小・中学校の英語学習・指導の一致性に関する調査a085/full.pdf小・中学校の英語学習・指導の一致性に関する調査...

小・中学校の英語学習・指導の一致性に関する調査

On continuity between primary school “foreign language

activities” and junior high English classes

平成 23～25 年度科学研究費補助金（基盤研究 C（１））23520743

研究成果報告書

2014 年 3 月

研究代表者真歩仁しょうん（Sean Mahoney, 福島大学）

研究分担者猪井新一（茨城大学）

はしがき

本共同研究を遂行するにあたり、様々な方面からご協力をいただきました。調査の回答に

ご協力していただいた日本各地の小学校の 5 及び 6 年学級担任の先生方、小学校の外国語

活動の ALT、専科教員、協力員の先生方、そして中学校の英語の先生方、ALT の先生方、

予備調査にご協力していただいた先生方、いろいろ情報を提供して下さった都道府県教育

委員会の関係者の方、また、国内外の英語教育学会等で貴重なご協力及び意見を寄せてい

ただいた先生方に対して、本共同研究者一同、心より感謝を申し上げます。

いただいたご協力のもとに、この報告書にまとめることができた 3 年間にわたる調査・

分析結果及び導き出された提案が、今後の日本の外国語活動をはじめ、中学校以降の英語

教育の改善に重要な役割を果たすことを祈っています。

It is our great pleasure to have engaged in this three-year research project on Japan’s

primary school “Foreign Language Activities” (FLA) and their implications for English education at

junior high and other levels of learning. We would like to extend profound gratitude to the almost

3000 educators at primary and junior high schools who participated in our pilot project, interviews,

and nationwide survey, as well as to administrative and survey-related advisors both in Japan and

around the world. We very much hope that this study will provide useful information on a wide

range of issues concerning the present implementation and future improvement of early English

education.

平成 26 年 3 月 March 2014

研究組織

研究代表者：真歩仁しょうん（福島大学） [email protected]

研究分担者：猪井新一（茨城大学）[email protected]

研究経費

平成 23 年度：910 千円

平成 24 年度：650 千円

平成 25 年度：780 千円計：2,340 千円

研究発表 (Research publications and conference presentations)

1）学会誌等 (Journal publications)

① 発表者名猪井新一、真歩仁しょうん

テーマ名「小学校外国語活動は必修化後変したのか、しないのか」

学会誌名『茨城大学教育実践研究』、第 32 号、81-95。

発行日 2013 年 11 月 30 日

② 発表者名 Sean Mahoney

テーマ名 "Primary school foreign language activities: Teacher responses to Japan's first

steps"

学会誌名 KOTESOL Proceedings 2013

発行日 2014 年 3 月 31 日（予定）

2）口頭発表 (Conference presentations)

① 発表者名 Sean Mahoney

テーマ名「Japan’s first steps in primary-level English classes: National survey」

学会名 KOTESOL International Conference 2013. Seoul, South Korea.

発行日 2013 年 10 月 12 日

② 発表者名猪井新一

テーマ名「小学校教員および中学校教員から見た外国語活動の児童・生徒に

及ぼす影響」

学会名全国英語教育学会第３９回北海道研究大会。札幌市。

発行日 2013 年 8 月 10 日

③ 発表者名猪井新一、真歩仁しょうん

テーマ名「小学校外国語活動における英語劇の役割～自信と達成感・一体感につな

がる活動への一考察～」

学会名第 13 回小学校英語教育学会。那覇市。

発行日 2013 年 7 月 15 日

④ 発表者名真歩仁しょうん、猪井新一

テーマ名「小学校 ALT の視点からみた「外国語活動」：全国調査の結果」

学会名第 13 回小学校英語教育学会。那覇市。

発行日 2013 年 7 月 15 日

⑤ 発表者名 Sean Mahoney

テーマ名「Accommodating the new “foreign language activities” class」

学会名第 5 回北東アジア言語教育学会 (The Fifth N.E.A.R. Language Education

Conference)。新潟市。

発行日 2013 年 5 月 25 日

目次 Contents

I. 研究概要 (Project Outline)

A. 研究目的 (Research Objectives)

B. 各アンケートの意義 (Main research questions for each questionnaire type)

C. 調査方法 (Method)

1. アンケートの作成 (Survey design)

2. 予備調査 (Pilot)

3. アンケート配布校数および回収率 (Survey distribution and response rates)

II. 結果及び分析 (Results and analyses)

A. 小学校 5 及び 6 年学級担任に関するデータ（Primary homeroom teacher data）

B. 小学校 ALT に関するデータ（Primary ALT data）

C. 中学校英語教師に関するデータ（Junior high English teacher data）

D. 中学校 ALT データ（Junior high ALT data）

E. 今後の研究課題（Issues for future research）

III. 参考文献 (References)

IV. 資料 (Appendices)

A. 小学校の 5 及び 6 年学級担任用アンケート（Primary HRT questionnaire）

B. 小学校 ALT 用アンケート（Primary ALT questionnaire）

C. 中学校英語教師用アンケート（Junior high English teacher questionnaire）

D. 中学校 ALT 用アンケート（Junior high ALT questionnaire）

I. 研究概要 (Project Outline)

In Brief:

The chief aim of our research is to provide a nationwide assessment of the newly-implemented

"foreign-language activities" through the eyes of Japan's primary and secondary school teachers,

including those of Assistant Language Teachers (hereafter, ALTs, many of whom are native English

speakers). It will also serve as an essential update on past work, building upon those that have

examined team-teaching roles and concerns, teachers’ beliefs and class priorities, teachers’ sense

of achievement, and overall foreign language program assessment.

この報告書に使用している頭字語リスト/List of acronyms used in this report:

ALT= 外国語指導助手/Assistant Language Teacher

EAA= 外国語活動協力員/Primary School English Activity Assistant (Associate)

FLA= （小学校における）外国語活動/(Primary school) Foreign Language Activities

HRT= （小学校）学級担任/(Primary school) Homeroom Teacher

JET Programme= 財団法人自治体国際化協会の外国語青年招致事業/Japan Exchange and

Teaching Programme (Japanese national government ALT program)

JTE= 中学校の英語教師/Japanese Teacher of English (junior high)

MEXT= 文部科学省/Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, & Technology

N/R= （調査の）無回答/(Survey) Non-response

TT=ティームティーチング/Team Teaching

A 目的 (Research Objectives)- based on original proposal to MEXT

As of April 2011, primary schools throughout Japan have been required to provide 35 class

hours per year of "Foreign Language Activities" (hereafter, FLA) to 5th and 6th grade students (文

部科学省, 2008, p.5), a significant step that had been debated since the late 1980s (ibid., 2). However, as Korea has discovered since introducing English into grade 3 classrooms in 1997 (Cheong, 2010), and as Japan has experienced with its junior and senior high oriented JET Programme (McConnell, 2000), the first few years of any new language-related program will be

fraught with challenges and difficulties. With FLA, since the majority of homeroom teachers (hereafter, HRTs) have little or no training in how to teach English (Goto Butler, 2004; AJET, 2008), overcoming the challenges will be crucial. To this, we may add new problems for junior high school English teachers (hereafter, JTEs), who could until recently assume that they would build an English education from the foundations upward, at least for students not attending private lessons, in accordance with their experience-based instincts and a well-defined curriculum.

In order to minimize student and teacher pressures in accommodating the transition from

elementary to junior high school, primary school language activities are designed chiefly to instil

an interest in other languages and cultures, and to foster motivation and a positive attitude to

communicate using a language, mainly through speaking and listening (文部科学省, 2008, 9-11).

Further, students are not to be numerically evaluated (ibid., 5), and objectives may be adjusted

according to student and regional situations and needs (ibid., 6). Finally, the MEXT recommends

that secondary school JTEs familiarize themselves with their community's primary school language

activities through regular contact with the teachers involved and through school visits, in order to

observe, assess, and aid with or even teach classes (文部科学省, 2009, 40-41).

But to what degree is this actually happening? A primary aim of our project is to collect

and categorize information on the critical issue of inter-school teacher (i.e., HRT to JTE)

communication, but also to include that between primary HRTs and ALTs (since many of the latter

teach at both school levels). This kind of research into link evaluation, while crucial, had yet to be

conducted on a large scale at the time of our proposal. Neither had the “ALT factor” been

incorporated into a primary-based survey of this size.

In a MEXT-sponsored JET Program study (猪井他,2001) of junior and senior high school

English education, Mahoney, Inoi, and Yoshida (2003) identified the top team teaching concern

amongst junior high JTEs as a lack of time to make teaching arrangements. Similarly, in the same

paper, the greatest concern for junior high ALTs, the JTEs’ team teaching counterparts, was the

inevitable result of this lack of consultation: a lack of lesson plans (38-39). More recently, this

issue has also topped primary HRT teacher concerns about the new FLA classes (日本英語検,

2013). In this study, we delve further by asking primary teachers how regularly they are able to

meet with their assistants.

Additionally, we discuss variables that, supported by statistical evidence, appear to have

produced comparatively successful FLA classes. We seek to uncover how and to what extent

primary school teachers are managing to deal with their new duties, and have acquired data on

what (or who) is assisting them most. Comments on the effects of FLA are elicited from junior high

JTEs and ALTs as well, since these educators are perhaps most able to perceive and evaluate the

new classes. Lastly, our survey data reveal correlations between such variables as primary HRTs’

backgrounds, work environments, and FLA goal achievement rates.

In this way, we hope not only to complement research conducted on team-teaching roles,

teachers' pedagogical beliefs, and that on JET Programme and private ALT teaching arrangements

(猪井他,2001). We believe it can also inform and assist with the development of primary and

secondary school language teacher training (university and in-service) programmes, perhaps the

most important step toward changing the current trend of over-reliance on ALTs (安達, 2004; 猪

井&真歩仁、2013).

Building on our experience with previous grant-in-aid work (猪井他, 2001) we have

presented on different aspects of these results at domestic and international conferences, and

have published an academic paper during the research period (猪井&真歩仁、2013), with more

currently being written.

*For works cited throughout this report, please see section III. 参考文献 (References).

B 意義 (Main research questions)

Each of the four nationwide questionnaires conducted in early 2013 marks an attempt to

assess primary homeroom teachers’ perceptions of the difficulties, successes, and effects of FLA in

the first two years after its formal introduction. Key questions for each of the four teacher

questionnaire are:

1. HRT questionnaire:

a) What ratio of classes are currently being taught by the HRT alone, and are teachers with English

licences more likely to do so? [どの程度の割合で授業は、学級担任一人によって実施され

るか、そして、英語の教員免許所有者は一人で授業を行う傾向があるのか。]

b) Do self-reported English levels correlate with perceptions of FLA achievement and pupil

enthusiasm? [教員の英語能力レベルは外国語達成度、または児童の積極性と相関関係が

あるのか。]

c) What kind of primary and junior high links have HRTs experienced? Which do they see as most

worthwhile? [小中連携はどのようなものがあるのか。どのような連携が最も有益か。]

d) Are HRTs taking the lead in FLA classes? [学級担任は授業で、主指導の立場にあるのか。]

e) What roles do ALTs play in FLA? [ALT はどのような役割を担っているのか。]

f) What do HRTs feel is most needed before FLA can become a core subject? [外国語活動が教科

となるためには、何が必要かと学級担任は思っているか。]

2. Primary ALT questionnaire:

a) How much do ALTs feel they are teaching alone or mainly alone? [ALT は、どの程度自分一人

で授業を実施していると感じているのか。]

b) How do factors such as ALTs’ experience, training, employer type, and Japanese level affect

their overall satisfaction with FLA classes? [ALT の授業経験、研修、雇用形態、日本語能力

レベルなどの要因が、外国語活動の授業に対する自分の満足度にどのように影響を及ぼ

しているのか。]

c) What forms of support for FLA do ALTs consider most important?[ALT は外国語活動に関して、

どのような支援が重要だと考えているのか。]

d) Are ALTs who teach at both school levels reusing words and phrases introduced at primary at

their junior high? [小学校・中学校両方で教えている ALT は、両方の学校で同じような英

語の表現を使用しているのか。]

e) How would ALTs rank common forms of primary and secondary links in terms of

importance? [ALT は小中連携に関する様々な方策を、重要性の観点からどのようにラン

ク付けしているのか。]

f) Can any patterns be observed in ALT perceptions of successful and unsuccessful classes? [ALT が

うまくいっている、あるいはうまくいっていないと感じる授業には、何かパターンがあ

るのか。]

3. Junior high English teacher Questionnaire:

a) Do students appear to be more positive towards English since the introduction of

FLA? [生徒は外国語活動導入後、英語学習により積極的か。]

b) What kind of primary and junior high links have JTEs experienced? Which do they see as most

worthwhile? [小学校教師と中学校英語教師は、どのような連携をこれまで行ってきたか。

そして、どれが有益であったか。]

c) How aware are JTEs of what is being covered in local primary school FLA classes? Do JTEs who

have taught FLA report being more aware? [中学校英語教師は、学区の小学校でどのような

外国語活動が実施されているかについて知っているのか。小学校で外国語活動を教えた

経験がある中学校英語教師は、そうでない教師よりも実態をよく知っているのか。]

d) How do JTEs feel about whether writing should be introduced in primary FLA? [中学校英語教

師は小学校で文字（書くこと）を導入することをどのように思っているのか。]

e) What do JTEs say is needed before making FLA a core primary subject?[中学校英語教師は外国

語活動が教科になるためには何が必要かと考えているのか。]

f) Have FLA classes had a positive overall effect on JTEs’ English classes? [外国語活動は中学校の

英語の授業にプラスの影響を与えたのか。]

4. Junior high ALT questionnaire:

a) How familiar are these ALTs with FLA classes in their area? [中学校 ALT は学区の外国語活動

をどの程度知っているのか。]

b) Which, if any, type of primary to junior high links do ALTs believe would help most?[ALT はどの

ような小中連携が有益かと思っているのか。]

c) Are ALTs who teach at both school levels reusing words and phrases introduced at primary at

their junior high? [小中学校両方で教えている ALT は小学校で使用した表現を、中学校

でも使用しているのか。]

d) Do ALTs perceive a drop in enthusiasm for English between first and third year students? [ALT

は中学校１年生と３年生とでは、英語学習への積極性が変化すると感じているのか。]

e) How important do junior high ALTs feel their English classes are?

[中学校 ALT は英語の授業をどの程度大切であると感じているか。]

f) What kind of influence, if any, has FLA exerted on ALTs’ junior high classes?

[小学校外国語活動は、ALT の中学校での授業にどのような影響を与えたのか。]

C. 調査方法 (Method)

1. アンケートの作成 (Survey design)

The project proposal stressed an inquiry into the frequency and nature of links between

primary and junior high schools, and questions were formulated based on the above research

questions, with ideas on links in particular adapted from 松川&木下 (2007) and suggested

through personal correspondence with experts in primary and secondary English education in

Japan, Korea, Italy, the UK, and the USA. Questionnaire topics were determined after:

a) reviewing the literature on special projects in early English education in Japan (e.g., 吉田,

2008a; 山口&巽, 2010; 湯川＆バトラー後藤, 2010);

b) taking notes on primary level English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts in other countries (e.g.,

Enever, Moon, & Raman, 2009; バトラー後藤, 2005; Koster, 1986);

c) reviewing literature on questionnaire design itself (e.g., Oppenheim, 1996; Dörnyei, 2003;

Bradburn, Sudman, & Wansink, 2004);

d) observing classes and conducting both teacher and researcher interviews in both Japan

(Fukushima, Niigata, Ibaraki) and neighbouring Korea (Cheongju).

Primary HRT background questions were conceived with reference to those used by ベネッセ

(2010a), while those for primary ALTs, junior high JTEs and their ALTs were adapted from our JET

Programme survey (猪井,他, 2001).

2. 予備調査 (Pilot)

In selecting from a prepared list of possible questions for the pilot, we interviewed five

primary HRTs, ten primary and junior high teaching ALTs, two primary “English Activity Assistants”

(hereafter, EAAs), and two junior high English teachers (JTEs) for a total of eleven hours about

particular topics, question wording and related issues. To ensure bottom-up feedback and to gain

actual experience of post-2011 FLA classes, one of the authors (Mahoney) also volunteer-taught at

a local school in Fukushima for over 80 hours as an ALT. The resultant pilot questionnaires, of four

types (primary HRT & ALT, junior high JTE and ALT) were distributed to 81 teachers from all

teaching categories in Fukushima and Niigata prefectures.

予備調査：参加者の種類/Pilot questionnaires: Types and participant numbers

予備調査タイプ/Pilot type n

HRT 37

Primary ALT 14 (EAA の 2 人込み/incl. 2 EAAs)

JTE 22

Junior high ALT 8

Total 81

Revisions of questions and final versions of the questionnaires were produced with the aid of

comments from the pilot and through further teacher consultations.

The authors agree with the call for an objective, empirical evaluation of primary pupils’

English abilities (e.g., 佃, 2007; バトラー後藤, 2010; 湯川, 小山＆山岡, 2012,) and believe that

such findings are crucial in deciding how to improve foreign language education. As yet, however,

the number of public schools from which researchers can collect concrete, reliable data remains

low, and most HRTs lack training in how to evaluate pupils’ foreign language performance. Thus,

while this survey does not attempt to assess whether pupils or teachers merely like English or find

FLA classes fun, it does strive to assess a large number of homeroom teachers’ overall perception

of progress in their classes, in accordance with the current MEXT FLA objectives (文部科学省,

2008), abstract though such objectives may be.

3. アンケート配布校数および回収率 (Survey distribution and response rates)

In January, 2013, questionnaire packages containing introductory letters, two copies of

questionnaires for grade 5&6 HRTs and one for the ALT/EAA, were sent to 2000 primary schools

throughout Japan. To ensure privacy and to allow visiting (i.e., non-base school) assistants to reply

at their own convenience, the package contained separate ALT and HRT return envelopes. Public

schools with at least 25 students were chosen from the pages of the list of schools for 2012 全国

学校総覧 2012 (全国学校データ研究所, 2011) by research assistants.

We attempted to ensure a degree of randomness by having assistants select a

predetermined number of schools from each page in the school lists. However, since prefectures

vary greatly in population, with fewer pages of data for some than others, the researchers

predetermined five schools to be included from each prefecture, and had assistants choose the

remainder. For example, as there were 357 pages of primary schools listed, and we needed 1765

schools (i.e., 2000 – (5x47 prefectures or 235 pre-selected)), we divided the number of schools still

required (=1765) by the number of pages in the list (357), arriving at 4.94, or about five schools

from each page. The junior high schools were chosen in the same manner. In this way, smaller

prefectures were not neglected, yet those with more pages in the listings were more represented

in the final lists of addresses. We did not provide separate response envelopes for junior high ALTs,

since the questionnaire did not directly concern private teaching issues at their schools and since

many junior high ALTs work at the same more school regularly than their primary counterparts.

The questionnaires, reproduced in IV.資料(Appendices) consisted of from three to four

pages of both multiple choice and open-ended questions, with two in Japanese (HRT and JTE

versions) and two in English (ALT versions). Responses were accepted over a three-month

timeframe ending the 15th March 2013. Response rates for each questionnaire were as follows:

Questionnaire type Number sent Number received Response rate (%)

Primary HRT (2000 X 2 copies)= 4000 1802 45.05

Primary ALT 2000 387 19.35

Junior high JTE (1000 X 2 copies)= 2000 515 25.75

Junior high ALT 1000 169 16.90

Total 9000 2873 31.92

The response rate for HRTs, those most directly concerned with FLA, was understandably highest,

while that of junior high ALTs was the lowest. The survey timing (January to March) may have

contributed to comparatively low ALT response rates at both school levels: we received several

notes explaining that ALT contracts began in April but ended in September or the end of December.

Junior high schools in particular tend to focus on written, often grammar-based exams near the

end of the academic year, with the number of team taught, communicative classes (and

presumably the demand for ALTs) being reduced. Moreover, as the following quotations illustrate,

many ALTs at junior high simply lack experience with local FLA programs, with newcomers even

less confident about voicing their opinions through surveys.

II. 結果及び分析 (Results and analyses)

A. 小学校 5 及び 6 年学級担任に関するデータ（Primary homeroom

teacher data）

1. Part 1: HRT 背景的情報/HRT Background Questions (n=1802)

The first eleven questions asked homeroom teachers such things as age group, classes, FLA

teaching experience, team teaching situations, professional training, and English levels.

a) HRT Q1 (年齢/Age group) (n= 1784)

年齢/Age group 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid %

20 代/20s 311 17.4

30 代/30s 486 27.2

40 代/40s 613 34.4

50 代/50s 353 19.8

60 代/60s 21 1.2

N/R 18 1.0

*最頻値/Mode= 40s

b) HRT Q2 (都道府県/Prefecture) (n= 1793)

都道府県

/Prefecture

頻度

/Freq.

有効

/Valid %

都道府県

/Prefecture

頻度

/Freq.

有効

/Valid %

都道府県

/Prefecture

頻度

/Freq.

有効

/Valid %

Hokkaido 61 3.4 Fukui 43 2.4 Yamaguchi 24 1.3

Aomori 36 2.0 Yamanashi 14 0.8 Tokushima 21 1.2

Iwate 40 2.2 Nagano 59 3.3 Kagawa 21 1.2

Miyagi 55 3.1 Gifu 50 2.8 Ehime 22 1.2

Akita 37 2.1 Shizuoka 79 4.2 Kochi 10 0.6

Yamagata 30 1.7 Aichi 86 4.8 Fukuoka 27 1.5

Fukushima 120 6.7 Mie 44 2.5 Saga 4 0.2

Ibaraki 61 3.4 Shiga 40 2.2 Nagasaki 19 1.1

Tochigi 28 1.6 Kyoto 13 0.7 Kumamoto 19 1.1

Gunma 24 1.3 Osaka 48 2.7 Oita 16 0.9

Saitama 33 1.8 Hyogo 82 4.6 Miyazaki 20 1.1

Chiba 75 4.2 Nara 16 0.9 Kagoshima 30 1.7

Tokyo 37 2.1 Wakayama 36 2.0 Okinawa 33 1.8

Kanagawa 79 4.4 Tottori 16 0.9 N/R 9

Niigata 38 1.6 Shimane 38 2.1

Toyama 22 1.2 Okayama 36 2.0

Ishikawa 31 1.7 Hiroshima 34 1.9

c) HRT Q3a (担任学年/Grade taught) (n= 1797)

年生/Grade taught 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid %

1 (及び 5 年生の FLA/and Gr. 5 for FLA)

1 0.1

2 1 0.1

3 (及び 5&6 年生の FLA/and Grs. 5&6 for FLA)

1 0.1

4 (及び 5&6 年生の FLA/and Grs. 5&6 for FLA)

5 0.3

5 876 48.6

6 897 49.3

Other (5・6 年混合/mixed Grs. 5&6)

16 0.9

N/R 5 *1 年から 4 年生担当の学級担任で、5・6 年生の外国語活動を担当している回答者が 8 人いた。There were

eight respondents who were grade 1 to 4 homeroom teachers conducting FLA classes with grades 5 and 6 at their

schools.

d) HRT Q3b (クラス児童の人数/Number of pupils) (n= 1773)

人数/number 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid %

1-5 13 0.7

6-10 22 1.2

11-15 43 2.4

16-20 77 4.3

21-25 226 12.7

26-30 447 25.2

31-35 608 34.3

36-40 315 17.8

41 以上/Over 40 22 1.2

N/R 29

合計/Sum of all pupils 53004 平均人数/Mean= 29.9; 中央値/Median= 31.0; 最頻値/Mode= 32; 標準偏差/SD= 7.4

e) HRT Q4 (学校外で英語塾や英語教室等に通っている児童/Numbers of pupils studying

English outside school) (n=1578)

生徒数頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid %

0 127 8.0

1 119 7.5

2 191 12.1

3 258 16.3

4 187 11.9

5 236 15.0

6-10 354 22.4

11-15 77 4.9

16-20 22 1.4

21-25 4 0.2

26 以上/Over 25 3 0.2

N/R 224

合計/Sum of pupils 7508 *平均/Mean= ; 中央値/Median= 4; 最頻値/Mode= 3; 標準偏差/SD= 3.8

* アウトライヤー（異常値）は「通級」という特別支援教育の制度の一つで、通常の学級に在籍していながら個別的な特別

支援教育を受けている場合。たとえば、アンケートで、ある特別支援の担任は 150 人もの通級児童を担当し、そのうちの

「49 人が学校以外で英語を勉強している」と報告した。尚、Q3b 及び Q4 の平均値の計算上ではアウトライヤーは入れてい

ない。** 5 年生の平均人数は 4.51 であり、6 年生は 5.03 である。*Outliers: E.g., a special needs school with 150 students in

mixed classes in a “tsukyu” system. The HRT noted that forty nine children were attending outside English classes. In class size

calculation of the means for Q3b and Q4, however, such outliers were not used. ** The mean number of pupils in grade 5 were 4.51,

with grade 6 at a slightly higher 5.03.

