new cultural, linguistic, political and economic issues surrounding English as it is used in a postmodern world” (Graddol, 2006) Graddol (2006) also suggested that the world will expect a confusing time characterized by four kinds of change: 1 ephemeral, 2 transitional, 3 the declining old paradigm, and 4 the rising new paradigm for 10 – 15 years, then gradually experience the rise of the new paradigm which reflect the reality and dynamics of the emerging new world order (Graddol, 2006: 66) In the context of current English use, the new paradigm has also created a phenomenon called “linguistic imperialism” (Graddol, 2006: 112),
“linguistic hegemony” (Haswell and Hahn, 2018: 2), or “intellectual imperialism” (Fewer, 1997: 764) beyond the framework of international communication language
This transition to the new paradigm has understandably influenced English models for learners of the language In the 1980s, Kachru (1985) developed the traditional Three Circle Model of World Englishes that categorized English into three concentric circles: 1 the Inner Circle, 2 the Outer Circle, and 3 the Expanding Circle according to “the types of spread, the patterns of acquisition, and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages” (Kachru, 1985: 12) This model has been influential to describe the spread of English and its varieties until today; however, it does not represent the subsequent growth of English driven by globalization and information technology development The number of Inner Circle native speakers (NS) who provide the “norm” of the English language is now outnumbered both by the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circles of non-native speakers (NNS) In the scope of World Englishes, Global Englishes, and a lingua franca, speakers embrace linguistic and cultural diversity for communication, so that the Inner Circle speakers not necessarily provide the norm, and the Outer and Expanding Circle speakers not necessarily develop and depend on the English provided by the Inner Circle speakers as Kachru described This is because “social identities and networks that languages reflect and construct are becoming dispersed and less geographically tied”, causing the “destandardization” of English (Graddol, 2004: 1329- 1330) Thus, due to international communication beyond national borders, the English language functions
“as a means of transcultural communication that ‘cuts across’ all three circles” (Seidlhofer, 2017: 8, original emphasis) and makes the distinction of the circles blurry The Three Circle Model questions the model of English that should be used and learned in the contemporary world, and the reality of English makes language learners and teachers reconsider the norm as well as the sociolinguistic complexity of the language involved in a highly globalized and interacted world
Research Questions
This paper aims to examine the attitudes of Japanese university students toward oral communication activities by considering the sociolinguistic perspective This comparative research attempts to highlight the characteristics of Japanese language learners The study includes three surveys designed to address the following research questions
1 How competent are the Japanese subjects in English based on the six CEFR scales?
2 How do the Belgian and Japanese subjects differ in their self-assessments of two CEFR communication activities?
3 How do the Belgian and Japanese subjects differ in their self-assessments of oral communication strategy
Methodology
Subject Groups
The participants consisted of three groups The paper aims to investigate Japanese learners’ attitudes and challenges in the process of learning English as a foreign language The same survey was also conducted with Belgian university students to examine the differences and whether they relate to social and linguistic environments
The first group (G-under) consists of 30 Belgian university students They are second-year undergraduate students majoring in Japanology at a distinguished national research university in the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium (Flemish-Dutch) Belgium has three official languages, Dutch, French, and German, along with non-official minority languages and dialects Because of this plurilingual environment, this group of students are multiple language speakers exposed to multiple languages in their home, school, and community Dutch is the first language for most of the students, except for three students whose first languages are
Russian, Polish, and Vietnamese In the Flemish Belgian educational system, students have two years of official English curriculum during secondary education The survey was conducted in February 2019 when the students hosted a group of Japanese university students visiting the university as part of an EU study and exchange program
The second group (Q-under) consists of 154 undergraduate students studying at a leading research-oriented national university in Western Japan They belong to different schools, from liberal arts to STEM studies This questionnaire was administered in January and February 2017 The study used the students’ TOEFL- ITP scores from April 2017 to evaluate their English competence This timeframe covers a transitional period of Japanese academic year that starts in April and ends in March The subjects completed the questionnaire at the end of their freshmen year and the TOEFL-ITP test at the beginning of their sophomore year For Japanese students of this generation, official English classes started from junior high school, making their English education history at least six years Their first language was Japanese Most of them were raised in Japan and studied under the Japanese education system The numbers of students who have experience living abroad or studying English outside Japanese official curriculum was 15
The third group (G-grad) consists of 26 graduate students who belong to the same Japanese university as Q- under They belong to various school years, ages, and faculties (see Table 2) The data for this group were collected from December 2018 to July 2019 Their first language was Japanese, and they were educated in
Japan Some have experience in participating in several weeks’ foreign exchange or study abroad programs The subjects’ academic background, as well as their motivation and focus on English language learning, is diverse; however, they are regarded as highly competent academically
The study seeks to examine the influence and reflection of their attributes, different academic background, and social and cultural experience on their foreign language competence.
Questionnaires for the Study
The study used two versions of the questionnaire: the English version administered to Belgian students, and the Japanese version administered to Japanese students The translation was done by an author
The primary goal is to examine Japanese university students’ language competency from multiple dimensions Varied subjects and methods were used due to the limited conditions of the survey and the aims of this study
The following three sets of questionnaires were used:
Questionnaire 1: demographic information and general attributes of the subject
Questionnaire 2: self-assessment of English competency according to two CEFR activities
1 oral production(speaking): consists of five items (CoE, 2001: 58-60)
2 spoken interaction: consists of eight items (CoE, 2001: 74-82) Questionnaire 3: self-evaluation of oral communication strategy use
Oral Communication Strategy Inventory (OCSI) (Nakatani, 2006; 2010)
Study 2 and Study 3 introduced the self-assessment method for competency using CEFR descriptors based on the approach of the CoE mentioned in section 1.3.3 The data collected from questionnaires were converted to a numerical figure and processed statistically The subject groups, methods, and results are introduced for each group
Questionnaire 1 is about demographic information and the professional and/or academic background of the subjects, including questions on how subjects see the role of English in academia This information is used for all analyses Questionnaire 2 uses the CEFR illustrative descriptors and six-level scales (CoE, 2001) The activities and descriptors relevant to oral communication are selected for questionnaire 2 Data from this questionnaire are used for Study 1 and Study 2 Questionnaire 3, OCSI developed by Nakatani (2006, 2010), is introduced to elicit the OCS use of the subjects OCSI is a two section inventory of questions on speaking and listening developed by Japanese researchers based on factor analysis on Japanese university students The speaking section has 32 questions and the listening section has 26, which asks subjects how frequently they use the specific strategy in the inventory to execute communication tasks on a five-level Likert scale: from 1, the least frequent, to 5, the most frequent A substantial number of studies have used these methods for analyzing ESL or EFL learners in and outside of Japan Both instruments, CEFR illustrative descriptors and OCSI, are regarded as being reliable and valid and are suitable for this study.
