さいたま市教育家会ジャーナル

TheJournal of Saitama City Educators (JSCE)A さいたま市教育家会 (SCE) Publication

ISSN: 2185-7822

Volume 2, Issue 6January 2013

EditorsJohn Finucane and Matthew Shannon

Co-editorBrad Semans

TranslatorJames Ludden and Brad Semans

ProofreadingMatthew Shannon

Cover Design and Layout byCarl Bloomfield and John Finucane

JSCE and JSCE submission guidelines can be found online at:http://www.saitamacityeducators.org

Copyright and License

JSCE is an open access journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Foreword

Greetings,

Having the wonderful opportunity to participate as part of the great audience and as an officer of the 5th Annual Nakasendo Conference, I was an eye-witness to the quality of the presentations and the delightful people behind them.

With this issue we bring the conference proceedings to a close, and at the same time I have the pleasure to inform our readers that the 6th Annual Nakasendo Conference returns again in the summer of 2013, and as its conference chair I will work to deliver it in a most devoted manner.

I would like to thank all the organizers, presenters, and attendees who made Nakasendo 2012 such a wonderful conference. Special thanks go to Matt Shannon, John Finucane, Michael Mondejar, Decha Hongthong, Bryan Darr, Tyson Rode and Hitomi Sakamoto for their advice and unconditional support.

Finally I ask for all your enthusiasm and wisdom to join me in making Nakasendo 2013 all that it can be and beyond!

Respectfully yours,

Ivan BotevConference Chair, Nakasendo 2013

Contents

John Finucane: Collaboration: Some simple rules for emailジョン・ファヌカン: コラボレーション：電子メール用いくつかの単純なルールPage 1

Robert Morel: Building a Toolkit for Authentic Communicationモーレル　ロバート: 本格的なコミュニケーションのための手法を構築するPage 7

Matthew Shannon: “I thought this place had internet?” - A checklist for your next conference マシュー・シャノン: “ネットがあると思った!”− あなたの次の会議のためのチェックリストPage 15

Yaeko Hori Shibata: Introducing a ‘Critical’ Pragmatic-FocusedPedagogical Model Today堀　八重子: 批判的教育論以降の語用論能力を育てるハイブリッド教育法Page 20

Darren M. Van Veelen: Advanced Writing and Genre-Based Teaching ヴァン　ヴィーレン　ダレン: 上級文章とジャンルに基づく指導Page 27

Collaboration: Some simple rules for emailコラボレーション：電子メール用いくつかの単純なルール

John Finucane: Nakasendo Conference, Print and Web Designジョン・ファヌカン: 中山道コンファレンス, 印刷物やウェブデザイン

About the Author

John Finucane is an EFL Professional.  He is the President and co-founder of さいたま市教育家会 (SCE). He edits the Journal of Saitama City Educators (JSCE).  His interests are writing, teacher training, event planning, debate, critical thinking and LEGO. Find out more at: John-Finucane.com

Abstract

To plan an event like Nakasendo email is the best way to communicate. A set of guidelines for how, when and why emails are sent should be agreed on by all collaborators before starting a project. By beginning a group project with clearly defined roles and responsibilities and an agreement about how, when and why communication takes place, we are being professional.

要約

中山道コンファレンス」のようなイベントの計画にはメールでのやり取りが望ましいでしょう。プロジェクトチームのメンバーは、メールにより計画を始める前に、いつ、どこで、何のためにかなどの詳細を予め知らせなくてはなりません。以上のようなことをはっきりと明記•表記をしていく事でメンバーとしてのプロ意識の向上となります。

1

Collaboration: Some simple rules for email

My first experience of using email was in a professional, not a personal, context. As a bank clerk I was provided with an email account and a strict set of guidelines for its use. Many of the habits I developed have stayed with me and inform how I communicate online. In the course planning a variety of events I have come to believe that how we communicate is the key to successful collaboration. As a member of the Nakasendo 2011 and 2012 planning committees, I have been fascinated by the various forms and styles of communication used and their relative successes and failures. To plan an event like Nakasendo I believe email is the best way to communicate.

Why use email?

Various alternatives to email such as social media or file sharing services exist. However for collaboration involving large groups, email has several advantages over text, instant messaging, file sharing, phone and video calls:

1. Email is familiar to most people2. People rarely if ever change their email addresses3. Email allows time for reflection and composition4. Email enables a professional tone of communication with friends5. Email enables a working relationship with strangers6. Emails can be archived and are searchable7. Emails are a permanent record

Who to send email to

To plan an event like Nakasendo I believe email is the best way to communicate. I also believe a set of guidelines for how, when and why emails are sent should be agreed on by all collaborators before starting a project. Here are some suggestions:

2

1. Only one person should be the recipient of an email—the person who is responsible for the work that email refers to

2. People who need to know about that information are CC'd and their names are listed at the top of the body of the email

3. In principle, no emails should be forwarded. If an email is forwarded the subject line should always be updated

4. Subject lines should always be used and the taxonomy should be consistent and detailed: A one word category e.g. Invitation, a colon and enough detail to make the content of the email clear without the need to open it e.g. Invitation: All organizations

5. American English should be used at all times (consistency and simplicity are important when collaborating with non-native speakers of English. It is also an important consideration when archiving emails in a searchable way)

6. Emails should be responded to within two working days. If no action can be taken then that is the response and an update should be sent every two working days until the issue is resolved

7. Any emails sent to anyone outside the planning committee should be sent from the official email account. No official emails should be sent from personal accounts

When to send emails

Rather like a paragraph, the correct length of an email is hard to define. Like a paragraph, a good rule of thumb is that one email should equal one thought. In the case of an event like Nakasendo, one email should contain one simple question or task. Long or complicated emails run the risk of being ignored or misunderstood. Any task from writing a paragraph, to sending an email, to planning an event is easier when tackled as small, incremental steps.

