educ. technol. res., 41(1) - j-stage

Translation Educ. Technol. Res., 41(1), 39-55, 2018

39

J-STAGE Advance published date : January 31, 2019

1. INTRODUCTION

Training courses for Japanese language teachers in universities and language schools provide their students with opportunities to teach Japanese in classroom settings in order to train their practical teaching abilities (Sakaguchi 2005). Many training courses prepare students to teach with the direct method, which requires teachers to adjust the language they use when giving instructions and explanations in the classroom according to each learner's level in order to smoothly manage classes. While adjusting language use is easy for experienced Japanese teachers, it is one of the most difficult tasks for individuals with limited teaching experience (i.e., “student teachers”). Student teachers without significant experience teaching Japanese are often incapable of adjusting their use of language in situations such as simulated teaching, and the lesson plans they prepare before starting their training often include explanations and example sentences using

vocabulary and sentence patterns not yet taught to their intended learners. In teaching practice, explanations and instructions are also sometimes given using vocabulary and sentence patterns that learners do not yet understand, which confuses them and interferes with the smooth progress of classes (Maruyama 2011). It is therefore ideal for student teachers to practice language adjustment before and after teaching practice to enhance its effectiveness. However, although support for language adjustment in classrooms includes approaches to teaching which focus on interactions between teachers and learners (Yamamoto 1995) and suggested teaching methods (Nakagawa 1999), only a few teaching materials and learning systems are available for student teachers to practice language adjustment individually. In fact, no empirical research has yet been conducted to analyze the language used by trainee teachers by studying the effectiveness of their teaching using a system that supports the practice of language adjustment in classroom.

2. BACKGROUND

Comprehensible input is said to play an

Developing a System to Support the Practice of Language Adjustment in Classrooms : An Evaluation Focused on the Attitudes and Language Use of Student Teachers*

Takafumi UTASHIRO*1 and Mutsuko SUDO*1

＊1 Hokkai-Gakuen University, 4-1-40 Asahimachi Toyohira-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 062-8605 Japan

Received for publication, September 21, 2018

In this study, Teacher Talk Trainer (T3), a system which supports the practice of language adjustment in classrooms, was developed to examine how lessons taught using T3 can influence the attitudes and language use of Japanese language student teachers (participants). A training course in methodology for Japanese language teachers was offered in universities and included a subject focused on simulated teaching. Students enrolled in the subject were divided into two groups: one that received ordinary lessons using T3 (T3 Group) and one that did not (NT3 Group with complementary lessons). Questionnaires and teacher talk tests were then administered to both groups in order to measure and analyze the students teachers’ attitudes toward language adjustment, their adequacy of assumed speech in the teacher talk test, and the subsequent linguistic changes. According to the questionnaire’s results, the T3 Group demonstrated improved awareness of gestures during teaching. Furthermore, the results of the teacher talk test revealed that the assumed speech of the T3 Group increased in both the adequacy of their language adjustment and the rate of their use of vocabulary and sentence patterns that had already been taught to their target learners. Key words : Japanese language teaching, teacher training, teacher talk, natural language processing, language adjustment

＊ Originally published in Japan Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 109-123 (2017)

T. UTASHRO and M. SUDO et al. 40

important role in learning (Krashen 1982). In order to study the level of understanding of students learning English as their second language, Long (1985) also taught classes in adjusted language characterized by features of “teacher talk” as comprehensible input as well as classes without such adjustment. The results showed that the class taught with adjusted language performed significantly better on tests assessing their level of understanding of the lesson’s content than the class without such adjustment.

Chaudron (1988) explains how to adjust language in the classroom and describes seven characteristics of teacher talk for beginners as follows: in terms of speech, (1) speech speed is slower, (2) frequency and length of pauses are higher and longer, and (3) pronunciation is emphasized and simplified; in terms of vocabulary and syntax, (4) vocabulary use is more basic, (5) sentences are less complex, and (6) declarative sentences and statements are used more than interrogative sentences; and in terms of interactional structure, (7) repetition of teacher’s own speech is more frequent. Although Chaudron’s research (1988) focuses on English language education, these seven characteristics apply to the adjustment of every language. Accordingly, this study considers Chaudron’s arguments (1988) to be applicable to Japanese language teaching.

The characteristics of teacher talk described by Chaudron (1988) can be divided into 2 main categories of adjustments: pattern and content. While pattern adjustment concerns speech methods and is applied to speech (1-3), syntax (5, 6), and building interaction (7), content adjustment refers to the adjustment of what is spoken and is enacted through word selection (4). Both pattern and content adjustments are important for teacher talk. However, if the content is unsuitable for learners’ levels, any pattern will be inappropriate for teacher talk. Providing explanations by speaking slowly and repeatedly using simple sentences does not help learners understand if the words used are difficult to understand. For this reason, content adjustment should be prioritized over pattern adjustment in teaching teacher talk. This research, therefore, focused on content adjustment, or the adjustment of “words.”

In this study, the “vocabulary” delineated by Chaudron’s fourth characteristic (1988: p.85) (“vocabulary use is more basic”) can be divided into “content words” and “function words.”

Content words indicate names, forms, actions, and situations, while function words indicate grammatical relations (Koike 2003). In this paper, content words and function words are referred to as “vocabulary” and “sentence patterns,” respectively, and are established within the scope of this study as supports to developing the T3 system. This is due to the use of these terms in the above categories in Minna no Nihongo, the Japanese language textbook used in the database of the development system. Students’ learning stages are also defined in accordance with this textbook.

Okazaki and Nagatomo (1991) argued that the ability to “replace words one does not understand with different words” (i.e., one measure to address a learner’s failure to comprehend), is one of the most important skills for Japanese language teachers. Student teachers without significant teaching experience lack this ability and must learn it efficiently.

T3 (Utashiro 2014) is a pioneering system for practicing language adjustment, which provides support to student teachers of Japanese language. To use T3, student teachers input a sentence into the system, which analyzes it, then responds whether the vocabulary contained within that sentence has already been acquired by the target Japanese language learners. The T3 system also displays the textbook lesson in which the vocabulary in the sentence is introduced. Utashiro (2014) taught university training courses using T3 to 15 student teachers studying Japanese language teaching methods. The results of the subsequently administered questionnaire demonstrated a significant improvement in the gap between the words used by the student teachers and the learners after their lessons. This indicates an improvement in the student teachers’ awareness of their ability to adjust their language using the T3 system. Furthermore, qualitative analysis of the student teachers’ comments also revealed that using the T3 system helped them identify the gap between the words they were speaking and the words learners understood, which made them understand the difficulty of language adjustment.

However, T3 which developed by Utashiro (2014) is only a support system for language adjustment, which still leaves room for improvement, especially since the system’s analysis is limited to vocabulary. Therefore, a system that is also capable of analyzing sentence patterns is also required. Furthermore, Utashiro’s study (2014) on learning outcomes was limited to

Developing a System to Support the Practice of Language Adjustment in Classrooms

41

the attitudes of student teachers and did not analyze linguistic changes. In other words, it still remains unclear how student teachers’ use of vocabulary and sentence patterns change when using the T3 system.

3. PURPOSE

In this study, Utashiro’s T3 system (2014) was functionally enhanced to enable analysis of sentence patterns as well as vocabulary. Then, its influence on the teaching of student teachers using the T3 system was examined from the perspectives of attitude and language use. This study establishes the following 3 research questions (RQ).

RQ1: Do lessons taught using T3 increase the rate of the use of vocabulary and sentence patterns already taught to hypothetical learners of Japanese language in the presumed speech of student teachers?

RQ2: Do lessons taught using T3 improve the appropriateness of student teachers' language adjustment in classrooms?