Studies
Study 1: General Language Competence of Japanese University Students according to CEFR Scale
Study 1 aims to figure out the general English language competence of Japanese university students in this study using the six scales of CEFR: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2
First, this study referred to Q-under TOEFL-ITP test scores to grasp the students’ competence In addition, this section reflects on Japanese university students’ (n4) low confidence in their English skills and attempts to examine the overall English oral communication competence of Japanese university students by comparing them with their counterparts in Belgium using the CEFR scale
Questionnaire 2 was used for Study 1 The subject groups are Q-under, Q-grad, and G-under First, study 1 shows the English language competency of Q-under in light of the TOEFL-ITP test score, which was administered at the beginning of their sophomore year The score was converted to the six scales of the CRFR according to the TOEFL ITP ® Overall Performance Descriptors mapped by the Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEEJ) Second, the study shows self-assessed proficiency of the graduate students on communication-related activities of the CEFR Data relevant to this part of Study 1 are collected by a part of questionnaire 2 The results are further compared with corresponding data collected for Belgian students Study 2 provides more detailed comparative analysis by sub-activity items within these two activities (five for oral production and eight for spoken interaction)
3.1.3 Findings of Study 1: Overall oral communication competence of Japanese vs Belgian university students Figure 2 shows the distribution of the subjects’ TOEFL-ITP scores converted to the CEFR scales according to the mapping demonstrated by TOEFL ITP ® Overall Performance Descriptors The description is developed on the basis of the survey and mapping conducted by the Educational Testing Service (ETS), the organizing body of TOEFL-ITP
Distribution of TOEFL-ITP Scores and Converted CEFR Scales of Q-under (n4)
As Figure 2 shows, over half of the students (n = 79 out of 154) have scores below 460, a range corresponding to CEFR level A2 (colored orange) Another substantial number of students (n = 72) belong to the B1 level (colored gray) The CoE designates B1 (460-542) as the threshold level to be an independent user of the language, and A2 (337-459) as a waystage of the basic user (CoE, 2001: 23) This is a demonstration that little more than half of the subjects are on their way to becoming an independent learner Three students have B2 (543-626, colored yellow) level proficiency, indicating they are independent vantage users of English The average test score of this group is 457 The university’s average score for freshmen on the test is 470, which is 13.4 points higher than the average of the subjects’ According to the survey of Negishi et al (2012), 96% of Japanese students after five years of learning English are below the B1 level Another one of their surveys on employees of an electronics manufacturer in Japan revealed that over 80% had a proficiency level below B1, “even after they have undergone 10 years of English instruction at secondary and tertiary levels “ (Negishi, Takada, & Tono, 2012: 140-141)
Secondly, the study examined Q-grad English language competence using questionnaire 2, which consists of two CEFR activities: oral production (speaking) with five sub-activities and spoken interaction with eight sub-activities Later, study 2 shows each sub-activity individually and the overall results as a reference to determine the relative difference between two subject groups Figure 3 demonstrates that the majority of Q-grad group see their overall English proficiency as A2 or B1, as with the Q-under group in Figure 2
Self-assessment by Q-grad: Overall Oral Production and Overall Spoken Interaction by Q-grad
Some graduates, however, assess themselves as C1 (colored light blue) or C2 (colored green), scales not observed among undergraduates It would be natural to interpret that some graduate students have gained oral communication-related English skills during their university years, although the total number is small
It is also noteworthy that Q-grad’s self-assessment is distributed from A1 (colored blue) to C2, which is wider than Q-under There are some Q-grad learners who place their competence at A1, a level not observed in Q- under TOEFL-ITP It could be a manifestation of one of Japanese language learners’ lack of confidence, since the TOEFL-ITP scores correspond to higher CEFR scores Findings from Survey 1 need to be investigated further from a qualitative perspective
Lastly, the same questionnaire was distributed to G-under Figure 4 shows the comparative results of G- under with that of Q-grad, revealing the gap in how learners view their proficiency All G-under except one student see their competence as being above the B2 level, including C1 and C2 C1 and C2 are considered proficient users of the language according to the Council of Europe (CoE, 2001:23), with C1 as the level of effective operational proficiency and C2, mastery Regarding overall oral production (speaking), the scales of B2, C1, C2 are evenly distributed among G-under students Regarding overall spoken interaction activity, there is some dispersion, with C1 having more students, C2 having relatively less, and one B1 student Even though the outcome shows an apparent contrast with most Q-grad students under the threshold level (A1 and
A2) for spoken interaction, Figure 4 suggests that Belgian students are above the threshold to be considered independent and competent English language users From the outcome of Study 1 it is clear that there is English language competence disparity between Belgian and Japanese university students
Comparison: Self-assessment by G-under and Q-grad: Overall Oral Production and Overall Spoken
A series of surveys in Study 1 aimed to present the general language competence of Japanese university students with some extent of relativeness The study summed up that the main scale for Japanese students is A2 and B1, marking them as threshold level users of English Minor differences are observed between undergraduate and graduate students; however, it should not be considered a major difference In contrast, many Belgian students show C1, effective operational proficiency, or C2, mastery level proficiency, as well as some case of B2 The survey results presented here gave us sufficient evidence to capture the overall attitude of the subject groups for the subsequent studies in the paper.