When not to send emails

Specifically, when not to reply. In their book Send, Will Shipley and David Schwalbe list situations when a reply is not necessary. Below I will

3

paraphrase a few that I think are relevant to the planners of an event like Nakasendo:

1. When reaching agreement and finding common ground2. When presenting or discussing complex topics3. When an email isn’t urgent it shouldn’t be sent at a time when

reading it will distract the addressee from their work or family responsibilities

Reading emails takes time. Planning an event can involve reading dozens of emails a day, in addition to all the other demands on our time and attention. Anything that can be done to cut down the number of emails we have to read is a good thing. If we only send necessary emails, addressed correctly, with appropriate subject lines, we will be less likely fall behind. Other people’s time and attention should be treated as a valuable (and finite) resource.

What emails are not

Emails are not action. They may appear to be but they are not. There are many uses of emails that do not contribute to the success of a project like Nakasendo. Below are three types that are particularly unhelpful:

1. The ‘Orphan Idea’

All ideas are not equal. Even if an idea is good, without someone willing to act on it , it is a orphan idea. Emails are troublesome because unlike a phone call or letter they can be sent to many people at once, as equal recipients. The senders responsibility for the content seems somehow lessened by the medium. The problem with orphan ideas is that they are unlikely to happen. They do however, generate comment and discussion which is ultimately a waste of time and effort if nothing actually happens.

Because emails appear to be action it is very easy for a group to appear busy while actually accomplishing very little. Face-to-face meetings and conference calls are a good forum for brainstorming early in the planning

4

process, emails are not. Ideas can and should be shared by email but they should be developed into specific, detailed proposals first. This keeps any subsequent discussion focused, especially once the planning process is advanced and work has been done.

2. The ‘Dead-eye Dick’

Criticism is not a contribution. In Deadeye Dick by Kurt Vonnegut, the protagonist’s father takes responsibility for his son’s crime. A failed artist, “...he [Rudy’s father] could at least be heroically honorable and truthful, should an opportunity to be so present itself.” He is shocked to subsequently be arrested. Criticism without someone willing to act on it is like an orphan idea, it doesn’t contribute anything. Criticism of ideas, proposals or processes can be made by email but should be developed into a specific, detailed proposal first. This keeps any subsequent discussion focused, especially once the planning process is advanced and work has been done.

3. The ‘Just-in-time’

The importance of a deadlines changes over time. Plans are made on the assumption that previously agreed deadlines will be kept. Missing a deadline has a ripple effect, wasting work already done and creating new work. The closer a deadline becomes, the more important for the overall project meeting it is. The just-in-time is an email saying a deadline cannot be met, that arrives just before the deadline expires.

Because emails appear to be action the sender often feels that they have been responsible. They have not. Often these emails are a kind of unconscious legerdemain that conceals a lack of time management or professionalism on the part of the sender. To avoid this, work should be divided into small incremental steps with short deadlines, combined with a regular schedule for updates. A clear understanding of roles, responsibilities and accountability give a group working on a project the best chance of success.

5

Conclusion

How can we collaborate efficiently and effectively? The first step is to reach a consensus. For a project like Nakasendo I advocate email. Depending on the group this might not be the best method for everyone and I will need to compromise. What is important is not so much how we communicate, but that we realize that by collaborating we are responsible for the effect our behavior has on our fellow collaborators. By beginning any group project with clearly defined roles and responsibilities and an agreement about how, when and why communication takes place, we are being professional.

References

Shipley, W. and Schwalbe, D. (2008). Send: The How, Why, When - and When Not - of Email [Kindle DX version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

Vonnegut, K. (2009). Dead-eye Dick: a Novel [Kindle DX version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

6

Building a Toolkit for Authentic Communication本格的なコミュニケーションのための手法を構築する

Robert Morel: English Department, Kosei Girls Junior and Senior High School モーレル　ロバート: 英語科、佼成女子学園中学校•高等学校

About the Author

Robert Morel teaches English communication and writing in Tokyo and is the Publications Chair of the JALT Junior and Senior High School SIG. His primary research interests are pragmatic development and learner motivation.

Abstract

This paper outlines a set of simple tools and activities to help high-school students develop the skills necessary to communicate in settings outside the classroom. It describes a way to help students progress from merely being able to respond to simple questions to being able to have simple multi-participant discussions. The article describes a set of activities and the theoretical rational behind them.

要約

本書は、高校生の教室外活動のコミュニケーションの取り方において、シンプルかつわかりやすいスムーズな会話の取り方、進め方を説明しています。簡単な対話から複雑な会話の進め方まで、さまざまな状況に対応できるよう説明しています。

7

Background

This paper aims to show how it is possible to help students develop a set of simple yet versatile conversational tools that may allow them to engage in unscripted, meaningful conversations and small group discussions with others in English. It outlines seven basic tools for students, four of which focus on one-to-one conversation, and three of which aim to help students with group discussion. The first group, conversation tools, consists of follow up questions, adding information and returning questions, topics for small talk, and simple repair strategies (asking for clarification and repetition). The second set of tools consists of giving background and brainstorming, preparing ideas in English, and simple turn taking techniques in a group setting. These tools were developed as a complement to students’ other English lessons. While they were developed for first and second-year high school students in Japan, these tools could be easily applied to university-level learners as well.

