Abstract

Document Sample
Abstract Powered By Docstoc
					                                            Abstract
          This report summarizes the teaching approach developed by a Native-Speaker Teacher

(NST) and the Japanese Teachers of English (JTEs) at Miyake Junior High School over a three year

period.     In the first year, the teachers developed a “process approach” to teaching English.   This

approach focuses on developing practical communication ability through meaning-focused practice

tasks first, then reinforcing this growing ability with grammar and vocabulary work. After

creating appropriate curriculum aims and deciding on what types of tasks to use, the teachers

implemented the approach starting with the first graders and continuing over a two-year period

(April 2003-March 2006). Classroom data and a student survey confirmed that the process

approach successfully developed the students’ communicative ability. The report concludes by

recommending the process approach form the framework further improvement of English education

in Japan.
   Developing Communicative Ability Through a
               Process Approach
Table of Contents

       I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..1

       II. The Process Approach…………..…………………………………………………...2

       III. Implementing the Process Approach…………….………………………………….8

       IV. Evaluation of Student Progress………………………………………..…………...13

       V. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..16

       Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………….17

Appendix

       A. A Listening Task …………………….……………………………………………...18

       B. A Speaking Task.……………….……………………………………………….…...21

       C. A Reading Task….…….…………………………………………………………….22

       D. A Writing Task….….……………………………………………………………..…24

       E. Vocabulary Tasks..……………….………………………………………………......25

       F. A Pera-pera Points Card……………………………………………………………...29
I. Introduction

           In March 2003, the Ministry of Education’s Action Plan to Cultivate “Japanese with

English Abilities” called for the widespread reform of English education in Japan.        Recognizing

the failure of the current education system to create sufficient English ability, the Plan outlined a

number of measures to foster real English communication ability.       One of these measures was the

placement of native-speaker teachers (NST) as full-time English teachers in Japanese junior high

schools.

           Previously, native-speakers had been only used as Assistant Language Teachers (ALT).

ALTs rotate to several different schools and might visit a single class only two or three times a year.

The NST, however, works as a regular teacher at a single school.      The NST teaches a single group

of students throughout the year, and, just like other teachers, attends faculty meetings, is responsible

for student discipline, has various duties as part of kyoumu bunsho, and manages club activities.

In Fukuoka City, the first NST was placed at Miyake Junior High School for three years (April

2003-March 2006)..

           When the NST arrived at Miyake, it quickly became clear that he could not simply be

“added on” to the existing English curriculum.     Not only would this fail to take full advantage of a

having a native-speaker teacher, but without a new teaching approach there would be little progress

towards developing communication ability. The English teachers at Miyake, therefore, worked

together to create a new teaching approach called the “process approach.”          This approach was

designed to take full-advantage of a native-speaker teacher and to foster the student’s

communicative ability. During the first year, the NST taught the third graders.       The teachers put

together the initial outline of the approach, and experimented with various task types. In the

second year, the NST moved into the first grade and the teachers implemented the approach.

During the third year, the NST moved up to the second grade and the teachers continued to use the

same approach with the same group of students. During this two year period, various adjustments

to the approach were made and data on the students’ abilities was collected and evaluated.

           This report presents the results of this research. Section two describes the general outline
                                                   1
of the process approach.      Section three describes in more detail the types of tasks used and the

teaching techniques employed.       Section four of the report presents some data on the development

of the students’ abilities.   In the appendix, several different example tasks are presented.



II. The Process Approach

          Language learning requires both knowledge building and skill development.         Knowledge

consists of different aspects of grammatical form and vocabulary, while skills are the ability to use

and understand English in a variety of situations.       Students gain knowledge through traditional

instructional methods such as teacher explanation, drills, exercises, and tests. Skills, on the other

hand, must be developed through communicative practice.           The “process approach” to teaching

English used at Miyake aims to both build knowledge and develop communicative skills. In this

section, the process approach will be described and contrasted with the more traditional

“product-oriented” approach to teaching.