Study 2: Self-assessment on Two CEFR Activities: Oral Production (Speaking) and Spoken Interaction
The purpose of Study 2 is to identify which specific sub-activity is more challenging to Japanese learners compared with their Belgian counterparts, as well as to see the extent of disparity with them Study 1 examined the relative overall competence of two subject groups, G-under and Q-grad on two communication activities in CEFR Study 2 provides a comparison of all the 13 sub-activities of oral production (speaking) and spoken interaction to provide analysis of their language competence relevant to oral communication activities
The data collected using questionnaire 2 on a series of sub-activities under oral production (speaking) and spoken interaction were analyzed The subject groups are G-under and Q-grad Oral production (speaking) has five sub-activity items (CoE, 2001: 58), while spoken interaction has eight sub-activity items (CoE, 2001: 73) Although the spoken interaction category contains a total of nine sub-activity items, one sub-activity, transaction to obtain goods and services, was excluded due to irrelevance to this study This is also a bit of an effort to minimize the cognitive and psychological overload for assessors The sub-activities subjected to Study 2 are in the Table 4
Six scales of CEFR, from A1 to C2, are converted to numeric figures for quantitative statistical analyses as C2 for 6, C1 for 5, B2 for 4, B1 for 3, A2 for 2, and A1 for 1 Most CEFR consists of six scales; however, some sub-activity grids contain two to five scales For example, sustained monologue has only B2 and B1, while public announcements have C1, B2, B1, and A2 The study presents the mean values and standard deviations of each sub-activity in the analysis
First, let us look at how each group of students perceives their four skills of the English language In Japan, language skills are conventionally categorized into four skills: speaking, listening, writing, and reading The concept of four skills is widely prevalent and shared so that it is more familiar for Japanese students to objectively evaluate their language competence
Table 5 shows the mean value of self-assessed skills by subject group The table tells that all Japanese subjects recognize all their English skills as weak, except for the reading skills of Q-grad It is obvious that the Japanese students see their skills more negatively, especially regarding speaking, compared to their Belgian counterparts, even though their general competence is spread between the threshold level and proficient user level according to the findings from Study 1 It is often acknowledged that Japanese English learners are relatively less confident in language performance-oriented skills rather than skills concerning language knowledge-oriented skills Further studies should explore reasons for the low confidence both quantitatively and qualitatively The Japanese subjects also show a higher standard deviation than Belgian, meaning that how they see their skill differ by student This sub-section aims to compare the self-assessed communication activities among subjects in order to help understand the challenges of Japanese English learners
Regarding the self-assessed oral production (speaking) and spoken interaction activities, Table 6 shows the mean value and standard deviation of all the sub-activities The table shows Belgian undergraduate students’ higher self-assessment compared with that of Japanese graduate students This is the observation from all the activities assessed by the questionnaire The results are predictable considering the competence self-assessment results of the overall oral production (speaking) and overall spoken interaction in Study 1 Taking a closer look at the individual items of the activities, we first recognize the high self-assessment of overall oral production competence (PS1) by Belgian students with a value of 5.00 In this study, a 5.00 value is equivalent to the C1 level Regarding the spoken interaction, understanding a native speaker’s interlocutor (SI7) and conversation (SI8) also show high values of 5.17 and 5.23, respectively Although there are some activities rated lower by Belgians, such as PS3, SI11, and SI12, those are items with descriptors not provided for C2 and C1, understandably leading to a lower value For instance, sustained monologue (PS3) is listed for two grids (B2 and B1), while goal-oriented co-operation (SI11) and information exchange (SI12) are listed for four grids (B2, B1, A2, and A1) Therefore, the differences are likely due to grid differences
In terms of the assessment by Japanese students, their self-assessment is not only lower than Belgian students, but there are no significant differences among items; in other words, their assessment of their communication-related activities is low overall All values are in a two-point range with one exception: 3.17 on sustained monologue: putting a case (e.g in debate) (PS3) However, as the standard deviation of 0.39 shows, this is due to the fact that this item is listed in only B1 and B2 grids; accordingly, it stands to reason that the item has a higher value than other items The self-assessment values by Q-grad indicate that the execution of speaking skills would generally be quite a challenge for them
Three activity items show a huge disparity in self-assessment values: overall oral production (PS1), understanding a native speaker interlocutor (SI7), and conversation (SI8) These results may reflect the
Japanese learners’ lack of opportunities to speak English in real life, as reflected in the preliminary survey These are also items for which Q-grad show a relatively higher standard deviation than other items
Japanese graduate students show markedly higher deviation than Belgian students in almost all activities Standard deviation of more than 1.00 is observed for nine out of 13 activities for Japanese graduate students, with no such deviation among Belgian undergraduate students, suggesting that the magnitude of a challenge when Q-grad execute certain communication tasks differ by individual It could be interpreted that Belgian students’ competence is consistent and belongs to scales of proficient users, such as C2 and C1 This also corresponds to the comparison of two overall activity items shown in Figure 4 In addition, different attributes of the two groups could have an impact on the assessment; for example, Belgian undergraduates major in the same field of study, while the Japanese graduate students study different fields Four activities show a standard deviation of less than 1.00: sustained monologue (PS3), public announcement
(PS4), goal-oriented cooperation (SI11), and information exchange (SI12) All these activities appear in two to four grids A closer examination is necessary to further understand the attitudes of Japanese English learners In summary, Japanese student’s competence related to oral communication-oriented activities ranges from the A2 waystage to the B1 threshold This is fairly lower than G-under students, with a significant difference demonstrated in speaking production and interaction, such as oral production in general, understanding native speaker interlocutor, and conversation activities.