RQ3: What changes do lessons taught using T3 bring about in student teachers’ attitudes toward language adjustment in the classroom?

In this research, for the first time, a training support system for language adjustment capable of analyzing vocabulary and sentence patterns was developed. Since its effectiveness in analyzing linguistic changes had not yet been verified, RQ1 was established. Changes in the rate of use of taught vocabulary and sentence patterns in RQ1 do not necessarily indicate an improvement in the

appropriateness of language adjustment, so RQ2 was established to investigate this. Although Utashiro also examined participants’ attitudes, it is impossible to conclude from his findings whether the participants’ changes in attitude resulted from the mere passage of time or the fact that the study consisted of a repeated measurement of a single control group. In addition, the system used for the experiment was not able to analyze sentence patterns. These two points imply that the study was not conclusive. To address these incongruencies, in this study, an experimental group and a control group were created, and RQ3 was established to examine changes in attitudes.

4. DEVELOPMENT

In this research, Teacher Talk Trainer (T3), a system capable of analyzing, not only vocabulary, but also sentence patterns, was developed based on Utashiro’s T3 (2014). T3 is an online system that analyzes sentences input by users; it instantly responds by displaying the number of vocabulary words and sentence patterns that the intended learners have already acquired, which assists student teachers in familiarizing themselves with the material their intended learners have or have not already learned and also helps them practice paraphrasing. Even when 2 learners of Japanese language are considered to have the same level of Japanese proficiency, the words they have learned and their quantities may be different. Likewise, the words and sentence patterns a group of beginners may know will differ drastically depending on the progress of the classes. In this

Figure 1. System screen shot

① Input text display: Displays the input text without disassembling it. Untaught vocabulary is marked in yellow while untaught sentence patterns are underlined in red. Place the cursor over the marked or underlined parts to display the lessons in which they are introduced in a popup window.

③ Display of ratio of learned vocabulary / sentence patterns: The ratio of learned vocabulary and sentence patterns in the input text is indicated by a numerical value.

④ Graph display of learned vocabulary / sentence pattern ratio: Uses a graph to display the ratio of learned vocabulary and sentence patterns.

⑤ List display of lessons in which vocabulary and sentence patterns are introduced: Displays the lessons in which vocabulary and sentence patterns are introduced in tabular form.

Analysis result display: Consists of four parts.

Input: Select a textbook and progress from the drop-down menu and enter a sentence in the text box.

Analysis button: Click to start analysis.

② Display item switching tab: Select the tab to switch the displayed items.


study, the learning stages for Japanese language students were defined based on the progress of classes in accordance with the textbook, while the vocabulary and sentence patterns presented in the lessons were assumed to be comprehensible to learners. The textbooks and learning support materials used were: Minna no Nihongo Elementary Japanese I & II, Second Edition, and Translation & Grammatical Notes, English Version. The vocabulary and grammar covered in the textbooks were exhaustively explained and listed according to the lessons in which they were introduced. Then, the vocabulary and sentence patterns listed in the learning support materials and the lessons in which they were introduced were incorporated into the database of the T3 system. Specifically, those listed in “Classroom Language” and “Everyday Greetings and Expressions” in the “Introduction,” “Vocabulary,” “Useful Words and Information,” and “Grammar Notes” sections of each lesson were registered as vocabulary and sentence patterns. These sections contained a total of 2,576 vocabulary words. However, 81 expressions were excluded from the vocabulary database, since they could not be treated as single words. The coverage rate of vocabulary was 96.86% of the textbooks used. A total of 426 sentence patterns were included, but terms like “Adjectives,” which were used as general explanations of certain grammatical items, and expressions that could not be treated as single sentence patterns were also excluded from the database. After 82 items were excluded from the sentence patterns category, the resulting coverage rate was 80.75% of the textbooks used.

Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 contain examples of screen shots of the developed system. The screenshots depict the process as follows: first, the system user selects the textbook to be used by the intended learner and their progress level. After entering speech text into the input field (the upper part of the screen in Figures 1 and 2), the user clicks “Analyze.” T3 then analyzes the text and displays its results (Figure 3). In the analysis results display, the text is shown without disassembling the originally submitted string of characters. Untaught vocabulary is marked in yellow, and untaught sentence patterns are underlined in red. When the cursor is placed over the marked or underlined text, the lessons in which they are introduced in the textbook are displayed in a popup window. The vocabulary and sentence patterns in the input text that have already been taught to the learners of the selected

Figure 2. Enlarged view of the input field

Figure 3. Enlarged view of analysis result display section

Figure 4. Enlarged view of list display section of

first introduction lessons of vocabularies and sentence patterns


43

textbook progress level are also indicated by a ratio that shows vocabulary and sentence patterns already learned as numerator over the analyzed text as denominator (Figure 3). The display pattern is selected using tabs to choose from the following options: sentence patterns only, vocabulary only, and both sentence patterns and vocabulary. The ratio calculations also change according to the selected display pattern. The graph below the ratio provides a clear visual image of the ratio of the vocabulary and sentence patterns already learned (Figure 3). The graph is linked to the tab and displays the ratio of sentence patterns, vocabulary, or both, depending on the item selected using the tab. The list display section depicts the precise section of the lessons in which the vocabulary and sentence patterns of the analyzed text are introduced (Figure 4), as well as references to the lessons in the textbook in which the same items are introduced in the KWIC format. This list display section is also linked to the selection tab for display items and allows the system user to change the items to be displayed using the tab.

The feedback from T3 helps the system user familiarize themselves with the amount of untaught vocabulary and sentence patterns included in their assumed speech and discover which words and sentence patterns their intended learners have not yet learned. The system users (i.e., student teachers) practice adjusting their speech for the classroom by modifying their assumed speech based on the system’s feedback. Accordingly, the preparatory stage of simulated teaching is one opportunity to use the T3 system. Prior to simulation teaching exercises, student teachers prepare teaching plans that include their assumed speech and gestures during teaching. T3 allows student teachers to study this assumed speech using the system and individually determine whether the speech they have prepared is appropriate for the selected learning stage of their intended learners. Based on this feedback, student teachers can reconsider and rewrite their teaching speeches and modify their teaching plans, thereby enabling simulated teaching involving the practice of language adjustment in classroom. This studying and rewriting of assumed speeches as teachers are practical ways to practice language adjustment in the classroom, and this practice can be assumed to contribute to the improvement of their language adjustment ability in the real classroom. The practice method using T3 as described in this study is recounted in detail in Section 5.3.3.

Figure 5 describes the system configuration of T3. When the system user inputs text into the browser, T3 receives and analyzes it using the morphological analyzer (MeCab 0.996, UniDic 2.1.2) and the dependency analyzer (CaboCha 0.67). T3 then refers to the textbook database and obtains the headwords of the vocabulary and sentence patterns as well as the lessons in which they are introduced. The system also determines whether the character strings of the analysis result have already been taught, based on the textbook progress level selected by the system user. Furthermore, the ratio of vocabulary and sentence patterns that have already been taught to those contained in the original input sentence is calculated with the vocabulary and sentence patterns split by the natural language processing tool as the total number. These results are then displayed in the browser.