          Traditionally, junior high school English lessons are heavily focused on grammatical

knowledge.     A series of grammatical forms are introduced in order of increasing complexity, and

these forms are illustrated through the situations presented in the textbook. In a typical lesson, the

Japanese Teacher of English (JTE) takes a single grammar point as “Today’s Goal.”               The lesson

proceeds in a linear fashion through teacher explanation, a practice activity, and achievement of the

goal.
          Fig. 1: A Traditional Lesson

          Today’s Goal               Teacher Explanation             Activity             Goal


Today’s Goal might be something like “Learn the use of going to ~.” The teacher explains the

meaning and form of the grammar point, usually referring to the textbook dialogue for examples of

use.    Finally, the students do a practice activity. This activity may be a grammar and translation

exercise or a communicative activity based around the grammar point.              Once the activity is

complete, the teacher considers that the students have learned the grammar point and achieved the

                                                    2
goal.   In subsequent lessons, the teacher introduces more difficult grammar points that build on

this knowledge.

           In the terminology of applied linguistics, this way of teaching is called a product approach

because it is focused on the goal or “product” of teaching.          The product is the grammar or

vocabulary point being taught.      According to this view, students learn a language by gathering

together enough “products” or bits of knowledge.           Once the students have built up enough

language knowledge, it is assumed that they will have gained the ability to use and understand

English.

           However, as stated above, language learning requires both knowledge and skill

development.      Students do not simply need to “know” about the use of “going to ~,” but they need

the ability to use it in a communicative situation.       Knowledge alone does not become ability

without communicative skill practice. As the Action Plan states:
                     In order to be able to “make use of English” it is necessary not only
                     to have a knowledge of grammar and vocabulary but also to use
                     English for the purpose of actual communication. Thus in English
                     classes, instruction mainly based on grammar and translation or
                     teacher-centered classes are not recommended. Through the
                     repetition of activities making use of English as a means of
                     communication, the learning of vocabulary and grammar should be
                     enhanced, and communication abilities in “listening,” “speaking,”
                     “reading,” and “writing” should be fostered.
Similarly, the Ministry of Education’s 2003 Course of Study for Lower Secondary School

emphasizes the development of “practical speaking abilities” rather than the grammar-focused

teaching.

           In contrast to the product approach, which focuses on knowledge, an alternative called the

“process approach” concentrates on developing communicative abilities.          This approach focuses

on the different activities or “processes” students do in class.       Most lesson time is used for

skill-practice tasks, and the teacher’s role is that of a coach. Rather than lesson goals, there are a

series of long-term aims for each skill area.    The students’ ability develops slowly, and there are

backslides and uneven progress towards the aim.
                                                   3
           In a typical lesson, the teacher coaches the students through a practice task that aims to

develop a certain skill area.    A cycle of practice and coaching is repeated several times as the

teacher tries to push the students to higher levels of performance:

           Fig. 2: A Process Lesson

                                      Aim



                                Practice Task                         Ability


                                  Coaching

For example, an aim might be “Improve listening ability.” The practice task could be a listening

CD and a worksheet with questions.          In the lesson, the students listen to the CD several times.

After each listening, the teacher gives hints and advice about how to complete the task.            The

listening is repeated several times until most students complete the worksheet to satisfaction.       In

subsequent lessons, similar listening tasks are repeated.    The difficultly level of the tasks is slowly

increased as the students’ ability improves over time.

           In the process approach, language learning is viewed as a process of helping the students

develop language skills.    Rather than building up a base of knowledge in the hope that this leads to

communicative ability, the process approach develops communicative ability through practice tasks.

Unlike a product-oriented approach, the teacher cannot say that at the end of a lesson students will

have learned x grammar point or y vocabulary.            He can only say what skills were practiced.

Furthermore, in many cases there will be no concrete evidence of skill development after a single

lesson.    Instead, each practice session contributes to growing communicative ability over the long

term.     In this view, learning English is similar to learning to play a sport.    The ability to play

basketball, for instance, can only be developed by doing the same drills and scrimmages over and

over, day after day.

           A key difference between the product and process approaches is the difference between

goals and aims.     In the product approach, goals are either reached or not reached. Students either

                                                     4
learn the use of “going to ~” or they do not. In the process approach, there are several long-term

aims which the students come closer and closer to through continual practice.        There is never a

point where the students “reach” the aim.     At the level of classroom tasks, this means that students

are not expected to achieve perfect understanding of input language or perfect language production.

Rather understanding grows from partial to fuller – but never complete – understanding with

practice.     Language production improves along a similar path, but there is never a point where the

students “achieve” productive ability.    To continue the analogy to basketball, there is never a point

where a player gains the ability to play basketball. Rather, ability must be continually maintained

and improved through practice.