The need for these different tools came about from my own observations about what students could already do and where their conversational skills began to fail them even when they had the grammatical and lexical resources to perform a task. Although this set of tools is not highly-dependent on learner level, students should be able to understand and answer basic questions beforehand in order to receive the most benefit. With some practice, most students could successfully act in the role of questioner or answerer following a QuestionAnswerQuestion format when speaking on a prepared topic. Students were also exposed to and practiced conversations using the basic pattern of QuestionAnswer + Extra Information (QA+EI) (Nation & Newton, 2008) and many could use it haltingly but consistently. However, students have had difficulty changing roles between questioner and answerer. Thus, conversations in and out of class are often more similar to an interview structure than a live, back-and-forth conversation. Furthermore, even in the role of questioner, many students have difficulty asking conditionally relevant follow-up questions.

8

Tools for Discussion

Conversation Tool 1: Follow-up questions

Because students had difficulty asking conditionally relevant follow-up questions even in both structured and informal conversations, practicing follow-up questions was a logical starting point. In addition to practice with follow-up questions, this stage introduced students to extended speaking activities designed to improve fluency, conversational competence, and confidence.

Students began with a familiar topic question that was open enough to facilitate a variety of questions such as “How was your spring vacation?” The teacher wrote the starting question along with a selection of basic question words on the board. The teacher then elicited other questions students could ask on the same topic. While high school students have been introduced to basic question words many times over, having a visual list on the board resulted in improved brainstorming. The teacher then modeled a simple interview-style conversation using follow-up questions by asking a student the topic question and questions that follow from the student’s answers.

In pairs, student A is the questioner and student B the respondent. Student A starts with the topic question and had to continue asking questions related to Student B’s answers. After a randomly determined period of time (between one and three minutes), all the B students rotated and became the questioners. The teacher monitored student activity and kept time. This activity appeared to be effective in increasing students’ ability to ask relevant follow-up questions and their confidence in their ability to speak for a more extended time.

Figure 1: Sample of the blackboard during the brainstorming session (Responses in italics)9

Conversation Tool 2: Extra information and return questions

The purpose of this stage is to help students move beyond a rigid interviewer-interviewee style conversation to a more natural conversational style where both participants ask and answer questions and give information. This stage builds upon the Question Answer Follow-up Question pattern by teaching students to add extra information after their answer and then to ask questions back in the form: Question Answer + Extra information (+ Return Question). This stage is scaffolded and leads to an extended speaking activity much in the same way as the previous stage, both of which are described in detail in Morel (2012).

Conversation Tool 3: Topics for small-talk

While conversation topics are sometimes culturally dependent, the purpose of this stage is to show students how much crossover there is between conversation topics in the L1 and L2 cultures. Students began by brainstorming (individually, then in groups) what kind of things they would say to a friendly acquaintance in their L1. The groups then shared their ideas with the class and the teacher recorded them on the board. The teacher then pointed out that most student topics worked well in English as well. Students then worked in groups to construct English phrases relating to each topic.

Conversation Tool 4: Repair strategies

Repair in this case refers to “ways of addressing problems in speaking, hearing, or understanding of the talk” (Wong & Waring, 2010, p. 212). Specifically, this stage focuses on assisting students with basic calls for repetition or clarification, as well as checking and confirming information. Most information-gap activities such as finding places on a map, listen-and-draw, listen and retell, and note-taking activities can be easily adapted to focus on repair strategies. To be certain that repair is taking place, however, the listener should have to produce something such as a completed map, drawing, or notes. Graphic organizers and story maps are very useful for this.

One repair practice activity was—after pre-teaching a number of simple phrases useful for repair in basic conversation (fig. 1)—giving pairs of

10

students a set of cards, each requiring a partner to perform an action that would elicit one of the repair phrases. In the pair conversation style described in Step 1, the student answering questions draws one card at random. They have to perform the listed action to make it difficult for their partner to understand their response. After being asked for repetition or clarification, the student answers the question clearly.

Figure 2: Repair Phrases Activity Cards

From pair conversations to small-group discussions

While small-group discussion requires students employ skills from the above steps, it is qualitatively different from pair conversation in a two key ways. First, being a discussion, the content is topic-based rather than centering around small talk. Second, it involves more participants, and thus requires different turn-taking strategies from a pair conversation. While the first four stages focused on helping students gain the skills necessary to engage in a light conversation with another person, the final three focus on giving students the skills necessary to engage in a multi-participant talk.

Discussion Tool 1: Background and brainstorming

Preparing students to discuss a topic requires that they both have background knowledge about the topic, and a chance to think of their own feelings and opinions about the topic. Since discussion is a challenging task for many students even in their L1, students did much of this stage in Japanese. Students were supplied with background information about a given topic, and completed a basic mind-map brainstorm (fig. 3) in English or Japanese. To help students start thinking about a topic, they were given L1

11

background material about the topic to read before class. In class, students worked alone or in pairs to brainstorm their own feelings about the topic. Topics that worked well were those that were both personally relevant to the students and had a broader social context. Two that worked particularly well were “My future family” and “My future career.”

Discussion Tool 2: Preparing ideas

While the mind-map from Stage 1 gives students ideas about what they could say about the topic, they need time to prepare how to say it in English. In this stage, students expand on the points from their mind-map brainstorming sheets. For each point on their mind-maps, students write a sentence or a few sentences in English. Returning to the example of work, if a student wrote “free-time” on their mind-map, they could expand with “I want a job that allow me to have the free time to do other things. My free time is very important to me.” Each point on the mind-map should only get a short description so that the final discussion does not result in a series of short speeches. We found that when students have a number of short things they can say, they were more likely to take short turns more often.