Taking responses to questions 3b and 4 together, the mean class size of 30 pupils has a mean

number of just under five pupils, or almost 17% of the class, attending some form of English lesson

outside school.

f) HRT Q5 ア (外国語活動の年間時間数/ Hours of FLA per year) (n= 1753)

年間時間数/ Hours of FLA 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid %

1-3 15 0.8

15-26 8 0.4

30-34 24 1.4

35 1638 93.4

36-39 55 3.1

40-45 15 0.8

50 以上/50 and over 9 0.5

N/R 49

g) HRT Q5 イ (外国語活動（若しくは総合的な学習）担当経験年数/Years of FLA and

“Integrated general studies” experience)

外国語活動担当経験年数/Years of FLA experience (n= 1708)

経験年数/years of FLA 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid %

一年未満/under 1 19 1.1

1 298 17.4

2 263 15.4

3 236 13.8

4 201 11.8

5 176 10.3

6-10 414 24.2

11 以上/or more 101 5.9

N/R 94

*平均年数/Mean number of years= 4.59; *最頻値/Mode= 1

h) HRT Q6 (外国語活動の指導形態の割合/Ratio of FLA classes taught alone or as a team)

According to our data, the typical teacher taught FLA alone just over 25% of the time in 2012-13,

team teaching (TT) with an ALT in about 63% of classes. The latter represents a 6.9% increase in

ALT availability as compared to data from 文部科学省 (2011b, p.3), regarding planned FLA classes

for 2011. Another apparent improvement was that just 0.4% of surveyed HRTs always teach FLA

alone. In addition, 30.4% of HRTs reported that they taught 100% of their FLA classes with an ALT,

with another 2.4% of teachers conducting all their FLA classes with an EAA. Still, a full 29% of HRTs

indicated that they taught alone in half or more of their FLA classes.

外国語活動のパターン：指導形態の割合(%)/Summary of means of various FLA teaching

arrangements (in %) (n=1761)

指導形態の割合/Teaching pattern

HRT 一人で/HRT Alone

ALT と一緒/With ALT

EAA と一緒/With EAA

その他/Other

平均年数/Mean 25.4 62.8 7.8 4.0

最頻値/Mode 0 100 0 0

標準偏差/Standard deviation

29.1 35.8 22.4 17.0

中央値/Median 10.0 70.0 0.0 0.0

N/R 41

As one can see more clearly below, this wide variety in distribution of ALTs (SD: 35.8), and other

types of assistants, is a cause for concern.

ALT と一緒に教えている割合/Ratios of HRT-ALT team taught FLA classes (n=1761)

i) HRT Q7 (英語の教員免許保持者/Holders of English teaching licences) (n= 1797)

Although Japanese HRTs’ lack of confidence in teaching FLA has been identified (Goto Butler,

2004) and remains a major concern worldwide (Gaynor et al., 2011), a number of teachers

surveyed were not without significant qualifications in English teaching and learning. In this survey,

172 or 9.6% of 1797 HRTs indicated that they have a licence to teach English at either junior or

senior high school. This represents a small increase compared to ベネッセ (2010b), which

reported a rate of 9.4% (108). For other qualifications in English and English education, see “k) HRT

Q9” below.

As to HRT research question “a,” regarding whether teachers with English licences are

more likely to teach alone, the answer appears to be negative. Of the licence-holding participants

in this study, 42.9% reported that they have assistance 100% of the time, whereas just 34.1% of

the entire HRT population always teaches with an ALT (30.4%), EAA (2.4%), or “other” (1.3%).

None of the licence holders reported teaching 100% of FLA classes alone. Further, 25.7% of licence

holders teach half or more of their classes alone, compared to 29% of the HRT population at large.

There seems to be a slight discrepancy in terms of human resource distribution, with HRTs who

hold licences receiving more support than those without.

j) HRT Q8 (出身大学の学部/University faculty background) (n= 1764)

学部/Faculty 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

教育/Education* 1244 70.5

文/Literature (Japanese)

237 13.4

外国語関係/Foreign language related**

21 1.2

芸/Arts 14 0.8

その他/Other*** 249 14.1

N/R 38 *児童教育、初等教育を含む /Includes Child Education, Elementary Education

**英米文、外国語、英語、フランス語、国際コミュニケーションを含む/Includes British and American Literature,

Foreign Languages, English, French, International Communication

***家政、体育、経済、法学、社会学、工学、など/Includes Domestic Economy, Physical Education, Economics,

Law, Sociology, Engineering, etc.

Only a little over 1% of HRTs listed their university faculty as one of “English,” or foreign language

and/or culture, as opposed to education. Seventeen of these 20 HRTs have a licence to teach

English.

k) HRT Q9 (英語関する試験・資格/English related tests and qualifications) (n= 468*)

試験・資格/Qualification or test type 頻度/Freq.

有効%/Valid percent %/% of total

英検一級/Eiken** Level 1 2 0.4 0.1

英検準一級/ Eiken Level Pre-1 13 2.8 0.7

英検二級/ Eiken Level 2 149 31.8 8.3

英検準二級/ Eiken Level Pre-2 80 17.1 4.4

英検三級/ Eiken Level 3 170 36.3 9.4

TOEIC 600 点以上/At least 600 on TOEIC

18 3.8 1.0

TOEIC 600 点未満/under 600 on TOEIC

10 2.1 0.6

小学校英語指導者認定書/J-Shine 8 1.7 0.4

その他/Other 18 3.8 1.0

N/R 1334 74.0 *507 人が英語能力テストを受験したことがあると回答しており、そのうち 468 人が上記のような種類のテス

トを報告した。 507 HRTs indicated in the first part of Q9 that they had taken an English test; of these, 468 elaborated

as above.

** 英検は英語検定協会による英語能力テストであり、文部科学省の認可を受けている。 The Eiken is Japan’s

own test in practical English proficiency. It is authorised by MEXT, and is administered by the Eiken

Foundation of Japan, formerly known as the Society for Testing English Proficiency (STEP).

Above, we see that 10.1% of HRTs, including those both with and without English licences, have

either passed at least level two in Japan’s Test in Practical English Proficiency (or Eiken), or have

obtained a score of 600 or higher on the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC).

These abilities, which may be considered rather high or at least intermediate, were not reflected

at the same rate in HRTs’ self-evaluations of their English level (see HRT Q11, with just 0.8% as

“rather high”). This may perhaps be due to teachers’ modesty or to the fact that, for the majority

of respondents, decades may have passed since these tests were taken. By comparison, in a ベネ

ッセ (2010b: 108) inquiry, 13.0% of HRTs described themselves as having some kind of

qualification in regard to English or English education (英語や英語教育に関する何らかの資格を

持っている). There is a need to establish clear standards through which HRTs can be recognised

as qualification-holders.

Outside universities and the three most popular types of proficiency tests listed above, a

Japanese Cabinet-approved NPO called J-Shine (小学校英語指導者認定協議会) was established

in 2003, and has since trained people specifically to teach English at the primary school level.

However, less than half of 1% of HRTs, accounting for 1.7% of those who responded to Q9, have

such a licence. Though over 40,000 people have completed the J-Shine course, most licence

holders are not full-time primary teachers. The majority are part-time workers, often employed

across several schools, a problem for primary school foreign language specialist teachers

throughout the world (e.g., Chesterton, Steigler-Peters, Moran, & Piccoli, 2004, p.54).

l) HRT Q10 (時間があれば、もっと英語の学習をしたい/Desire to learn English when time

allows) (n=1795)

As Bradburn et al. (2004) note, survey respondents may underreport behaviour or

attitudes that may be considered socially undesirable, or may over report those that are more

socially desirable (pp. 75-111). In the Japanese context, we assume that the more socially

desirable attitude for teachers would be some level of desire to learn English. We thus phrased

this question carefully in order to assess HRTs’ frank opinions, offering a possible reason why some

may simply not be able to learn more (i.e., lack of time). We borrowed this idea from Oppenheim

(1996), who notes that researchers must remind respondents that they are focussed on accuracy

and that “a negative response is just as good as a positive one” (p.139).

英語の学習をしたい/Desire to learn English

頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

とてもしたい/ Very much 481 26.8

少ししたい/A little 965 53.8

あまりしたくない/Not really 282 15.7

全くしたくない/Not at all 67 3.7

N/R 7 *学級担任の英語学習意欲と外国語活動目標の達成度には弱い相関関係があった。 A Kendall tau b test showed a

significant though weak correlation between HRTs’ desire to learn English and their perceived goal achievement in FLA

classes (see Q16), (b=.078, p<.001).

While an encouragingly large majority (80.6%) of teachers display a positive attitude towards

learning English, the generally negative 19.4%, who would not want to learn English even if

provided more time, must either be exempted from teaching FLA or somehow motivated to want

to learn at least “a little.” Still, this survey appears to mark a decrease in the number of HRTs who

have a negative attitude, towards English, if we may compare it to a similar ベネッセ (2006,

p.119) question to over 3500 primary teachers of all grades on whether they liked English: 38.8%

had responded that they either did not like it much (35.9%) or at all (2.9%).

In earlier studies of primary FLA, teacher motivation ranked third in a study of what is

needed to improve English education in Japan (松川＆大下, 2007, p30). If teachers’ attitudes

towards foreign languages exert a significant impact on pupils (e.g., 安達, 2012, p.128), the

generally positive trend observed here may be expected to last well into secondary studies

(Larson-Hall, 2008), even assuming a minimal input situation like that found often in Japan and the

UK. We’ll soon see how homeroom teacher motivation plays a crucial role in team-teaching as well,

and was the second most important factor of twelve identified by ALTs in this study in terms of

overall “support for FLA.”

m) HRT Q11 (英語力/English levels) (n=1774)


かなり高い/Rather high 15 0.8

中程度/Intermediate 224 12.6

初歩的/Beginner 1330 75.0

全くない/None 205 11.6

N/R 28

No large difference was observed in English levels between HRTs of the two grades (e.g., 13.5% of

grade 6 HRTs see themselves as “Intermediate,” while 10.9% of grade 5 teachers feel the same). A

great deal has been written on what level of English is required to teach primary school classes

(e.g., Goto Butler, 2004; Koster, 1986) and researchers are not in complete agreement. However,

as we shall see in comments from ALTs in this project, ability in English may not count as much as

a positive attitude in a team taught class. As for teaching alone, 吉田 (2008b) notes that an active

command of Japanese junior high level English (approximately equivalent to that required for

Eiken Level 3) should suffice; this means not simply having achieved that level at a point in the

past, but current mastery to that level (吉田, 2008b, p.2).

2. Part 2 小中連携について/Links between primary and junior high schools

n) HRT Q12 (小中連携の種類・有効性について/Primary-secondary link types and their

usefulness)

As the goal of this survey is not only to report on which types of primary-secondary links are

occurring, but also to have teachers indicate their usefulness, we adopted and expanded on link

types offered in 松川＆大下 (2007, p.50). We did not place a limit of HRTs’ selections, as we want

to assess teachers’ full range of link experiences.

i) 中学校での英語の授業参観 /Class observation at junior high (n=788)

役に立った/Helpful

役に立たない/Not helpful

役に立っ

た%/Helpful

N/R (全体の%)/N/R(% of total)

601 187 76.3 1014 (56.3)

ii) 中学校の先生との外国語活動の指導法・教材等についての話し合い/Discuss

teaching methodology/teaching material with JTE (n=488)



役に立っ

た%/Helpful

N/R (全体

の%)/N/R(% of total)

395 93 80.9 1314 (72.9)

iii) 中学校の先生との外国語活動のカリキュラムについての話し合い/Discuss

curriculum with JTE (n= 296)



役に立っ

た%/Helpful

N/R (全体


198 98 66.9 1506 (83.6)

iv) 小学校の ALT/EAA との話し合い/Consult primary ALT/EAA (n=1120)



役に立っ

た%/Helpful

N/R (全体


1102 18 98.4 682 (37.8)

v) 中学校の ALT/EAA との話し合い/Consult junior high ALT/EAA (n= 261)



役に立っ

た%/Helpful

N/R (全体


197 64 75.5 1541 (85.5) *学級担任は中学校 ALT と時折会うこともある/HRTs may, on occasion, meet junior high-based ALTs visiting for a

“one-shot” class.

vi) 中学校の先生との外国語活動の目標についての話し合い/Discuss goals with JTE

(n= 260)



役に立っ

た%/Helpful

N/R (全体


185 75 71.2 1542 (85.6)

vii) その他/Other (n= 87)



役に立っ

た%/Helpful

N/R (全体


80 7 92.0 1715 (95.2)

Some examples of “other” link types were “a JTE-taught class at my school” (most frequently

mentioned), “a summer training session,” “colleague’s (in-school) presentation on FLA,” “English

‘Leader’-conducted training,” “consultation with a licenced translator,” and “my own TT

experience with a JTE.”

有効性による小中連携型ランキング/Ranking of link type according to HRT perceptions

of usefulness

ランキング/Rank

小中連携型/Primary-Secondary link type 役立％/ % useful

回数計/Count

1 小学校の ALT/EAA との話し合い/Consult primary ALT/EAA 98.4 1102

2 その他/Other 92.0 87

3 中学校の先生との外国語活動の指導法・教材等についての

話し合い/Discuss teaching methodology/teaching material with JTE

80.9 395

4 中学校での英語の授業参観 /Class observation at junior high 76.3 601

5 中学校の ALT/EAA との話し合い/Consult junior high ALT/EAA 75.5 197

6 中学校の先生との外国語活動の目標についての話し合い/Discuss goals with JTE

71.2 185

7 中学校の先生との外国語活動のカリキュラムについての話

し合い/Discuss curriculum with JTE

66.9 198

Rankings #1 and #5 show an emerging, new role for ALTs, many of whom teach at both

primary and junior high schools. These ALTs can be important links between schools, a

phenomenon that has also been noted in other recent research (e.g., 日本英語検, 2013). In an

earlier study of 452 ALTs and 20 non-ALTs on the JET Programme (AJET, 2008, p.3), 42.9% or

respondents were found to teach at both primary and secondary schools. Since then, this trend

appears to have increased still more: in our study, 63.3% of primary ALTs (n=387) indicated that

they did not teach exclusively at primaries (primary ALT Q1). Similarly, 66.5% of junior high ALTs

(n=169) did not teach only at junior high (jr high ALT Q1). Their role as a link can be seen clearly in

an HRT comment that describes a well-informed ALT who teaches at both levels and helps plan

effective primary FLA classes: “現在、ALT の先生が中学での内容も理解し、そこを踏まえて

指導しているから。 [At present, my ALT understands the content of junior high English classes,

and we’re teaching based on that].”

As for the lower ranks of #6 and #7, comments from HRTs in a later, open-ended section of

the HRT questionnaire reveal that some teachers do not find discussions of goals very useful,

especially if goals at the two school levels are seen as too different: e.g., “指導の目的、内容等全

く違うから.” As regards inter-school discussions of curriculum, other research (松川＆大下,

2007; 山口＆巽, 2010) including ours has shown that junior high English teachers are more

interested than HRTs in holding any link-related activities (JTE survey, Q11 in section C), since they

are on the receiving end of students. This is especially true in cases where a junior high has more

than one “feeder” primary school from which it receives new students (see Section C, JTE Q4, in

which the most common number of feeders is 3). Lastly, the primary school FLA curriculum will in

many cases be less concrete than that at junior high, with HRTs generally less confident in stating

what should be, and can be, offered in their FLA classes. This uncertainty may be reflected in the

high number (44.8%) of “I don’t know” responses from HRTs to the question of whether more links

are needed (HRT Q13, below), and to a similarly high rate of “I don’t know” responses (31.3%) on

the issue of whether a linked curriculum is necessary (HRT Q15a) or even possible (63.5%, HRT

Q15b).

Finally, although in the pilot we had asked HRTs for an estimate of the frequency of inter-

school links, few participants (5 of 37) offered a response, so the question was eliminated from the

final survey (see Dörnyei, 2003, p.68).

o) HRT Q13(中学校の英語教師ともっと連携をはかりたいですか/More links desired with JTEs)

(n=1751)


はい/Yes 665 38.0

いえ/No 302 17.2

わからない/I don’t know 784 44.8

N/R 51

p) HRT Q14 (どのようなことについて連携をはかりたいですか/What kind of links would HRTs

like to forge?)

To analyse the 253,377 characters (字) of information received in all HRT open-ended

questions, we used the IBM/SPSS natural language processing program, “Text analytics for Surveys”

(TAS), version 4.0. In the Japanese version, the default resource template uses modern linguistic-

based procedures to create categories into which open-ended data can be placed. We set the TAS

linguistic resource template for “Opinions (Japanese) 感性意見,” then refined levels of granularity

and built upon the categories generated. As the TAS Guide (IBM SPSS, 2011) notes, while this

software is “far more than statistical analysis, text analysis is not an exact science, since there is no

one ‘correct’ outcome” (p.7). Our tables of results should be seen as a guide to the data, not a

comprehensive summary. Still, speaking as one who has done this kind of research manually in the

past (猪井他, 2001 ), TAS does assist researchers greatly in dealing with vast quantities of

handwritten data. The main word-grouping features of this software program are outlined below

in each language (from IBM SPSS, 2011, pp. 6-7).

[English]

1) Concept Root Derivation. This technique creates categories by taking a concept and finding other concepts that are related to it by analyzing whether any of the concept components are morphologically related, or share roots. This technique is very useful for identifying synonymous compound word concepts, since the concepts in each category generated are synonyms or closely related in meaning. It works with data of varying lengths and generates a smaller number of compact categories. For example, the concept “opportunities to advance” would be grouped with the concepts “opportunity for advancement” and “advancement opportunity”...

2) Semantic Network. This technique begins by identifying the possible senses of each concept from its extensive index of word relationships and then creates categories by grouping related concepts. This technique is best when the concepts are known to the semantic network and are not too ambiguous. It is less helpful when text contains specialized terminology or jargon unknown to the network. In one example, the concept “granny smith apple” could be grouped with “gala apple” and “winesap apple” since they are siblings of the granny smith. In another example, the concept “animal” might be grouped with “cat” and “kangaroo” since they are hyponyms of “animal.” This technique is available for English text only in this release.

3) Concept Inclusion. This technique builds categories by grouping multiterm concepts (compound words) based on whether they contain words that are subsets or supersets of a word in the other. For example, the concept “seat” would be grouped with “safety seat,” “seat belt,” and “seat belt buckle”...

4) Co-occurrence. This technique creates categories from co-occurrences found in the text. The idea is that when concepts or concept patterns are often found together in documents and records, that co-occurrence reflects an underlying relationship that is probably of value in your category definitions. When words co-occur significantly, a co-occurrence rule is created and can be used as a category descriptor for a new subcategory. For example, if many records contain the words “price” and “availability” (but few records contain one without the other), then these concepts could be grouped into a co-occurrence rule, (“price & available”) and assigned to a subcategory of the category “price” for instance…

[Japanese]

1) 派生関係のコンセプトの語幹:コンセプトコンポーネントが形態的に関連するか、

または語幹を共有するかどうかを分析するとき、コンセプトを取得し、そのコン

セプトに関連するその他のコンセプトを検索することによって、カテゴリを作成

します。この手法は、生成された各カテゴリのコンセプトが類義語または意味の

上で密接に関連しているため、類義語の複合語コンセプトを特定するのに非常に

役立ちます。長さの異なるデータを処理し、コンパクトなカテゴリをより少なく

生成します。Ex., “opportunities to advance” は、コンセプト opportunity for

advancement および advancement opportunity とグループ化されます。

2) セマンティックネットワーク:各コンセプトの考えられえる意味を、単語の関係

の拡張インデックスから特定することによって開始し、関連するコンセプトをグ

ループ化することによってカテゴリを作成します。この手法は、コンセプトがセ

マンティックネットワークに認識され、あまり曖昧でない場合に最も適していま

す。テキストに、ネットワークが認識していない特殊な用語または専門用語が含

まれている場合はあまり役に立ちません。たとえば、コンセプト granny smith

apple は、granny smith と横の関係があるため、gala apple および winesap apple とグ

ループ化されます。またあるいは、コンセプト animal (動物) は、その下位語であ

る cat (ネコ) および kangaroo (カンガルー) とグループ化されます。このリリースで

は、英語テキストにのみ使用できます。

3) 内包関係のコンセプト。 Eg. “safety seat” and “Safety belt”, “seat belt buckle。”

4) 共起:この手法では、テキスト内の共起関係のコンセプトからカテゴリを作成し

ます. …コンセプトパターンがいっしょに出現することが多いとき、共起関係のコ

ンセプトはおそらくカテゴリ定義の値のものである基底となる関連を反映します。

単語が頻繁に共起する場合、共起規則が作成され、新しいサブカテゴリのカテゴ

リの記述子として使用できます。たとえば、多くのレコードに単語 price (価格) お

よび availability (有効性) が含まれている場合…にグループ化し、たとえばカテゴリ

price のサブカテゴリに割り当てることができます。

The following categories are the result of TAS word groupings and fine-tunings of category

definitions, synonyms, and the addition of specific project vocabulary (e.g., “FLA”) by the authors.