5. METHODOLOGY

5.1. Overview of experiment methodology To examine RQ1–RQ3, students studying

Japanese language teaching methods in a university were selected as experiment participants and divided into two groups: one using T3 and one not using the system (complimentary lessons using T3 were provided to this group after the posttest). For the first group,

Figure 5. System structure

Web browser

Web server

Textbook database

（MeCab 0.996，UniDic 2.1.2）

（CaboCha 0.67）

T3

Sentence input

Web application （PHP, Symfony2）

Vocabulary data

Sentence pattern d

Sentence analysis

Acquire vocabulary and sentence pattern included in analysis result by referring to database

Natural language processing tool

Morphological analyzer

Dependency analyzer

Result display


one T3 lesson, or 90 minutes of practicing language adjustment in the classroom using T3, was incorporated into their regular class time. Regular classes were taught to the second group. A pretest and a posttest (both teacher talk tests) as well as a questionnaire were administered to both groups to measure the ability of their language adjustment in the classroom. 5.2. Experiment participants

A university training course for Japanese language teachers contains a practice-based subject called Japanese language teaching methods Ⅲ (Teaching Methods Ⅲ). Japanese language teaching methods Ⅰ and Ⅱ, in which student teachers learn the basics of Japanese language education, are the prerequisites of this course. Eighty-one Japanese students currently enrolled in Teaching Methods Ⅲ participated in this study. One of them had experience teaching abroad, 21 did not take the posttest, and 5 failed to complete the questionnaire. Excluding these students, 54 were counted as valid participants. The valid participants were studying Teaching Methods Ⅲ in two different sections. Forty-three participants in the first section were placed in the NT3 Group, and 11 participants in the second section were placed in the T3 Group (taught using T3 before the posttest). Eleven participants were then randomly selected from the original NT3 Group of 43 to participate in the analysis, thus equalizing the number of participants in both groups. Although both groups contained 11 participants at the pretest stage, 3 of the participants in the T3 Group were absent for the posttest. As a result, the final analysis was conducted based on the data of 8 participants in the T3 Group and 11 participants in the NT3 Group. 5.3. Order and content of the experiment

The order and contents of the experiment are described in Table 1. 5.3.1. Pretest

After being provided with the survey outline and an explanation of its purpose, participants in both groups listed their experience and academic background in Japanese language education on the cover sheet. It was explained to them that the survey bore no relation to their grades in the subject, and they were then asked to decide whether they agreed to participate in the experiment. Those who decided to participate signed a consent form, then answered

Table 1. Order and description of experiment

Experimental stages

Treatments on T3 Treatments on NT3

Pretest (70 min)

Performed in Week 3. Provided with the survey outline and an explanation of its purpose(10 min). Cover sheet and Consent form(10 min). Questionnaire1(10 min). Teacher talk test 1(40 min)

Performed in Week 2. Provided with the survey outline and an explanation of its purpose(10 min). Cover sheet and Consent form(10 min). Questionnaire1(10 min). Teacher talk test 1(40 min)

Regular classes

Grammar comprehension and teaching for beginners, instructions for writing teaching plans, etc. Simulated classes were given on the 12th and 13th weeks

Grammar comprehension and teaching for beginners, instructions for writing teaching plans, etc. Simulated classes were given on the 7th,8th, 9th and 10th weeks

Practice of language adjustment in classroom using T3

Performed in Week 11 (90 min)

None

Posttest (40 min)

Performed in Week 14, Questionnaire 2 (10 min). Teacher talk test 2 (40 min)

Performed in Week 11, Questionnaire 2 (10 min). Teacher talk test 2 (40 min)

Supplementary classes

None

Instruction on language adjustment in classroom using T3 was provided online(after Week 11)

Table 2. Questionnaire items

Item number

Question

Q1 I am able to controll my utterance according to learner's level.

Q2 I know what vocabularies learners are able to understand according to learner's level.

Q3 I know what sentence patterns learners are able to understand according to learner's level.

Q4 I think it is necessary to practice controlling my utterance according to learner's level.

Q5 I think there is a difference between my utterance in the classroom and the utterance that learners are able to understand.

Q6 I think it is important to controll my utterance according to learner's level.

Q7 I think it is difficult to controll my utterance according to learner's level.

Q8 I think it is important to use gestures when giving instructions and explanations to learners.

Q9 I think it is important to use things when giving instructions and explanations to learners.

Q10 I usually think about how to speak to learners to make my instruction understand.


45

Questionnaire 1 (Table 2) to examine RQ3. The questionnaire was conducted using a Likert scale with 6 items asking them to specify their agreement ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Questionnaires 1 and 2 presented the same questions. Then, Teacher Talk Test 1 was conducted.

5.3.1.1. Preparation of teacher talk test

A “teacher talk test” is a test created for the purposes of this study to derive language adjustment in classrooms and measure its suitability for the examination of RQ1 and RQ2. Examples of activities described in ABC of Japanese Teaching: A Teaching Guide were referred to and modified in order to create a test that required the participants to explain clearly to their Japanese language learners the activities that were going to be incorporated into their beginners’ class (Figure 6). The participants’

answers were provided in writing, and they were given A4-sized paper to write their answers on and instructed to use the reverse side if necessary. Although no limit was placed on the number of characters, the participants were required to provide their answers within 40 minutes and instructed to start with Question 1 and finish answering at least the first 2 questions. To obtain the most accurate results possible, rather than using the same test twice, 2 types of tests consisting of 3 different questions were prepared. All 6 questions in both tests were differed. Two Japanese teachers (evaluators A and B) with over 10 years of teaching experience suggested which parts to modify in order to equalize the difficulty levels of the 2 tests, respectively named Test α and Test β. To examine the difference in the level of difficulty between the tests, the test scores of Group A (12 participants) and Group B (7 participants) in the pretest (Table 3) were

Figure 6. Example of teacher talk test

Imagine you are teaching Japanese in the classroom. What kind of instructions do you think you should give learners to facilitate the smooth performance of the tasks in Questions 1 to 3? Imagine yourself actually giving instructions to students in the classroom and write them down in detail and as specifically as possible. Write the instructions exactly as you would speak in the class. Use parentheses to clearly explain movements of objects or your body.

Question 1: You are preparing the following activity for learners who have finished the first ten lessons of Minna no

Nihongo Elementary Japanese Ⅰ (beginner level).

Sheet A Sheet B Your instructions (Question 1)

Illustration Illustration

The two images below describe a company. Instruct learners to work in pairs with the person sitting next to them and hand Sheet A to one of them and Sheet B to the other. Make sure they do not show each other the sheet they have. Sheet A contains all the persons and objects, and some of them (Mr. Tanaka, bag, telephone, etc.) are missing on Sheet B. The person who has Sheet B must ask questions to the person holding Sheet A to find the missing persons and objects. The person with Sheet A must answer the other person's questions and indicate where the missing persons and objects are. Also instruct those holding Sheet B to draw pictures of the missing persons and objects once they know where they are. Explain this task to learners.

Bad example: Show the task card and ask questions → × ("Show the task card" is not written using parentheses. "Ask questions" is not the actual questions to be asked.)

Good example: *T stands for teacher and S stands for student T: Where is it? S: It is a company. T: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


compared. The median of Group B was higher than that of Group A, yet the result of the U test did not show any significant differences between the 2 groups (U = 29.00, p =.268, r =.25). Based on this, Test α and Test β were judged to be almost equal in terms of difficulty.

5.3.1.2. Method for conducting the teacher talk test

Both groups were further divided into Group A and Group B to offset the effect of the order of the test’s administration. While Group A took Test α in the pretest and Test β in the posttest, Group B took Test β in the pretest and Test α in the posttest. Table 4 shows the number of participants in each group and the tests taken.

5.3.2. Regular classes “ Regular classes” refer to the classes

described and taught according to the Teaching Methods III syllabus. They consist of grammar comprehension and teaching for beginners, instructions for writing teaching plans, preparation of simulated classes, conducting simulated classes for learners of Japanese language, and reflection on those simulated classes. Although the classes were taught in 2 different sections by different instructors, there was no significant difference in their lesson content. In both groups, the instructors commented on the importance for regular classes for student teachers to address adjusting the language used in the classroom according to the learning stages of Japanese language learners. However, instructors did not provide individual corrective instruction regarding language adjustment in the classroom.