Study 3: Oral Communication Strategy Use
Study 3 aims to examine the communication strategy use of Japanese EFL learners through a comparison with their Belgian counterparts Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that self-assessed English language competence according to CEFR criteria shows a disparity between Belgian and Japanese university students, with Belgian students as proficient English users and Japanese students at the periphery of the threshold level On the basis of the outcomes of Study 1 and Study 2, Study 3 aims to examine the use of oral communication – in particular, how learners cope with challenges they face during interactional oral communication tasks in English as well as how differently foreign language competence affects the strategic behavior of communication
The survey was conducted with all three subject groups OCSI is used as an instrument for the survey to elicit subjects’ communication strategy use
OCSI is an inventory of questions that ask respondents how frequently they use the specific strategy in the questionnaire OCSI is developed by a Japanese researcher based on factor analysis conducted by Japanese university students The subjects are asked to answer how true each question is regarding their coping with problems during communication tasks, using a five-level Likert scales: 1 Never or almost never true to me; 2 Generally not true of me; 3 Somewhat true of me; 4 Generally true of me to; and 5 Always or almost true of me The OCSI consists of two sections: speaking and listening The speaking section is composed of 32 question items in eight categories, including social affective strategies (6 items), fluency- oriented strategies (6 items), negotiation for meaning while speaking strategies (4 items), accuracy-oriented strategies (5 items), message reduction and alteration strategies (3 items), nonverbal strategy while speaking (2 items), message abandonment strategies (4 items), and attempt to think in English (2 items) While Listening section consists of 26 question items belonging to seven categories, including negotiation for meaning while listening strategies (5 items), fluency-maintaining strategies (5 items), scanning strategies (4 items), getting the gist strategies (4 items), nonverbal strategy while listening (2 items), less active listener strategies (2 items), and word-oriented strategies (4 items) Message abandonment strategy factor in the speaking section and less active listener strategy factor in the listening section are considered negative strategy that are less likely to be observed by good language learners (Nakatani, 2010: Oxford, 1989) Therefore, responses to strategy items in these categories are converted regressively to reflect the negativity of the item
The data collected by OCSI are converted to numerical figures and analyzed using a one-way ANOVA to examine differences among three subject groups, using the question item as the dependent variables and the group as the independent variable Subsequently, multiple comparisons were performed to determine the group-wise confidence level The software package R, which is an open-source and freely available package, was used in the study
As a result of the statistical analysis, study 3 revealed the following four significant findings:
1 Belgian students are a more frequent and consistent OCS user than Japanese students
2 Speaking strategies show more notable differences than listening strategies
3 Japanese students use more negative strategies
4 No significant difference in nonverbal strategy use
Data on the frequency of OCS use are collected by OCSI Table 7 shows the total mean values of all 58 items, as well as for speaking and listening individually, along with boxplots of the three groups (Figure 5) Total mean value shows that Belgian undergraduates are the most frequent OCS users, with a total mean value of 3.6, followed by Japanese graduate students with a value of 3.3, and, by a small margin, undergraduate students with 3.2 Here, the higher value represents more frequent OCS use
Boxplot: Total Means of Oral Communication Strategy Use
Both speaking and listening strategy use among Japanese students are less frequent than those of Belgian students, with speaking strategy use showing more differences in mean values than listening strategy use Q- grad and Q-under show the same mean value The values in Table 7 will help capture the general and overall attitudes of the subject groups
Moreover, the shape of the dots in Figure 5 represents notable group differences For G-under: Belgian students’ dots concentrate in the range between 3.1 and 4.3, while the dots of Q-grad scatter in the range from 1.7 to 4.2 For Q-under, the range of dots is scattered between 2.2 and 4.6, and the maximum value of 4.6 is higher than that of Belgian students The frequency of OCS use of three subject groups does not show a significant difference in terms of the mean value of 58 speaking and listening items However, the distribution of dots in Figure 5 shows consistent and frequent OCS use for G-under above the 3.0 level The findings can be interpreted as suggesting that Belgian students in this study almost always use OCS to cope with problems during communication tasks Their attitudes toward strategic behavior sharply contrast with that of Japanese students with inconsistent frequency of communication strategy used by the student These findings indicate that Belgian students generally use communication strategies more frequently than Japanese students The following sections in Study 3 try to narrow down a more specific view on strategy use
3.3.3.2 Frequency of speaking and listening strategy use
Speaking strategy use shows more disparity than listening strategy use between subject groups (see Table 7)
As a first step one-way ANOVA was conducted on the OCSI data to examine the differences among three subject groups quantitatively Table 8 shows factors of speaking and listening strategies and p-values by question items belonging to each factor Notably, 22 out of 32 speaking strategies and 12 out of 26 listening strategies show significant groups differences (p < 05) Other substantial numbers of items show more outstanding significance (p < 01)
Subsequently, Tukey HSD and pairwise t-test by Bonferroni were administered, followed by ANOVA, to determine the group-wise confidence level among three groups: 1 G-under/Q-under, 2 G-under/Q-grad, and 3 Q-under/Q-grad As a result, most of the significant differences observed were between Japanese and Belgian students: 1 G-under/Q-under and 2 G-under/Q-grad Exceptions were observed for two items in social affective factor belonging to the speaking strategy section: items S5 (I don’t mind taking risks even though I might make mistakes) and S6 (I try to use fillers when I cannot think of what to say) Only item S5 and S6 show a group-wise difference: that is, more frequent use by Q-grad than by Q-under Item S5 revealed a group-wise difference only between Japanese graduate and undergraduate students, while item S6 revealed a significant group-wise difference among all groups
Another particular note is that the speaking strategy section shows more significant pairwise differences than the listening section, both in terms of the number of items and the degree of the p-value Eighteen speaking strategy items that show a stronger difference than p < 01 are cited with a brief explanation on each relevant factor, along with 10 listening items with p < 01 The following is the list of strategy items that show a significant difference by group according to one-way ANOVA
Factor A: Social Affective Strategy This is a factor concerned with students’ affective in social contexts
Items listed below relate to a willingness to encourage to use English, try to give a good impression, and avoid silence during interaction (Nakatani, 2006: 155)
- S3: I try to give a good impression to the listener
- S4: I actively encourage myself to express what I want to say
- S6: I try to use fillers when I cannot think of what to say
Factor B: Fluency-oriented Strategy This relates to the fluency of communication
This includes paying attention to pronunciation and clarity of speech to improve the listener’s comprehension, as well as considering their speaking context and take their time in order not being careful to avoid sending inappropriate messages to their interlocutors (Nakatani, 2006: 155)
- S8: I pay attention to my pronunciation
- S9: I pay attention to the conversation flow
- S10: I change my way of saying things according to the context in order to continue conversations