            A “pure” process approach deals only with developing communication ability.        Grammar

and vocabulary knowledge are assumed to develop naturally in the course of communication

practice. However, as linguistic researchers Lightbrown and Spada write, recent research suggests

that a combined approach in which there is both communication practice and a knowledge building

component is the most effective way to teach English. Therefore, the approach developed at

Miyake includes both these elements:

   Fig. 2. A Combined Approach


                                                                                     Ability
            Listening
                                                Practice
            Speaking

            Reading
                                               Coaching                              Grammar
            Writing
                                                                                    Vocabulary




  Communication Tasks                         Lesson Cycle                    Ability Reinforcement

            As Figure 2 shows, this combined approach begins with communication tasks.         Each task

is focused on a particular skill area, listening, speaking, reading, or writing. In each lesson, the

teacher coaches the students through practice tasks for one or two different skill areas.        Similar
                                                   5
tasks are repeated several times, with the teacher attempting to push the students to higher levels of

performance in an ongoing cycle of practice and coaching. As the students’ communicative ability

grows, it is reinforced with grammar and vocabulary tasks which aim to build the students’

language knowledge.        The grammar tasks resemble the traditional product-oriented lessons

described earlier.    In this scheme, however, such grammar-focused lessons are merely one part of a

larger approach aimed at both skill development and knowledge building.

         It is important to note that the communication tasks are meaning-focused.      The tasks do

not aim to teach a particular grammar point.     Rather, understanding or communicating content is

emphasized.    For example, here is one problem that was used as part of a reading task.     Students

must choose the correct answer, A, B, C, or D:
                       Lin lives in New York City. Sometimes she sees famous
              people near her home. She tells all her friends at work. Her friends
              live in New Jersey, and they don’t often see famous people. Not many
              famous people
                    A. live in New Jersey.                  B. go to work.
                    C. live in New York.                    D. have friends in New York.



The correct answer is A.     To understand this problem, students need to know certain grammar and

vocabulary. However, the answer depends not on figuring out the correct grammar or word, but on

imagining the situation being described.     Thus, this task is focused on real communication, not

grammatical form.

         While the language used in the tasks was often simplified, the teachers did not try to

artificially limit the grammar or vocabulary used.     The students could check unknown words in

their dictionaries.   The teachers briefly explained unknown grammar only if it was necessary to

understand the meaning being communicated. This stands in contrast to the way communication

activities are often used in product approach lessons.    In such tasks, the language used is often

artificially limited to include only the grammar point being taught in the lesson.   However, in real

communication a variety of grammatical forms are used depending on the content.        There is often

more than one correct way to say things.     Moreover, saying something interesting and worthwhile
                                                  6
usually requires the use of many different grammatical forms and vocabulary.        Tasks that aim to

practice the use of a single grammar point tend to become form-focused drills rather than

communication activities.

         The combined approach worked well at Miyake because it took advantage of the strengths

of both the NST and the JTE.     The NST mainly took responsibility for teaching the communication

tasks.   As a native-speaker, it was relatively easier for the NST to create such tasks and coach the

students.   Since the tasks are content focused, the teacher does not always know in advance what

kind of grammar or vocabulary students may produce.        The NST can judge instantly whether such

utterances are correct or not, while the JTE may have difficulty doing so.         Further, since the

communication tasks do not require detailed grammar explanations, the NST was able to conduct

these lessons all in English.   This gave the students opportunities to listen to and speak in English

on a daily basis.   The JTE, on the other hand, took responsibility for teaching the grammar tasks.

These classes were conducted in Japanese, since it was important that the students gain a clear

understanding of the grammar points.     Both teachers shared responsibility for teaching vocabulary.

Approximately two-thirds of class time was used for NST-led communication lessons, with the

remaining one-third devoted to JTE-led grammar lessons.

         During the course of implementing this approach over two years, it became clear that

although it was easier for the NST to teach the communication tasks, there was no reason in

principle that a JTE could not do so as well. In fact, the JTEs teaching the other grades at Miyake

began using similar communication tasks on their own.       Moreover, after the students moved to the

third grade and the NST transferred to a different school, the JTEs continued to teach the

communication tasks on their own.      The process approach, in other words, represents a new way

of teaching English that can be used, whether the teacher is a native-speaker or not.