Discussion Tool 3: Simple turn taking

Students learned basic turn-taking strategies for pair conversations in Stage 3 above, but taking turns in a multi-speaker discussion requires different strategies. In the case of lower-level English speakers in Japanese high schools, we found that the problem was not that students were talking over each other, but rather that students either said nothing or tried to give a prepared speech. To address this, we focused on using four basic kinds of phrases to assist in turn taking: stating an opinion (I think . . .), showing agreement (Really? Me too.), showing disagreement (Well . . . I don’t think so.), and eliciting comments from others (How about you?). Showing students that simply agreeing with someone else is a valid conversational turn helped the flow of group discussions, as did giving them basic phrases for expressing disagreement and stating their opinions. The simple return question “How about you?” proved to be the most useful of the phrases.

12

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to set out a set of simple stages and activities that can help even low-level high school learners of English develop some tools necessary for real-world conversation and simple discussions. The first four tools—follow-up questions, extra information and return questions, small talk topics, and repair strategies—are aimed at helping students engage in meaningful one-to-one conversations about general topics. The final three tools—background and brainstorming, preparing ideas, and simple turn taking—are meant to help students with some of the skills necessary to engage in simple group discussions.

The students who went through this process began the school year able to answer and ask basic questions but unable to continue a line of questioning with follow-up questions. By the end of the year many students were able to engage in short group discussions on topics that related to their lives. It is important to note that although these stages focus on conversation and pragmatic strategies, it is in no way a substitute for improving grammatical and lexical knowledge and listening skills. In this case, students were concurrently improving their grammar, vocabulary, and listening skills throughout the year in other English classes. While empirical research is necessary to determine more clearly the effectiveness of this process, my observations with two years of high school students leads me to believe that with the right scaffolding even low-level English learners can learn to engage in real, meaningful conversations.

References

Morel, R. (2012). From follow-up questions to small talk. In J. Ronald, C. Rinnert, K. Fordyce, & T. Knight (Eds.), Pragtivities: Bringing pragmatics to the classroom (pp 72-76). Tokyo: The Japan Association for Language Teaching.

Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2008). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking (1st ed.). Routledge.

Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation Analysis and Second Language Pedagogy: A Guide for ESL/EFL Teachers (1st ed.). T & F Books US.

13

Appendix

Figure 3: Brainstorming Mind Map

14

“I thought this place had internet?”A checklist for your next conference

“ネットがあると思った!”− あなたの次の会議のためのチェックリスト

Matthew Shannon: Nakasendo Conference 2012 Chair マシュー・シャノン: 中山道コンファレンス2012 議長

About the Author

Matt Shannon was Chair of the 2012 Nakasendo English Conference. He is a member of Saitama City Educators and is active with Omiya JALT. Matt is an educator, cultivator and curriculum developer based in Saitama, Japan. His goal is to provide real-world opportunities for EFL learners, specifically in the areas of debate, journalism, and science. He serves as an Instructor of Assistant Language Teachers (ALT-I) for the Saitama City Board of Education

Abstract

Whether your event is local or international, there are common questions whose answers you’ll need readily and immediately. What is the booking number of the reservation, and who reserved it? Where can we receive packages? Who is our contact for Group X? Worse than not having the answers is not having asked the questions in the first place. Presented is a checklist and possible lifesaver for anyone interested in holding a conference.

要約

小さい大きいイベントに関わらず、同じ問題があります。「予約番号とは？どこで荷物受け取れますか？Xの代表者は誰ですか？」など。これらに答えがないのは悪いことですが、聞かない事のほうがもっと悪い状態です。このチェックリスト(多分ライフセーバー)は、次のイベントのためのものです。

15

I have been in charge of providing rooms, equipment, and staffing for events of all shapes and sizes for the better part of fifteen years. There’s a common procedure to handling these events effectively regardless of actual site, and here I would like to share some guidance and offer a practical checklist for those hosting academically minded events.

Choosing a Site

If I had to choose just one takeaway point from this essay for you to remember for all of time, it is this - choose your site and date early. Following that, if you have the choice between an unflattering but ready-to-be-booked site, and a better-equipped site whose availability is uncertain - go with the former and build from there. Nothing so dramatically affects the clarity of decision making for a conference planner than being able to say “yes” or “no” with conviction as early as possible. Explicit examples of this include obviously your attendees and performers availability, the availability of audio/visual equipment, the ability to utilize free publicity via event directories, involvement with professional group representatives as well as publishers, and perhaps most importantly after-event drinks and reservations.

For big stage events with audio, video, and even the most simple lighting, you may consult with event staff who will help plan, set up, and manage the event. This will likely incur extra fees, but will provide you with someone who know exactly how to turn the volume up on your slideshow, reduce house lights even though you forgot to specify that, and in general provide you some measure of sanity if it’s your first large event.

Whatever event you may wish to have will benefit from discussing the following elements in your conference; whether you need each item or not, to consider their role in the in the first place and make choices accordingly is a very good talk to have. The priority provided in this list is not scientific, nor is it constant, as a single power outlet can be more valuable than all the projectors in the world. Good luck.

16

17

18

19

Introducing a ‘Critical’ Pragmatic-Focused Pedagogical Model Today批判的教育論以降の語用論能力を育てるハイブリッド教育法

Yaeko Hori Shibata: Yokohama University of Art and Design,Part-Time Lecture; Interpreter.