- S11: I take my time to express what I want to say
Factor C: Negotiation for Meaning while Speaking Strategies This relates to the students’ attempts to negotiate with their interlocutors (Nakatani, 2006: 155)
Notably, all the items in this factor showed a difference more significant than p < 01 To maintain their interaction and avoid a communication breakdown, interlocutors are expected to conduct modified interaction These factors of strategies are regarded as important skills to improve foreign language ability (Nakatani, 2006: 155)
- S13: I make comprehension checks to ensure the listener understands what I want to say
- S14: I repeat what I want to say until the listener understands
- S15: While speaking, I pay attention to the listener’s reaction to my speech
- S16: I give examples if the listener doesn’t understand what I am saying
Factor D: Accuracy-oriented Strategy This is concerned with a desire to speak English accurately
The students pay attention to their forms of speech and seek grammatical accuracy by self-correcting when they notice their mistakes; they also wish to speak appropriately like a native English speaker (Nakatani, 2006: 155)
- S17: I pay attention to grammar and word order during conversation
- S19: I correct myself when I notice that I have made a mistake
- S21: I try to talk like a native speaker
Factor G: Message Abandonment Strategy This is a negative strategy for mutual understanding
When students face difficulties executing their original verbal plan, they tend to give up their attempt to communicate and leave the message unfinished These strategies are common among low-proficiency speakers of a foreign language (Nakatani, 2006: 155) Out of four items belonging to this factor, three show p < 01 and one shows p < 05
- S27: I leave a message unfinished because of some language difficulty
- S29: I give up when I can’t make myself understand
- S30: I abandon the execution of a verbal plan and just say some words when I don’t know how to express myself
Factor H: Attempt to Think in English Strategy It is useful for students to think in the foreign language as much as possible during actual communication
These items reflect a tendency to think in English and a negative attitude toward thinking in the native language and then constructing the English sentence Both of the two items showed a significant difference (Nakatani, 2006: 156)
- S31: I think first of a sentence I already know in English and then try to change it to fit the situation
- S32: I try to think of what I want to say not in my native language but English
In terms of the listening section, the following items show a more significant difference than p < 01 between Japanese and Belgian students
Factor I: Negotiation for Meaning while Listening Strategy This relates to negotiation behavior while listening, where students show their difficulties in comprehension and imply needing the speaker’s help to prevent misunderstandings (Nakatani, 2006: 156)
- L3: I ask the speaker to use easy words when I have difficulties in comprehension
Factor J: Fluency-maintaining Strategy This factor pays attention to the fluency of conversational flow
After the Survey Interview
In this study, the narrative data that were extracted from the interview with the teacher are presented as supplemental information on Belgian university students’ language acquisition The interview was conducted with a female teacher who supports the exchange program with foreign universities and teaches in the
Department of Languages and Cultures within the Institute of Japanese Studies The interview took place after class at the teacher’s office on the final day of the Japanese students’ 3-day visit to the university The excerpts from and summary of the interview provide knowledge that can help understand the Belgian subjects’ academic and sociolinguistic background as well as how they differ from their Japanese counterparts The excerpts contain meaningful suggestions for the study
The history of studying English
Interview Excerpt: In Dutch-speaking district in Belgium, students start learning English as a third language from the first or second year in high school While, the French language education, Belgium’s other dominant national language, starts at the primary school in a fifth grade as the second language A lot of students then take another language at the age of around 15 or 16 which is usually German or Spanish in all schools Belgian students are confronted with English through television and media outside school, and they don’t use subtitles or adopt anything so they can hear English from a very young age
It is apparent that Belgian students are immersed in a plurilinguistic educational environment Students can learn French, German, or Spanish at school, in addition to English; they also have abundant opportunities to be exposed to multiple languages in their society and at home Flemish Belgium provides 2 years of official English-language education; however, in response to Survey Questionnaire 1 which asks about respondents’ attribution, the students indicated that they had been studying English for 4–10 years, including through private education The questionnaire results also disclosed that most of the students speak Dutch, English, and
French, and the majority speak additional languages such as German, Spanish, Latin, Russian, Polish,
Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, and/or Japanese Many speak four to five languages
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
Interview Excerpt: The basic requirement of the CEFR (English) by the government is the B1 However, originally students have higher levels than B1
Study 1 found that the majority of the students are proficient in English above the B2 level and, as the teacher mentions, most actually have a higher level of proficiency, i.e., a C1 or a C2, in their sophomore year The teacher added that this is not because their competence improved during the university years, but rather because they originally had higher competences
English as a lingua franca (ELF) and English as a medium of instruction (EMI) classes
Interview Excerpt: English is the de facto lingua franca in the EU, this is the case in Flanders as well When you think about the students in the EU in any case, a lot of academic texts would be in English, so a lot of academia is based on the English language Moreover, in Belgian, talking or speaking Flemish (Dutch) is a very small language so if you want to do something in neighboring countries or outside of Belgium you will need additional language skills, and then English becomes the main focus For most people, the language will switch to English rather than French This is especially in academia
Interview Excerpt: The ratio of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) class in the university is around a quarter
The teacher reiterates Belgian students’ daily exposure to English, since the language plays the role of a lingua franca In the EU, numerous activities are conducted in English These activities are not limited to academia; rather, they extend to society as a whole
The distance of the language
Interview Excerpt: A lot of students will probably put English before French even though they’ve been learning French for much longer than English This is because English is in the same language family, West- Germanic, like Dutch A lot of students are confronted with English from a very young age through television and a media, for example, that help the students hear English from a very young age
Interview Excerpt: Japanese language structure is completely different from Dutch or English However, we do find that students who watch a lot of (Japanese) anime and who read a lot of manga obviously have an advantage over students who don’t
For Dutch speakers, English is a relatively easier language to learn because of the close distance between the two languages; however, wider linguistic distance does not necessarily hinder learning Efforts to expose the target language help, as with the example of learning through Japanese anime and manga
We have noted that Belgian English-language learners are exposed to the target language to a considerable extent in their daily and extracurricular activities The role of the English language as a de facto lingua franca in society provides learners with numerous opportunities to encounter the language, which allows them to foster strategic skills for English-language communication English is also dominant in their academic activities.