         Another issue that was dealt with was how the textbook fits into this approach. Teachers

are, of course, required to use the official textbook.   However, at Miyake the view was taken that

rather than narrowly “teaching the textbook,” the aim was to improve the students’ English ability.

To that end, the textbook was made to fit into the overall approach, not the other way around. The
                                                   7
grammar points and words from the textbook were used as the basis for the grammar and

vocabulary tasks.     Also, a few readings or dialogues from the textbook were adopted for

communication tasks.     However, the textbook could not provide the quantity and quality of

communication tasks needed for the process approach to be successful. The teachers themselves

used other sources to create many of the most interesting and successful tasks.

          This section has described in detail the process-oriented approach that was developed and

implemented at Miyake over three years.     The approach works to develop both the knowledge and

communication skills necessary to use English. Skill focused communication tasks are taught

through a cycle of coaching and practice.       As the students’ communication ability begins to

develop, it is reinforced with knowledge-focused grammar and vocabulary tasks.           In the next

section, the tasks themselves and the process of coaching will be looked at in more detail.



III. Implementing the Process Approach

          To implement the process approach on a practical level, a number of questions had to be

answered. What kinds of curriculum aims should be targeted?           What kinds of communication

tasks are appropriate?   How can the tasks be taught effectively?     This section will describe how

these questions were answered.

          The first source for curriculum aims was the 2003 Course of Study.      This document sets

out general objectives and contents for each major skill area, as well as a detailed grammar syllabus.

However, the skill objectives are quite general, and the Course of Study grants freedom to

individual schools to establish their own curriculum “in an appropriate manner” for their situation.

A second source for aims was the Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities. It

states:
                    On graduation from a junior high school, students can conduct
                    basic communication…English language abilities for graduates
                    should be on the third level of the Society for Testing English
                    Proficiency (STEP) on average.
This represents a large leap above the current level of Japanese students.   Even at Miyake, which

                                                  8
received a special achievement award for the number of students who pass the STEP test (also

called Eiken), only about 25% of students pass the third level by the time they graduate.        Thus,

achieving the third level on average requires a dramatic improvement over the current situation.

          Taking these factors into consideration, the teachers at Miyake set out the following aims:

Table 1. Aims for Junior High School English
Listening      Upon graduation from junior high school, students will have the ability to understand
               and respond appropriately to basic, everyday English spoken at normal speed with
               natural pronunciation, intonation, and rhythm.
Speaking       Upon graduation from junior high school, students will have the ability to express a
               variety of information in basic English, and will have developed an awareness of
               proper pronunciation, intonation, and rhythm in speech.
Reading        Upon graduation from junior high school, students will have the ability to
               comprehend both the general gist and important details of a moderately lengthy essay
               or story.
Writing        Upon graduation from junior high school, students will have the ability to express a
               variety of information in moderately lengthy written passages.
Grammar        Upon graduation from junior high school, students will know all grammatical items
               defined in the 2003 Course of Study.
Vocabulary Upon graduation from junior high school, students will know approximately 2,000
           words receptively and productively. Of those 1,200 words will be known
           productively.



          With these aims in mind, the teachers developed different tasks for each area.    Table 2 on

the following page summarizes the different tasks used.     The teachers created tasks using a variety

of materials, including the official textbook, foreign-published textbooks, original material written

by the NST, and texts and pictures adapted from the Internet and other sources. The attached

appendix shows some example tasks.




                                                   9
Table 2:      Task Types
Listening         (1) Answer questions based on a listening passage.
Tasks             (2) Respond appropriately to classroom instructions and explanations.
Speaking          (1)   Use Classroom English in appropriate situations.
Tasks             (2)   Perform conversational role-plays in pairs or with the teacher.
                  (3)   Respond to informational questions about a picture, text, or listening passage.
                  (4)   Give reasons and explanations for an answer.
Reading           (1)   Answer informational or opinion questions about an essay or short story.
Tasks             (2)   Develop dictionary skills.
Writing           (1) Answer informational questions about a picture, text, or listening passage.
Tasks             (2) Explain own opinion, feelings, or experiences in a short essay.
Grammar           (1) Translation drills.
Tasks             (2) Transformation drills.
                  (3) Write sentences given informational or textual prompts.
Vocabulary        (1) Read the word and say it.
Tasks             (2) Write the word when heard in context or given a Japanese prompt.
                  (4) Complete a sentence with the word.
                  (5) Write an original sentence using the word.