The preliminary TAS analysis will always produce the same analysis given the same data and same

(preloaded) linguistic resources. Records of our fine-tunings are stored in the TAS database. Below

are the most prevalent categories of links that emerged from HRT responses.

HRT Q14: 自由記述回答者による望ましい連携形のトップ 5/Five most popularly proposed link

categories (n=780)

ランキ

ング/Rank

カテゴリ/Category

頻度/Freq.

キーワード/Key words (頻度/Freq.)

1 「程度」を明

らかにしたい/Clarify how far to proceed

206 どの程度/How much should be taught（43）; 英語力

/English proficiency（10）

2 内容/Content guidance

193 学習内容/ Lesson content (17)；知りたい、知っても

らいたい/Learn, have JTEs understand (38)；ローマ字

類/Romaji styles; 単語/Vocabulary

3 指導/Teaching 158 指導方法/how to teach（47）;具体的（17）/concrete

4 授業/Classes 118 参観/Class observation（13）；授業の進め方/Class

procedure（10）; 様子/Atmosphere（10）；出前授業/Class from visitors (9)

5 カリキュラム

関係の心配/Curriculum concerns

50 目標/Objectives（32）; Systematicity 系統性（10）

*上記分類カテゴリーは明確に区分されるものでなく、多少重なり合う。The above categories are not mutually

exclusive. ** Frequency counts exceed 780 since they are of ideas, which may overlap (i.e., the same HRT can mention

two or more concepts).

The majority of comments in support of more links express a desire to clarify what HRTs should do

to prepare their pupils for junior high, how far they should proceed, and how the teaching may

best be done. There were repeated requests for the most traditional form of link, class

observations (to take place at both school levels), and worries about gaps between primary and

junior high concerned 19 respondents. Perhaps surprisingly, the words for teacher training (研修)

and conversation (会話) training were mentioned only three times each, with specific requests for

help in pronunciation (発音) made only seven times. It must also be mentioned here that ideal

linking activities are perceived differently by teachers at the two school levels (compare responses

above to those from the JTE survey, Q12), an issue that will be explored later in this report.

Of the 302 respondents who indicated they did not want more links between schools, 118

explained why they felt so in this open-ended section. The most popularly mentioned reasons

(which again overlap) for not making links were that such links could not be made (97) because,

for example, goals and objectives differed too greatly (38) or, more frequently, that teachers (on

both sides) simply lacked the time to do so (43).

q) HRT Q15a(小中連携した英語のカリキュラムの必要性/Necessity of a linked primary-

junior high curriculum)

統一したカリキュラムの必要性/Need to link school curriculum (n= 1749)


はい/Yes 982 56.1

いえ/No 219 12.5


N/R 53

A slim majority of HRTs (56.1%) feel the necessity of a linked curriculum. Yet only 21.7% see the

task as actually possible in their locality (Q15b, below). ベネッセ (2010, p. 53) reported that 9.4%

of surveyed primaries had already had a linked curriculum.

r) HRT Q15b (小・中統一した英語のカリキュラムの可能性/Possibility of creating a linked

curriculum) (n= 1760)


はい/Yes 382 21.7

いえ/No 260 14.8

わからない/I don’t know 1118 63.5%

N/R 42

Few HRTs see a linked curriculum as actually possible in their district, and most simply do not

know. As mentioned, junior high JTEs have been found far more supportive of creating linked

curricula. This tendency was observed in our study as well, with 76.6% deeming them necessary

(see JTE survey Q13a) and 52.7% (JTE Q13b) seeing them as possible in their own school districts.

3. Part 3 外国語活動について /About FLA classes

s) HRT Q16 (外国語活動の目標達成度/Goal-achievement ratings of FLA classes)

This question provides an opportunity for FLA assessment by primary HRTs, a proposed aim of our

project. Since the pre-2011 survey by ベネッセ (2010a, p. 58) , no large-scale studies to date have

asked HRTs directly to evaluate FLA, but rather ask whether it should be made a core subject (教

科), or whether HRTs support FLA in general. 日本英語検 (2013) asked whether FLA went more

“smoothly” in 2012 than in 2011 (p.34). No matter how this kind of question is worded, however,

some teachers may hesitate to offer frank opinions on their experiences of FLA for a number of

reasons: they may not see themselves in a position to critique a government-instigated program;

they may not want their colleagues or superiors to learn of their opinions, especially if negative;

they may feel it is too early to see any results from efforts made; they may deem their school’s FLA

curriculum, in which pupil evaluation does not exist, as precluding such program assessment; or

they may feel an assessment of FLA requires an ability in English that they do not possess.

Another problem in assessing FLA lies in the broad definitions of its several purported aims.

A translation of the official aims, as presented in the Course of Study, appears on the MEXT FLA

homepage and is followed by an expansion on the key concepts mentioned:

To form the foundation of pupils’ communication abilities through foreign languages while developing the understanding of languages and cultures through various experiences, fostering a positive attitude toward communication, and familiarizing pupils with the sounds and basic expressions of foreign languages. (MEXT English FLA homepage, p.1)

According to earlier studies by ベネッセ (2010b), 80.2% of teachers indicated that they knew the

contents and goals of the Course of Study in regard to FLA (p.108). Still, we struggled with the

wording to Q16, suggesting several questions to teachers and other researchers and gaining

valuable feedback. We finally decided on the final formulation of: 今年度、外国語活動の目標は

どの程度達成されたと思いますか, or “To what degree do you feel the goals of FLA have been

achieved this academic year?” A ten-point scale followed (“1” being the lowest score), from which

HRTs circled one number. We consider a very high response rate (97.3%) to this question a result

of efforts to remove intimidating nuances (Bradburn et al., 2004).

目標達成度/FLA goal-achievement (n= 1754)

Level 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

1 1 0.1

2 13 0.7

3 64 3.6

4 97 5.5

5 276 15.7

6 351 20.0

7 438 25.0

8 425 24.2

9 62 3.5

10 27 1.5

N/R 48 * “1”= lowest, “10” = highest

**平均/Mean= 6.49; 中央値/Median= 7; 最頻値/Mode= 7; 標準偏差/SD= 1.5

Although we had hypothesized that grade 6 teachers, those who teach the second year of FLA,

may have experienced a drop in pupil motivation, as seen in other studies (e.g., Coleman, Galaczi,

and Astruc, 2007), that could exert an impact on achievement, a Mann-Whitney test revealed no

significant difference in mean achievement ranks between HRTs teaching grades 5 and 6 (p> .05).

Results from this question in particular, one that may be considered a personal assessment of

one’s FLA classes, will be compared throughout the HRT section with those from other questions

in order to uncover significant correlations between high (and low) goal-achievement rates and

individual HRT background and teaching circumstances. Four further questions in this HRT survey

by which FLA may be assessed are: Q17 on who or what has been most useful in support of FLA

implementation; Q22 regarding whether FLA is important to their pupils; Q23 about whether

pupils are generally enthusiastic about FLA; and Q24, which asks whether HRTs have noticed any

change in communication (one of the official goals of FLA) with pupils since the introduction of FLA.

There appears to be a correlation between HRT English abilities (HRT Q11) and levels of

achievement, according to a Kendall tau b test (b= .134, p<.01), although the correlation is rather

weak. Of course there are many other variables that influence HRT perceptions of FLA goal

achievement. The mean level of achievement for English licence-holding HRTs was 7.0, while that

for non-licence holders was 6.0.

t) HRT Q17 (外国語活動を実施する上で、これまでどのようなこと（または人）が最も役に

立ち/Who or what has been most supportive in implementing FLA?) (n=1563)

This question was left open to respondents, since research on HRT support has revealed a wide

variety of experiences, people, and technologies that have been found valuable (e.g.,日本英語検,

2013; ベネッセ, 2010a; 松川&大下, 2007). Rather than presenting respondents with an

exhaustive (and possibly biased) list, we wanted to hear what first came to mind. The result, of

course, produced a large number of key words. All data for this and other open-ended questions

were categorised with IBM/SPSS Text Analytics for Surveys 4.0 (Japanese and English versions),

with the resulting, most-mentioned FLA support items, as follows:

FLA に有効である物・人/Most supportive of FLA

ランキ

ング/Rank

人、経験、物など/Person, experience, or thing

頻度/Freq.


1 ALT 839 日本語が話せる/who speaks

Japanese（29）；との連携

/Links with（22）; ネイティブ

の発音/Native pronunciation(11)

2 EAA* 62

3 教科書/Textbooks 57 Hi Friends! (33)；英語ノート

/Eigo No-to（14）；電子

/Electronic（2）

4 研修/Teacher training 50 外国語の/Foreign Language

（８）

5 準備/Preparations 41 打ち合わせ/Meetings（32）

6 デジタル教材/Digital teaching aids

39

7 教材/Teaching materials 39 カード/Cards（15）；もらっ

たもの/Second hand；CD；DVD

8 ゲーム/Games 36 道具/Equipment、活動

/Activities、チャンツ/Chants

（7）

9 電子黒板/Digital blackboards 25

10 授業参観/Class observations 18 * EAA は英語活動補助者と英語活動連携者を指す場合があり、後者の場合、教員免許所有者を言う場合がある。

EAA can mean “English Activities Assistant” or English Activities Associate,” with the latter implying a teaching licence.

It is abundantly clear that people are seen by homeroom teachers as far more supportive than all

educational materials and devices combined. One problem in research on FLA, however, is what to

call different kinds of teachers and assistants. While the word “ALT” has been used since at least

the beginning of the JET Programme to describe non-Japanese assistants, 22 respondents to this

question referred to them as “AETs,” and still others used terms like “FET” (foreign English

teacher), “FLA” (foreign language teacher), “NS” (native speakers), “EF,” etc. There are even more

terms that could be used for the second most popular supporter of FLA, the EAA, some of which

had to be derived from context in this study. These people, and those who play similar roles, may

be called an “AEA,” “EEI,” “IEA,” “AT,” “JOT,” “AIE,” “JTA,” etc. Japanese terminology can also be

confusing, with terms like “英語指導員,” “外部講師,” “外部指導者,” “協力員,” or “外国語活

動協力員,” the term used in this survey.

Perhaps the most confusing term for us was “JTE,” one that had until recently referred to

junior high Japanese Teachers of English, who have recently become active in visiting primary

schools to teach or help with FLA (see JTE survey below, Q14). The term now, judging from context,

can also be used to describe Japanese nationals who are not junior high English teachers but who

assist with foreign language activities in primary schools. The authors apologise for any mistaken

categorisations that may have occurred.

u) HRT Q18 (ティームティーチング（TT）の事前打ち合わせの頻度/Frequency of meetings

before team-taught classes) (n= 1763)


必ず行なっている/Every time 522 29.6

おおむね行なっている/Generally 656 37.2

時々行なっている/Sometimes 277 15.7

あまり行なわない/Not often 251 14.2

全く行なわない/Never 57 3.2

N/R 39 * 5，6 年生で統計的有意差はなかった。A Mann-Whitney test revealed no significant difference between HRTs

teaching grades 5 and 6 (p>.05).

**目標の達成度と打ち合わせの頻度には統計的に有意な相関関係があった。A Kendall’s tau b test revealed a

significant correlation between teachers who reported high levels of goal achievement (HRT Q16) and reported

frequency of TT meetings (b= .121, p<.01). For the test, options were arranged from negative to positive.

HRT participants who meet with assistants appear to have a significantly higher perception of goal

achievement in FLA.

Again, if HRTs believe strongly that not meeting with one’s TT partner is socially

undesirable, negative frequencies (“not often” or “never”) may be underreported (Bradburn et al.,

2004). Additionally, the Japanese word in the third option, toki-doki, can in some contexts be

equivalent to “once in a while” or “from time to time.” Taken together, then, the positive

responses to this question would total only 66.8%, or about two-thirds, leaving almost one third of

HRTs not generally meeting with assistants before team taught classes.

In previous studies conducted by Mahoney, Inoi, and Yoshida (2003) on junior high English

teacher and ALT concerns, we found that a lack of time for lesson planning was the most

frequently mentioned and most serious problem for both teachers and assistants. In today’s

primary schools, where the same issue topped a recent ranking of concerns with FLA (日本英語検,

2013, p. 28), finding time for meetings remains a problem, and has become still more complex. To

begin, assistants like primary ALTs and EAAs often do not always teach at the same “base school”

that they visit frequently, a factor that reduces opportunities to meet HRTs between classes for

lesson planning or reflection.

Another barrier for some assistants, one mentioned in other studies (e.g., Hashimoto,

2011, p. 12) lies in indirect contracts for assistants arranged through temporary work agencies.

Japan’s Worker Dispatch Law technically prohibits independent contractors, (here, ALTs)

dispatched from non-government licenced companies, from team teaching (Clavel, 2014). Further,

as a primary EAA (also licenced to teach junior high English) interviewed for this project pointed

out, even if assistants are able to hold scheduled meetings, they cannot always talk with the

actual HRTs they will be teaching with; sometimes only the “FLA-tanto,” or teacher representative

for these classes can be consulted (Y. Takeda, personal communication, 30 October, 2012). While

this new and frustrating complication was not explored in the present survey, it must be

addressed in future research.

v) HRT Q19 (TT で誰が主に指導しているか/Who leads TT classes?) (n=1765)


学級担任単/HRT 470 26.6

ALT/EAA 896 50.8

両方/Both 392 21.8

その他/Other 7 0.4

N/R 37 *5，6 年生で統計的有意差はなかった/No significant difference was found between grades 5 and 6 (p>.05).

** この質問に対する回答と質問１６（目標の達成度）に対する回答には相関関係はなかった。A Kendall’s tau b

test revealed no significant difference between responses to this question and those to Q16 on goal achievement.

The ベネッセ (2010a) survey of the heads of primary school instruction departments (教務主任)

shows a drop in the reported ratio of FLA classes led by ALTs between 2006 and 2010 from 60.1%

to 25.6% (p.38), with a simultaneous increase in HRTs’ leading (28.2% to 66.6%). However, team

teaching may also produce situations in which both HRTs and their assistants can be said to lead

classes. Our survey, of HRTs themselves, provided this option and has produced rather different

results. There appears to be a heavy reliance on ALTs to lead classes, a concern noted in 湯川&バ

トラー後藤 (2010), 吉田(2008a), 安達(2012), and elsewhere that may create a permanent

dependency on assistants, a situation Japan’s neighbours in South Korea are working very hard to

avoid (Enever, et al., 2009).

The leading of TT classes can be seen as an indicator of HRT confidence and independence

gained through training, individual effort, and experience. As the introduction of FLA takes root in

schools and in Japanese society, as the numbers of HRTs who specialize in English rise (文部科学

省, 2011a, p. 18), and as HRT training programs continue to be bolstered at municipal and

prefectural levels as recent trends show (ベネッセ, 2010a, p. 56), we can expect homeroom

teachers gradually to take at least an equal role in planning and teaching. If, in future surveys,

more HRTs were to be found leading team-taught classes, such data would further prove a

significant transition in foreign language classrooms.

w) HRT Q20 (TT 学習指導案は誰が主に作成するか/Who makes TT lesson plans?) (n= 1731)


学級担任単/HRT 686 39.6

ALT/EAA 725 41.9

両方/Both 202 11.7

Other 118 6.8

N/R 71 *5，6 年生で統計的有意差はあった：A significant difference between the two grades was found in a Mann-Whitney

test (U= 323549.00, p<.01).

** この質問に対する回答と質問 16（目標の達成度）に対する回答には相関関係はなかった。A Kendall’s tau b

test revealed no significant difference between responses to this question and those to Q16 on goal achievement.

While a comparatively high proportion of HRTs (39.6%) take the lead in TT class planning, over half

(56%) of those in our study lead in neither the teaching nor the planning of team-taught classes.

Still, a strong minority (20.1%) indicated that they take the lead in both teaching and planning

team-taught classes, with the remaining 23.9% saying they lead in only one or the other task. This

marks an improvement compared with findings from 大下 (2007), who found only 11.4% of HRTs

leading predominantly TT instruction in 2006 (p.55). Add to this the fact that over another fifth

(22.2%) of HRTs in the present survey said they and their assistants both lead classes, sharing the

lead, and it seems that a gradual shift is underway. Interestingly, teachers of grade 6 in our data

reportedly plan classes significantly more than their counterparts at the grade 5 level (44.0%

compared with 35.5%).

x) HRT Q21 (将来に英語を教科化するために必要な条件/What would be necessary to make FLA

an official core subject?) (n= 1494)

As mentioned, we wish to see not simply whether HRTs support the idea of making FLA a core (教

科) subject, since respondents may not understand whether that question refers to the present

situation or a future, or even ideal situation. Instead we asked what conditions teachers believed

conditions would need to be filled in order to take the next step. Although 308 respondents did

not respond, 1494 HRT comments revealed the following data. The top ten categories produced by

IBM/SPSS Text Analytics for Surveys 4.0 are reproduced below.


条件/Necessity 頻度/Freq. キーワード/Key words (mentionings)

1 ALT 232 配置/Distribution,常設

/Permanent,常駐/Base-school,充

実/Realise, ALT 専科/Specialist ALTs

2 専科制/Specialty system 173 専科の先生/Specialist teacher,英

語専科 /English majors

3 教材/Teaching materials 144 教科書/Textbooks,の充実/Text development

4 評価の整備/Set up evaluation 113 評価方法/Evaluative methods

5 カリキュラム/Curriculum 102 達成目標の具体化/Defining achievement

6 時間/Time 67 待ち合わせ/Arrangements,確保/Securing

7 教員研修/Teacher training 63 充実/Realisation

8 専門/Speciality 59 専門教員/Specialist teachers

9 英語免許の保持者/Teachers with English licences

38

10 英語力/English proficiency 37 教員の/Teachers’,ヒアリング/Listening skills

Earlier, in Q17, HRT respondents appeared to consider assistants of great value in the teaching of

current FLA classes. From this question, we see that HRTs will continue to some extent to rely on

ALTs and other people (categories 1, 2, 8, and 9) in future, with their roles at least secured (if not

extended). Categories 7 and 10 (and to a lesser extent, 9) generally apply to HRTs’ improving of

their own qualifications.

In some respects, categories 2 and 8 above appear to be requests for the same person: a

professional teacher of English. However, the former term (専科制- senmonsei) in many contexts

indicated the practice, usually in large schools, of having a teacher who teaches just the one (or

two) subjects at that school, and who may not have a homeroom. The latter term (専門-senmon),

may overlap in common expression, but implies a teacher with a background in the subject, and

often a licence to teach that subject as well; the term can be confusing when applied to primary

school teachers, however, most of whom have a 専門 (senmon) in “primary school education.”

Again, in common usage, either term may be used in calls for an “in-school” teacher trained in

English, or for more ALTs, EAAs, or other assistants. In any case, ベネッセ (2010a) found that

75.7% of primary school heads of instructional departments indicated that a professional English

teacher should teach FLA, not HRTs. Homeroom teachers agreed, saying the same thing (72.9%),

while only 26.3% of these teachers felt that HRTs should teach FLA (p. 60).

This question (HRT Q21) may be considered a “leading question” by those who, in the first

place, do not believe English should be a core, or perhaps even taught, subject in primary schools.

The above list does not include the 92 respondents (6.2%) who are not in support of making

English a core subject, at least at present (at most: never). They were categorised under the

representative heading “今のままで良い” or “things are fine as they are,” represented in the

following quotation from a teacher who holds both J-Shine and Eiken Level 2 certificates:

中学校から書く、読む中心の英語が始まるので、小学校では恥ずかしがらずに言

える、興味をもつということを中心に授業したいと思います。教科にする→評価

する→教え込むという流れにならないよう、今のままでいいと思います。 [Writing

and reading centred English classes start in junior high, so I’d like to keep the focus of

classes at primaries on just speaking without hesitation and on getting pupils interested.

I’d like to avoid making it a core subject, which would lead to evaluation, which would lead

to cramming for tests, so I think it’s fine as it is.]

Another issue that we feel needs addressing is the common practice in Japan (and many

countries) of moving teachers to different grades every year, or even to different schools every

five to ten years. Suddenly placing HRTs into grade 5&6 classes, or transferring them out of these

grades, can have negative effects on FLA. The former may lack skills and may not have established

relations with any FLA assistants; the latter may lose some skills over time and will most likely lose

their established relations with any assistants. Moreover, the high turnover rate amongst

assistants complicates the issue of teaching consistency even further. All three of these situations

could result in damage to the development and strengthening of primary FLA classes overall.

Although the problem of teacher transfers exists in other school subjects as well, it can be

especially damaging to relatively new classes, and to those in which outside assistance may play an

important role, such as FLA.

y)HRT Q22 (外国語活動は児童に大切である/The importance of FLA to pupils) (n= 1780)

FLA の大切さ頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

とてもそう思う/Very important 368 20.7

まあまあそう思う/Rather important 1158 65.1

あまりそう思わない/Not very important 188 10.6

そう思わない/Not important 33 1.9

わからない/Don’t know 33 1.9

N/R 22 *5、6 年生で統計的有意差はなかった。 No significant difference between grade 5 and 6 HRTs was found in a Mann-

Whitney test (p>.05).

**目標達成度と外国語活動の重要さに関する回答には統計的相関関係が見られた。 A Kendall’s tau b test

revealed a significant correlation between teachers who reported high levels of goal achievement (HRT Q16) and

perceived importance of FLA to pupils (b= .177, p<.01).For the test, options were arranged from negative to positive.

Teachers who feel FLA is important tend to give higher goal achievement ratings to their classes

(Q16). Over 85% of HRT responses were positive in terms of the importance of FLA. However, two

considerations may complicate such support. The first is whether respondents believe FLA is, in its

current form, important to students. Some may agree with the idea of FLA but not the present

practice. A second consideration that may result in confusion is whether the importance of FLA

supersedes that of other subjects taught at primary schools.

z) HRT Q23 (児童は英語学習に対して積極的ですか/Pupil enthusiasm) (n=1778)

積極性/Pupil enthusiasm 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

とても積極的である 393 22.1

まあまあ積極的である 1229 69.1

あまり積極的でない 144 8.1

積極的でない 12 0.7

N/R 24 *5，6 年生で統計的有意差はあった：A significant difference between the two grades, with grade 5 pupils perceived

as more enthusiastic, was found in a Mann-Whitney test (U 353895.50, p<.01).

**目標達成度と児童の積極性に関するに関する回答には統計的相関関係が見られた。A Kendall’s tau b test

revealed a significant correlation between teachers who reported high levels of goal achievement (HRT Q16) and pupil

enthusiasm (b= .246, p<.01). For the test, options were arranged from negative to positive.

***回答者の英語免許状の有無と児童の積極性に関する回答には統計的相関関係が見られた。A Kendall’s tau b

test revealed a significant (though weak) correlation between teachers who hold English teaching licences (Q7) and pupil


****回答者の英語力と児童の積極性に関する回答には統計的相関関係が見られた。A Kendall’s tau b test

revealed a significant (though weak) correlation between teachers with higher English abilities (Q11) and pupil


When we analysed these perceived levels of enthusiasm according to grade, we found the results

in line with what we had expected from reading foreign language motivation studies on children of

this age (e.g., Coleman, Galaczi, and Astruc, 2007), in which motivation appears to drop over time.