堀　八重子: 横浜美術大学非常勤講師、通訳・翻訳

About the Author

Yaeko Hori Shibata obtained her MA in comparative cultures at Sophia University and MA in TESOL at the University of Chichester. Currently, she teaches at Yokohama University of Art and Design as a part-time lecturer while working as an interpreter. Her research interests include pragmatics, current cross-cultural/intercultural communication studies and adaptation of interpreters' training methods in second language acquisition.

Abstract

Learners of English need to express themselves using the language as a lingua franca with both native and non-native speakers of the language. The pragmatic-focused pedagogical model introduced has some effects for adult Japanese pragmatic learners of ELF not only in developing pragmatic ability with native speakers, but also in helping the learners grow as “intercultural speakers” who are able to appreciate the diversity of languages and cultures and look for a mutual “third place” in people’s values and attitudes in cross-cultural communications.

要約

この教育法は、英語を母国語とする人々の言語表現、文化を模範とする語用的能力を育てることを目的にSLA理論を応用しつつ発展してきた教育法を21世紀型にバージョンアップさせたものである。様々な背景をもつ人々と「英語を共通語として」コミュニケーションするために不可欠とされる、言語、文化の多様性の理解、コミュニケーションする人と自分の間に‘第三の立場’を見つけそこから自分を表現する力を育む効果がある。

20

Introduction

Pragmatic learners of English need to express themselves using the language as a lingua franca (ELF) with both native (NSs) and non-native speakers (NNSs) the language. As such, the target for these learners should not be developing their pragmatic ability in one native variety of English, but becoming intercultural speakers who can find a common base of values and attitudes called “a third place” with the diversity of other cultures, languages, and “Englishes” they will surely encounter. Accordingly, there is a growing need for pedagogical models with relevant theoretical rationale within the field of second language acquisition to pursue this target. 

Some researches and scholars would argue that apt pedagogical models should involve learners and teacher(s) to engaging in “active experimentation” to compare and explore relationships between languages and cultures, as well as “reflective observation” to recognize the value and effects of changes in perspective as third place areas are reached. In this essay, I would like to support that movement, and introduce a pragmatic-focused pedagogical model to help adult Japanese ELF learners grow as intercultural speakers. 

A pragmatic-focused pedagogical model for some adult Japanese ELF learners

In the field of pragmatics1, as it had come to be seen as one of four components to define “communicative competence” (Canale and Swain, 1980; 1983)2 pedagogical models (focusing on NS pragmatic features such as

21

1 The origin of this term was coined by the philosopher Charles Morris (1938), who developed a science of signs, that of semiotics,

which was divided into three main components, namely syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Yule (1996) explains that pragmatics deals

with the relationships between linguistic forms and the human beings who use those forms.

2 These four components are the following: 1) grammatical competence; 2) sociolinguistic competence in which pragmatics is included;

3) strategic competence; and 4) discourse competence.

speech acts) have been developed based on positive research findings to which both psycholinguistic3 and sociocultural4 theories in SLA applied.

In order to further advance recently proposed pragmatic-focused pedagogical model (e.g. Ishihara, 2009) for some adult Japanese ELF learners to aim for the recaptured target, instructional procedures are reconstructed as a cyclical pedagogical model 1) to raise learners’ awareness of relationships between Englishes and a range of cultures, 2) to foster learners’ respective ‘third place’ perspectives, 3) to help learners acquire necessary NS-based linguistic forms as resources and 4) to promote learners in expressing themselves from the ‘third place’ perspectives.

The introduced model (Chart 1) is unique in the way that it allows learners be social beings with accumulated knowledge and repertoire of experiences as Japanese and make use of their preexisting skills as language learners.

As seen in Chart 1, in order to generate “active experimentation,” “scripted consecutive interpreting” activities (outputting script lines in both Englishes and in their corresponding Japanese) are adapted in the awareness-raising and experimentation stage because they are considered effective not only in making script lines in English(es) pragmatically accessible for learners but also in requiring learners to compare social and cultural norms of linguistic expressions in Englishes and their interpretations in Japanese. Moreover, these activities are likely to suffice to meet required conditions for material for adult learners, “for adult students’ satisfaction in language learning, students should feel both challenged and satisfied” (Doyon, 2003).

22

3 These focus on a learner’s individual mechanism he/she has to go through in order to acquire his/her grammatical competence called

“an intrapsychological (‘intra-‘) representations and cognitive process of an individual” (Kasper, 2001). Basically, these theories are

applied to interventional studies in the field of pragmatics.

4 The main sociocultural theories applied to observational studies in the field of pragmatics are speech accommodation theory,

sociocognitive theory and language socialization theory (Kasper, 2001).

To generate learners’ “reflective observation,” three types of interaction were incorporated in the model; 1) through activities among learners, 2) between learner(s) - teacher(s) who plays a role of information provider and 3) in group discussion involving learners and teacher(s).

In the practice stage, learners are not asked to play NS hypothetical roles. Instead, they are allowed to choose learning manners with which they are familiar or confident in, in digesting NS-based linguistic forms.

An original stage called “Action stage” provides learners with a chance to speak subjectively expressing themselves in English from respective ‘third place’ perspectives making the most of newly-gained NS linguistic forms. I call a pragmatic-focused pedagogical model which gives learners such opportunity ‘critical’ pragmatic-focused pedagogical model.