           One of the problems encountered in developing these materials was determining task

difficulty.    Nunan, a specialist on the development of communication tasks, lists a number of

factors which affect task difficulty:
                Length and complexity of task input
                Input presented in sequence or out of sequence
                Length and complexity of required output
                Amount of unknown vocabulary
                Familiarity of content
                Presence or absence of visual aids
The type of input affected task difficulty.     Long essays were more difficult that shorter readings,

very fast and complex listening texts more difficult than slower, less dense ones. The type and

length of output required also made the task more or less difficult.            For example, two line

dialogues were easier than four line ones, oral answers were easier than written ones, and

multiple-choice or true/false questions were easier than those requiring full sentence answers.

Input with a high percentage of unknown vocabulary was very difficult.             If the students could


                                                    10
relate the contents of the task to something they already knew about, it was easier to complete.

Visual aids also made tasks less difficult.   Taking these factors into account, the teachers attempted

to sequence tasks in order of gradually increasing difficulty.     However, because of the variety of

factors affecting difficulty, some tasks proved more difficult than expected and vice versa.

          The next important question that had to be dealt with was how to teach the communication

tasks.   Unlike traditional lessons, the tasks required the teacher to take the role of a “coach” rather

than a lecturer or explainer.        Whitmore, an expert on “performance coaching,” writes that

“coaching is unlocking a person’s potential to maximize their own performance.”           According to

Whitmore, students naturally have a lot of ability, but this ability is blocked by self-doubt. The

goal of coaching is to remove this self-doubt and give the students the confidence to trust their own

abilities and enable them to learn on their own. In order to do this, the “skillful coach,” he writes,

“rarely prescribes or provides solutions.”    Rather, the coach turns problems back to the students:

  Table 3. Coaching Responses
    Student                                        Teacher
    What’s the answer?                             What do you think?
    How do you say this word?                      Can you try to say it?
    What does this word mean?                      Check your dictionary.
    This is too difficult.   I can’t do it!        Let me show you how to start...
    (student has made a mistake)                   Did you notice this key word?



Giving the students the answer merely makes them dependent on the teacher. By forcing the

students to try to figure out the answer on their own, even if they fail, the teacher enables them to

become independent learners.       An important tool here is the dictionary.   Students were required to

bring an English-Japanese dictionary to class and encouraged to bring a Japanese-English one as

well.    In this way, students could look up the meaning of unknown words and tackle difficult texts

without the aid of the teacher.

          Giving appropriate feedback was another important part of building the students’

self-confidence.    When the students succeed in completing a difficult task, giving the right amount

of praise can solidify their newly-found self-confidence and motivate them to try the next task. A
                                                    11
point system, called “Pera-pera Points” was used to concretely reward the students when they

succeeded. A point card can be seen in the appendix.         For example, students who performed a

role-play in front of the class correctly were given one point each, but students who performed the

role-play very well, with good pronunciation, intonation, expression, etc., were given two points

each.   The points were only given when the students volunteered to speak or used English with the

teachers without prompting.      In this way, the students were reward for acting on their own

initiative, rather than the teacher forcing them to speak, thus increasing their self-confidence and

independence.     Students kept track of their points, and at the end of each term one boy and one girl

were chosen as Pera-pera Points Champions and given an award in the all-class assembly.

         In addition, to Pera-pera Points, oral praise was also carefully graded in such a way to

motivate the students to come up with better and better answers.     Table 4 gives some examples of

the way the teacher’s response was modulated.

         Table 4. Praising and Feedback
          Student’s Answer                         Teacher’s Response
          Completely unrelated                     ...
          Completely incorrect                     No, no.
          Close incorrect                          Hmm…
          So-so correct                            Ah…ok, but…
          Close correct                            That’s right. Good.
          Good answer                              Yes, very good!



         Finally, at the end of each lesson, students were encouraged to reflect on their efforts by

filling out a Class Record Sheet.   Students recorded what skills were practiced in each lesson, then

they gave themselves a self-grade and wrote a comment about the lesson.             As can be seen in

Figure 3, some students wrote their cards all in English.    The Class Record helped the students to

feel that learning English depended on their own efforts.     This student, for example, notices what

areas are difficult for him and where he should direct his efforts in the future.    “Word’s accent is

very difficult!   I should practice accent…” he wrote in one case. The Class Record also showed

the students in a graphic way that English is a long-term process of gradual improvement.