In our survey, the grade 5 pupils were perceived as significantly more enthusiastic than their

counterparts in grade 6, according to a statistical Mann-Whitney test. However, whether the

older students are more enthusiastic because they are intrinsically demotivated (e.g., enjoying FLA

less in their second year of it), or whether they feel the pressure of FLA and English on their

futures in junior high English classes, a more extrinsic motivation, is not clear.

aa) HRT Q24 (外国語活動の導入によって児童が担任の先生と接する（コミュニケーション

する）際の変化の有無/Changes in pupil communication with HRT) (n= 1776)


はい 245 13.8

いえ 653 36.8

わからない 878 49.4

N/R 26 *5，6 年生で統計的有意差はなかった日本語。教員の英語力の高低の視点からも、この件に関して統計的有意

差はなかった。No significant difference between the two grades was found in a Mann-Whitney test (p>.05). Nor was

there a significant difference between HRTs with “rather high” English levels and “beginners” on this issue (p>.05).

ab) HRT Q25 (コミュニケーションに対する変化/Kinds of change in communication) (n= 252)

It appears as though most teachers have not noticed any change in pupils’ communication with

them, although almost 14% have noticed the following types of changes.

HRT Q25: 自由記述回答者による変化したトップ 5

/Five most popularly mentioned changes after link categories (n= 247)

ランキ

ング/Rank

変化したカテゴリ/Changes

頻度/Freq.

キーワード/Key words (mentionings)

1 日常/Daily life 136 コミュニケーション/Communication（25）,

挨拶/Greetings（19）,質問/Questions（13）

2 英語/English 95 会話/Conversation（26）

3 使う/Use 29 使おうと/Try to use,英語/English

4 積極的/Enthusiastic 27 意欲的/Motivated

5 増える/Increase 27 英単語/Vocabulary（16）,話題/Topics of discussion

The following comments give an idea of the variety of changes HRTs noticed in their pupils that

were apparently attributable to FLA. Most of the comments noted how English had begun to

appear in pupils’ daily lives outside FLA classes, and how FLA seems to have elicited more

communication overall:

i) 他の教科ではあまり発言しない子ども外国語活動では積極的に発表しようとして

いる姿が見られた [Pupils who did not speak out much in other classes did so in FLA.]

ii)コミュニケーションを図るゲーム等で、普段はあまり聞かないような質問をする

ことで、様々な面が知れた [Communicative games revealed questions, and

other sides of things that one doesn’t often hear.]

iii) 私が英語の授業をするときは、別の人（外国人）という設定なので、子供たち

も、私が担任の時と別人の時とを変えながら楽しくコミュニケーションしてい

る [During English classes, I pretend to be someone else (a “foreigner”), not the

homeroom teacher, and we have fun communicating]

iv) 女子がとてもおとなしいクラスでしたが、英語の公開授業を通して積極的に何

事にもさんかできるようになったし、担任に対しても自分の考えを伝えられる

ようになった [Girls who had been quiet in class are now able, through open English

classes, to join in activities, and can now even tell me what’s on their mind]

Although with a pronoun-dropping language like Japanese it may be hard to tell if respondents are

talking about the children (assumed) or themselves, we sometimes see change in the HRT through

comments like “自分(教師側)も児童と一緒に学習する姿勢をもてるようになった” [I (the

HRT) am now able to orient myself with the students in the learning].

ac) HRT Q26 (外国語活動を指導されて、成功した、うまくいったと感じるのは/Descriptions

of successes from FLA) (n= 1511)

うまくいった FLA 授業の特徴のトップ 10/Top 10 features of successful FLA classes

ランキ

ング/Rank

FLA 授業の特徴/Aspects 頻度/Freq.


1 交流/Mingling 395

2 コミュニケーション/Communication

216

3 ゲーム/Games 191

4 英語を使って/Using English 163

5 仲間/Fellowship 153 友達/Friends（95）

6 ALT 99

7 発音/Pronunciation 53 している・できる・まね/Trying, able to do, copying

8 参加/Participation 46

9 歌/Songs 41 歌う/Singing

10 できたとき/Accomplishing tasks 41 達成/Accomplishment

We left the descriptors of “fun,” enthusiastic,” “active,” and “motivated” out of the above list, as

these are moods rather than behaviours or activities. The main concepts behind successful classes

were dominated by those that indicated willingness to participate and enhanced camaraderie

created through English in actual use. These and other concepts are fleshed out in the following

example responses:

i) 子どもが喜んで活動・発音などをするとき。日常生活の中等で、学んだことが生

かされている（活用）時 [When the children enthusiastically joined activities, trying

English pronunciation, and when they actually used what they’d learnt in their everyday

lives]

ii) 意識的にアイコンタクトやジェスチャー、りアクションを入れてやりとりをす

る授業 [Classes in which they purposefully make eye contact, and use gestures to

produce reactions from one another]

iii) 普段のコミュニケーションがより積極的になっている様子を見た時や英語を自

然に使っていたり、黒人の写真を見ても笑ったりしなくなった時 [When the

children seem more enthusiastic about communicating than usual, use English

unconsciously, and no longer laugh if they see a picture of a black person]

iv) ALT との意思疎通ができ、ALT と担任がうまく役割分担しながら授業ができたと

き。子ども達が楽しく活動できるように担任自ら盛り上げることができたとき

[When the ALT and I have made ourselves understood, and have each played our roles

well, and when the children enjoy the activity, when I myself get excited in it all]

v) 子どもたちはわからないながらも一生懸命取り込んでいる時。それがねらいだ

から [When the children try very hard even if they don’t completely understand things.

That’s the goal, actually. ]

ad) HRT Q27 (うまくいかなかったと感じるのは/Descriptions of unsuccessful FLA experiences)

(n= 1518)

うまくいけなかった FLA 授業の特徴のトップ 10/Top 10 features of unsuccessful FLA classes

ランキ

ング/Rank

FLA 授業の特徴/Aspects 頻度/Freq. キーワード/Key words (mentionings)

1 学びがなかったとき/When pupils don’t learn

408 ゲーム/Games(128*)定着しない・身

につけない/Take root(59)、理解で

きない/Don’t understand(39)

2 発音/Pronunciation 137 子ども/Children’s,自分の/My (58）

3 ALT 130 とのコミュニケーション/Can’t communicate with

4 のり/Get into it 116 が悪い/Pupils don’t

5 準備/Preparations 113 授業の/Lesson

6 反応/Response 90 子どもの/Children’s

7 できなかった時/Unable to do tasks

50 活動/Activities,応用/Practical use

8 時間の管理/Time management

48 打ち合わせ/Meetings with ALTs(22),

終わらない/Can’t finish in time

9 自信/Confidence 28 子ども/Children’s,自分の/My own(5)

10 練習/Practice 21 足りない/Not enough,ばかり/Too much

*ゲームが授業の大半となる場合や、あまりにも難しいゲームも含む。 Includes games that became the sole

focus of class and games that were too difficult.

Reasons for unsuccessful classes seemed to us even wider in variety than those for successful

classes. While Text Analytics for Surveys made a large number of categories, we needed to go

through an “iterative” process: one of extracting data, refining, re-extracting, and tailoring our

categories in order to give some shape to the comments. Generally, HRTs described unsuccessful

classes as those in which they felt little or nothing of value was learnt, practiced, or remembered.

The causes were numerous, including misunderstandings between teachers, or between teachers

and students, or because children did not get involved in activities that were too easy, too difficult,

poorly explained or ill-prepared. Many of these issues, of course, are not unique to English classes,

although HRTs have both training and experience in handling these situations in other subjects.

The following HRT quotations illustrate difficulties that can lead to unsuccessful FLA

classes:

i) 単語の発音や文法的な要素がはっきりとせずわからないまま活動しなければなら

ない [I’ve got to do the activities even though I don’t clearly understand the

pronunciation or grammar]

ii) 私の英語力不足が理由 [The reason’s my lack of proficiency in English]

iii) 外部講師の方がいらっしゃらない時の担任のみの授業。十分指導計画が立てら

れていない日本語で話す方が多い [At times where there’s no outside help: I can’t

draw up good enough plans and end up using a lot of Japanese in class]

iv) ALT にまかせすぎて、ゲームの内容を子どもが理解できず、私が全部日本語で

話してしまったこと。ジェスチャーやかんたんな英語を使えばよかったです

[When I leave too much up to the ALT, the children can’t understand the games, and I

say everything in Japanese. I should just have used some simple English or gestures]

On the other hand, some HRTs remain positive to some degree not matter what the outcome,

an outlook that was mentioned by some ALTs as well: うまくいかなかった、ということがない

ので、分かりません [I’m not sure what this means, as there’s no such thing as an “unsuccessful”

class]. A sense of humour, positive attitude, and awareness of the fact that these are still the very

early stages of FLA instruction can perhaps help HRTs who await further training and support. In

the course of this research, our discussions with Korean and Italian teachers about their primary

level foreign language programs reminded us that Japan’s HRTs are not alone in their struggle. Yet

this does not mean that nothing can be done: the next question deals directly with this issue as

seen from the eyes of HRT respondents.

ae) HRT Q28 (改善するためには、どのようにすれば良いと/How can FLA be improved?) (n=

1415)

ランキ

ング/Rank

カテゴリ化した改善方法/Categorised means of improving

頻度/Freq.


1 ALT 327 の時間/Time at school（87）,確保

/Secure an（48）,配置/Placement

（23）

2 教材/Teaching materials 209 時間/Time（27）,指導/Teaching

（24）,確保/Acquisition（15）

3 時間/Time 180 研究/Research（79）,確保/Acquire

（39）,教具/Teaching aids（32）

4 研修/Teacher training 128 確保/Find（75）準備/Preparations

（18）

5 専科・専門/Profession(al) 68・51 教員/Teachers（17・7）,配置

/Placement（13・21）

6 教育研究/Studies in education 79 時間/Time for（43）確保/Ensure

（26）

7 カリキュラム/Curriculum 43 ALT と一緒のとき/When with ALT

（10）

8 英語力/English proficiency 40

9 準備/Preparations 36

10 指導法/Teaching methodology 20

To a large degree, the results resemble those from HRT Q21: what teachers feel is needed to

establish English as a core subject. Here, teachers again call for a more stable support system

involving other people, chiefly assistants, as in the following: 担任による指導は(たとえ、研修

があっても)限界がある。ALT や英語ボランティアの人材を積極的に活用すべき。 [Even if

HRTs are trained, there are limits to what we can do. We must take action and make better use of

ALTs and English volunteers]. Any training and improvements should cover not only HRTs but also

assistants as well, some of whom apparently do not understand the national Course of Study or

how to teach: ALT や EAA の指導法をもっと学習要領を理解したものになるとうれしい。

ALT や EAA の研修をしっかり行ってほしい. This observation has been supported by research

in France showing that pupils’ pronunciation does not necessarily become good, even with a

native speaking instructor, if the latter lacks familiarity with primary teaching methodology

(Gaonac’h, D. (2006) in Narcy-Combes et al., 2007, p28).

Apart from categories 1 and 5, HRT voices call for improvements in textbooks and

materials that can help them teach more efficiently. A teacher who has had to make a difficult

transition from the early Eigo Noto supplementary book and accompanying materials to the post-

2011 Hi, Friends! explains HRT frustration: “Hi friends!に変更してから教材がこれまでのものと

合わず、活用できていないので、教材の整理、研究が必要と思われる[After the switch to

‘Hi friends,’ the teaching materials I’d had were no longer of use, so I think there needs to be a

consolidation of educational materials, as well as research].

According to MEXT documents released in December 2013, the Ministry’s response to the

needs expressed in the above paragraphs will begin in the 2014 academic year, with the results to

be introduced in steps commencing in 2018 and expanded and implemented nationwide by 2020,

the year Japan will host the Olympics. This response will consist of an expansion of ALT postings,

the promotion of local people as assistants, the enhanced training of such assistants, the

development of innovative teaching materials, and development of (short) module-lesson, ICT

materials for classroom use (文部科学省, 2013, p.1). While other concerns such as expanded HRT

training in English and language teaching methodology are also included in these plans, more time

for HRTs (category 4 above) is not addressed directly, although an increase in the total number of

FLA (English) class hours is suggested. A more flexible approach to increasing these class hours is

mentioned: for example, some future classes may be divided into several 15-minute module

sessions, spread over 3 days (ibid., p. 2).

Lastly, the idea of primary and secondary linking was mentioned only 6 times by HRTs in this

question. The following comment on making English a core subject made it clear that many HRTs

cannot yet give much attention to FLA:

「専科」。外国語だけ、1～6 年まで教科のようにとりあつかうような県・市（特区）

などある。でも、その分必ずひずみ（支障）はでている。その他の教科も小・中連携で

きるかとイメージすると、想像がつかない。外国語も他の教科も大切。なのに外国語だ

け特例的に連携従事というのはおかしいと思います。（決して否定的になっているわけ

ではありません） [Core subject: There are prefectures, cities, and specially designated

educational zones that have made foreign language classes core for grades 1 to 6. However,

some asymmetry (a problem) has developed. It’s hard to imagine primary and secondary school

links with other core subjects, too. Foreign languages are important, and other core subjects are

also important. It’s strange to give foreign language priority over all the others in making these

links. (This doesn’t mean I’m against the idea of links, however)]

B. 小学校 ALT に関するデータ（Primary ALT data）

1. Part 1: 小学校 ALT 背景的情報/Primary ALT Background Questions (n= 387)

a) 小学校 ALT/Primary ALT Q1 (小学校での授業実施率/Percentage of classes taught at

elementary schools) (n= 376)


less than 25%/25%未満 43 11.1

25-49% 76 20.2

50-74% 65 17.3

75-99% 54 14.4

100% 138 36.7

N/R 11

Nearly 70% of ALT respondents contacted at primary schools teach at that level at least half of the

time. Yet the majority of ALTs find themselves split not only amongst several primary schools, but

also across various school levels. While this may enhance their ability to provide information to

HRTs and their pupils about secondary English lessons, textbooks, and other details, it leaves them

little time to get to know individual primary pupils, teachers, and the full range of their learning

environment.

b) 小学校 ALT/Primary ALT Q2 (雇用・契約形態/ALT employment type) (n= 383)


派遣会社・業務委託による契約/Private agency contract

150 39.2

JET プログラム/JET Programme 130 33.9

教育委員会による直接雇用/Local government contract

94 24.5


N/R 4

At first, we attempted to follow employment categories used by MEXT (e.g., 文部科学省, 2011b),

but realised in preparing the pilot study and in interviews with ALTs that most of them were either

not aware of the distinction between temporary work agency contracts (派遣会社契約) and

operating agreements (業務委託契約) , or were unable to state which category they belonged to.

Grouping these together, then, we see that almost 40% of ALT respondents do not work for their

local board of education, either as a JET participant or on a similar board of education contract.

These ALTs in particular may experience extra difficulties if they attempt to team teach or

otherwise involve HRTs in their classes, as mentioned in HRT Q18 above.

c) 小学校 ALT/Primary ALT Q3 (都道府県/Prefecture) (n= 374)

都道府県

/Prefecture

頻度

/Freq.

有効

/Valid %

都道府県

/Prefecture

頻度

/Freq.

有効

/Valid %

都道府県

/Prefecture

頻度

/Freq.

有効

/Valid %


Aomori 7 1.9 Yamanashi 4 1.1 Tokushima 11 1.9


Miyagi 16 4.3 Gifu 11 2.9 Ehime 4 1.1

Akita 4 1.1 Shizuoka 15 4.0 Kochi 3 0.8





Gunma 13 3.5 Osaka 5 1.3 Oita 7 1.9


Chiba 13 3.5 Nara 6 1.6 Kagoshima 2 0.5

Tokyo 9 2.4 Wakayama 9 1.4 Okinawa 10 2.7

Kanagawa 10 2.7 Tottori 1 0.3 Missing 13




d) 小学校 ALT/Primary ALT Q4 (FLA は何年生を教えているか/To what grades do ALTs teach

FLA?) (n= 383)

学年/Grades 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

All 234 61.1

5&6 105 27.4

1,2,3 2 0.5

4,5,6 5 1.3

Other 37 9.7

N/R 4

Since students in grades 5 and 6 have been specified as the target pupils for FLA, the number of

children in grades 1 through 4 receiving such lessons began to drop even before 2011 (ベネッセ,

2010a, p.35), as schools began focussing resources on the upper grades in order to secure the

mandated 35 hours per year. Still, a majority of ALT respondents indicated that they also teach

grades 1 to 4, though not as frequently as the upper grades. Presumably, most primary ALTs also

teach something akin to FLA on an irregular basis to the lower grades, as 313 responded to the

Q10 section on their experience teaching these grades.

e) 小学校 ALT/Primary ALT Q5 (指導形態の割合(%)/ Ratio of FLA teaching patterns) (in %; n=382)

指導形態の割合/Teaching pattern ALT 一人で/ALT Alone

HRT と一緒/With HRT

その他/Other

平均/Mean 52.8 43.7 4.1

最頻値/Mode 0 100 0

中央値/Median 60.0 33.0 0

標準偏差/Standard deviation 38.1 37.9 17.4

N/R 5

We believed it would be difficult to collect accurate data on this issue if the first option were

simply “Alone,” since many assistants may consider themselves teaching alone even if an HRT is

present in the class but not participating. In order to procure a closer count of actual team

teaching cases, we thus phrased the question as “What percentage of these primary school FLA

classes “are taught alone, or mainly alone (with a homeroom teacher present)?”

f) 小学校 ALT/Primary ALT Q6 (指導経験年数/Total length of teaching experience)

(n= 378)

年数/Years teaching 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

1 年間まで/1 year or less 57 15.1

2 年間まで/2 years or less 62 16.4

3 年間まで 3 years or less 58 15.3

4 年間まで 4 years or less 40 10.6

5-10 年間まで 5 to 10 years 103 27.2

10 年と一日以上/Over 10 years 58 15.3

N/R 9 *平均/Mean= 3.6; 中央値/Median= 4; 最頻値/Mode= 5; 標準偏差/SD= 1.7

A surprising number of primary ALT respondents (42.5%) have had at least 5 years of teaching

experience, in any country, so far. If teaching can be said to be “learned on the job,” many of these

ALTs may be considered more professional than the general public assumes. It is unfortunate that

few large scale studies of English education so far have taken such experienced ALTs’ views into

account.

g) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q7 (日本のFLAの指導経験年数/Length of teaching FLA in Japan) (n= 382)

FLA年数/Years teaching FLA 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

1年間まで/1 year or less 104 27.2

2年間まで/2 years or less 91 23.8

3年間まで3 years or less 60 15.7

4年間まで4 years or less 28 7.3

5-10年間まで5 to 10 years 78 20.4

10年と一日以上/Over 10 years 21 5.5

N/R 5 *平均/Mean=2.9; 中央値/Median=2; 最頻値/Mode=1; 標準偏差/SD= 1.6

While fewer ALTs have taught in Japan for 5 years or more (25.9%), they still represent over a quarter of all primary ALTs surveyed. A Kendall tau-b statistic of .234 indicates a significant correlation (p< .01) between length of teaching experience in Japan and ALT Q16 regarding Japanese language abilities: although the effect size was small (r= .199), we may assume that many of these long-serving ALTs can communicate with those HRTs who do not speak English well. In short, communication difficulties should decrease with one’s length of teaching experience, which in turn should help ALTs assist even more effectively. The passage of time, in this respect, should improve the current situation if ALTs choose (or are allowed) to stay.

h) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q8 (大学時代の専門/Main area of training in university) (n= 354)

専門・語学教育認定書/Major, certificates 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

英語・外国語関係/English or foreign language-related

72 20.3

日本語関係/Japanese language-related 72 20.3

教育関係/Education related 25 7.1

文化関係/Culture-related 6 1.7

その他、外国語関係の証明書有り/Other, with language-related certificate

31 8.8

その他、外国語関係の証明書有なし/Other, without language-related certificate

148 41.8

N/R 33

It is difficult to know which type of academic background would best assist the teaching of FLA,

and the diversity of university systems amongst and within ALTs’ countries further complicate the

issue, but we attempted to separate ALTs into the general categories of those with backgrounds

generally seen as conducive to fostering abilities that would assist FLA and those that are

apparently less so. As to certification, we counted only courses mentioned that required over one

week of study. We thus determine that 49.4% of primary ALTs have university backgrounds that

should assist with teaching, teaching and learning languages, and adapting to a new lifestyle in

Japan. If additional language-related certificates may be counted, the percentage of ALT

respondents with these qualifications would rise to 58.2%. Still, around half of ALTs do not appear

to have had tertiary level training that would arguably be of most service in the course of teaching

FLA. This raises concerns over inadequate preparations for TT that have been noted in books

critiquing the ALT hiring process (e.g., McConnell, 2000; Crump, 2008), and in a JET Programme

alumni study in which 56.2% of 452 participants did not feel adequately prepared for TT and

lesson planning (AJET, 2008, p. 2).

i) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q9 (年齢/Age group) (n= 386)

年齢/Age group 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

20 代/20s 210 54.4

30 代/30s 95 24.6

40 代/40s 59 15.3

50 代/50s 21 5.4

60 代/60s 1 0.3

N/R 1 *最頻値/Mode= 20代/20s

Part 2: FLA経験について/Experiences of FLA

j) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q10 (FLA授業の満足度/Satisfaction with FLA classes)

i) ALTによる1-4年生のFLA授業満足度/ALT satisfaction with grade 1-4 FLA classes (n= 313)


1 7 2.2

2 3 1.0

3 12 3.8

4 8 2.6

5 23 7.4

6 21 6.7

7 49 15.7

8 96 30.8

9 43 13.8

10 50 16.0

N/R 75 * “1”= lowest, “10” = highest

**平均/Mean= 7.4; 中央値/Median= 8; 最頻値/Mode= 8; 標準偏差/SD= 2.1

ii) ALTの5年生のFLA授業満足度/ALT satisfaction with grade 5 FLA classes (n= 374)


1 2 0.5

2 4 1.1

3 4 1.1

4 7 1.9

5 20 5.3

6 35 9.4

7 80 21.4

8 115 30.7

9 63 16.8

10 44 11.8

N/R 13 *平均/Mean= 7.6; 中央値/Median= 8; 最頻値/Mode= 8; 標準偏差/SD= 1.7

iii) ALTの6年生のFLA授業満足度/ALT satisfaction with grade 6 FLA classes (n= 377)


1 4 1.1

2 6 1.6

3 6 1.6

4 11 2.9

5 28 7.4

6 31 8.2

7 94 24.9

8 107 28.4

9 56 14.9

10 34 9.0

N/R 10

*平均/Mean= 7.3; 中央値/Median= 8; 最頻値/Mode= 8; 標準偏差/SD= 1.8

It appears that ALTs experience most satisfaction working with students in grade 5, and least from

those in grade 6, although the means, medians, and modes do not differ greatly. Interestingly, no

significant correlation can be found between length of ALT teaching experience (either in Japan or

overseas) and their levels of satisfaction with classes in any of the above grades (p>.05). This may

be due to raised expectations of oneself that often accompany accumulated experience.