Results and Discussion
Survey 1 Research Question: How competent are the Japanese subjects in English based on the six
Study 1 presented Japanese and Belgian university students’ overall English-language competence, as measured on the CEFR scales The findings indicate that the majority of the students in these groups had A2 or B1 competence levels The ratio of A2 and B1 students is roughly even, with a small margin of students who were above B1 and below A2 The only exception was detected in graduate students’ overall spoken interactions, for which there were more A2- than B1-level, i.e., eleven vs seven students It is therefore concluded that the students’ English competence is at the A2 waystage level and the B1 threshold level, which compares favorably to independent users of the target language The majority of the Belgian students showed proficient competence levels, such as effective operational proficiency at the C1 level or mastery at the C2 level Given the result of a leading study on CEFR-J, which found that approximately 80% of Japanese English- language learners belong to the A-level, even after 10 years of secondary- and tertiary-level English instruction (Negishi et al., 2012: 139-140: Tono, 2017: 33), this group of Japanese subjects’ CEFR levels can be interpreted as fairly competent on the national scale As the teacher mentioned in her interview, in Belgium, the government’s basic CEFR English requirement for university-level education is a B1 For reference, as of the beginning of their sophomore year, 75 out of 154 Q-under subjects met this requirement By quoting Otani (2007), who stated that Japanese learners far outperform other first-language (L1) learners in their acquisition of Korean and Chinese, Negishi et al (2012) have suggested that Japanese students’ competence is influenced by a so-called linguistic and cultural distance Study 1’s findings allowed this paper to capture the Japanese and Belgian subjects’ overall competence as well as the reality of the existing linguistic competence gap between the Japanese and the Flemish Belgians The findings also provide insights into the two studies that will be discussed in Subsections 4.2 and 4.3.
Survey 2 Research Question: How do the Belgian and Japanese subjects differ in their self-assessments
Study 2 attempted to more closely examine two sets of CEFR communication activities, namely oral production (speaking) and spoken interaction, to identify the specific activities that learners perceive as difficult to execute First, we found that compared with the Belgians, the Japanese subjects experienced more challenges during all the activities, clearly due to the linguistic competence disparity that was demonstrated in Survey 1 In addition, the Japanese subjects’ standard deviations were found to be much higher than their Belgian counterparts’ in all the activities, except for sustained monologue (PS3); an activity that has only two scales, namely B1 and B2, instead of the six conventional scales The Japanese students’ higher standard deviations represent the degree of difficulty they experience during activities, which varies according to the individual The three activities that showed the most significant differences in self- assessment were: 1 Overall oral production (PS1), 2 Understanding a native speaker interlocutor (IS7), and
3 Conversation (SI8) What is common to the three activities is that they concern so-called basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS), which are necessary for daily conversation and informal social interaction in general It can be assumed, then, that the Japanese subjects do not get accustomed to producing English and conversing with native English speakers due to their lack of experience in speaking English, given that they would have spent more time learning English in a formal academic setting, and consequently, they possess more developed so-called cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), which has limited usefulness, for example, in classrooms and for the purpose of understanding, discussing, and/or taking tests Some of the Q-under students’ responses to the open-ended questions in Surveys 1 and 3 indicated that they rarely have opportunities to speak English outside the classroom situation, even though they are fully aware of the importance of practice in foreign language acquisition The Japanese subjects that participated in this study are academically efficient students who attend one of the nation’s leading universities and their CEFR competence levels, which were converted from their TOEFL-ITP scores, position them well among Japanese learners overall Further study should be carried out to determine why learners feel uncomfortable with their language skills while completing specific activities.
Survey 3 Research Question: How do the Belgian and Japanese subjects differ in their self-assessments
Study 3 consisted of a comparative examination of how three different subject groups coped with the problems they encountered during oral communication tasks, by introducing a self-assessment inventory from the OCSI A statistical analysis using ANOVA revealed the Belgian subjects’ more frequent use of the OCS, especially speaking strategies Combined with Study 2’s findings on the CEFR scale, it was revealed that high-proficiency subjects with high CEFR tended to use more OCSs when they performed communication activities The study also found four significant group-wise differences among subject groups, including substantial differences between the two Japanese subject groups and the Belgian subject group The following summarizes the Japanese subjects’ OCS use: 1) less frequent use of oral communication strategies, 2) more differences in terms of the frequency of strategy use in speaking compared with listening, 3) more frequent use of negative strategies, and 4) no significant difference in nonverbal strategy use Group-wise differences between Japanese undergraduate and graduate subjects were rarely observed, except for in two out of the 58 items
Regarding the general strategy-use tendency, this study’s results reflected previous studies’ findings Although specific strategies are documented as behavior that is often observed in good language learners, Study 3 did not observe much application of these types of strategies in Japanese subjects compared with Belgian subjects who used strategies such as the negotiation for meaning behavior, attempts to think in English rather than the first language, efforts to be socially affective, and attempts to pay attention to and be fluent in conversation flow with interlocutors There is the possibility of foreign language competence impacting strategy use because some strategy items, such as paraphrasing and giving examples, require a certain level of competence to execute It would therefore be more meaningful to examine the relationship between communication strategy use and language competence by introducing a post-survey interview with the subjects in order to further explore users’ awareness of and intentions to utilize strategies.