                                                  12
Fig 3. A Class Record Sheet




         This section has described how the process approach was implemented over the two-year

experimental period. After determining appropriate aims, the teachers developed a variety of

different task types. When teaching the communication tasks, the teacher’s role was that of a

coach.   As a coach, the teacher worked to give students the self-confidence to complete the tasks

on their own.     In the next section the students’ progress over two years will be evaluated.



IV. Evaluation of Student Progress

         In this section, the progress of the experimental group of students over two years of

instruction through the process approach will be evaluated using data from classroom tasks and a

student survey.

         Throughout the two year experimental period, the students’ daily classroom work was

carefully tracked and evaluated.        This data shows that students were consistently able to

successfully complete very challenging tasks. The following table shows the results for tasks

completed by the students during their second year.




                                                   13
          Table 3. Classroom Task Data
                                                            Percent Passing
                 Listening             15 tasks                          77%
                 Speaking              6 tasks                           84%
                 Reading               4 tasks                           71%
                 Writing               6 tasks                           73%
                 Vocabulary            10 tasks                          54%



          It should be noted that not all the tasks done yielded this kind of data.        For example,

fifteen different speaking tasks were done, but only six of those were speaking tests that were

evaluated on a pass/fail basis.    Similarly, nineteen reading tasks were done, only four of which

were evaluated pass/fail.    The vocabulary tasks shown represent only the vocabulary work done by

the NST.     Additional vocabulary tasks were done by the JTE, but that data is not shown. Also,

passing level varied from task to task.    For listening tasks, a score of 60% or above was considered

passing, while for vocabulary tasks the passing level was set at between 65% and 75% depending

on the test. Speaking tests were evaluated on a four point scale (Not good, So-so, Good, and Very

good).     The “So-so” level was considered passing. Reading and writing tasks were graded A, B,

or C.     These tasks were given for homework. Students who completed the task on time and had

every answer basically correct received a passing grade of B.

          As can be seen from the examples in the appendix, the difficulty level of these tasks is

quite high. Nonetheless, the data in Table 3 confirms that high percentages of students were

consistently able to complete the tasks.    Only the result for the vocabulary tasks is lower than the

others.    However, the difficulty level of the vocabulary tasks should be kept in mind.    In each task

students were required to memorize 20 words. They had to remember not only the Japanese

meaning, but also the spelling, pronunciation, and patterns of use of each word.      Over a two-year

period the students studied about 700 words in these kinds of tasks. Over that time period, the

averages consistently improved from a low of 32% on a test early in the first year to an average of

78% on the final test completed in the second year.      Similarly, the percentage of students passing

the tests on average rose 11% from the first year to the second.      This indicates that the students’
                                                   14
word learning skills improved over time, and also reflects their growing communicative ability.

         Other data reveals that the students were highly engaged in working on the tasks. Many

students received Pera-pera Points. In a typical term of 20 communication lessons, each student

received 38 points on average, and 70% received 10 points or more. This shows that large

numbers of students were volunteering to answer questions or present in class.    Similarly, regularly

conducted teacher checks showed that on average 72% of students brought dictionaries to class.

This indicates that many students were using dictionaries to deal with unknown words on their own,

rather than relying on the teacher.

         Finally, a survey conducted at the end of the second year asked the students what they felt

they learned in English class.   The results are shown in the table below

         Table 4. Student Survey Results
          I learned…
          …natural English.                                 78%
          …good English pronunciation.                      58%
          …English conversation.                            38%
          …English words.                                   36%
          …about American culture.                          29%
          …how to write in English.                         18%



While students felt they learned a variety of things through this approach, the majority believed they

developed some ability to use and understand “Natural English.”      This real communicative ability

is the ultimate goal of the process approach.

         This section has evaluated how the students’ abilities improved through the use of the

process approach.    Data collected over two years shows the students were consistently able to

complete challenging communication tasks.          Also, many students received Pera-points and

brought dictionaries to class, indicating that large numbers of students were motivated to complete

the tasks. Finally, the results of a student survey showed that the majority of students felt they

gained the ability to use and understand “natural English” through the process approach.