However, there is some difference amongst ALT majors in regard to levels of satisfaction

with FLA classes. For example, while ALTs with an education major represent only 7.1% of all ALTs,

they accounted for 9.2% of those who rate their grade 6 FLA satisfaction levels at an “8” or higher.

Conversely, ALTs who had majored in “Other” fields without any language-related certification and

had accounted for 41.8% of the total ALT population did not seem to rate their grade 6 classes as

well, with only 37.4% reporting a level of 8 or more. ALTs with a background in “Culture-related”

studies seem to fare best in grade 6 FLA classrooms: although these 6 individuals represent only

1.9% of the ALTs surveyed, 5 of them rated their experience at an 8 or better (representing 2.9%

of those who reported so). Of course these results cannot show that one’s major has a strong

influence on the progress of FLA, but we hope it may suggest routes for future, more focussed

research on this issue.

Similarly, slight differences can be found in satisfaction with grade 6 FLA according to ALT

employers. While there was no change in the ratio of ALTs under local government contracts

overall to those who rated FLA at an 8 or more (24.5% and 24.5%), the ratio of JET Programme

participants dipped from 33.9% to 29.6%, with that of privately contracted ALTs rising from 39.2%

to 41.9%. The difference in mean satisfaction rates varied little in this regard, between 7.18 and

7.57 among the three job categories.

k) 小学校 ALT/Primary ALT Q11 (ALT が考える FLA サポート要因の重要性/Importance of FLA

support factors)

i) HRTの英語能力/HRT English ability (n= 384)

選択/Option 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

1.全く重要でない/Not at all important 13 3.4

2.あまり重要でない/Not very important 133 34.6

3.重要である/Important 185 48.2

4.とても重要である/Extremely important 53 13.8

N/R 3 Median= 2; 最頻値/Mode= 2; 標準偏差/SD= 0.7

* ALTの雇用形態によって、統計的有意差はなかった。No significant difference was found between JET Programme

and privately employed ALTs, or between government employed and privately employed ALTs on this issue in a Mann-

Whitney test (p> .05, (2-tailed)).

ii) 授業教材/Teaching materials (n= 384)







iii) 定期的なALTスケジュール/Regular schedule for ALT (n= 384)







iv) HRTの動機/HRT motivation (n= 383)


1.全く重要でない/Not at all important 0 0





* ALTの雇用形態によって、統計的有意差はなかった。There was no significant difference between JET Programme

participants and private ALTs or local government-employed ALTs on this issue, in a Mann-Whitney test (p> .05, (2-tailed))

v) 他のHRTの協力/Help from other teachers (n= 382)







vi) 学校・会社の管理者の協力/Help from management (at school or company) (n= 383)







vii) HRTの研修/Training for HRTs (n= 382)







* JETによるALTと派遣ALTとの間には有意差はなかったが、市町村直接雇用ALTはこの点を大変重要と

と感じていた。While there was no significant difference between JET Programme participants and private ALTs on this

issue, local government ALTs saw this issue as significantly more important (Mann-Whitney U 5570.0, p= .005 (2-tailed)).

viii) 小・小連携/Links with other primaries (n= 383)

選択/Option 頻度/Freq.

有効%/Valid percent






ix) 小中連携/Links with junior highs (n= 382)

選択/Option 頻度/Freq.







x) 生徒の動機/Pupil motivation (n= 384)


1.全く重要でない/Not at all important 0 0





xi) 自分の「言語教育に関する」知識/ALT knowledge of language education (n= 382)







xii) 自分の日本語能力/ALT knowledge of Japanese (n= 381)







* ALTの雇用形態によって、この点において有意差はなかった。 There was no significant difference between JET Programme participants and private ALTs or local government-employed ALTs on this issue (p> .05, (2-tailed)).

xiii) その他/Other) (n= 110)







Q11：小学校ALTが考えるFLAサポート要因の重要性のランキング/Ranking of primary ALT responses to Q11: Importance of FLA support factors)

ランキン

グ/Rank

要因/Support factors 平均ランク/Mean

Rank*

1 児童の意欲/Pupil motivation 2.81

2 担任教師の意欲/HRT motivation 2.65

3 教材/Teaching materials 2.55

4 言語教育に関する知識/my knowledge of

language education

2.34

5 定期的な訪問/Regular schedule for the ALT 2.32

6 担任教師の研修/Training for HRTs 2.14

7 日本語能力/My knowledge of Japanese 2.03

8 管理職からの協力/Help from management 1.96

9 他の教師からの協力/Help from other teachers 1.77

10 小中連携/Links with junior high schools 1.73

11 日本人教師の英語能力/Japanese teachers’ English ability

1.72

12 他の小学校との連携/Links with other primaries 1.38

13 その他/Other** 2.75

*数字が高くなると、重要性がます。 Higher numbers indicate more importance, ranging from 0 to 3.

**回答者の数が少ないために最後に示した。 “Other” ranking moved to the bottom due to the comparatively low number of respondents (n=110).

Needless to say, ALT responses regarding which factors provide most support for FLA classes assume a team teaching situation. The top two ranks show that pupil and HRT motivation matter most to ALTs in the class, and that their HRT partner’s English skills are not of prime consideration. A JET Programme ALT in Nagasaki, who teaches at both school levels, explains:

It is worth stating that in the [team teaching] situation, fluency isn't nearly as important as enthusiasm. The teacher I enjoy working with doesn't speak much English, but is always excited for the class and that rubs off on her students. It's this sort of interest and

excitement that matters most. [TTの場合にはHRTの英語の流暢さより遥かに大事なの

は積極性だと強調したい。一緒に教えているHRTの中で、一番好きな先生はあまり

英語ができないが、いつも授業に熱心であり、子どもにもやる気を与えてくれる。

そのような興味、やる気のあることがなによりも大事だと思う。]

Examples of “Other” factors that ALTs described as important included: “cooperative planning time,” “school interest in English,” “classroom discipline,” “reason to use English outside classroom,” “ALT motivation,” “parents’ attitudes to FLA, foreign cultures, and people,” “teacher participation,” “relationship with HRT,” “advanced warning of timetable changes,” “cultural exchange in class,” and “ability to adapt to Japanese culture.”

l) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q12 (生徒にとってFLAは重要か/Is FLA important to pupils?) (n= 385)


1.いいえ/No 0 0

2.あまり重要でない/Not really 10 2.6

3.どちらかわからない/Not sure 14 3.6

4.ある程度重要/Moderately 129 33.5

5.とても重要/Very 232 60.3


*ALTのFLA授業の満足度によって、この点において有意差はなかった。/In a Kendall b test, there was no

significant difference on this issue between ALTs of various levels of satisfaction with FLA classes (Q10), (p> .05, (2-tailed)).

m) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q13 (ALTの日本語学習への興味/ALT desire to learn Japanese) (n= 380)


1.全くない/Not at all 3 0.8

2.あまりない/Not really 9 2.4

3.どちらか分からない/Not sure 5 1.3

4.少し/A little 50 13.2

5.とても/Very much 313 82.4


While it is not always true that those who do not want to learn Japanese cannot speak the language (e.g., one ALT responded “a little,” with a note “I am bilingual,”), and while a Mann-Whitney test revealed no significant difference in desire to study Japanese between high and beginner level ALTs (p>.05), most ALTs could improve communication inside and outside the classroom with more Japanese studies. They could also model the positive attitude toward foreign

language and communication learning for their pupils by being motivated, interested, and inquisitive themselves.

n) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q14 (5年生のFLAに対する態度/5th graders’ attitude towards FLA) (n= 383)


1.全く積極的でない/Very negative 0 0

2.ちょっと積極的でない/Slightly negative 10 2.6

3.分からない/Don’t know 7 1.8

4.少し積極的/Fairly positive 209 54.6

5.とても積極的/Very positive 157 41.0


o) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q15 (6年生のFLAに対する態度/6th graders’ attitude towards FLA) (n= 383)


1.全く積極的でない/Very negative 3 0.8

2.ちょっと積極的でない/Slightly negative 47 12.3





Although this question was not asked in the HRT survey, homeroom teachers of the two grades did not rate FLA goal achievement rankings as significantly different (HRT Q16), which would not suggest a significant drop in pupils’ motivation or attitude towards FLA. In the primary ALT survey, however, results show a definite perception of attitude decline between the grades: whereas only 2.6% of ALTs felt their grade 5 pupils were “slightly negative,” over 13% regarded grade 6 pupil attitudes as negative, with a 20.4% drop in reports of attitudes as “very positive.” A Wilcoxon signed-ranks test indicated a significant difference in ALTs’ perceptions of grade 5 and 6 pupils’ enthusiasm in FLA classes (T=2655.50, z= -8.89, p<.05). Still, overall ratings of positive attitudes prevail in both grades, at 95.6% and 80.1% respectively.

p) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q16 (ALTの日本語能力：自己評価/ALT self-rated Japanese proficiency) (n= 382)


1.全くない/None 4 1.0

2.初歩的/Beginner 88 23.0

3.中程度/Intermediate 200 52.4

4.高い/High 90 23.6


Perhaps surprisingly, primary ALT ability in Japanese did not correlate significantly with reported levels of satisfaction in teaching any particular grade in primary school (p>.05). Thus the claim that satisfaction in teaching FLA somehow depends upon an ALT’s knowledge of Japanese appears to be contradicted according to the data collected. This is not to say, however, that a knowledge of the Japanese language may not enhance an ALT’s teaching experience (see Q11 above).

Part 3: Inter-school communication/小中学校間での話し合い

q) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q17 (小でも中でも教えているALTはFLAの英単語の再使用/ALTs at both school levels’ reuse of English covered in primary) (n= 237)


1.全くしない/Not at all

5 2.1

2.あまりしない/Not often

40 16.9

3.何を学んだかわから

ない/Don’t know what they learned at primary

14 5.9

4.概ねする/Yes, in general

141 59.5

5.よくする/Yes, very much

37 15.6


Over 75% of ALTs who teach at both levels of schooling appear to be reusing words and phrases that had been covered in FLA with students in junior high English classes. More inquiry is needed in cases where ALTs responded negatively (19%), where this perceived gap between class contents at each school may cause trouble. The response “Don’t know what they learned at primary” (5.9%) may apply in cases where a number of local primary “feeder schools” contribute to the junior high student population. In such cases, ALTs who do not teach at every feeder primary cannot be expected to know what all of their junior high students have already studied.

r) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q18 (ALTの知っている小中連携の役立ち/ALT perspectives on usefulness of known primary-junior high links)

i) 小・中学校での授業参観/Demonstration class at primary/junior high school (n= 183)



役に立った%/% helpful


154 29 84.2 52.7

ii) JTEとの外国語活動の指導法・教材等についての話し合い/consultation with jr high teacher on FLA teaching materials/teaching methodology (n= 138)





124 14 89.9 64.3

iii) JTEとのFLA授業についての話し合い/consultation with jr high English teacher on courses (n= 114)





94 20 82.5 70.5

iv) JTEとの外国語活動の目標についての話し合い /consultation with jr high English teacher about class goals (n= 122)





104 18 85.2 68.5

v) 中学校で教えているALTとの話し合い/consultation with ALT who (also) works at the jr high level (n= 141)





128 13 90.8 63.6

vi) その他（具体的に）/other (describe) (n= 17)





15 2 88.2 95.6

“Other” here included several examples of “Overall school attitude for FLA,” which indirectly affects almost all aspects of FLA.

効率性による小中連携型ランキング/Ranking of link type according to ALT perceptions

of usefulness

ランキン

グ/Rank

小中連携型/Primary-Secondary link type 役立％/ % helpful

回数計(n)/Count(n)

1 中学校で教えている ALT との話し合い/Consultation with jr high ALT

90.8 141

2 JTE との外国語活動の指導法・教材等についての話し合い/Consult JTE on teaching materials/methodology

89.9 138


4 JTE との外国語活動の目標についての話し合い /Consult JTE on teaching goals

85.2 122

5 小・中学校での授業参観/Demonstration class at primary/jr high

84.2 183

6 JTE との FLA 授業についての話し合い/Consult JTE on courses 82.5 114

There does not appear to be a great difference in perceived effectiveness amongst various types of primary and junior high links for ALTs, though consultations with other ALTs and with junior high JTEs on teaching methods seem to help most.

s) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q19 (小中統一したカリキュラムについて/Primary-secondary linked curriculum)

i) カリキュラムの統一は必要ですか/Is a linked curriculum necessary? (n= 355)


はい/Yes 300 84.5

いえ/No 8 2.3

分からない/Don’t know 47 12.1

N/R 32

ii) 学区では可能ですか/Is it possible in your locality? (n= 340)


はい/Yes 266 78.2

いえ/No 6 1.8


N/R 47

Compared to their HRT counterpart in HRT Q15, primary ALTs appear much more (28.4%) supportive of a linked curriculum between school levels. When asked about the possibility of actually creating such a curriculum, ALT responses were still more positive (78.2%) than those of HRTs (21.7%). School districts that would like to make a 9-year curriculum should not forget to enlist the assistance of ALTs, an untapped resource with generally positive views on the subject.

t) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q20 (小中連携の増やしは必要ですか/Is there a need for more links?) (n= 355)


はい/Yes 244 68.7

いえ/No 23 6.5


N/R 32

u) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q21 (どのような連携は良いですか/What kind of links would be best?) (n= 309)

小学校ALT自由記述による望ましい連携形のトップ5/Top five most popularly proposed link categories from primary ALTs

ランキン

グ/Rank

カテゴリ/Category 頻度/Freq. キーワード/Key words

1 カリキュラム/Curriculum 42

2 コミュニケーション、相談、会

議/Communication, consultation, meetings

35 Between school levels

3 書く練習/Writing 18

4 読む練習/Reading 13

4 フォニックス/Phonics 13

5 文法導入/Grammar 12

5 相談/Consultations 12 *連携は「不要である」「わからない」との回答は含まれていない。 The table does not include comments for

“No” or “Don’t know” responses.

We employed the English version of Text Analytics for Surveys (4.0) to analyse the 60,818 words of data received from primary ALTs. In Q21, we observed what may be an “order effect,” through which a preceding item in a questionnaire influences subsequent responses: many of the primary

ALTs comments here reflected a concern with FLA curriculum (the focus of Q19). Other than the general call for more communication in #2 above, most of the links proposed were not activities that would occur between schools or outside classes, but were calls for change in the content of FLA lessons, done independently or in conjunction with junior highs. The ALTs felt that the addition of these contents to FLA would benefit pupils in their transition into junior high English classes. As mentioned, many primary ALTs are familiar with junior high English classes, and appear

worried about any lack of specific skills that may be expected by JTEs (e.g., writing skills in山口＆

巽, 2010, p.207), or are at least needed at the junior high level. The following proposal, though lengthy, represents this perspective particularly well:

More preparation of courses focussing on pronunciation and reading. Phonics and other such tools that allow students to become comfortable with English text both visually and aurally will greatly increase motivation in elementary school as well as improve language skills in junior high. Many of the students who've lost interest in English during junior high are the ones who had excelled in elementary but had become overburdened with writing after entering junior high. Although primary ALTs generally wanted junior high English teachers to be aware of and acknowledge what has been covered in primary FLA classes, nearly one quarter either did not feel they had enough experience to make new link recommendations, or simply had mixed feelings. A minority maintained that starting from scratch would be all right, since “some [students] will always fall through the net” and may benefit from JTEs who assume no knowledge of English.

The main reasons for not wanting to link schools (n= 23) were either that junior high assumes no English exposure (so no links are needed), or the very different perspective that links are already “seamless,” as one ALT notes, continuing that:

The students are taught some basic patterns and vocabulary at the elementary level and then at the junior high level this is built upon. Also, at elementary, the students learn the alphabet which sufficiently prepares them for the reading and writing learned at junior high.

Still, the main reasons for motivation levels dropping as children enter middle school have been investigated worldwide, and common causes highlight link issues regardless of geographical context. Invariably, most resemble those summarised in Bolster (2009), as “lack of liaison, lack of information, lack of assessment and recording at primary, and lack of differentiation at secondary level, [which] all led to a situation where pupils’ prior learning was completely ignored” (p.234). Primary ALTs appear very much in agreement with this assessment, and would like FLA class content to be adjusted to make up for inter-school level gaps.

Part 4: Class content & Effects of FLA/ FLA:内容と影響

v) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q22 (TT学習指導案はどなたが主に作成する/Who usually plans TT classes?) (n= 354)


HRT 37 10.5

ALT, ボランティア、JTE /ALT, volunteer, JTE

135 38.1

HRT と上の方/Both the HRT and person above

127 35.9


N/R 33

Compared with HRT Q20 results, primary ALTs see themselves as the main TT lesson planner a little less frequently (38.1%, compared to HRT reports of 41.9%). However, there appears to be a great difference in responses regarding perspectives on HRTs as the main planner: just 10.5% of ALTs felt homeroom teachers planned classes, whereas HRTs saw themselves as the main planners 39.6% of the time. Further, primary ALTs tend to see more instances of co-created lesson plans (35.9%) than do their HRT counterparts (11.7%). Unfortunately, as primary ALT and HRT responses were received in separate envelopes to ensure privacy, we are not able to compare HRT and ALT TT partners’ perspectives on this issue, an approach that could be taken up (carefully) in future studies.

w) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q23 (将来、英語は教科化すべきですか/Should English become a core subject?) (n= 384)


はい/Yes 208 54.2

いえ/No 80 20.8


N/R 3

While a slim majority indicated that English should be a “full, core (i.e., evaluated) subject,” a quarter were not sure, with 20.8% of ALTs against the idea. One ALT who was not sure on this issue undercut the possibility of the extrinsic motivation in all core subjects, with the comment:

As I currently understand, there isn't any real meaning behind grades in elementary school, as any student can fail every class and still pass onto the next grade. So I don't see the initiative to pass really changing if grades don't really matter to begin with.

Another ALT phrased the situation rather starkly in terms of two, hotly debated goals, with “It depends on the goal of FLA. Is it to make children like English and English time? Then no. Is it to make children proficient at English by junior high? Then yes.”

The majority of ALTs indicated support for the idea of making English a core subject, with reasons along the following lines: “Core subjects are seen as important by students, teachers, and

parents, and thus have a better rate of success in being learned by students, taught by teachers, and supported by parents.” However, those who said such a move is not necessary stressed issues that some Japanese also note, e.g., “The disparity between Japanese culture and western culture is great. Elementary school children need to preserve their wonderful Japanese heritage first.”

教科化する理由のトップ５/Top 5 reasons for making English a core subject (n= 360)

ランキン

グ/Rank

理由/Reason 頻度/Freq. キーワード/Key words (頻度/Freq.)

1 世界では必要である/Needed in the world

43 他国/Other countries (8), 役に立つ/useful (4)

2 早ければ早いほど良い/The earlier the better

28

3 より真剣に向き合う/It would be taken more seriously

23

4 記憶力がよくなる/Better retention

14 能力/Capability (2), 習得/Mastery (2),

技能/Skill (2),発音/ Pronunciation (2)

5 児童の将来/Pupils’ future 9 日本の/Japan’s (2) 「不要である」「わからない」との回答は含まれていない。 The table does not include comments for “No” or

“Don’t know” responses.

There were a wide range of reasons offered for making English a core subject, although many ALTs did not express this stance without reservation. Eighty four of the 96 “don’t know” responses elaborated in the open-ended question, noting two paradoxes in addition to the problems of HRT training and a lack of qualified assistance. The first is that, although an increased focus on acquiring English may put pressure on pupils, it would relieve some of the pressure that current junior high students face in English studies. The other paradox results from a desire both to keep English fun and yet to want others to take it seriously: but can fun at school be taken seriously, in this (or any) society? The table shows the main reasons why 208 of 384 ALTs believe English should be made a core subject, with a consciousness of the importance of English in the modern world topping the list. In fact, proof of its importance may be seen in an ALT from The Netherlands, who mentioned that, “as a non-native English speaker I'm very happy and thankful for the Dutch educational system that gave me the chance to learn English. English is a major language and should be spoken by many non-natives as well.” Many ALTs also feel that, with foreign language studies in particular, “the earlier the better” and that there would be better long-term retention if children became familiar with it from primary school. Another common theme to ALT comments throughout this study emerges from their sense that English is not taken seriously enough, and that overall enthusiasm for the language in this country remains low despite teachers’ efforts. Negative responses to the idea of making English a core subject are not represented in the above table, but generally indicate concern over adding to stress (n=16) or pressure (n=15) on children. Thirty one ALTs emphasise that the evaluation of English would make it impossible to

“keep it fun,” although three others note that Japan might treat it “as a core, evaluated subject, but not have any testing.” We may note here that Korean primary schools avoid giving numbered

grades (バトラー後藤, 2005, p.65), although according to a head teacher interviewed in Cheongju, many schools hold “informal” exams in every subject each month, the results of which are carefully scrutinised by some parents (Y.S. Kim, personal communication, 21 September, 2011).

x) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q24 (小学校では読み書きを教えるべきですか/Should literacy be taught at primary school?) (n= 381)


はい/Yes 272 71.4

いえ/No 58 15.2


N/R 6

An ALT in favour of teaching literacy at primary school summed up the chief reasons for this position in the margin, with:

Listening and reading skills are related, as are phonics, English pronunciation, (speaking) and reading. In elementary school, students need to link English pronunciation (phonics) to individual English letters, then learn the pronunciation of blocks of letters. Then full English words. Otherwise, Japanese people will NEVER be able to speak English.