Simulated classes were given on the 12th and

13th weeks in the T3 Group and from the 7th to 10th weeks in the NT3 Group. These classes were taught 5 weeks earlier and for 2 weeks longer in the NT3 Group than in the T3 Group. Since the regular classes began at different times, this meant that the periods and volumes of preceding lectures and group work differed for the 2 groups. However, the instructors’ comments on language adjustment in the classroom during this period were made in a lecture for both groups, and individual corrective instruction was not provided. At the same time, since the period of simulated classes was 2 weeks longer in the NT3 Group, trainee teachers in this group had observed simulated classes given by their peers for twice as long as those in the T3 Group. However, individual corrective instruction concerning language adjustment in the classroom was not provided during the simulated classes in either of the 2 groups. At the same time, since the instructors' feedback on the simulated classes had to cover a wide range of aspects-from overall teaching methods and ways of introducing teaching materials to understanding grammar-it would not have been possible to focus only on language adjustment. Therefore, even if the instructors had given advice on language adjustment in the classroom, it would have most certainly been too small an amount to create a significant difference between the 2 groups. Accordingly, it was concluded that the difference in the periods of simulated classes could not significantly influence the results.

5.3.3. Practice of language adjustment in classroom

using T3 Table 5 describes the order and content of the

lessons given on practicing language adjustment in classroom using T3. The lessons were given by the subject instructors. At the introduction stage, student teachers were given explanations on the objectives and outline of the lessons. At the comprehension stage, which explained and demonstrated how to use T3, they used T3 on a computer to enter several sentences and practiced analysis.

At the practice stage, student teachers engaged in activities aimed at revising and completing the teaching plans they had prepared. They formed groups of 2 to 3 individuals and prepared for the simulated classes they were to give using Minna no Nihongo Elementary Japanese Ⅰ in one to two weeks. They had previously been assigned the task of preparing lesson plans for teaching simulated classes. Each group taught one of the 6

Table 4. Grouping for offsetting the order effect of the

test and test types (α and β represent test types respectively and numbers in parentheses indicate the number of participants)

Stages

T3 group （8） NT3 group （11）

Group A

（6）

Group B

（2）

Group A

（6）

Group B

（2）

Pretest α（6） β（2） α（6） β（5）

Posttest β（6） α（2） β（6） α（5）

Table 3. Difficulty difference between tests

Test α

Group A （n = 12）

Test β

Group B（n = 7）

Effect

size

r Stage Median

Quartile

deviation Median

Quartile

deviation U

Pretest 3.50 1.31 4.50 1.25 29.00n.s. .25


47

lessons from Lessons 4 to 9. These particular lessons were selected because the sentence patterns they introduced were relatively easy to teach in simulated classes. Although the teaching plans created by the student teachers were incomplete assignments, based on the feedback from T3, the student teachers were nevertheless instructed to consider their appropriateness for language adjustment in the classroom, particularly in relation to their planned speeches as teachers. They were also instructed to revise and modify their teaching plans using T3.

Some teaching plans included the assumed speech of teachers and learners, the gestures of teachers, and supplementary explanations. The student teachers entered either the teacher's speeches, which they had originally written in their lesson plans, or their revised speeches into T3 . Examples of their assumed speech input include: “Use the following words from 1 to 3 to answer the question,” and “The rice balls I ate on the top of the mountain tasted better than usual.”

One of T3’s feedback functions is to display the numerical percentage of the vocabulary and sentence patterns contained in the input sentence that have already been taught to the intended learners. The instructors did not specify an appropriate percentage, instead they encouraged the student teachers to make their own judgments about the appropriateness of their sentences. When the input speech contained untaught vocabulary or sentence patterns, the student teachers were instructed to rewrite their original

sentence using the vocabulary and sentence patterns already taught to the learners, as necessary. They were then instructed to fix the learning stage as the “stage after finishing the 10 lessons in Minna no Nihongo” when carrying out practical activities. Student teachers prepared these teaching plans for the lessons preceding Lesson 10, which they give in simulated classes. However, if very early lessons such as Lessons 4 and 5 (Minna no Nihongo Elementary Japanese has 50 lessons) were selected in T3, the range of vocabulary and sentence patterns already learned became extremely limited, posing a risk of considerably complicating language adjustment within the range for student teachers learning to perform the task for the first time. Therefore, Lesson 10 (before which a certain number of nouns, verbs, and adjectives used in the classroom are taught), was judged to be the most appropriate lesson for the student teachers in this study to teach while practicing language adjustment in the classroom. This instruction to select which lesson was to be taught was given based on the importance of controlling the practice conditions of the student teachers in the experiment.

After inputting their assumed speeches as teachers into T3 in accordance with the above explanation, the student teachers then reconsidered the vocabulary and sentence patterns used in their speeches based on T3’s feedback and rewrote their sentences and then analyzed them again using the system. They repeated this activity, revised their assumed speeches, analyzed the new sentences using T3, and continued preparing their teaching plans. Table 6 shows a summary of the assumed speeches entered by the student teachers at the practice stage. The overall number of entries consisted of: 6 minimum, 56 maximum, 39.66 on average, and a

Table 6. A summary of assumed speech entered by the

student teachers at the practice stage

（n = 8）

Participants

Input

frequency

Number of input characters

Mean Max Min SD

S1 41 12.18 36 1 8.69

S2 48 19.20 52 6 9.62

S3 56 7.54 28 1 7.48

S4 16 24.79 119 2 26.32

S5 39 16.54 50 3 11.99

S6 50 20.00 30 5 9.01

S7 41 13.15 27 1 6.69

S8 26 72.54 110 24 31.02

Table 5. Teaching stages and descriptions

Teaching stages

(min) Description

Introduction

(5)

Explain the purpose and overall

content of learning

Understanding

(15)

Students get used to the usage by

actually using T3, and instructors

explaine how to use T3, demonstrating

T3 usage.

Training

(65）

Student teachers had previously been

assigned the task of preparing teaching

plans for lessons to be taught in

simulated classes. They entered either

the teacher's speech written in their

teaching plans or the new speech into

T3 to analyze their assumed speech

individually.

Wrapping up

（5） Summary of what students learned


standard deviation of 12.22. The total number of input characters (excluding punctuation) consisted of: 1 minimum, 199 maximum, 22.50 on average, and a standard deviation of 22.87. The numbers of entries by S4 and S8 were relatively small, as, in some cases, they analyzed multiple sentences at the same time. The maximum numbers of characters entered by S4 and S8 were also higher than other participants for the same reason. The minimum number of characters entered was 1, by S1, S3, and S7. These were not complete sentences, but single words such as “hour,” “car,” and “next.”

5.3.4. Posttest

Both groups took Teacher Talk Test 2 after answering Questionnaire 2. The T3 Group and the NT3 Group performed the posttest during different weeks, since the number of simulated classes and their schedules differed due to the disparity in the number of students in the classes. Both groups were instructed on how to write a teaching plan and taught simulated classes before the posttest.

5.3.5. Supplementary classes

Guidance instruction on language adjustment in the classroom using T3 was provided online to the NT3 Group, so that there would be no disadvantages for the participants in this group. The instruction content for the practice language adjustment in the classroom using T3 was the same as that of the T3 Group. This instruction included online explanations and practice for all the teaching stages shown in Table 5 and was provided after the posttest in the NT3 Group.