                                                  15
V. Conclusion

        This report has summarized in detail the process approach developed and implemented

over three years by the NST and JTEs at Miyake Junior High School.         While there is certainly

room for improvement, the students taught through this approach have achieved quite a high level

of English proficiency. As the Action Plan continues to be implemented over the next few years,

we believe the process approach provides a good framework for further development of English

education in Japan.     Using this framework, we teachers – both Japanese and native-speaker – must

continue to work to challenge our students to higher and higher levels of achievement in order to

truly cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities.”




Works Cited
Lightbrown, P.M. and N. Spada.      1993.   How Languages are Learned. Oxford.
Nunan, D. 1989.    Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge.
Whitmore, J.    2002.    Coaching for Performance. New York: Nicholas Brealey.




                                                     16
Appendix A:   A Listening Task




                                 17
Listening Script
Genre: Conversation, sentences
Speakers: Native-speakers
Speed: Native-speaker normal (fast)
Language: Natural


Part A
1.
A: Good evening, sir. How can I help you?
B: Well, this might seem like a strange question but…I saw some people on TV doing a sort of
     slow motion exercise. Could you tell me what it is?
A: Oh, you mean Tai Chi. It’s a martial art that’s meant to improve your concentration and help
     you relax. It’s very popular in Hong Kong.
B: It looks really interesting. Is there any place I could go to find out more about it?
A: You could take classes, but since you’re only here for a few days you should probably just go
     to Kowloon Park. A lot of people practice Tai Chi there.


2.
A: Is there something I can help you with, ma’am?
B: Oh, yes. I’m looking for information on cultural events in Hong Kong.
A: Was there something in particular you were interested in?
B: I’m not sure. What about traditional music? Do they have any performances I could attend?
A: I’d recommend the Chinese Opera. There’s a schedule right here. The performances are
   held at the Hong Kong Cultural Center.


3.
A: Could I ask you a question? We were wondering if there were any good clubs around here…
B: Yes, there are quite a few. Are you looking for a place to dance or to hear live music?
A: We’re really in the mood to dance.
B: OK. Well, there are plenty of choices. There’s a great place called Judgment AD in the
   Bank of America Tower. You just take the MTR to Admiralty.
A: Judgment AD in the Bank of America Tower. Got it.


4.
A: Hi. You’re going to think this is a bit strange, but my husband wants to have his fortune told.
B: That’s not as strange as you think. A lot of people go to fortune-tellers. You just have to go
   to a temple…
A: Where would the nearest one be?
B: Well, there’s a place near Tin Hau Temple. That’s not too far from here.


                                               18
5.
A: Could you help me? I’m looking for a new place to shop.
B: You’ve already been to Pacific Place?
A: Yes, I spent all day there yesterday. I guess I’m just looking for someplace new to explore.
B: Well, you should probably visit Times Square, then. There are a lot of boutiques and
   brand-name stores there.


6.
A.   Excuse me, sir. I’ve heard there’s a floating market in Hong Kong. Is it anything like the
     one in Bangkok?
B:   To tell you the truth, it’s not a market at all. It’s a place to eat.
A:   So it’s a big restaurant?
B:   Three big restaurants, actually. All on a huge floating platform on the water.
A:   It’s in Victoria Harbor?
B:   No, you have to go to Aberdeen Harbor on the other side of the island.


Part B
1. There’s a drugstore on Church Street, across from the park.
2. The bookstore is right behind the Admiral Hotel.
3. The market? Take the next left. It’s just beside the hospital.
4. No, there’s no subway station on Kensington Street. There’s one in front of the Park Place
     Hotel, though.
5. The closest movie theater is in the shopping mall on Guildwood Avenue. Look for the
     supermarket. The mall is on the other side of the street.


Part C
1. Do you know where the station is?
2. When does the bus get here?
3. Is there a bookstore nearby?
4. How do I get to the ferry terminal?
5. Where is the drugstore?
6. Are there any banks around here?




                                              19
Appendix B:   A Speaking Task




                                20
Appendix C:   A Reading Task




                               21
22
Appendix D:   A Writing Task




                               23
Appendix E:   Vocabulary Tasks




                                 24
25
26
27
Appendix F:   A Pera-pera Points Card




                                        28

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:10/4/2011
language:English
pages:30