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………….57 Acknowledgements
This paper is part of a dissertation that explores EFL learning in higher education This study’s findings should be taken as suggestive rather than as definitive research results regarding Japanese EFL learners’ dispositions as they cope with challenges and exhibit communicative behaviors There is still room for argument concerning the sociolinguistic influence on foreign language competence, strategic behavior, and confidence-building in relation to self-assessment Qualitative studies are underway to make additional observations and conduct additional analyses of communication activity through post-survey interviews in order to provide richer data and theoretical support that will make the study more accountable as well as more verifiable
The process of exploring the challenges of EFL learning also leads to a reconsideration of such learning Given the English language’s current role as a dominant communication language, and in light of the accompanying shift toward ELF or NNS English varieties, the conventional paradigm for EFL learning, such as the nature of the language and the learning purpose and approaches, has changed This paper has provided numerous insights drawn from various previous studies on the instructional model(s), the reality of
English varieties, strategic communication behaviors, sociolinguistic awareness, and plurilingualism in the context of English as a global communication language
In light of all the studies’ findings, this paper once again provides a reminder that EFL learning and communication skills require not only linguistic knowledge but also multilateral competence, including understanding and respecting diverse identities and cultures, given that the CEFR instructs learners to bear in mind that developing communicative proficiency involves non-linguistic dimensions (e.g., sociocultural awareness, imaginative experience, affective relations, learning to learn, etc ) (CoE, 2001: 7) The CEFR also states that “The rich heritage of diverse languages and cultures in Europe is a valuable common resource to be protected and developed, and that a major educational effort is needed to convert that diversity from a barrier to communication into a source of mutual enrichment and understanding” (CoE, 2001: 2) With these statements in mind, it is hoped that these ideas will be embraced in Japan in the interest of positioning learners as real beneficiaries of EFL learning and enabling the conversion of learners’ first language and culture into their heritage and resources for speaking and using English globally
In sum, this study sought to investigate Japanese learners’ reality in the context of higher education settings, where learners are supposed to be self-regulated, given their considerable history of learning and achievements, with the overarching goal of accommodating the ongoing social and global changes
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all concerned faculty members at the Department of Languages and Cultures in the Institute of Japanese Studies at Ghent University for their kind cooperation to the survey I would also like to express my appreciation to the EU Center in Kyushu University for their generous support in realizing this research project
Canale, M., & Swain, M (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47
Cohen, A D (1998, 2014) Strategies in learning and using a second language Routledge
Cohen, A D., & Macaro, E (2007) Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice Oxford University Press
Council of Europe Council for Cultural Co-operation Education Committee Modern Languages Division (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment Cambridge University Press
Crystal, D (2012) English as a global language Cambridge University Press
Dearden, J (2014) English as a medium of instruction: A growing global phenomenon British Council Dửrnyei, Z., & Scott, M L (1997) Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies Language learning, 47(1), 173-210
Fewer, G (1997) Beyond the language barrier [letter to the editor] (February 27) Nature, 385, 764 https://www.nature.com/articles/385764a0 (May 11, 2020)
Figueras, N (2012) The impact of the CEFR ELT journal, 66(4), 477-485
Graddol, D (2004) The future of language Science, 303(5662), 1329-1331
Graddol, D (2006) English Next British Council
Haswell, C G (2017) Accepting neighboring Englishes: Investigating the attitudes and preconceptions of English-medium instruction students at an international university in Japan In A Bradford, & R Brown (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges and outcomes (pp 149-160) Channel View Publications
Haswell, C G., & Hahn, A (2018) Connecting the Global Model to effective intercultural communication in English ⾔語⽂化論究, (40), 57-68
Huang, X H., & NAERSSEN, M V (1987) Learning strategies for oral communication1 Applied linguistics, 8(3), 287-307
Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M (2011) Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca Language teaching, 44(3), 281-315
Kachru, B B (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle In R Quirk, & H.G Widdowson, English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp 11-30) British Council
Kaplan, R B (2001) English–the accidental language of science The dominance of English as a language of science: Effects on other languages and language communities, 3-26
Little, D (2007) The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 645-655 Matsuda, A., & Friedrich, P (2011) English as an international language: A curriculum blueprint World
MEXT (2008) Outline of the Student Exchange System: Study in Japan and Abr https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/ryugaku/081210/001.pdf (April 13, 2020)
MEXT (2011) An Interim Report of the Council on Promotion of Human Resource for Globalization
Development [グローバル⼈材育成推進会議 中間まとめ] http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/global/1206011interim_report.pdf (April 13, 2020)
MEXT, (2014a) Japan Rehabilitation Strategy Japan’s challenge for the future https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizaisaisei/pdf/honbunEN.pdf (April 13, 2020)
MEXT, (2014b) 今後の英語教育の改善・充実⽅策について 報告〜グローバル化に対応した英語教育
改⾰の五つの提⾔〜 https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/102/houkoku/1352460.htm (April 13, 2020) MEXT, (2016) Top Global University Project https://www.mext.go.jp/en//policy/education/highered/title02/detail02/sdetail02/1395420.htm (April 13, 2020)
MEXT, (2017) Inter-University Exchange Project (Re-Inventing Japan Project) https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/highered/title02/detail02/sdetail02/1373893.htm (April 13, 2020)
Murata, K (2019) The realities of the use of English in the globalized world and the teaching of English: a discrepancy? JACET Journal, 63, 7-26
村⽥久美⼦, ⼩中原⿇友, 飯野公⼀, & 豊島昇 (2019) EMI 参加に伴う学⽣の ELF への意識変化と ELF 使⽤へのビジネスピープルの意識差の調査と英語教育への⽰唆 早稲⽥教育評論 , 33 (1)
Nakatani, Y (2006) Developing an oral communication strategy inventory The modern language journal, 90(2), 151-168
Nakatani, Y (2010) Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners' oral communication: A classroom study using multiple data collection procedures The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 116-136 Negishi, M., Tanaka, T., & Tono, Y (2012) A progress report on the development of the CEFR-J Studies in
North, B (2007) The CEFR illustrative descriptor scales The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 656-659 Ota, H (2018) Internationalization of higher education: Global trends and Japan's challenges Educational
Otani, Y (2007) Nihonjin nitotte eigotoha nanika [What is English for Japanese people?], Tokyo:
Oxford, R L (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know Boston, MA: Heinle Piccardo, E (2018) Plurilingualism: vision, conceptualization, and practices Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education, 207-225
Piccardo, E., North, B., & Goodier, T (2019) Broadening the scope of language education: Mediation, plurilingualism, and collaborative learning: The CEFR companion volume Journal of e-Learning and
Seidlhofer, B (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca-Oxford Applied Linguistics Oxford University Press
Seidlhofer, B (2017, August) English as a Lingua Franca: Why it is so Controversial? In JACET
International Convention Selected Papers Volume 5 (p 2)
Selinker, L (1972) Interlanguage IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Tardy, C (2004) The role of English in scientific communication: lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus rex?