5.4. Analysis methodology 5.4.1. Method of analyzing the ratio of taught

vocabulary and sentence patterns in the teacher talk test

The data obtained by the teacher talk test was analyzed to examine RQ1. In the teacher talk test, participants described the speech and actions of both the teachers and Japanese language learners. The speakers were specified by “T: / S:” and their actions were indicated with parentheses. Only the teachers’ speech was analyzed. Since the intended learners in the teacher talk test were supposed to have completed the first 10 lessons of Minna no Nihongo Elementary Japanese I, the vocabulary and sentence patterns introduced in those lessons were defined as “already learned,” while the vocabulary and sentence patterns not

included in the textbook or introduced after Lesson 10 were defined as “unlearned.”

T3 analyzed all the teachers’ speeches, firstly to see how the ratio of taught vocabulary and sentence patterns in the sentences written in teachers' speeches (“teacher speech lines”) changed in the T3 Group, the NT3 Group, the pretest, and the posttest. A total of 10,147 vocabulary words and sentence patterns (5,538 vocabulary words and 4,609 sentence patterns) were analyzed. However, since T3 is prone to some analytical errors, all 10,147 items had to be manually examined to identify those errors. As a result, 1,909 errors were found and excluded from the analysis. For example, when the sentence pattern “V te-form imasu (the -ing verb forms)” in Lesson 14 and Lesson 28 was analyzed, the sentence pattern in the latter lesson was excluded. At the same time, items up to Lesson 10 and from Lesson 11 onwards were redundantly analyzed due to the similarity of their forms, so these were also excluded after their meanings were specified based on the context. For instance, in the case of the sentence patterns “N (object) wa arimasu (there is a/are N [object])” in Lesson 26, “Place ni N ga arimasu (There is a/are N in [place])” in Lesson 10, and “N wa place ni arimasu (N is/are in [place])” in Lesson 10, instead of simply excluding all lessons other than the lesson in which the sentence patterns first appear, the manual identification of these errors to be excluded was determined by our identification of the meanings based on our knowledge of the context and according to the explanations in Minna no Nihongo Elementary Japanese Ⅰ & Ⅱ, Second Edition, Translation & Grammatical Notes, English Version.

In addition, 878 analytical errors to be corrected instead of excluded were identified in ①, and 155 items to be added due to insufficient analysis were identified in ②. In ①, 806 items were reclassified into a category that differed from their original classification, 68 items were reclassified into two different categories, and 4 items were reclassified into three different categories. In ②, there were 106 items in which another item was added to the first original analysis item, 30 items in which 2 additional analysis items were added to the first original analysis item, 7 items in which 3 other items were added to the first original analysis item, 8 items in which 4 other items were added to the first original analysis item, and 4 items in which 5 additional items were added to the first original


49

analysis. These exclusions and modifications were examined first by Evaluator C, then by Evaluator A using a file that made it impossible for them to know to which group the items belonged and whether they were contained in the pretest or posttest. Evaluator A and Evaluator C disagreed on 38 items, so they collaborated on these items to identify the correct meanings of the vocabulary and sentence patterns based on the context, then specified in which lessons these items were introduced in Minna no Nihongo Elementary Japanese Ⅰ & Ⅱ, Second Edition, Translation & Grammatical Notes, English Version. As a result, a total of 8,556 items were excluded or modified (4,819 vocabulary and 3,737 sentence patterns).

5.4.2. Method of intuitive evaluation by Japanese

language teachers in the teacher talk test The data obtained by the teacher talk test was

analyzed to examine RQ2. Both Test α and Test β consisted of 3 questions, and participants in both groups were instructed to answer at least 2 questions in the pretest and posttest. Some participants managed to finish answering the third question, while others only completed it halfway. The first and second questions of Tests α and β in the pretests and posttests of both groups were analyzed to equalize the amount of data. The first and second questions were printed on separate sheets.

Three Japanese teachers with over 10 years of teaching experience (Evaluators A, B, and C) evaluated the teacher talk test. Prior to the evaluation, numbers were randomly assigned to the test answer sheets to make it impossible for the evaluators to know the attributes of each answer sheet (e.g., participants' names, pretest or posttest, grouping, participants' responses to the first and second questions). The evaluators were instructed to assess the suitability of the instructions given in a beginners' class (equivalent to Lesson 10 of Minna no Nihongo) on a scale from 1 (not suitable at all) to 6 (very suitable). They were also requested to refer to 10 answers that had already been evaluated but were not included in the data of this study as evaluation examples. Then, they evaluated the tests independently. Cronbach's alpha was used to estimate the evaluators’ reliability, and an indicated result of α =.77 confirmed a certain consistency among the evaluations of the 3 evaluators. To statistically process the evaluation, a value of 0 was assigned to 1 (not suitable at all), and values of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (very suitable) were

assigned, accordingly. The average of the assessments made by the 3 evaluators was given to each participant answer as its score. Since the 2 questions in both the pretest and posttest were subject to evaluation, the total score for the 2 questions (out of a complete score of 10) was given as the score of each test taken by the participants.

5.4.3. Questionnaire analysis methodology

The data obtained by questionnaire was analyzed to examine RQ3. To statistically process the questionnaire, a value of 0 was assigned to “not suitable at all,” and values of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (“very suitable”) were assigned. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for each question of the pretest and posttest for all groups to examine the differences between the 2 tests. U tests were also performed for the pretest, posttest, and each question in the T3 Group and the NT3 Group in order to examine the differences between the groups.

6. RESULTS

6.1. Ratio of taught vocabulary and sentence patterns in the teacher talk test

Differences in the ratio of taught vocabulary and sentence patterns in the speech lines of teachers obtained by the teacher talk test between the T3 Group, the NT3 Group, the pretest, and the posttest were analyzed to examine RQ1. In total, 8,556 items containing 4,819 vocabulary words and 3,737 sentence patterns were analyzed, and a ratio was calculated for each test question. These 8,556 items were divided into taught and untaught items. The ratio of taught vocabulary was represented with the sum of the numbers of

Table 7. Ratio of taught/untaught vocabulary and

sentence pattern in the speech lines of teachers (Mann-Whitney U test)

T3 （n = 8） NT3（n = 11）

Effect

size

r

Vocabulary

/sentence

pattern

Introduced

lesson

Median Quartile

deviation Median

Quartile

deviation U

Vocabulary

Up to

Lesson 10

pretest 0.670 0.066 0.645 0.049 35.00 n.s. .171

posttest 0.730 0.073 0.656 0.037 18.00 * .493

Lesson 11

onwards

pretest 0.330 0.066 0.355 0.049 35.00 n.s. .171

posttest 0.270 0.073 0.344 0.037 18.00 * .493

Sentence

pattern

Up to

Lesson 10

pretest 0.458 0.113 0.445 0.074 43.00 n.s. .019

posttest 0.536 0.084 0.509 0.110 41.00 n.s. .057

Lesson 11

onwards

pretest 0.542 0.113 0.555 0.074 43.00 n.s. .019

posttest 0.464 0.084 0.491 0.110 41.00 n.s. .057

*p < .05


untaught and taught vocabulary as the denominator and the number of taught vocabulary as the numerator, while the ratio of untaught vocabulary was represented by the denominator (obtained by the same method) and the number of untaught vocabulary as the numerator. The ratios of taught and untaught sentence patterns were also calculated using the same method. Since two questions were analyzed per test, the ratios of vocabulary and sentence patterns already learned and yet to be learned by the participants in each test were represented by the average ratio of the 2 questions obtained by the above calculation. Tables 7 and 8 show the results.