23

Chart 1 Hori’s cyclical instructional stages (2011) (Applied means/learning manners are put in parentheses)

Awareness-raising and Experimentation stage raises learners’ awareness of various pragmatic norms and their linguistic expressions in Englishes used in countries such as India, Egypt, Norway,

Korea, etc. (“scripted consecutive interpreting” activities)↓

Explicit explanation stage provides learners with necessary information concerning different cultural norms of expressions in Englishes

↓Reflection stage gives learners an opportunity to reflect on and articulate how they felt in the

previous stages in recognizing any perception changes concerning the English language in finding respective ‘third place’ perspectives

↓Awareness-raising and Experimentation stage raises learners’ awareness of the English language

used as a common language in a cross-cultural communication involving focused pragmatic features under study (“scripted consecutive interpreting” activities)

↓Explicit explanation stage provides learners with necessary information concerning the English

language used as a common language involving focused pragmatic features under study↓

Reflection stage gives learners an opportunity to reflect on and articulate how they felt in the previous stages in recognizing any perception changes concerning the English language in finding

respective ‘third place’ perspectives↓

Practice stage assists learners to understand NS-based norms and their linguistic manifestations and to digest these linguistic forms (dictation, oral reproduction, drills, etc.)

↓Action stage provides learners with a chance to express themselves from their respective ‘third

place’ perspectives utilizing digested linguistic forms (Novice learners are given choices; they could first write down what they want to express using dictionary)

↓Reflection stage gives learners an opportunity to reflect on and articulate how they felt in the

previous stages in recognizing any perception changes concerning the English language in finding respective ‘third place’ perspectives

↓Learners go back to the awareness-raising and experiment stage and continue the following

stages…

Conclusion

The effect of the introduced model was examined in the first cycle of qualitative action research (for further details please refer to http://asian-efl-journal.com/theses/) . Profiling (multi-instrument) approach was applied to assess the aspects of the instructional procedures.

24

The research results have shown that the model has a potential in helping learners make their initial step as “intercultural speakers.” Regardless of the learners’ individual differences5, they could find respective ‘third place’ perspectives and envision the long-term goal to become intercultural speakers someday. The “scripted consecutive interpreting” activities played a role in producing the effects.

While some psycholinguistic and sociocultural theories in the pragmatics in SLA (such as Bialystok, 1993; 1994, Long, 1996; and Vygotsky, 1978) were extended to apply to the introduced model; the embedded various interactions in the model functioned as a language/culture socializing process for all, not only for the learners but also for the teachers, to generate synergic effect to help them grow as “intercultural speakers.”

The “Action stage” was significant in the model as it forced the learners to confront their lack of NS-based linguistic ability, grammatically and pragmatically, in order to express themselves from the emergent ‘third place’ perspectives. Such experience consequently inspired each learner to set one’s short-time goal.

How to strengthen the pedagogical model to bridge the gap between each learner’s self-realized short-term goal and his/her long-term vision are now explored in the second cycle of qualitative action research.

References

Bhabha, H. K. (1992). Post-colonial authority and post-modern guilt. In:# Grossberg, L., Nelson and Treichler, P. (eds.), Cultural Studies. London: # Routledge, pp. 56-66. Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in # pragmatic competence. In: Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.), # Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43-59). New York: Oxford University # Press.

25

5 These differences include, for instance, the learners’ proficiency levels of the English language (referring to TOEIC and Eiken in this case), whether

they had experience studying/living abroad, their respective life experiences, their current personal and social situations, their personalities and so

on.

Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second # language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, # 157-168.Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative # approaches to Second language teaching and testing. Applied ! Linguistics, 1(1). Canale, M. (1983). Communicative competence to communicative language # pedagogy. In: Schmidt, R. & Richards, J. (1983), Speech acts and second # language learning. Applied linguistics, 1: 129-157.Carter, R. & Nunan, D. (eds.) (2001). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English ! to Speakers of Other Language. CUP.Doyon, P. (2003). Enhancing value perception in the Japanese EFL classroom. ! Asian EFL Journal, vol.5. Issue 1 Article 5.Hori, S. Yaeko (2012). A small-scale exploration of introducing a pragmatic- # focused pedagogical model for some adult Japanese learners of # English as a common language, Asian EFL Journal, 2012, 8, (1). # http://asian-efl-journal.com/theses/.Ishihara, N. (2009). Teacher-based assessment for foreign language # pragmatics. TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol. 43, No. 3, September 2009.Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied ! Linguistics, 22(4), pp. 502-530.Liddicoat et. al (2003). Australian Government, Department of Education, # Science and Training; Report on intercultural language learning. # Prepared by the Research # Centre for Languages and Cultures # Education at the University of South Australia and the School of # Languages and Linguistics at Griffith University.Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language # acquisition. In: Ritchie, W. C. and Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of ! Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press. 413-468.Nunn, R. (2007). Competence and teaching English as an international # language, Asian EFL Journal, 2007, 9, (4).Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher ! Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

26

Advanced Writing and Genre-Based Teaching上級文章とジャンルに基づく指導

Darren Van Veelen: University of Electro-Communications,Part-Time English Lecturer

ヴァン　ヴィーレン　ダレン: 電気通信大学, 非常勤講師

About the Author

Darren Van Veelen is a part-time English lecturer at the University of Electro-Communications in Tokyo. His research interests include genre and ELT and the relationship between social theory, language learning, and teaching. He can be contacted at darrenvanveelen@msn.com.

Abstract

The focus of genre–based teaching (GBT) is the identification and use of patterns of language that are expected and appropriate in specific contexts. In this paper I describe how GBT was implemented by using a teaching–learning cycle to teach Japanese university English-as-a-Foreign-Language students attending the first two units of an advanced writing course. Two genres were taught: writing basic formal e-mails for academic and social communication, and writing basic definitions of scientific terms. Summaries of the units are given at the end of the paper. The course, Advanced Writing in English, provides students with the opportunities to make acceptable lexico-grammatical choices within the boundaries of genres and raises awareness of linguistic patterns existing within the complexity of written texts.