Journal of English for academic purposes, 3(3), 247-269
Tarone, E (1980) Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage 1 Language learning, 30(2), 417-428
投野由紀夫 (2010) CEFR 準拠の⽇本版英語到達 I 指標の策定へ 英語教育 2010 年 10 ⽉増刊号, pp.60-63
Tono, Y (2017, September) The CEFR-J and its impact on English language teaching in Japan In JACET
International Convention Selected Papers Volume 4(p 31)
Widdowson, H (2016) Competence and capability: rethinking the subject English In K Murata (Ed.),
Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts: Conceptualization, research and pedagogic implications (pp 213-223) Abingdon and New York: Routledge
Widdowson, H (2019) TESOL: What does the acronym stand for? JACET journal, 63, 1-6
Zimmerman, B J., & Martinez-Pons, M A N G E L (1992) Perceptions of efficacy and strategy use in the self-regulation of learning Student perceptions in the classroom, 185-207
CIEEJ TOEFL ITP Overall Performance Descriptors https://www.cieej.or.jp/toefl/itp/level.html (August 15, 2020)
Demographic Information and professional background
Years of formal English instruction:
Q1 How important is English within your field? Check the most appropriate answer
□ NOT IMPORTANT □ SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT □ VERY IMPORTANT □ ESSENTIAL
Q2 In general, how would you describe your English competence for professoinal/academic activities?
Q3 English language skill(s) you would like to master/acquire.
Q4 English has become the primary language of communication in many academic fields
In your view, what are the benefits/negative aspects of this situation, if any?
Thank you, please go to Survey 2.
This questionnarie sheet consists of three types of surveys on English language use of university students who learn Englush as a second or foreign language The questionnare originally compiled for Japanese students, then translated to English for others with some modification The information acquired from the survey will never use for any other purposes, but research relates to a doctoral dissertation
English proficiency level of CEFR
(or other test score such as TOEIC, if any):
Please read the following descriptions, choose and circle the level the most true of you
Can produce clear, smoothly flowing well-structured speech with an effective logical structure which helps the recipient to notice and remember significant points.
Can give clear, detailed descriptions and presentations on complex subjects, integrating sub-themes, developing particular points and rounding off with an appropriate conclusion.
Can give clear, systematically developed descriptions and presentations, with appropriate highlighting of significant points, and relevant supporting detail.
Can give clear, detailed descriptions and presentations on a wide range of subjects related to his/her field
Can reasonably fluently sustain a straightforward description of one of a variety of subjects within his/her field of interest, presenting it as a linear sequence of points.
Can give a simple description or presentation of people, living or working conditions, daily routines, likes/dislikes, etc as a short series of simple phrases and sentences linked into a list.
Can produce simple mainly isolated phrases about people and places.
Can give clear, smoothly flowing, elaborate and often memorable descriptions.
Can give clear, detailed descriptions of complex subjects.
Can give elaborate descriptions and narratives, integrating sub-themes, developing particular points and rounding off with an appropriate conclusion.
Can give clear, detailed descriptions on a wide range of subjects related to his/her field of interest.
Can give straightforward descriptions on a variety of familiar subjects within his/her field of interest.
Can resonably fluently relate a straightforward narrative or description as a liner sequence of points.
Can give deatiled accounts of experiences, describing feelings and reactions.
Can relate detailes of unpredictable occurrences, e.g an accident.
Can relate the plot of a book or film and describe his/her reactions.
Can describe dreams, hopes and ambitions.
Can describe events, real or imagined.
Can tell a story or describe something in a simple list of points Can describe everyday aspects of his/her environment e.g people, places, a job or study experience.
Can give short, basic descriptions of events and activities.
Can describe plans and arrangements, habits and routines, past activities and personal experiences.
Can use simple descriptive language to make brief statements about and compare objects and possessions.
Can explain what he/she likes or dislikes about something.
Can describe his/her family, living conditions, educational background, present or most recent job
Can describe people, places and possessions in simple terms.
Can describe him/herself, what he/she does and where he/she lives.
B2 of interest, expanding and supporting ideas with subsidiary points and relevant examples.
3 SUSTAINED MONOLOGUE: Putting a case (e.g in a debate)
Can develop an argument systematically with appropriate highlighting of significant points, and relevant supporting detail.
Can develop a clear argument, expanding and supporting his/her points of view at some length with subsidiary points and relevant examples.
Can construct a chain of reasoned argument:
Can explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.
Can develop an argument well enough to be followed without diffuculty most of the time.
Can briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions, plans and actions.
Can deliver announcements fluently, almost effortlessly, using stress and intonation to convey finer shades of meaning precisely.
Can deliver announcements on most general topics with a degree of clarity, fluency and spontaneity which causes no strain or inconvenience to the listener.
Can deliver short, rehearsed announcements on a topic pertinent to everyday occurrences in his/her field which, despite possibly very foreign stress and intonation, are nevertheless clearly intelligible.
Can deliver very short, rehearsed announcement of predictable, learnt content which are intelligible to listeners who are prepared to concentrate.
Can present a complex topic confidently and articulately to an audience unfamiliar with it, structuring and adapting the talk flexibly to meet the audience's needs.
Can handle difficult and even hostile questioning.
Can give a clear, well-structured presentation of a complex subject, expanding and supporting points of view at some length with subsidiary points, reasons and relevant examples.
Can handle interjections well, responding spontaneously and almost effortlessly.
Can give a clear, systematically developed presentation, with highlighting of significant points, and relevant supporting detail.
Can depart spontaneously from a prepared text and follow up interesting points raised by members of the audience, often showing remarkable fluency and ease of expression.
Can give a clear, prepared presentation, giving reasons in support of or against a particular point of view and giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.
Can take a series of follow up questions with a degree of fluency and spontaneity which poses no strain for either him/herself or the audience.