The results of the U test shown in Table 7 revealed no significant difference between the T3 Group and the NT3 Group in terms of vocabulary of the pretest up to Lesson 10 (taught) and from Lesson 11 onwards (untaught). In the posttest, however, although the effect size with regards to the ratio up to Lesson 10 (U = 18.00, p =.032, r =.493) and the ratio from Lesson 11 onwards (U = 18.00, p =.032, r =.493) was moderate, the results show a significant difference between the T3 Group and the NT3 Group. While the median of vocabulary in the pretest up to Lesson 10 was similar in the 2 groups (0.670 for the T3 Group and 0.645 for the NT3 Group), the value of the T3 Group (0.730) was 0.074 points higher than the NT3 Group (0.656) in the posttest. At the same time, the median of the pretest from Lesson 11 onwards was similar in the 2 groups (0.330 for the T3 Group and 0.355 for the NT3 Group); but in the posttest, the value of the T3 Group (0.270) was 0.074 points lower than the NT3 Group (0.344). In other words, in the posttest, the ratio of taught vocabulary was higher, and the ratio of untaught vocabulary was lower in the T3 Group than in the NT3 Group.

The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test shown in Table 8 indicate no significant differences in vocabulary between the pretest and the posttest in the NT3 Group and the T3 Group. Likewise, no significant differences between the pretest and posttest were indicated in the ratios of the sentence patterns up to Lesson 10 and from Lessons 11 onwards in the NT3 Group. In contrast, the ratios of the sentence patterns in the T3 Group up to Lesson 10 (Z = -1.820, p =.069, r =.644) and from Lesson 11 onwards (Z = -1.820, p =.069, r =.644) were significant between the pretest and posttest and demonstrated substantial effects. The median of the sentence patterns of the T3 Group shown in Table 7 increased by 0.078 points from the pretest (0.458) to the posttest (0.536) up to Lesson 10 and declined by 0.078 points from Lesson 11 onwards. This indicates that in the posttest of T3 Group, the ratio of taught sentence patterns increased while the ratio of untaught sentence patterns decreased.

6.2. Intuitive evaluation of the teacher talk test by

Japanese teachers The intuitive evaluations of the teacher talk

test by Japanese teachers were analyzed to examine RQ2. Tables 9 and 10 show the results. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed no significant differences between the T3 Group and the NT3 Group in the pretest. This indicates that the appropriateness of language adjustment in the classroom for both groups was almost at the same level as it was for the pretest. In contrast, there was a significant difference between the T3 Group

Table 8. Ratio of taught/untaught vocabulary and sentence pattern in the speech lines of teachers (Wilcoxon signed-rank test)

T3 （n = 8） NT3 （n = 11）

Vocabulary/

sentence

pattern

Introduced

lesson Z

Effect

size

r

Z

Effect

size

r

Vocabulary

Up to

Lesson 10 pos-pre -1.400 n.s. .495 -0.889 n.s. .268

Lesson 11

onwards pos-pre -1.400 n.s. .495 -0.889 n.s. .268

Sentence

pattern

Up to

Lesson 10 pos-pre -1.820 † .644 -1.423 n.s. .429

Lesson 11

onwards pos-pre -1.820 † .644 -1.423 n.s. .429

† p < .1

Table 9. The result of the intuitive evaluations by Japanese teachers (Mann-Whitney U test)

T3 （n = 8） NT3 （n =11） Effect

size

r Median

Quartile

deviation Median

Quartile

deviation U

Pretest 3.75 0.81 4.00 1.75 39.00 n.s. .10

Posttest 5.75 1.06 4.50 1.25 17.50 * .51

*p < .05

Table 10. The result of the intuitive evaluations by

Japanese teachers (Wilcoxon signed-rank test)

T3 （n = 8） NT3 （n =11）

Z

Effect

size

r

Z

Effect

size

r

Posttest-pretest -2.53 * .89 -0.62 n.s. .19

*p < .05


51

and the NT3 Group in the posttest (U = 17.50, p =.028, r =. 51). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated no significant differences between the pretest and the posttest in NT3 Group, yet there was a significant difference between the 2 tests in

the T3 Group (Z = -2.53, p =.012, r =. 894). A comparison of the median values between the pretest and posttest showed a greater increase in the T3 Group (3.75 for pre and 5.75 for post) than in the NT3 Group (4.00 for pre and 4.50 for post). This finding indicates that the instruction provided using T3 improved the appropriateness of the participants’ language adjustment in the classroom according to the learning stages of their intended learners.

6.3. Questionnaire

A statistical analysis was conducted to address RQ3 and examine differences in attitude changes between the T3 Group and the NT3 Group. The results are shown in Tables 11 and 12.

The Mann–Whitney U test indicated no significant differences between the T3 Group and the NT3 Group on any of the pretest questions. This indicates that both groups' attitudes toward language adjustment in the classroom were almost at the same level as they were at the time of the pretest. Similarly, no significant differences were found between the T3 Group and the NT3 Group in any of the posttest questions. The result did not show any remarkable effects (r ≧.50). The highest numerical value assigned to the answers was 5, and 3 items (Q6, Q8, and Q9) in the T3 Group and 5 items (Q1, Q4, Q6, Q8, and Q9) in the NT3 Groups scored a median of 4.0 or higher on the pretest. This demonstrates that both groups were highly aware of language adjustment in the classroom from the beginning.

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test presented no significant differences in any of the pretest or posttest questions in the NT3 Group. However, there was a significant difference in Q8 (e.g., “I think it is important to use gestures when giving instructions and explanations to learners”) in the T3 Group (Z = -2.0, p =.046, r =.71). This demonstrated an improvement in the student teachers' attitudes toward gestures, or nonverbal behavior, after receiving lessons using T3.

7. DISCUSSION

7.1. Discussion on RQ1 and RQ2 The intuitive evaluations of the teacher talk

test by Japanese teachers revealed a significant difference between the pretest and the posttest in the T3 Group as well as an improvement in evaluations on the same level as the NT3 Group at the pretest stage. The intuitive evaluations of the teacher talk test by Japanese teachers assessed

Table 11. The result of questionnaire (Mann-Whitney U test)

T3 （n = 8 ） NT3 （n = 11） Effect

size

r Item

number

Median Quartile

deviation

Median Quartile

deviation U

Q1 Pretest 3.00 0.50 4.00 0.50 42.50 n.s. .03

Posttest 3.00 0.88 3.00 0.50 37.00 n.s. .14

Q2 Pretest 2.50 1.00 2.00 0.50 41.00 n.s. .06

Posttest 2.50 1.00 3.00 0.50 40.50 n.s. .07

Q3 Pretest 1.50 1.38 2.00 1.00 37.00 n.s. .14

Posttest 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 37.50 n.s. .13

Q4 Pretest 3.50 1.38 4.00 0.00 39.00 n.s. .10

Posttest 4.00 0.50 4.00 0.50 43.00 n.s. .02

Q5 Pretest 3.50 0.50 3.50 0.75 36.50 n.s. .08

Posttest 3.50 1.25 4.00 0.63 35.50 n.s. .10

Q6 Pretest 5.00 0.50 5.00 0.50 43.00 n.s. .02

Posttest 5.00 0.00 4.00 0.50 25.00 n.s. .43

Q7 Pretest 2.50 0.88 2.50 1.13 39.00 n.s. .02

Posttest 3.00 1.13 3.00 1.50 38.50 n.s. .11

Q8 Pretest 4.00 0.50 5.00 0.50 36.50 n.s. .16

Posttest 5.00 0.38 4.00 0.50 30.00 n.s. .31

Q9 Pretest 4.50 0.50 4.00 1.00 35.00 n.s. .18

Posttest 5.00 0.50 4.00 0.50 31.00 n.s. .28

Q10 Pretest 3.50 1.00 3.00 1.00 39.00 n.s. .10

Posttest 4.00 0.75 4.00 0.50 34.00 n.s. .20

*p < .05

Table 12. The result of questionnaire

(Wilcoxon signed-rank test)