要約

ジャンルに基づく指導(Genre-Based Teaching)の趣旨は特定な文脈に予想通りの言語のパターンと使い方を見分けることです。本論文では英作文の高等化の第一・二講座に教育・学習の過程でGBTを説明しています。二つのジャンル、「アカデミックとソーシャルコミュニケーションのメールの英作文」と「理学用語の基本的な定義の英作文」は教えました。その講座の要約はこの本論文の下に書いてあります。英作文の高等科は生徒たちがジャンル内で適切な文法を選ぶことができるのと現有の複雑な作文の文法の気づきを高めることができる講座です。

27

Advanced Writing and Genre-Based TeachingTexts in their written form can appear chaotic to foreign language students

especially at the micro-level (i.e., reading or writing word by word and/or sentence by sentence). Feez (1998) points out that patterns of structure and language within texts have evolved to achieve particular purposes. Texts are not walls of chaotic text but rather they comprise recurring patterns that have order in the form of genres; this is the foundation of genre-based teaching (GBT). Being aware of genres can be helpful for students in their writing as it allows them to see order within whole texts by understanding the context and purpose within a given culture or discourse community. Observations of written work produced by students during the advanced writing course allowed for tentative conclusions to be made.

CourseAdvanced Writing in English is an evening course at the University of

Electro-Communications and its purpose is to introduce science and engineering students to the more complex and academic concepts of English for Academic Purposes. This course supports third-year Japanese English-as-a-Foreign Language (EFL) students in applying scientific knowledge and language to more realistic learning and research tasks. The class meets for 1 x 90-minute lesson per week.

A model of languageMartin (2009) developed a model of language, underpinned by systemic

functional linguistics, consisting of three levels: (a) language, (b) register, and (c) genre (see Figure 1)

Fig. 1. Metafunction in relation to language, register, and genre. (Source: Martin, 2009, p. 12)28

In my experience, Japanese EFL students often construct written texts at the language level (making meaning, i.e., constructing sentences at the micro-level), but rarely at the register level (understanding meaning in relation to context) or the genre level (managing language resources and identifying how a culture organizes meaning into recurring patterns, i.e., at the macro-level). One of the main objectives of Advanced Writing in English is to raise awareness of the register and genre levels of language.

Using genre, register, and a teaching–learning cycle in GBT

The word ‘genre’ can generally be defined as “kind, category, or sort, esp of literary or artistic work” (Genre, n.d.), for example, a film genre consisting of action-adventure such as a James Bond movie (List of genres, n.d.). However, the language level of genre in linguistics and GBT is defined by Martin (2009) as “a staged goal-oriented social process” (p. 13). Martin expands on his definition by identifying stages we must move through in genres so we can achieve goals interactively with others. To achieve our communicative goals, we must also have an understanding of context and others at the language level of register. Register consists of the metafunctions field, tenor, and mode and throughout the course the following questions were used to orientate lesson design to GBT for the genres of e-mails and definitions of scientific terms:

GENRE: Why was the text written?FIELD (Register): What is the text about?TENOR (Register): Who wrote the text and who will read it?MODE (Register): How is the text written?

One characteristic of GBT are the teaching–learning cycles. This course used an adapted version of the teaching–learning cycle developed by Hammond, Burns, Joyce, Brosnan, & Gerot (1992) (see Figure 2).

29

Fig. 2. The teaching–learning cycle. (Source: Hammond et al., 1992, p. 17)

Typically, a lesson starts with Building knowledge of Field followed by Modeling of Text, then Joint Construction of Text, and finally Independent Construction of Text. When using the teaching–learning cycle above, it is key to be flexible with the stages and realize that the cycle is recursive.

When designing GBT lessons it is important to keep in mind the reality of what the students want and are capable of. For example, do they want to fit into a discourse community that may not seem tangible or achievable to them? Finding a balance between student needs and the syllabus is important in GBT lesson design.

Units

The first two units in the Advanced Writing in English course are (a) e-mails and (b) definitions of scientific terms. Below are the answers to the questions used to orientate lesson design to GBT followed by the stages or generic structure of the genres. Emphasis throughout the course was placed on the generic structure being a usual or expected pattern, but not always the

30

rule. At the end of each unit there is a brief description of GBT implementation.

(a) E-mailsAnswers to the questions used to orientate lesson design to GBT:

GENRE: To communicate a needFIELD (Register): Introduction, reason for absence, request for informationTENOR (Register): Students and the teacherMODE (Register): Distant, respectful

Generic structure (adapted from Joyce, 2011): Opening ^ Link/reason ^ Expression of information ^ Closing

^ = followed by

In the first lesson, the teacher presented each stage of the teaching–learning cycle as Pre-tasks (Building knowledge of Field) and Model (Modeling of Text), as can be seen in Worksheet 1: Basic Formal E-mails below (see Figure 3), Together (Joint Construction of Text) and You (Independent Construction of Text).

Worksheet 1: Basic Formal E-mails

Pre-tasks:Discuss the following with a partner:

1. What does e-mail mean?

2. Look at the picture of a blank email below.

31

What do these features mean?

To:

Cc

Bcc

Subject

Attachments

Save draft

3. List some differences between casual and formal emails.

Model:

•Formal e-mail: Below is the correct format of a formal e-mail to introduce yourself to the teacher.