As for those who indicated a negative response, several opinions mentioned the problem of evaluation, and one ALT expanded on the scale of change needed first:

Sounds impracticable. Who will do the teaching? ALTs are not trained teachers. Japanese teachers already work 10-12 hours a day, and need to be retrained. Private English schools would lose business, so the economy would be hurt. If the goal is a European multilingual society, Japan needs to radically change its society to support such a goal.

y) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q25 (うまくいかなかったと感じるのは/Descriptions of unsuccessful FLA experiences) (n= 313)

うまくいけなかった FLA 授業の特徴のトップ/Top features of unsuccessful FLA classes

ランキ

ング/Rank

FLA 授業の特徴/Feature 頻度/Freq. キーワード/Key words (mentionings)

1 HRT の動機不足/Lack of HRT motivation

127

2 HRT の参加不足/Lack of HRT participation

122

3 準備不足/Lack of preparation 45 ALT の/Self, HRT,内容が多すぎ/Too much content

4 学級崩壊/Lack of discipline 39

5 児童の態度/Pupils’ attitude (excl. discipline)

34 興味ない Uninterested (7)/ 反応が鈍

い Unresponsive (6)

6 コミュニケーションが足り

ない/Unclear communication

30 説明/Instructions

7 手伝ってもらえない/No help

28

8 日本語に関する問題/Japanese language problems

19 多すぎ Too much (13), 自分の能力不

足/ALT’s inadequate (6)

9 教材のストーリ/Text stories 16 ストーリの作成活動/Create a story (Momotaro) (10), Giant Turnip (6)

10 学級経営/Poor class management

14

In general, ALT perceptions of negative attitudes on the part of HRTs appear to lead to unsuccessful classes. In cases in which HRTs are forbidden to work with assistants due to stipulations in non-government licenced ALT contracts (as described in the HRT survey, Q18), the fault lies with employment decisions. However, HRTs who are legally permitted to offer support should of course do so. The hiring of ALTs under contracts in which HRTs are prohibited from assisting should be discontinued. One ALT comment indicates how these contracts produce effects that reach beyond classes: “… the contract I have with my dispatch company is abusive and illegal. It taints my attitude to teachers while I hunt for different job.” The following quotations outline unsuccessful classes in the eyes of ALTs: i) Four years ago, on my first day of teaching I was doing a self-introduction and the students could ask me questions in Japanese. They were excited and asked lots of questions. They even encouraged a teacher to ask me something. With arms crossed, in Japanese, she said ‘No, I won't. The ALT is here for your benefit, not mine.’ (JET Programme ALT) ii) A class dedicated to transcribing an English story into katakana (based on teachers' oral reading). Phonics should be taught instead so that students can read the English text themselves. (Katakana doesn't include all English sounds). Other types of problems may be overcome in time by the ALTs themselves, and spring from moments of realisation, as in the following episode: iii) I was teaching adjectives to 4th graders, and the words I used were just not working, i.e. "slow turtle." They couldn't pronounce it. The activity required too much explanation and students ended up using Japanese most of the time. It made me realize all the dimensions that are important when planning and executing a class.

z) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q26 (うまくいったFLAと感じたのは/Successful classes) (n= 316)

ランキ

ング/Rank

FLA授業の特徴/Feature 頻度/Freq. キーワード/Key words (mentionings)

1 やる気のある児童/Motivated students

153

2 積極的なHRT/Positive HRT 85 Motivated (26), Positive attitude (21), Helpful (11)

3 工夫した活動/Original activity

76 Make (10), Create (7)

4 準備/Preparation 47 Lesson Plan (9), Meeting (5)

5 教室の環境/Work environment (material)

40 Supplies (10), Atmosphere (3)

6 効果のある（教科書）ゲー

ム/Effective (textbook) games

35 “Hi friends! (9)

7 児童からの質問/Questions from pupils

22

8 歌/Songs 11 音楽/Music (4)

9 学級経営/Classroom management

8

The top category involved the descriptors “active,” “enthusiastic,” “interested” and others as they applied to pupils. Student motivation, however, can of course be either the cause or the result of effective teaching. In the case of FLA, where there are often two teachers present, success can often hinge on their effectiveness in working together. A JET Programme ALT in Shimane notes, that “all successful classes have been due to a good ALT and homeroom teacher relationship. This is more important than any specific activity or lesson planning technique.” HRTs who manage FLA classrooms effectively and contribute to a positive learning environment are greatly appreciated and often appear essential, although some ALTs can also manage classes well. An experienced ALT and parent seems to have discovered a way to direct classes effectively, despite not officially being able to discipline the children: “…they know me and know where I draw the line. Also, having two kids of my own, I am generally (90%) able to change an unsuccessful lesson into a successful one.” There were mixed opinions about the Hi, friends! textbook, which seems to become a problem only when schools demand it be adhered to too much. ALTs mentioned the Momotaro and Big Turnip stories in comments on both unsuccessful and successful classes. Many successful classes were the result of hybridised activities, based on texts but often involving original additions, as expressed in the comment about a lesson in the pre-2011 text, Eigo-Noto, called "I want to go to Italy," and in a “What’s this?” activity in Hi, friends!:

i) The teacher and I collaborated, made some worksheets, and team-taught the class. It was one of the best experiences I’ve had here in Japan. The students got really involved, learned a lot, and it seemed like we all enjoyed it. ii) The most successful activities have engaged students beyond the requirements of the textbook. A recent example was when, instead of using the "what's this?" quiz in the textbook, the students were able to split into teams and create their own quiz of school objects using a digital camera.

aa) 小学校ALT/Primary ALT Q27 (FLAについては他のコメント/Further comments on FLA) (n= 257)

ランキ

ング/Rank

FLA授業の特徴頻度/Freq. キーワード/Key words (mentionings)

1 HRT 87 Positive (12)

2 教授法の変化/Change in teaching material

72 Textbook (35), Reading (17), Phonics (12),Writing (11)

3 時間の管理/Time management

51 Plan, Meet, More FLA classes

4 研修不足/More training 22* HRTs (12), ALTs (12)

5 より早く始めること/ Start younger

21 Grade 1 (3)

6 カリキュラム改善/Curriculum change

14

* HRTとALTの両方ともさらなる研修が必要であるとの回答が２つあった。Two comments expressed a need for more training for both HRTs and ALTs.

As this question is particularly open-ended, the breadth of comments seemed to range more widely than in other questions. It is not surprising that the most popular comment category regards homeroom teachers, and that the categories of “Time” and Training” also apply to HRTs. Nor is it surprising that nine ALTs used the words “love” or “happy” in describing their employment situations, with many ALTs taking this opportunity to express the positive aspects of FLA, their pupils, and colleagues. Thinking of a long-term solution, one ALT commented on how to improve FLA in a frank manner that encapsulates the problem for many assistants, JTEs, and HRTs alike, saying that HRTs “should either receive training, or the schools should hire a Japanese person to teach elementary school English.” Like Korea (e.g., Enever, et al., 2009, p. 100), Japan will eventually realise that a dependency on native speaking English assistants should not last indefinitely. In the meantime, training for both HRTs and ALTs need reinforcement. One assistant in Ibaraki, who teaches “mainly alone,” stresses that primary ALTs, more than those at junior high, require more training to teach at this particular school level:

Due to the more extensive responsibilities placed on ALTs in the primary school setting (i.e., having to teach entire lessons as opposed to parts of the lesson), I believe there should be a higher standard in terms of training and qualifications for ALT candidates at this level. Another ALT adds that “so far, it’s been done ‘on the cheap’” and that results will depend on the funds invested. Yet another ALT echoed this, elaborating that at present, assistants are … strange, liminal tools, often expected to know everything, but equally often assumed to know nothing. What is an ALT, truly? I love my job dearly, but I don't know where I stand, or what authority I have to make any decisions about the English education of children in Japan. The sudden cutting of foreign language-related classes offered to grade 1 to 4 classrooms (mentioned in Q4) has also concerned ALTs. One notes that it was a “shame that most elementary schools put the focus on fifth and sixth grades only. Three years ago, I got to teach all grade levels and I feel that was time well spent.” A large part of improving FLA courses for every grade level will be continued development of appropriate, easy-to-use yet flexible teaching materials. While some HRTs express the need for ready-made activities for solo teaching, others are able to create or co-create very interesting activities. Some of the most successful classes mentioned had employed such “original activities” (Q26). The data for this question include both positive and negative reviews of the current FLA text, although some ALTs express frustration at being locked into a particular approach to the content. Many are of the opinion that they should be “allowed” to introduce the sounds of English letters, emphasising that “from a young age, students should learn phonics” although they do realise “this requires an ALT or a JTE who is fluent in English.” Lastly, we were a little surprised to see that only one assistant mentioned the lack of evaluation or feedback on the ALTs themselves, an issue that has been brought up in previous

studies at the junior high level (e.g., 猪井他, 2001; Ogawa, 2010). This issue may yet be on the horizon for primary schools, who perhaps find themselves more than occupied simply securing the best help available at the moment. Still, a primary ALT notes: I've learned most of what I know through trial and error, so I feel like I spent my first two years just figuring out how to do this job. There is also no evaluation of my performance that I'm aware of. It'd be nice to be told I need to improve in this area, or I'm doing a good job of this... or just anything at all.

C. 中学校英語教師に関するデータ（Junior high English teacher data）

Part 1 背景的情報/Junior high English teacher Background Questions (n=515)

a) 中学校 JTE/Junior high JTE Q1 (年齢/Age) (n=515 )

年齢/Age group 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid %

20 代/20s 116 22.5

30 代/30s 134 26.0

40 代/40s 162 31.5

50 代/50s 97 18.8

60 代/60s 6 1.2

N/R 0

*最頻値/Mode= 40代/40s

The age difference between HRTs and ALTs must be kept in mind throughout consideration of

these data: the median and mode for the former is “40s” and the latter is “20s.”

b) JTE Q2 (都道府県/Prefecture) (n= 511)

都道府県

/Prefecture

頻度

/Freq.

有効

/Valid %

都道府県

/Prefecture

頻度

/Freq.

有効

/Valid %

都道府県

/Prefecture

頻度

/Freq.

有効

/Valid %

Hokkaido 28 Fukui 11 Yamaguchi 15

Aomori 11 Yamanashi 4 Tokushima 1

Iwate 11 Nagano 6 Kagawa 26

Miyagi 1 Gifu 0 Ehime 15

Akita 12 Shizuoka 31 Kochi 0

Yamagata 4 Aichi 21 Fukuoka 7

Fukushima 19 Mie 9 Saga 4

Ibaraki 27 Shiga 8 Nagasaki 5

Tochigi 16 Kyoto 13 Kumamoto 4

Gunma 8 Osaka 30 Oita 1

Saitama 8 Hyogo 24 Miyazaki 1

Chiba 18 Nara 9 Kagoshima 2

Tokyo 17 Wakayama 6 Okinawa 1

Kanagawa 7 Tottori 7 N/R 4

Niigata 10 Shimane 8

Toyama 5 Okayama 20

Ishikawa 9 Hiroshima 11

c) JTE Q3 (年生及びクラスサイズ/Class years and sizes)

*中学校英語教師は３つの学年で教えている可能性があり、以下では全ての学年の回答が

合計されている。Since junior high English teachers may teach at all three year levels, this

question was originally divided into three parts, which have been combined below.

i) クラス解答欄の A+B+C、１から 3 年生/Class (response sections A+B+C) Junior high, years 1,2

and 3) (n= 874)

学年/Junior high year 頻度/Freq. 有効/Valid %

1 384 43.9

2 255 29.2

3 235 26.9


ii) 生徒数/Number of students in classes

生徒数/ Number of students 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid %

1-5 12 1.7

6-10 12 1.7

11-15 18 2.5

16-20 60 8.3

21-25 57 7.9

26-30 186 25.8

31-35 234 32.4

36-40 140 19.4

41 以上/Over 40 3 0.4

生徒計/Sum of all students 15014 中央値/Median 31; 最頻値/Mode= 30

d) JTE Q4 (学区内の公立小学校（フィーダー校）数/Number of public primary, or

“feeder,” schools in district) (n=486)

小学校数/Number of schools 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid %

1 56 11.5

2 152 31.3

3 162 33.3

4 51 10.5

5 22 4.5

6-10 25 5.1

11-20 6 1.2

21-30 9 1.9

31 以上/Over 30 3 0.6

N/R 29 *平均校数/Mean= 3.73; 中央値/Median= 3; 最頻値/Mode= 3; 標準偏差/SD= 5.6

As some “outliers” reported as many as 44, 64, and 66 feeder schools, the median and mode of “3”

provide a more accurate measure of the data “middle” for this question.

e) JTE Q5 (英語塾や英語教室に通っている生徒数/Number of students studying English outside

school) (n= 394)

生徒数頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid %

0 15 3.8

1 16 4.1

2 33 8.4

3 29 7.4

4 9 2.3

5 38 9.6

6-10 88 22.4

11-15 65 16.6

16-20 63 16.0

21-25 20 5.2

26 以上/Over 25 17 4.3

N/R 121 *平均人数/Mean = 11.2; 中央値/Median= 10; 最頻値/Mode= 10

f) JTE Q6 (英語指導形態の割合/ Ratio of FLA classes taught alone or as a team)

外国語活動のパターン：指導形態の割合(%)/Summary of means of various English teaching

arrangements (in %) (n= 498)

指導形態の割合

/Teaching pattern

JTE 一人で

/JTE Alone

ALT と一緒

/With ALT

その他

/Other

平均年数/Mean 65.4 20.4 15.1

最頻値/Mode 90 25 0

標準偏差/Standard 30.6 17.1 27.3

deviation

中央値/Median 75 20 0

N/R 17

There was a slight difference in the standard deviations of team teaching “with ALT” between

junior high (SD= 30.6) and primary schools (SD= 35.8), with ALTs apparently more widely spread in

the latter. It must be remembered, however, that ALTs are not the only teaching assistants in

primary FLA classes.

g) JTE Q7 (出身大学の学部/ University faculty background) (n= 512)

頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid %

教育/Education 132 25.8

文学/Literature 150 29.3

外国語/Foreign languages 100 19.5

人文/Literature & Humanities 28 5.5

英文学/English literature 26 5.1

英語/English 6 1.2

国際文化/International Cultures 5 1.0

言語と文化/Language & Culture 1 0.2


N/R 3

h) JTE Q8 (英語試験の受験有無/Have you taken any English tests?)

i) (n= 513)


はい/Yes 416 81.1

いえ/No 97 18.9

N/R 2

ii) Test (A) (n= 351)

試験・資格/Qualification or test type 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

%/% of total

英検一級/Eiken Level 1 6 1.7 1.2




英検三級/ Eiken Level 3 22 6.3 4.3


60 17.1 11.7


3 0.9 0.6

TOEFL 501 以上/ over 500 on TOEFL 3 0.9 0.6

TOEFL 500 未満/500 or less on TOEFL 1 0.3 0.2

その他/Other 1 0.3 0.2

N/R 164 31.8

iii) Test (B)* (n= 92)

試験・資格/Qualification or test type 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

%/% of total

英検一級/Eiken Level 1 1 1.1 0.2





82 89.1 15.9


3 3.3 0.6

N/R 423 *二つ目の資格を持っていると回答した方が 92 名おり、その内訳である. Test (B) represents results from 92 JTEs

who reported having taken a second test.

It is surprising that over 18% of junior high school English teacher respondents had not taken any

kind of English examination other than those necessary for academia. On the other hand, a nearly

equal number of JTEs (17.9%) have taken at least two such tests.

i) JTE Q9 (FLA の動導入後の生徒は、英語の学習により積極的であるか/Are students

more enthusiastic about English since the introduction of FLA?) (n= 512)


そう思う/Yes 67 13.1

まあまあそう思う/Yes, I suppose 253 49.4

そう思わない/No 110 21.5

全く思わない/No, not at all 16 3.1

分からない/I don’t know 66 12.9

N/R 3

This question may have been difficult to answer for several reasons. In some areas of Japan, FLA-

like classes had already been taking place for a long time before their official introduction in 2011.

In other cases, some teachers may feel it is still too early to see the results of FLA in their area, as

such classes have just begun. Still, with 62.5% of JTEs seeing the effect of FLA as positive, it seems

the new classes are bearing some fruit.

Part 2 小中連携に関して/Primary and junior high links

j) JTE Q10 (どのような小中連携をされたか/What kind of links have you experienced?)

i) 小学校での授業参観/Class observation (n= 375)



役に立っ

た%/% helpful

N/R (全体


352 23 93.9 140

ii) HRT との FLA の指導法・教材等についての話し合い/Discussion of methodology

and materials (n= 292)



役に立っ

た%/% helpful

N/R (全体


254 38 87.0 223

iii) HRT との FLA のカリキュラムについての話し合い/Discussion of curriculum (n=

188)



役に立っ

た%/% helpful

N/R (全体


152 36 80.9 327

iv) ALT との小中連携についての話し合い/Discussion of links with ALT (n= 177)



役に立っ

た%/% helpful

N/R (全体


147 30 83.1 338

v) HRT との FLA の目標についての話し合い /Discussion about FLA goals with

HRT (n= 164)



役に立っ

た%/% helpful


132 32 80.5 351

vi) その他/Other links (n= 68)



役に立っ

た%/% helpful


61 7 89.7 447

Most of these “other” links were JTEs’ experiences in teaching FLA, either with or without an ALT,

and “sample” classes for 6th year primary students at the junior high.

有効性による JTE 小中連携型ランキング/Ranking of link type according to JTE

perceptions of usefulness

ランキン

グ/Rank



1 小学校での授業参観/Class observation 93.9 352

2 その他/Other links 89.7 61

3 HRT との FLA の指導法・教材等についての話し合い/Discussion of methodology and materials

87.0 254

4 ALT との小中連携についての話し合い/Discussion of links with ALT

83.1 147

5 HRT との FLA のカリキュラムについての話し合い

/Discussion of curriculum

80.9 152

6 HRT との FLA の目標についての話し合い /Discussion about FLA goals with HRT

80.5 132

k) JTE Q11 (HRT と、英語指導についてもっと連携をはかりたい/Desire to make more links

with HRTs about English teaching) (n= 510)


はい/Yes 316 62.0

いえ/No 57 11.2


N/R 5

JTE respondents appear much more positive (with a “Yes” at 62%, cf. HRT 38%), less negative (with

a “No” at 11.2%, cf. HRT 17.2%), and less undecided (“Don’t know” at 26.9%, cf. HRT 44.8%), about

furthering links with HRTs.

l) JTE Q12 (どのような内容について連携をはかりたい/What kind of links would JTEs like

forge?)

Again, to analyse the 80,065 characters (字) of information received in the JTE survey, we used the

IBM/SPSS natural language processing program, “Text analytics for Surveys” (TAS), version 4.0.

JTE Q12: 自由記述回答者による望ましい連携形のトップ 5/Five most popularly proposed link

categories (n= 291)

ランキ

ング/Rank


頻度/Freq.


1 指導/Teaching 114 指導法/Teaching methodology（13）、指導内容

/Teaching content（36）

2 内容/Contents 85 カリキュラム/Curriculum（25）、程度/How much

（8）、FLA で学んだと/Covered in FLA（６）

3 教材的な連携/Linked teaching materials

19 共有/Shared（5）

4 文字/Writing 18 ローマ字/Romaji（10）

5 目標/Goals 9

The terms 指導 (teaching), 内容 (content), and カリキュラム (curriculum) often overlap, which

made the task of categorising difficult; however, the above categories give an idea of the main

topics JTEs feel need further support in terms of inter-school communication. The underlying

theme is that any information from primaries, and opportunities to interact with HRTs, would be

better than none, and that further exploration can be done on both sides to ensure a smoother

transition for incoming children. The following Iwate JTE, who feels that the impact of FLA so far

has been positive (see JTE Q18), covers the gist of concerns shared by many respondents:

入門期の学習内容にかなりの量の小中のかぶりがあります。体系だった知識や文

法的知識がないのは（入学生に）当然としても、単語は音としての定着があるも

のとして、軽く指導を流すべきか、初めて触れることを前提としてやるかで悩み

ました。定着を求めていないのが小学校英語だと思いますが、定着していると言

えることもずいぶん多かったです。しかし心配するあまり、全員への定着を図ろ

うとして今年（昨年）はしつこくやってしまい生徒さんたちはやや飽きていたよ

うです。どこまで生徒の既習の知識を信頼するか…に関してでしょうか。 [There’s

quite an overlap of content between primary and junior high. Of course we don’t expect

new students to arrive with a systematic knowledge of things like grammar, but I really

worry about how much I should cover words, knowing they see words as sounds, or

whether I should simply assume they’re encountering everything for the first time. It’s

often said that the FLA system doesn’t require children to know things like word meanings,

spelling or pronunciation, but in many cases they actually understand these. Still, I worry

about whether all the students know so much, so I end up covering material from the

previous year even though I know some students get bored. I’m just not sure how far I can

trust my impressions of how much they really know. ]

Thirteen JTEs used the word ほしい to indicate what they would like from primary schools,

often in regard to topics like reading, writing, or grammar. One JTE phrased this comment

concisely, wishing to know where to “draw the line” in terms of what should and should not be

covered in FLA: “小学校でやってほしいことと、やらなくてもよいことの線引き.” For

example, in regard to the alphabet, one JTE suggested that, while pupils need not learn how to

write the lower case letters, they should be exposed to them in FLA as much as they are to upper

case letters: “アルファベット小文字→書けなくてもいいが大文字と同じくらい記憶に残る

よう提示をする.” Lastly, confusion over different styles of romaji (see 山口&巽, 2010, p.207),

and of the differences between the sounds the same letters produce in the two languages, needs

addressing to prevent student problems in spelling and pronunciation (Narcy-Combes et al., 2007).

m) JTE Q 13a (小中連携した英語のカリキュラムの必要性/ Necessity of a linked primary-

junior high curriculum) (n= 509)


はい/Yes 390 76.6

いえ/No 34 6.7


N/R 6

n) JTE Q13b (小・中統一した英語のカリキュラムの可能性/Possibility of creating a linked



はい/Yes 267 52.7

いえ/No 44 8.7


N/R 8

By comparison, only 21.7% of HRTs (Q15b) see the possibility of creating a linked curriculum.

o) JTE Q14 (FLA を実施したことの有無/JTE experience teaching FLA) (513)


はい/Yes 197 38.4

いえ/No 316 61.6

N/R 2

Well before the formal introduction of FLA, JTEs have been encouraged to teach and help teach in

primary schools, through an amendment to the Educational Personnel Certification Law in May

2002 that allows junior or senior high English teachers to be placed in charge of classes dealing

with foreign languages (see Hashimoto, 2011, p.11-12). Although we did not collect information

on how long they taught FLA, nearly 40% of JTEs surveyed have taken the opportunity. This

indicates a positive, “hands-on” step towards creating links between the two school levels, one

which provides a chance for local HRTs to learn from JTEs as the latter learns about primary school

teaching culture.

p) JTE Q15 (FLA の年間計画や指導内容の把握/JTE understanding of local FLA content) (n= 513)

選択/Response option

頻度/Freq.


FLA の経験有り/JTEs with FLA teaching experience) (n= 197)

FLA の経験無し/JTEs without FLA teaching experience) (n= 315)

4)全く把握し

ていない/Not at all

141 27.5 18.3 33.3

3)少ししか把

握していない/Not much

241 47.0 45.1 47.9

2)ある程度把

握している/Yes, to some extent

117 22.8 31.0 17.5

1)かなり把握

している/Yes, very much

14 2.7 5.1 1.3

N/R 2 *表記の順番が実際のアンケート調査の順番と異なっている。Categories have been rearranged from the original

survey into a positive, ascending order.

The experience of teaching FLA at primary schools (Q14) does appear to raise JTE awareness of the

FLA curriculum remarkably. Yet although awareness does increase, as many as 18.3% of JTEs who

have FLA teaching experience still responded “Not at all,” while the very positive response, option

1, rose only 3.8%.This survey did not address the frequency of JTEs’ experiences in teaching FLA,

however, a factor worthy of more inquiry.