T3 （n = 8） NT3 （n = 11）

Item

number Z

Effect

size r

Z Effect

size r

Q1 Posttest

-pretest -2.07 n.s. .29 -0.71 n.s. .21

Q2 Posttest

-pretest -0.27 n.s. .10 -1.00 n.s. .30

Q3 Posttest

-pretest -0.33 n.s. .12 -0.45 n.s. .14

Q4 Posttest

-pretest -0.45 n.s. .16 -1.41 n.s. .43

Q5 Posttest

-pretest -0.45 n.s. .16 -0.71 n.s. .21

Q6 Posttest

-pretest -1.00 n.s. .35 -0.56 n.s. .17

Q7 Posttest

-pretest -1.13 n.s. .40 -0.96 n.s. .29

Q8 Posttest

-pretest -2.00 * .71 -1.00 n.s. .30

Q9 Posttest

-pretest -0.82 n.s. .29 -1.13 n.s. .34

Q10 Posttest

-pretest -1.00 n.s. .35 -0.11 n.s. .03

*p < .05


the appropriateness of the use of Japanese in classrooms, according to the learning stages of Japanese language students. The significant improvement in the values of the T3 Group demonstrated by the evaluation indicates that lessons provided using T3 can possibly contribute to improving student teachers’ abilities to give instructions in the classroom that are appropriate to the learning stages of their Japanese language students. In addition, the increase in the ratio of taught vocabulary and sentence patterns in the T3 Group’s posttest suggests the possibility that the ratio of taught vocabulary and sentence patterns might play a role in the appropriateness of language adjustment in the classroom to a certain extent. This observation is in line with Okazaki and Nagatomo’s argument (1991) that “adjusting the difficulty level of vocabulary and syntax for each learner” is one method for language adjustment in the classroom, and also supports the idea that “vocabulary use is more basic,” one of Chaudron’s characteristics of language adjustment in classrooms (1998).

7.2. Discussion on RQ3

The questionnaire only revealed a significant difference between the pretest and the posttest in Q8-“I think it is important to use gestures when giving instructions and explanations to learners”-in the T3 Group. Q8 was included in the questionnaire based on the results of Utashiro’s experiment (2014). According to his analysis of the results of student teachers' comments, Utashiro (2014) points out that they realize the importance, necessity, and association of nonverbal behavior in Japanese language classes through lessons taught using T3. In other words, even a system designed exclusively for the use of spoken language is capable of encouraging the use of the gestures and objects that accompany speech. Similarly, T3 as used in this study did not include a function for supporting the gestures that might be made by teachers during class, and no instructions for teachers' nonverbal behavior were provided. Nevertheless, improvement was observed in Q8. One possible explanation is that the T3 system and practice focused on language use also encouraged participants to use vital nonverbal behavior in real classrooms. In the actual classroom, students and teachers are surrounded by various artificial objects such as blackboards, teaching tools, desks, and other teaching materials. While speaking, teachers use those objects, make gestures as necessary, and

repeat interactions in response to their students' reactions. In the actual classroom, it is difficult to teach classes by speech alone, since speech and nonverbal behavior function together in a way that is mutually indispensable. Student teachers likely improved their attitudes toward nonverbal behavior by imagining the actual classroom and incorporating elements other than speech, which have a mutually complementary relation to their own teacher speech, through language learning using T3. Such encouragement of nonverbal behaviors may bring the preparation stages of student teachers' simulated classes closer to the experience of the actual teaching environment. In this respect, encouraging nonverbal behavior plays an important role in teaching language adjustment in the classroom.

This poses the question: why were there no significant changes in the participants’ attitudes toward aspects other than nonverbal behavior? One possible explanation is the conflict between the student teachers’ recognition of a “gap” (i.e., understanding the difference between one's actual ability and the ability required for language adjustment) and actual improvement of their own abilities. In Q1, student teachers were asked about their confidence in language adjustment, and no change was observed in the T3 Group. This question was asked in the same form in Utashiro’s experiment (2014), but his results were lower in the posttest than in the pretest (the pretest median was 3.00 and the posttest median was 2.00). Utashiro (2014) conducted the practice of language adjustment in classroom using the system for 30 minutes, and conducted a questionnaire and comment-based survey immediately afterwards. Analysis of the comments revealed that student teachers understood that different learning items for each learning stage of their target learners were present while they practiced language adjustment in classroom using the T3 system. They also realized that there was a difference between their actual ability and the ability required for language adjustment, simultaneously acknowledging its difficulty. In other words, recognition of such a gap is unlikely to enhance confidence; it is more likely to have an adverse effect. The 65-minute practice period provided in this study and the survey period were longer than the periods of Utashiro’s study (2014). In addition, the intuitive evaluations by Japanese teachers and changes in the ratio of taught vocabulary and sentence patterns revealed that the ability of student teachers in the T3 Group to adjust their


53

use of language in the classroom improved through practice using the system. However, improvement of their ability did not lead to confidence in language adjustment in the classroom. This suggests the possibility that the student teachers’ recognized this gap, and that this recognition might have hindered improvement of their confidence in language adjustment in the classroom. It is possible that this conflict between the student teachers’ recognition of the gap and the improvement of their ability offset any effect on confidence in language adjustment in the classroom, which is why no significant differences were demonstrated.

Q2 and Q3 asked for evaluation of recognition of specific knowledge of language adjustment in the classroom, but the results indicated no significant changes in the T3 Group. The explanation given above may also apply here. To be more specific, there is a possibility that no significant difference was observed as a result of the student teachers’ recognition of the gap offsetting the improvement in their ability. The same reasoning may also be applicable to Q4, Q5, and Q7.

Q6 and Q9 were not considered suitable data for statistical examination because a ceiling effect was observed. However, both groups scored the maximum value of 5.0 in the importance of adjusting the use of language in Q6 of the pretest. This demonstrates that most of the student teachers were aware of the importance of language adjustment in class management. No significant differences in Q10 were observed in the T3 Group either, which suggests that the teaching method using T3 was not effective enough to change learning behaviors outside the classroom.

7.3. Discussion on RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3

In the ratio analysis of the already-learned vocabulary and sentence patterns appearing in the teachers' speech lines, the effectiveness of lessons using T3 was demonstrated in vocabulary and sentence patterns. In contrast, the results of the questionnaire did not differ significantly between the groups or the pretest and posttest, except for Q8 in the T3 Group. The level of confidence in language adjustment in the classroom asked in Q1 was relatively high in both groups in the pretest and posttest, without significant difference. The level of awareness of language adjustment in the classroom asked in Q6 was also high in both groups in the pretest and the posttest, with no significant changes. However, in the intuitive

evaluations (full score of 10) of the teacher talk test, the median of the pretest was not high, with 3.75 in the T3 Group and 4.0 in the NT3 Group. Considering these results collectively, although the participants of the experiment were fully aware of the importance of adjusting their use of language according to the ability of the Japanese language learners whom they were teaching and were likewise also confident in their ability to adjust, the appropriateness of the actual language adjustment was not considered high. Nevertheless, the ratio of the already-taught vocabulary and sentence patterns used for the intended Japanese learners increased, and the intuitive evaluations performed by Japanese teachers improved through lessons taught using T3, thereby also improving the actual ability to adjust language used in the classroom. In other words, there was a discrepancy between the actual skill level and self-recognition thereof in both groups. Based on the fact that there was no difference between the pretest and the posttest in the questionnaires of both groups (except for Q8), and that practical skills improved in the T3 Group, it is possible to reduce this discrepancy through the improvement of practical skills.

8. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE CHALLENGES

In this study, a system to support the practice of language adjustment in classrooms called T3 was developed and introduced in teaching practicums. Three RQs were prepared and analyzed to examine the effects of teaching using T3. In RQ1, the ratio of already-taught vocabulary and sentence patterns used in student teachers' assumed speech lines intended for Japanese learners increased through lessons using T3. Regarding RQ2, the lessons taught using T3 improved the appropriateness of student teachers' language adjustment in the classroom. As for RQ3, although the use of T3 in teaching did not change student teachers' attitudes or their confidence in language adjustment in the classroom, they did, however, become more aware of the importance of their gestures in teaching.

This study therefore revealed that lessons provided to student teachers using the T3 support system for the practice of language adjustment in the classroom increased the prevalence of vocabulary and sentence patterns that had already been taught to the intended learners in the student teachers' assumed speech lines, and it also improved the appropriateness of their


language adjustment. However, since this study and its evaluation were conducted using a system based exclusively on the textbook Minna no Nihongo, the applicable scope of its results is limited by the limitations of the textbook itself. Similarly, as the lessons provided to the student teachers in this experiment only cover the beginner level, the outcome of this study is also limited to that level.

The observations of RQ3 described in 7.2 discuss the conflict between the participants’ recognition of their learning gap and its effects as one possible reason for the lack of improvement in the participants’ confidence in their language adjustment ability, as addressed in Q1. Recognition of the gap is nevertheless an important finding, and it also suggests the effectiveness of T3. The challenge, therefore, is this: how do we improve teachers' confidence in their proficiency for language adjustment? Possibly, if student teachers’ language adjustment ability improves so substantially that they are able to recognize this improvement by themselves, then perhaps recognition of the development of their ability will exceed their recognition of the gap, thereby improving confidence. Increasing the number of learning practicums using T3 is one specific teaching method suggested to substantially develop this ability. Students could also compare their language adjustment skills before and after using T3 to examine how they have changed.

Furthermore, as pointed to by observations regarding RQ3 as described in 7.2, the results of Q10 indicated that this teaching method using T3 was not effective enough to modify learning behaviors outside the classroom. T3 does not have any functions that directly encourage or promote learning outside the classroom, which is a limitation of the system. Despite this limitation, however, it is still possible to modify learning behaviors outside the classroom by using innovative teaching methods, including T3. For example, introduction of the exercise that asks students to consider how to explain their daily activities and everyday conversations among Japanese people in order to make themselves understood using T3 and simply using the T3 system to modify teaching plans may encourage student teachers to associate actions and events outside the classroom with language adjustment. This way, student teachers may remain more aware of language adjustment outside the classroom, leading to changes in their learning

behavior. Based on the results outlined above, the

contribution of training courses for Japanese language teachers in educational practice was considered. In this study, in addition to methodology for teaching grammar to beginners, writing a teaching plan, and conducting simulated classes, student teachers engaged in the following activities using T3 in their Japanese language teaching methods classes. While learning how to teach vocabulary and sentence patterns according to the learning stage of their intended learners (i.e., which vocabulary and sentence patterns had already been learned and which had yet to be learned), the student teachers also practiced paraphrasing according to the learning stage of their intended learners and received instant feedback. In addition to regular classes, this teaching method is characterized by its systematic provision of individual instruction based on the assumed speech described by student teachers in relation to language adjustment in the classroom. Teaching methods reproducing characteristics like these may be as effective as the experiment conducted in this study, even without the T3 system's support. However, this is only possible with a very small number of student teachers; these teaching methods would not be as effective if used to teach more than 10 student teachers. Since many training courses for Japanese language teachers have a large number of student teachers and restricted lesson hours, introducing this system or a similar system in regular classes may facilitate only partial enhancement of substantial skills related to language adjustment in the classroom. In addition to use in classes, it is also possible to use the T3 system as a tool to support self-directed study. Teaching efficiency and learning effectiveness might be improved if tasks requiring the use of the system are assigned to student teachers to complete by themselves and then give instruction in the classroom.

For future studies, the first challenge will be to improve the analytical accuracy of the system itself. Cases of analytical errors and redundant analyses are frequent with the current T3 system, which places an unnecessary burden on system users trying to interpret results. In fact, this aspect should be addressed as a vital improvement issue by the system itself. Secondly, it will be necessary to examine whether similar results measuring teaching effectiveness can be obtained for intended learners with higher stages of proficiency. Although this task goes beyond the


55

scope of the current T3 system, analysis of the complexities of the sentence structures of student teachers' assumed speech lines may reveal quantitative changes in sentence structures that cannot be identified by ratios of already-learned vocabulary and sentence patterns. This is a particularly important issue, because it concerns one of Chaudron’s characteristics of teacher talk for beginners (i.e., that “sentences are less complex”) (Chaudron 1988). Furthermore, since student teachers' speech in actual simulated classes was not analyzed in this study, although the appropriateness of their language adjustment improved in the teacher talk test, it is not known whether the same results would be observed in actual classes. Therefore, the creation of a fully controlled class environment would likely be vital to quantitative studies in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 16K13245 and 24652104.

REFERENCES

3A corporation. (2012) Minna no Nihongo Elementary Japanese I 2nd Edition Main Book. 3A corporation, Tokyo. (in Japanese)

3A corporation. (2012) Minna no Nihongo Elementary Japanese Ⅰ 2nd Edition Translation & Grammar Notes—English. 3A corporation, Tokyo. (in Japanese)

3A corporation. (2013) Minna no Nihongo Elementary Japanese II 2nd Edition Main Book. 3A corporation, Tokyo. (in Japanese)

3A corporation. (2013) Minna no Nihongo Elementary Japanese Ⅰ & Ⅱ 2nd Edition Translation & Grammar

Notes—English. 3A corporation, Tokyo. (in Japanese) CHAUDRON, C. (1988). Second language classrooms:

Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press, New York.

KRASHEN, S.D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon, New York．

KOIKE, I. (2003). Kenkyusha dictionary of applied linguistics. Kenkyusha, Tokyo, p.28 (in Japanese).

LONG, M.H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S.M. Gass, C.G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley Mass, pp.377-393.

MARUYAMA, K. (2011). Discourse analysis of explanation for word(s) given by JFL student teachers. In Papers in language, literature, and culture of the Graduate School of Doshisha Women’s College of Liberal Arts, 11: pp.1-26 (in Japanese).

NAKAGAWA, Y. (1999). Kyoushi to gakushuusha no interaction: teacher talk training. Musya, 6: pp.67-81 (in Japanese).

OKAZAKI, T. and NAGATOMO, K. (1991). Teacher-talk in teaching Japanese as a second language. Bulletin of the Faculty of School Education, Hiroshima University part II, 39: pp.241-248 (in Japanese).

SAKAGUCHI, M. (2005). Nihongo kyouin yousei course de jisshi sareteiru jisshuu no jittai: chousa houkoku. Musya, 12: pp.81-87 (in Japanese).

T3(Teacher Talk Trainer) http://t3.hgu.jp/t3/teachertalk/ accessed 2016.09.01）

TERADA, K., MIKAMI, K., YAMAGATA, M. and WAGURI, M. (1998). Nihongo no oshiekata ABC “dou yatte oshieru?” ni okotae shimasu. ALC, Tokyo. (in Japanese)

UTASHIRO, T. (2014). Development of learning system for training teacher-talk in Japanese teacher training course. Japan journal of educational technology, 38(Suppl.): 117-120 (in Japanese).

YAMAMOTO, S. (1995). Nihongo kyouiku ni okeru teacher talk—aru teacher talk training no kokoromi. Reitaku University journal, 61: pp. 191-203 (in Japanese).

educ. technol. res., 41(1) - j-stage

Documents