•In the picture above, write the numbers of the schematic stages

1 . Link or reason

2 . Closing

3 . Expression of information

4 . Opening

32

Fig. 3. Worksheet 1: Basic Formal E-mails.

The Pre-tasks stage prompted students to access their current knowledge of e-mails and prepared them for the Model stage, which was done individually by the students. It is important to emphasize that the chosen models, or examples, in the Model stage must clearly show the generic structure of the text so the students do not perceive a wall of chaotic text that could block their awareness of the genre; in other words, to see the forest beyond the trees. The Together stage was done as a class where the teacher was the scribe at the board and the students provided input on what to write. This technique is characteristic of GBT and is a version of the well-known technique called scaffolding, originally proposed by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976). Finally, in the You stage, the students wrote an introductory e-mail for homework, using the model as a guide, and sent it to the teacher. Most of the students were able to identify the generic structure of the e-mail genre. In the second lesson, an e-mail explaining an absence from class and requesting homework details was done together on the board, demonstrating a recursive move to the Together stage. Students were then paired up and had to e-mail each other for the same situation (and CC the teacher), which signaled the move to the You stage. Again, it is important to emphasize that the teaching–learning cycle can be used flexibly without having to move through all of the stages. By providing a purpose (register), model, and generic structure, acceptable e-mails for the given context were produced.

(b) Definitions of Scientific Terms

Answers to the questions used to orientate lesson design to GBT:

GENRE: To state a definition clearlyFIELD (Register): General and scientific termsTENOR (Register): Expert, novice, researcherMODE (Register): Distant, authoritative, educational

Generic structure (adapted from Pepper & Driscoll, 2010):Term ^ Class ^ Characteristics

^ = followed by

33

In the lesson, the teacher presented each stage of the teaching–learning cycle as Pre-tasks , Model, Together, and You, as can be seen in Worksheet 2: Definitions of Scientific Terms below (see Figure 4).

Worksheet 2: Definitions of Scientific Terms

Pre tasks:

•Read ‘Remembering scientific terms’. Make a list of terms specific to your area of study. Can you identify the prefix, stem, and/or suffix?

•Use the following web address to help you: http://www.mrgraba.net/uploads/8/2/6/3/8263952/prefixessuffixesstems.bwg.pdf

Term Prefix Stem Suffix

Biology BioLife

logystudy of

Cell Cellbasic structural unit

•When reading, you should be critically thinking about text so as to evaluate if it is reliable or unreliable. Answer the situation questions:

A. What is a scientific definition? OR What is the purpose of a scientific definition?

B. Who writes scientific definitions?

C. Who reads scientific definitions?

D. Where can you find scientific definitions?

34

Model:

•The text type ‘scientific definition’ usually has a predictable schematic structure or moves:

Term Class Characteristics

A university is an institutionwhere knowledge is

produced and passed on to others

Water is a liquidmade up of molecules of hydrogen and oxygen in

the ratio of 2 to 1

Astronomy is a branch of scientific study

primarily concerned with celestial objects inside and outside

the earth’s atmosphere.

Together:

•Try and write your own definitions for the following.

Term Class Characteristics

Classic gaming

Comic books

Engineering

You:

•Write definitions for 3 terms that are specific to your area of study.

Term Class Characteristics

35

Fig. 4. Worksheet 2: Definitions of Scientific Terms.

The pre-tasks prompted students to access their current knowledge of the formation of scientific terms (i.e., prefix, stem or root, and suffix) and register. This unit focused specifically on raising student awareness of the context and the purpose of the writer, and the students had to answer for themselves the questions that orientated GBT. The Model stage provided examples of scientific definitions within the generic structure and emphasis was placed on a usual pattern that is not always the rule. The Model and Together stages were essential to avoid disorganized texts or definitions bordering on copies. An example of student work is shown below (see Figure 5).

My subject area is Information Technology, Media and Communication.

Term Class Characteristics

Information Technology is an industry

which consists of information, processing,

memory and communication

Media is a storage

that we record information using a hard disk, a floppy

disk, MO, CD-R, magnetic tape, etc.

Communication is a signal transductionthere are analog

communication and digital communications

Fig. 5. Example of student work.

All of the students were able to write simple definitions within the boundaries of the generic structure.

36

Conclusion

GBT, based on Martin’s (2009) model of language, can raise awareness of the language levels of register and genre. As chaotic as written texts may appear, there are recurring patterns that can be identified within given contexts. GBT has characteristic pedagogy, such as the teaching–learning cycle and scaffolding, that can help Japanese university EFL students in identifying and understanding written texts in certain cultural contexts and discourse communities.

References

Feez, S. (1998). Text-based Syllabus Design. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.

Genre. (n.d.). Dictionary.com. Retrieved 12.20.2012 from <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genre?s=t>.

Hammond, J., Burns, A., Joyce, H., Brosnan, D., & Gerot, L. (1992). English for Social Purposes: A Handbook for Teachers of Adult Literacy. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.

Joyce, P. (2011). An Analysis of the Generic Structure of Customer Service Email. Kinki University English Journal, 7, 37-53.

List of genres. (n.d.). Wikipedia. 12.20.2012 from < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genres>.

Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 10-21.

Pepper, M., & Driscoll, D. L. (2010). Writing Definitions. Retrieved 5.9.2012 from <http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/622/01/>.

Remembering scientific terms. (n.d.). Retrieved 5.9.2012 from# <http://services.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/470867/Study-RememberingScientificTerms-FlyerJun09.pdf>.Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem

Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

37