Part 3 外国語活動について/About FLA

q) JTE Q16 (FLA で文字指導はした方がよい/Whether letters should be taught at FLA) (n= 511)


4)思わない/No 36 7.0

3) あまり思わない/I don’t think so

79 15.5

5)分からない I don’t know 19 3.7

2)やや思う/I guess so 233 45.6

1) そう思う/Yes 144 28.2

N/R 4 表記の順番が実際のアンケート調査の順番と異なっている。Categories have been rearranged from the original

survey into a positive, ascending order.

Nearly 74% of JTEs indicate that literacy should be taught in FLA classes. However, for information

on the degree of what should be done, and to allow JTEs to qualify this sentiment, we asked for

further elaboration, the results of which follow.

JTEQ16 FLA での文字指導について、自由記述回答者によるコメント/Comment categories

on Q16, whether literacy should be taught in FLA (n= 394)



頻度/Freq.


1 アルファベット/Alphabet

81 やればいい/Would be nice (20),大文字/Capital

letters (10), 名前/Name (7)

2 ローマ字 Romaji 51 ヘボン式/Hepburn Romanisation (10)

3 苦手意識/Dislike 33 嫌い/Hate（19）,入学/Upon entering junior

high（7）

4 ギャップ/Gap 25

5 フォニックス/Phonics

21

The words for alphabet (アルファベット) and alphabetised-Japanese (ローマ字) are often used

interchangeably in Japanese. Phonics (フォニックス), however, is used to denote a systematic

approach to teaching reading through making connections between alphabet letters and a basic

set of sounds in English, then adding a battery of rules and teaching the exceptions, with “sight

word” memorisation often required for the latter. Twenty teachers mention that learning how to

read and write requires a good deal of time, and suggest that whatever can be done in FLA would

surely help. Nearly three quarters of JTEs responded that some form of literacy should be covered

in FLA classes, with reasons for their answers resembling those that follow:

i) 正しい発音指導上でのフォニックス指導は必要。ローマ字（カタカナ）と

の違いを知るために。[There needs to be a proper teaching of pronunciation through

phonics. The children have to know English is different from katakana and romaji].

ii)中学に入って文字が書けない→テストで点数がとれない→受験で点が取れない、

英語が嫌いという流れがあるから。 [There’s a common pattern of not knowing how

to write, which leads to low test scores, which leads to students’ hating English].

iii)ローマ字すらかけない生徒がいるから。 [There are some students who can’t even

write romaji].

A minority of JTEs, however, feel that literacy can be left until junior high. A teacher in

Akita, who believes student enthusiasm has increased since FLA began, writes “文字は中学から

でも遅くない。早めるメリットもさほど重要だと思わない。音声中心が一番.” Similarly, a

JTE from Nagasaki who feels FLA has definitely not made students more enthusiastic about English,

is cautious about asking primary schools to go so far: そこまで要求しなくても良いと思うから.

Confusion may result, for example, if children see the alphabetised version of their own (Japanese)

names as “English” (and therefore reflecting English pronunciation), confounding English with

Japanese written in Roman letters (romaji), or indeed with anything written in the alphabet.

Finally, a teacher who notes a positive FLA influence, agreed only a little (“やや思う”)

with the idea of teaching literacy, and qualifies this position with a suggestion that could easily be

managed by HRTs:

書く指導はする必要はないと思いますが、文字を見せることは必要かと思います

（小学校高学年で）。中 1 になって、文字を見たり書いたりすることに極端に苦

手意識をもつ生徒が多く、指導の仕方に苦労していると思います。 [I don’t think

they need to teach writing, but they should show the letters (to the higher grades). There

are so many students in first year of junior high who can’t stand seeing or writing the

alphabet, it’s really hard to teach them].

These JTEs have hit upon a stumbling block that will be addressed again in comments from their

junior high ALT partners (ALT Qs 12, 21, and 24), and one that has also been documented over a

decade ago in the Korean context of primary English education. Choi, Lee, Lee, and Boo (2003)

found that while positive effects of early foreign language classes included positive attitudes and

pupil interest, “negative effects were found in grammar and writing of English, apparently due to

the lack of continuity between elementary and middle school English education” (p.131).

r) JTE Q17 (将来、英語を教科として扱われるためには、どのような条件が整えば良いか

/What conditions need to be met before English could become a core subject in future?) (n=

427)


条件/Necessity 頻度/Freq. キーワード/Key words (mentionings)

1 教員/ Teachers 137 専門/Specialists（23）,専科

/Professionals(22）、英語教員

/English teachers（19）専任（4）

2 教員配置/Placement of professional English teachers

67 専門教師/Specialist teachers

（13）、専科教師/Professional

teachers（13）、免許をもった

/Licence-holders（9）、ALT(4)

3 カリキュラム/Curriculum 42

4 ALT 増やし/More ALTs 36

5 教材/Teaching materials 31

6 研修 /Teacher training 25

7 評価/Evaluation 22 ができる教員/teachers capable of

evaluating（6）

8 英語免許/Licence 22

9 小中連携/Primary-secondary links

14 連携したカリキュラム/Linked

curriculum（4）

10 大学課程/University course

12 大学課程/University course

Of course, not all JTE respondents are in favour of making English an official core subject at the

primary level (recall that in Q9, 37.5% of English teachers do not agree that FLA has made their

students more enthusiastic). Among those who would like to see it become core, the following

require consideration:

i) 小学校教員養成課程の在り方（授業科目の英語に関するものをどのように開設し、

何単位修得するのか）・小学校教員免許状を終了した場合、小学校で教科とし

ての英語がスタートすれば、小学校教諭専修免許状を取得することが可能になる

のか。どのような手続きを踏むようになるのか）。 [The current state of training

primary school teachers (Establishing English-related university courses, required credit

units) ・In the case of already-licenced teachers, would it be possible for them to get an

English licence once the speciality of “English” has been set up? What procedures would

be necessary to do so?]

ii) 外国語は他の教科に比べて技能教科と同じように、ある程度の専門性が必要か

と思います。小学校の先生方の負担が増さないためにも、中学校の先生方が出前

授業できるのがいいと思います[Like other core subjects, English requires an element of

expertise. In order not to increase the burden on primary HRTs, it’d be nice if JTEs could

“deliver” English lessons to schools].

Of course this will require funding, as one JTE humorously suggests (“お金”？[Money?]),

especially if primary school evaluation were to become as extensive as described below:

指導（評価）できる教員が増える（専科が望ましい）。特にスピーキングの評価

は学年で同じ人物（ALT か専科教員）が行うべきだと思います。 [We’d have to

increase the number of teachers capable of teaching (& evaluating), hopefully English

specialists. For speaking evaluation in particular, the same person (a specialist ALT or

other teacher) should work at each grade].

Speaking in more general terms, however, leaving FLA entirely up to one particular person

at primary schools may not be the answer. Yoshida (2008a) warns that that English shouldn’t be

left up to ONE teacher per school, as it dilutes responsibility of all teachers to be able to handle it

to some degree (p.20). There is a danger in tethering FLA to one teacher, especially considering

the frequent staff transfers at Japan’s public primaries.

Lastly, it appears that the original focus of this study, primary-secondary links, does not

necessarily have top priority in strengthening FLA enough to make it a core subject, at least in the

eyes of JTEs. Although links can (and should) be part of the solution, they links pale in comparison

to the urgent need to secure trained English teachers at primary schools, and to address the other

issues represented in categories 1 through 8, all to be buttressed with future contributions from

category 10: establishing university courses to produce primary English teachers.

s) JTE Q18 (FLA は中学校での英語指導に何らかの影響があったか/Has FLA had any impact on

junior high English teaching?) (n= 511)


良い影響/Positive impact 143 28.0

悪い影響/Negative impact 10 2.0

良い影響と悪い影響/Positive and negative impacts

237 46.4

影響なし/No impact 38 7.4

わからない/Don’t know 83 16.2

N/R 4

t) JTE Q19 (具体的にどのような影響/Description of impacts since FLA was introduced) (n= 384)

ランキン

グ/Rank

頻度/Freq.

Key words (mentionings)

1 音に親しんできた/Familiarity with sounds

79 リスニング/Listening skills（16）

発音/Pronunciation（17）

2 「入学」に関する二極化/Polarisation of students at

53 英語嫌い/Hate English（35）、

能力ギャップ/Proficiency gaps

“start” of junior high （9）、良い点（8）

3 抵抗/Resistance 52 ない/None（47）、ある/More

（9）

4 表現力/Ability to express oneself

47 話す/Speak（17）、挨拶

/Greetings（17）

5 ALT との関係/Relations with ALT

38 慣れた/Used to them（9）、会

話/Conversation（7）

6 英語＝ゲーム/English is a game

27

7 一般的に能力アップ/Increased proficiency in general

19

Since the largest group of teachers (46.4%) see mixed impacts of FLA, we have included the full

range of the most popular comments, from positive to negative. Other answers were “don’t know”

(16.2%), in which some JTEs said it is too early to see the results of the fledgling FLA program, “no

impact” (7.4%), and “negative impact” (2.0%).

It appears that the focus on oral/aural-based activities has produced a noticeable effect on

incoming junior high school students; this positive comment turned up most in our analysis of

the open-ended data. However, FLA has perhaps also exacerbated the differences among these

students as well, although one may note that the teaching of anything that can be learned to

varying degrees will produce differences amongst learners (who were originally equally

unskilled). Still, this must be frustrating for the teacher. One JTE writes “入学時に、英検準 2 級

取得者からアルファベットが書けないものまで学力の差が広がってきている。” [There’s

so much difference in levels now that I’ve got some who can’t write the alphabet and others who

have attained an Eiken pre-second level of proficiency].

The notion of “resistance” produced numbers that do not add up to the total because

some respondents pointed out that while FLA has reduced resistance, for example, to oral

activity participation, it also appears to have led to some resistance to writing exercises (Ibaraki

JTE), although no studies exist to prove that an introduction to writing itself makes learners hate

English (湯川＆バトラー後藤, 2010, p.12). On the other hand, a JTE from Tochigi who sees both

positive and negative effects of FLA noticed that students now exhibit a real keenness to learn

writing: “「書きたい」という欲求が強い。”

The remaining comment categories are generally positive, as in: “ 語彙が豊富になってい

る（単語力がついている）。” [They’ve got plenty of vocabulary] and “コミュニケーション

力が高くなった。活動に意欲的。” [They’re better at communicating. They’re enthusiastic

about activities]. The word “積極的” (enthusiastic) was used to describe students 42 times in the

database, with a further 7 comments on improved attitude.

However, some JTEs noted a tendency in students to see English as a mere game, as

below:

「楽しい英語」というイメージで来られるので、最初はよいが、あとあと失望を

味わわせることになる。英語に限らず外国語学習が楽しいわけがない。もし楽し

いものなら、今の日本人のほとんどが英語ペラペラのはずであるが、そうではな

い。まわりの大人がはっきりと証明している。[The sense that “English is fun!” lasts

for a while, and then they gradually begin to experience a loss of hope. It’s not just with

English, but any foreign language can’t be all fun. If it were so fun, all Japanese would be

fluent in English by now; but they’re not. They can see the proof of this in the adults

around them].

Another negative impact of FLA, noted in other research as well (e.g., 松川＆大下, 2007), occurs

when students who had previously not had any experience with English arrive at junior high with a

negative predisposition towards it (“英語嫌い”), presumably based on a negative experience at

primary school.

Reactions from two JTEs illustrate issues of importance in terms of demotivation, linguistic

cognition, and early foreign language acquisition. While one teacher claims that English would

“sink in” better if pupils both saw and wrote English letters, another sees their understanding of

English words after FLA as strangely incomplete: 文までではなく音としてボキャブラリーが増

えている。 [They know more words as sounds, but not in sentences].

u) JTE Q20 (FLA 関しての自由記述/Comments on FLA) (n= 306)

ランキ

ング/Rank

頻度/Freq. Key words (mentionings)

1 指導（一般）/Teaching (in general)

54 文字指導/Teaching letters

（15）、ローマ字指導/Romaji

（6）フォンニックス指導

/Teaching phonics（3）

2 文/Sentence-related 28 文字/Letters（20）、文法

/Grammar（9）

2 音/Sounds 28

フォニックス/Phonics（11）、

音に慣れる/Get used to sounds

（10）、音声以外も/More than

just sounds（3）

3 小中連携/Primary-secondary links

27 必要/Needed（18）、必要ない

/Not needed（9）、時間不足

/Not enough time（5）

4 ALT 26 依存/Dependency（10）、効果

的な TT/Effective TT（8）

5 日本語・国語/Japanese language

22 英語より/More than English

（5）きちんと/Properly（4）

6 負担/Burden 19 HRT の（16）、ALT の（2）、

子どもの/Children’s（1）

7 カリキュラム/Curriculum 17 統一/Unified（5）、作成

/Create（2）

8 教科/English as core subject

16 必要ない/Not needed（5）、必

要/Needed（2）

Some comments in this section were several paragraphs in length, causing a great overlap in

category concepts. However, the above provide a guide to which topics (other than simply

“English” (104)) were most commented on. The first category covers a wide range of content

focussing on what to cover in FLA classes, with the basics of literacy the most commented upon.

Although appreciation for the mainly aural/oral approach can be found in the data, the

introduction of connections between sounds (category 2) and letters (category 3) were mentioned

often, as in the following:

小学校では、音と文字、フォニックス、大小文字の書き方まで強制しないとあるが、せめ

て小文字まで書けるようになっていると、また、フォニックスがある程度できていると、

中学校にきて、壁にぶつかり落ちこぼれを少しは減らすことができると考えます。[I can’t

force primary schools to teach letters and sounds, phonics, and the writing of upper and lower

case letters, but it might result in some reduction in the number of students who run into barriers

and trouble at junior high if they could at least write the lower case letters and were familiar with

a bit of phonics].

In the comments on primary-secondary school links, the following two JTE comments

juxtapose two very different experiences and perspectives:

i) もっと連携が必要である。文科省が本気で小学校から導入するなら、教員を増や

す、研修を義務付け保障するなどちゃんとお金をかけて条件整備すべきである。

今は丸投げと言われても仕方のない状況だと思う。[We need more inter-level

school links. If the MEXT is serious about introducing English at primary school, they

should be committed to securing teacher training and proper funding. Right now,

everything’s just being dumped on us and there’s nothing we can do].

ii)各小学校でまじめに Hi Friends!を使って学習していると思う。中学校区内の小学

校に、中学と同じ ALT が行っているので、その ALT の指導の方向性を確認しや

すい。せっかくなので、Hi Friends!Lesson3 は中学の教科書 PROGRAM8 で復習で

きる、などの情報があると、「スパイラル学習」ということにもなると思う。”

(同じ題材を何度も用いて、学習する内容のレベルを上げながら理解を深化させ

る学習法)。 [Our primary schools are serious about teaching the Hi Friends! textbook.

As we have the same ALT teaching at both levels in our district, it’s easy to follow-up on

what’s being taught. We took advantage of this fortunate situation and reviewed the

primary Lesson 3 material in conjunction with our junior high text’s “Program 8.” With

this kind of information, we can create a “spiral learning” effect (in which the same

material can be taken to higher and deeper levels) ]

One JTE feels that, although his/her own locale has the advantage of an ALT liaison between

schools, the situation cannot be the same throughout Japan. Sometimes geographical barriers can

also pose problems for link-creation. Three JTEs made comments like the following:

小・中の連携にはかなりのエネルギーが必要である。勤務地が違うので、時間

的・距離的な問題をクリアしなければならない。 [It’ll take a lot of energy to create

primary-secondary school links. Our workplaces are spread out, so we have to overcome

problems of distance and finding time].

Similarly, the need to ensure some level of uniformity of content and curricula across

many feeder primary schools drew comments, as in “複数の小学校から集まって来るが、小学

校での学習の大きな差がある。” On a larger scale as well, JTEs expressed concerns about

disparities, as represented in two comments below:

i) 外国語活動を行う目的をよく理解しているが、特区や特例校、私立学校など、場

所によって内容がまちまちである（英語教育として行っている）。現状況では、

外国語活動の趣旨がぼやけてしまうので、国として小学校における英語活動（教

育）をどうするのか早く一本化すべきである。また、その環境整備をしっかりと

し、指導者の育成を急ぐべきである。 [I fully understand the objectives of FLA, but

considering the breadth of school types (e.g., special school zones, experimental schools,

and private schools) the content varies a lot. In reality, the goals of FLA become rather

fuzzy, so there’s an urgent need at a national level to ensure uniformity. They’ve also got

to hurry up and set the right environment for this, and cultivate teachers as well].

ii) 経済格差（各家庭）が英語の差にならないようにする。 [Make sure economic

differences (amongst families) don’t create differences in English]

Finally, there was no shortage of appreciation for efforts being made at primary schools, seen in

comments such as “よくご指導されているなと感心しています。” [I feel the primary schools

are really doing a good job.] One last comment from a teacher reminds us of the overarching goal

in educating, and raising, children: 人とかかわるようにしてほしい。 [I want (schools) to

produce students who know how to deal with people].

D. 中学校 ALT データ（Junior high ALT data）

Part 1 背景的情報/Part 1: Background Information (n= 169)

a) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q1 (中学校で教えている割合/What percentage of your teaching

is at junior high?) (n= 167)


1) 24%未満/Less than 25% 1 0.6

2) 25-49% 21 12.6

3) 50-74% 37 22.2

4) 75-99% 52 31.1

5) 100% 56 33.5

N/R 2 Median=4; 最頻値/Mode= 5; 標準偏差/SD= 1.0

b) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q2 (教えている学年/Grades taught at junior high) (n= 168)


1 年生 Grade 7 1 0.6

2 年生 Grade 8 0 0

3 年生 Grade 9 0 0

1-3 年生/All 160 95.2

Other 7 4.2

N/R 1

c) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q3 (雇用・契約形態/ALT employment type) (n=168)


JET プログラム/JET Programme 68 40.5

教育委員会による直接雇用/Local government contract

24 14.3

派遣会社・業務委託による契約/Private 72 42.9

agency contract


N/R 1

d) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q4

(都道府県/Prefecture) (N= 169)

都道府県

/Prefecture

頻度

/Freq.

有効

/Valid %

都道府県

/Prefecture

頻度

/Freq.

有効

/Valid %

都道府県

/Prefecture

頻度

/Freq.

有効

/Valid %


Aomori 3 1.8 Yamanashi 2 1.2 Tokushima 0 0


Miyagi 1 0.6 Gifu 0 0 Ehime 4 2.4

Akita 4 2.4 Shizuoka 11 6.6 Kochi 0 0





Gunma 4 2.4 Osaka 7 4.2 Oita 0 0


Chiba 6 3.6 Nara 2 1.2 Kagoshima 0 0

Tokyo 4 2.4 Wakayama 4 2.4 Okinawa 0 0

Kanagawa 2 1.2 Tottori 1 0.6 N/R 2 1.2




e) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q5 (教職歴経験の年数（計海外を含む）/Total teaching

experience (in any country, including Japan) (n= 168)

年数/Years 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

0-1/One or less 29 17.3

2 以下/2 or less 37 22.0

3 以下/3 or less 24 14.3

4 以下/ or less 22 13.1

5-10 年/5-10 34 20.2

11 年以上/11 or more 22 13.1

N/R 1 平均年数/Mean= 3.4; 中央値/Median= 3; 最頻値/Mode=2; 標準偏差/SD= 1.7

Junior high ALT respondents are more likely than primary ones to be JET participants, are

considerably younger (89.9% under 40) than those at primary schools (79%), and have fewer years’

experience in teaching, with a mean of 3.4 (cf. 3.6).

f) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q6 (日本における教職歴経験の年数/Total teaching experience

(in Japan) (n= 169)

年数/Years 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

0-1/One or less 58 34.3

2 以下/2 or less 48 28.4

3 以下/3 or less 23 13.6

4 以下/ or less 9 5.3

5-10 年/5-10 25 14.8

11 年以上/11 or more 6 3.6

N/R 0 平均年数/Mean= 2.5; 中央値/Median=2; 最頻値/Mode=1; 標準偏差/SD= 1.5

g) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q7 (大学専門/Major in university)


英語、外国語関係/English or foreign language-related

31 18.8

日本語関係/Japanese language-related 21 12.7

教育関係/Education-related 9 5.5

文化関係/Culture-related 2 1.2

その他、外国語に関する資格証明書有り/Other, with language-related certificate

12 7.3

その他、外国語に関する資格証明書なし/Other, without language-related certificate

90 54.5

N/R 4

Again, it was a challenge to determine what kind of academic studies would most assist the

teaching of English. We separated ALTs into the general categories of those used with primary

ALTs for comparison. This time, we determined that only 38.2% of junior high ALTs (cf. 49.4% of

primary ALTs) have university backgrounds that should assist with teaching and/or learning

languages, or in adapting to life in Japan. If additional language-related certificates may be

counted, the percentage of ALT respondents with these qualifications would rise to 45.5% (cf.

58.2% of primary ALTs). It seems as if ALTs at primary schools have been more carefully

scrutinised in terms of related academic backgrounds, although a much larger, more focussed

study is required to validate this hypothesis.

h) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q8 (年齢/Age) (n= 167)

年齢/Age group 頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid percent

20 代/20s 109 65.3

30 代/30s 41 24.6

40 代/40s 11 6.6

50 代/50s 6 3.6

N/R 2

Part 2: Inter-school communication/小中学校間での話し合い

i) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q9 (学区の FLA カリキュラム把握度/Familiarity with local FLA


頻度/Freq.


(JTE 有効%/Valid percent)

全く把握していない/Not at all 16 9.5 27.5

少ししか把握していない/Not really 25 14.8 47.0

ある程度はあくしている/Yes, a little 52 30.8 22.8

かなり把握している/Yes, very 76 45.0 2.7

N/R 0

Although the wording of these questions differed slightly on the junior high ALT and JTE

questionnaires, we have placed the latter on the far right for comparison. It appears from these

samples that the ALTs (over 66% of whom teach outside junior highs) are far more aware of their

local primary FLA curriculum, and may be a valuable resource for busy JTEs.

j) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q10 (中学校 ALT の知っている小中連携の役立ちについて

/Junior high ALT perspectives on usefulness of known primary-junior high links)

i) 小・中学校での授業参観/Demonstration class at primary/junior high school (n= 101)




N/R (全体の%)/ N/R(% of total)

88 13 87.1 40.2

ii) HRTとの外国語活動の指導法・教材等についての話し合い/Consultation with primary teacher on FLA teaching materials/teaching methodology (n= 66)




N/R (全体の%) /N/R(% of total)

59 7 89.4 60.9

iii) HRTとのFLA授業についての話し合い/Consultation with HRT on courses (n= 51)





40 11 78.4 69.8

iv) HRTとの外国語活動の目標についての話し合い /Consultation with HRT teacher about class goals (n= 49)





45 4 91.8 71.0

v) 小学校で教えているALTとの話し合い/Consultation with ALT who (also) works at the primary level (n= 78)





73 5 93.6 53.8

vi) その他（具体的に）/Other (describe) (n= 24)





23 1 95.9 85.8 「同じ ALT が中及び小学校で勤めていること」がほとんど。 Most of the “other” link types were the fact that the

assistant also works at primary schools and is a kind of link.

効率性による小中連携型ランキング/Ranking of link type according to junior high ALT

perceptions of usefulness

ランキ

ング

/Rank




2 小学校で教えている ALT との話し合い/Consultation with primary ALT

93.6 78

3 HRT との外国語活動の目標についての話し合い /Consult HRT on teaching goals

91.8 49

4 HRT との外国語活動の指導法・教材等についての話し合い/Consult HRT on teaching materials/methodology

89.4 66

5 小・中学校での授業参観/Demonstration class at primary/jr high

87.1 101

6 HRT との FLA 授業についての話し合い/Consult HRT on courses

78.4 51

Among the common categories of links, it again seems that consultations with ALTs working at

primary schools appear most effective, followed by consultations with HRTs about teaching goals.

However, ALTs at junior high did not gain as much useful information in discussions about courses

with primary HRTs, perhaps due to the differences in actual classes between the two school levels.

k) 中学校ALT/Junior high ALT Q11 (小中連携の増やしは必要ですか/Is there a need for more links?) (n= 166)


はい/Yes 112 67.5

いえ/No 8 4.8


N/R 3

Junior high ALTs had the strongest positive response of all four groups surveyed to the question of

whether more primary-secondary links are needed, stronger even than their JTE colleagues

(61.4%). The role of ALT as link has been mentioned several times, but one caveat must be added

to this: as revealed in junior high data in Mahoney, Inoi, & Yoshida (2003), schools must not spread

these liaisons too thin, a sentiment expressed by the following ALT.

I teach at both elementary and junior high schools. I was put in both in order to “link” the

curriculum among schools. While logical in theory, it is impossible for me to be a link

because I have too many schools and go to each school too infrequently to have an

influence. [小中連携を実現するために、私は小学校にも中学校でも教えている。理

論的にはこの案はよいのですが、訪問する学校数があまりにも多くて、しかもそ

れぞれの学校を訪問する機会が少ないので、その目的を達成するまでには至って

いない。]

l) 中学校ALT/Junior high ALT Q12 (どのような連携は良いですか/What kind of links would be best?)

中学校ALT自由記述による望ましい連携形のトップ５/Five most popularly proposed link categories from junior high ALTs (n= 129)

ランキン

グ/Rank

カテゴリ/Category 頻度/Freq. キーワード/Key words

1 Reading 15 Phonics(7)

2 ALT role as link 14 Involved in inter-school meetings (4)

3 Writing 11 Basic (2)

4 Curriculum 10 Evaluation (5)

5 Unique ideas 8 Student mentor or tutor (3)

The already-mentioned link types of class observation and HRT-JTE communication were suggested 12 and 8 times respectively, but were omitted from the above table. Negative comments from ALTs who had answered “No” to Q11 (e.g., “with the current curriculum, the middle school can only expect a limited amount from the elementary”) were also left out.

Like their JTE colleagues, many junior high ALTs feel the need to begin some form of reading, phonics, or writing during FLA classes, i.e., class content changes that would serve to bridge the gaps. The main reason appears to be that they do not want the “drastic shift in focus from primary to junior high,” as an ALT put it, to demotivate children from using English. Suggestions for curriculum change in category 4 above, including 5 calls for either “relaxed, open assessment” or evaluation shared this underlying concern. One ALT suggested that, overall, the two school levels strike a new balance in terms of evaluation, noting that “making primary activities more serious and junior high activities more about conversation skills would make it more consistent.”

Unique ideas ranged from creating “English invitations” for other schools and “online presentations,” to “day camps” and more “English plays.” But three junior high (and, earlier, one primary) ALTs proposed the innovative idea of “something where the junior high students provide

a type of mentoring role for the elementary students” [中学生が小学生に何らかの形で助言な

どを与える機械があればと思う]. Having the grade 6 children see older students actually use their English could indeed bolster enthusiasm for their future junior high classes. Another ALT added that “it would be nice to bring in junior high students to elementary schools on location to

have them tutor and help elementary English learners, but this would probably be unrealistic” [小

学校の教室に中学生を来てもらって、英語をちょっと教えたり手伝ったりしてもらえばと

思う。まあ、実現できるかどうかは別として。]. These kinds of near peer events amongst Japanese, if made possible even once per year, night be the key not only to priming pupils for junior high, but also (perhaps more importantly) to maintaining junior high students’ motivation levels by allowing them to show what they’ve learned.

Lastly, an ex-JET Programme ALT with a background in linguistics and Japanese, who has been in the country for 16 years, provided several specific insights on information gaps between the school levels and the role of the ALT as a link between them. The comments deserve to be quoted at length:

Junior high teachers are given copies of the fifth and sixth grade texts (Hi, friends). But the texts are full of illustrations and, without the electronic whiteboard, it's not easy for them to know the details of elementary school lessons. Most junior high teachers are too busy to read through the text guide book. A meeting per term between fifth and sixth grade teachers and junior high English teachers discussing English elementary lesson contents and activities in detail, and also discuss students’ retention level would be ideal. Also sharing a list of vocabulary introduced and grammar points introduced in class would be good. Most of the junior high teachers around here don't know what their new first year students have learned at elementary school. I show and tell my junior high English teachers what I can, but I don't know if all the English teachers are being informed about

this kind of information from their ALTs. [5・6年生のテキストは中学校の先生に配られ

ている。しかしイラストが多いし、電子黒板がなければレッスンの詳細は把握し

にくい。それに多忙であるため、テキストのガイドブックを読む時間もない。JTE

とHRTが学期ごとに一回、レッスンの内容、活動の細かいところや６年生のレベル

について話し合いができれば理想だ。あとFLAで紹介した単語リストや文法ポイン

トを共有すればいいと思う。地元のほとんどのJTEは中学校１年生が小学校で何を

学んできたかは知らない。自分のJTEには英語活動に関する情報を見せたり、説明

したりしているが、他のJTEはそのような機会がないかも知れない。]

m) 中学校ALT/Junior high ALT Q13 (小中統一したカリキュラムについて/Primary-secondary curriculum)

i) カリキュラムの統一は必要ですか/Is a linked curriculum necessary? (n= 168)


はい/Yes 146 86.9

いえ/No 3 1.8


N/R 1

ii) 学区では可能ですか/Is it possible in your locality? (n= 163)


はい/Yes 127 77.9

いえ/No 2 1.2


N/R 6

With large numbers of respondents working at both school levels already, it appears that the

necessity and possibility of linking primary and secondary curricula excites ALTs. A junior high ALT

made the following comments (Q21 & 25), and appears ready to participate in linking her local

schools:

Many times I've taught the same lesson for junior high and elementary students. Junior

high students should be building on what they already know from elementary school…

Something that I found unsuccessful also in junior high is that some schools tend not to

use the ALT to their full potential …. ALTs are capable of holding more responsibility in my

opinion. [今まで何回も同じレッスンを小学校と中学校で教えたことがある。中学生

は小学校で得た知識を利用すればよい。中学校の ALT 活用は必ずしも充実してい

るではない。。。。ALT はもっと責任が背負えると思う。]

n) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q14 (小でも中でも教えている ALT は FLA の英単語を再使用し

ているか/Are ALTs who work at both school levels reusing English covered in primary) (n= 120)


1.全くしない/Not at all 1 0.8

2.あまりしない/Not often 18 15.0

3.何を学んだかわからない/Don’t know what they learned at primary

6 5.0

4.概ねする/Yes, in general 68 56.7

5.よくする/Yes, very much 27 22.5

N/R 49 29.0 Median= 4; 最頻値/Mode= 4; 標準偏差/SD= 0.9

Part 3: Language learning/外国語学習

o) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q15 (英語学習は重要であるか/Are English classes important?)

(n= 166)


1.いえ /No 0 0

2.あまりそうでない/Not really 9 5.4


4.ある程度そうである/Moderately 58 34.9

5.とてもそうである/Very 86 51.8


Most junior high ALTs see English as moderately to very important to their students, with 13.2%

saying they either unconvinced or unsure of the importance of English.

p) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q16 (生徒の英語に対する態度/Students’ attitudes towards

English)

i) 1 年生/First year students (n= 168)


1.とても否定的/Very negative 3 1.8

2. 少し否定的/Slightly negative 19 11.3





ii) 2 年生/Second year students (n= 166)








iii) 3 年生/ Third year students (n= 164)

頻度/Freq. 有効%/Valid

percent







Junior high ALT data show a sharp drop in their perception of student enthusiasm for English

during the second year of classes. Whereas 82.9% of ALTs described their first year students as

“Fairly positive” or “very positive,” the ratio falls to just 48.2% in regard to second years, a

remarkable difference of 34.7%. This trend in Japanese junior high second year demotivation has

been noted in other research (e.g., Falout & Maruyama, 2004) and, according to this data, has yet

to be overcome. Student enthusiasm appears to recover somewhat, to 60.4% in the third year.

This represents a 12.2% increase, but remains down by 22.5%, about a fifth, from the start of

junior high. An important question is whether FLA will worsen this drop, with overly excited

students entering first year, or whether it may ultimately help provide a stronger impetus to keep

children motivated.

Perhaps a part of this drop, however, may be due to a natural and gradual change in the

subjective experience of education during maturation. バトラー後藤祐子 (2010) notes a paper

by psychologist John Nicholls (1984) that explains how children’s perception of achievement,

which strongly influences their motivation, changes as they develop. Whereas young children see

their abilities only in terms of effort, so that “to have a low ability means mere failure to master a

task or to improve as one had hoped” (p.329), adolescents see the same experience differently.

Nicholls continues:

After a number of intermediate levels of differentiation, adolescents conceive of ability as

a capacity (not merely performance) relative to that of others. In this case, perception of

low ability more clearly involves perception of inadequacy in the self— lack of capacity

that cannot readily be altered. (p. 329)

Although this cannot fully explain the drop in junior high students’ enthusiasm, which has much to

do with an increase in vocabulary acquisition and grammar-based exercises, this new and

heightened awareness of an “inadequacy in the self,” if true, must have some impact that could

lead to demotivation.

q) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q17 (もっと日本語の学習をしたい/Desire to learn Japanese)

(n=167)

日本語の学習をしたい/Desire to learn Japanese


全くしたくない/Not at all 0 0

あまりしたくない/Not really 4 2.4

少ししたい/A little 7 4.2

とてもしたい/ Very much 156 93.4

N/R 2

Junior high ALTs exhibit an even stronger desire than their counterparts at primaries to learn

Japanese, with the response “Very much” over ten percent higher (cf. 82.4%) despite presumably

smoother communication with their professional English teaching JTE colleagues.

r) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q18 (日本語能力：自己評価/Self-rated Japanese proficiency) (n=

167)


1.全くない/None 4 2.4

2.初歩的/Beginner 52 31.1

3.中程度/Intermediate 85 50.9

4.高い/High 167 15.6

N/R 2

The self-rated Japanese language skills of junior high ALTs appear weaker than those at primary

schools, 76.0% of whom rated themselves as at least “intermediate.”

Part 4: Class content & Effects of FLA/授業の内容および FLA の影響

s) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q19 (TT 学習指導案は誰が主に作成するか/Who usually plans TT

classes? (n= 165)


JTE 71 43.0

ALT 18 10.9

両方/Both the JTE and ALT 65 39.4


N/R 4

t) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q20 (小学校の英語は教科化すべきですか/Should English be

a core subject?) (n=168)





N/R 1

As the Japanese idea of “教科” or even the English “core subject” may not be familiar to many

ALTs, we inserted the remark “(i.e., evaluated)” into the question. Responses should thus be seen

in terms of whether junior high ALTs feel FLA should become an evaluated subject. There were

only 10 blanks in the (comparatively small) open-ended space in Q20. ALTs who answered “yes”

provided similar reasons to those of their JTE colleagues, suggesting that it would 1) help children

better prepare for junior high (24 respondents); 2) would help schools, students, and parents

“take it seriously” (17), and that, in general, the more of a foreign language at an earlier age, the

better (19). The precise form of evaluation was not articulated, however, and only one person

suggested “testing” for pupils, as “an unfortunate truth [i.e., necessity].”

ALTs who answered “no” argued that the stress of evaluation (6 responses) would

demotivate children, or that primary schools should emphasise mother tongue acquisition (4

responses), and leave FLA as it is, “without fear of academic repercussions.” One ALT expands, “I

believe its being a core subject of junior high fully explains how unpopular English is and how

negative the students are in class.”

Compared to primary ALTs, fewer junior high respondents are uncertain on this issue (cf.

primary ALT at 25%). Those who express uncertainty over this issue see both the advantages of the

“yes” group and the disadvantages in the “no” group, with one adding that “elementary school

teachers, although often highly motivated and willing to engage with the subject, often lack the

competence in English required to make it an evaluated subject.”

u) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q21 (FLA では「読み書き」も教えるべきか/Should literacy be

a priority in FLA?) (n= 168)





N/R 1

The belief that English would be better learned by teaching skills in reading and writing, or at least

some knowledge of the connection between letters and sounds, is strongly held by assistant

teachers at both levels (cf. primary ALTs at 71.4%). This disconnect has been identified in

neighbouring countries like Korea and China, and according to a MEXT report on English

education in several countries (文部科学省,2011c ) , the reading of simple words begins in China

at Level 2, or grades 3 and 4 (p.3), while Korean children in grade 4 begin printing exercises (p.11).

v) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q22 (学区での FLA 導入学年/Start of FLA at public schools in local

school area) (n= 166)



幼稚園/From Kindergarten 5 3.0

1 年/Grade 1 51 30.7

2 年/Grade 2 8 4.8

3 年/Grade 3 4 2.4

4 年/Grade 4 0 0

5 年/Grade 5 45 27.1

その他/Other * 9 5.4

N/R 3 *「その他」は「5 年生あるいは 6 年生」のように、学年を明確に指定していない。 Most of these were guesses,

like “grade 6 (possibly grade 5, too).”

Although 21 primary ALTs surveyed in Q21 wish FLA would begin earlier, over 67% of children at

the junior high respondents’ public schools already begin FLA before the official start point of

grade 5.

w) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT Q23 (中学校での英語授業に影響を与えたのか/Effect of FLA on

junior high English classes)

i) (n=168)





N/R 1

Compared with JTE responses, almost 40% more junior high ALTs appear to be unsure about

influences from FLA, and a higher ratio perceive no change. Unfortunately, we did not offer a

“mixed change” option.

ii) 具体的にどのような影響/Please explain in some detail (n= 63)

ランキン

グ/Rank

FLA授業の影響/Influence of FLA 頻度/Freq. キーワード/Key words (mentionings)

1 中学校ヘの転移/Transfer to junior high

21 Smoother (17), Worse (4)

2 自信増/More confidence 8

3 英単語増/More vocabulary 9

4 態度がよくなった/Better attitude 6

5 リスニングがよくなった/Listening

3

The majority of junior high ALTs hesitated in answering this question. Recall that 62.6% have been

teaching in Japan for two years or less (Q6) and cannot make an actual comparison. Some may feel

that “the level [of recent students] also varies depending on what school they went to.” Further,

ALTs who do not teach at primary schools tend not to know much about FLA, as the following

comment suggests:

Don't know. Though I've heard of FLA, I haven't participated in or witnessed any personally. If they are occurring, I haven't noticed any impact on elementary school

students. [わからない。外国語活動は聞いたことがあるが、自分は参観したり参

加したりしたことがないです。行っているとしても、私の見ている限りでは小学

生に外国語活動の影響を感じたことはありません。]

At the other end of the spectrum of responses, another ALT has experienced a profound change,

explaining that:

When FLA started, some homeroom teachers tried to get the ALTs to do it all. But in most

schools now, the homeroom teacher takes the lead in preparing and teaching. My junior

high students who have done FLA at elementary seem more understanding and open to

spoken English and listening. And have more confidence. Thanks to FLA, speaking and

listening skills can be acquired at elementary school, leaving reading, writing, and

grammar for junior high. In the past, mastering all of these at once was quite a load for

the students. [FLA の始まったところ、一部の HRT は ALT にまる投げしようとしたが、

今は HRT が指導や企画のことで主となってきた。FLA を経験した中学生の方が、英

語のリスニングや話すことに対して以前より前向きである。自信もある。FLA のお

陰でリスニングとスピーキングは小学校から可能となってきて、読み書きや文法

は中学校で集中的にできる。以前は全部をいっぺんに学ぶ必要があり、大変だっ

た。]

This is echoed by two other ALTs, surprised at the gap created since FLA:

i) To be honest I was very surprised with what my new first year students in junior high

school already knew; they had a solid set of vocabulary and knew or were familiar with

quite a few expressions and sentence patterns. English classes at their level became a

review of what they have studied plus the grammatical explanation to help make sense of

the expressions. Their intake has been significantly faster, in my opinion. [正直なところ、

入学してきた生徒の(英語)知識にびっくりした。英単語が多く、かつ表現のしかた

やいくつかのセンテンスパターンに慣れ親しんでいる。中１の授業は小学校の時

の復習と、英語をより深く理解するための文法に関する補助説明となった。英語

の理解は FLA 導入前より随分速くなったと思う。]

ii) Many junior high first years are better at speaking English than the third years.

Furthermore, younger children in primary school have excellent English pronunciation. [ス

ピーキングについては多くの場合、１年生の方が 3 年生より上手です。さらに、

英語の発音については中学生より小学生の方が上手な場合が多い。]

Revealing another perspective, a third-year ALT indicates the frustration that, despite

almost two years of FLA, “There's been no change in the way English is taught [at junior high] from

my experience.” This comment points to a powerfully demotivating factor associated with school

transition that was quoted earlier from research in Bolster (2009), i.e., the “situation where pupils’

prior learning [is] completely ignored” (p.234). To counter this, however, concrete and publically-

accessible special projects in Japan are making efforts, for example, to link the vocabulary used in

the FLA Hi, Friends! text with that of popular junior high textbooks like New Horizon and Sunshine,

and results may even be found online (e.g.,徳島県, 2013).

The Hi, friends! text does not officially need to be used in FLA classes, but exists as a

resource that can be used as necessary. Comments on this text in Q23 were mixed, with some

ALTs facing pressure to abandon their personally-designed activities: “I lost control of many of my

classes. All the work the ALTs put into creating a learning plan got tossed out for a very flawed

textbook.” On the other hand, there are some ALTs who teach at both school levels and feel

pleased that, thanks to the inauguration of FLA, they have teaching materials supplied:

Introducing an English textbook for grade five and grade six has greatly changed the

attitude of students towards learning English. The new textbooks are more interesting

and informative, especially the inclusion of videos of different countries. The students are

more motivated.” [5・6 年生の教科書の導入によって、英語に対する児童の態度が

大幅に好転してきた。教科書はより興味深く、また多くの情報を取り入れた内容

になってきている。特に様々な国々に関する内容のビデオはよかった。以前より、

児童は積極的になってきた。]

In order to increase the positive effects of FLA, Teachers evidently need discuss how, and to what

extent, they would like to use Hi, Friends! in both HRT solo classes and team-taught ones. The

results should depend on individual preferences that have at least been discussed.

x) 中学校 ALT/Junior high ALT 24 (FLA については他のコメント/Further comments on FLA) (n=

97)

ランキ

ング/Rank

FLA授業の特徴/Points regarding FLA

頻度/Freq.


1 教員/Teachers 23 研修/Training (7), 態度/Attitude (3),時間/ Time (2)

2 カリキュラム/Curriculum

10 改善ズべき/Needs improvements (6), Less

textbook/教科書以外も (2), More grammar/

文法を増やす(2)

3 書くことの導入/Writing 9 もっと/More (4)

4 満足/Satisfied 8

5 テスト/Tests 7 Not required/必要ない (4), Required/必要 (3)

5 読解の導入/Reading 7

While nearly half of the junior high ALTs left this question blank, with some noting “I wish I

understood more about the program,” the comments we did receive from experienced ALTs are

revealing. They sympathised with struggling HRTs and called for more training not only for them,

but for ALTs as well: “ALTs should be qualified ESL teachers from university, not fresh out of

university graduates looking for a fun time in Japan” [ALT は日本にただ遊びに来た新卒の人で

はなく、大学で第二言語習得（等）を勉強し、資格のある人がいい]. ALTs who seem to

have found the right combination of teachers, training, and attitude, are satisfied with the current

FLA oral-based approach, with a TEFL-certified ALT even surmising that “Elementary school may be

the first and last place where they actually learn English properly” [小学校は唯一の「実際に英

語をちゃんと学んでいる」場所であるかも知れない。]

Two other concerns, both of which were also pointed out in the pilot study, were the

paucity of Hi, friends! manuals and class plans in English (“which makes it difficult for ALTs without

Japanese”), and the recurring issue of not being “allowed to teach writing skills.” The latter could

enable children to take notes to “remember lessons with.” A JET programme participant with 5

years of teaching in Japan elaborates:

I would like to see basic reading introduced in elementary schools. I think it could avoid

the graded format of a core subject and give students a visual cue to language as opposed

to just sound. I get some resistance from elementary teachers as it ‘being too difficult,’

but even my worst students perform better when they have letters to look at. It should be

treated like a railing on the staircase, not like more stairs. Asking students to memorize

from just sound is demanding too much, and picture cards stop working past a single word

or for an abstract concept.”[小学校でも初歩的な読解の導入を薦めたいと思う。読解

の導入によって、音だけでなく、視覚からの手がかりになるものを与えることが

できる。また、教科みたいな「採点」を避けながら、読解の導入を薦めることは

可能だと思う。HRT から「それはちょっと難しいのではないか」と言われたこと

があるが、英語がとても苦手な子でさえ、英語の文字を見ることによって、理解

の手助けとなった。読解は、高いハードルではなく、むしろ助けになるものであ

ると考えるべきだ。児童に「音だけで暗記しなさい」というのは、要求しすぎで

あり、しかも抽象的な内容を絵カードで説明するのは難しいことだ。

Lastly, the introduction of FLA has produced a very strong interest and effect on at least one ALT’s

life: “My educational discipline is the political, but now I wish to upgrade my scholastic

achievements and get a master's in English mainly so I can become a better teacher.”

E. 今後の研究課題 (Issues for future research)

Our report could easily have extended to over 500 pages. There are dozens of issues

concerning this extensive database alone that require further statistical analyses, consideration,

and discussion. To give just one example from our data on HRT Q20, it would be interesting to

discover why HRTs of 6th graders tend to prepare for (but not lead) FLA classes themselves more

often than those teaching grade 5.

Beyond this project, some of the many issues we feel need further research include

further national and international assessments of demotivation towards foreign language

education in children in their early teens, followed by policy and educational materials

development designed with this in mind. We also realise that the relatively new FLA assistants,

here referred to as EAAs, as well as similar foreign language class assistants overseas, need to be

surveyed exclusively on teaching styles, beliefs, and the issue of how to improve foreign language

education for young learners. Though growing in number in Japan, only about 8% of HRTs

reported to be teaching with EAAs, so such surveys will need to be sent only to EAA-employing

boards of education rather than primary schools directly.

It would be interesting to contrast paired team teacher opinions of their FLA classes. In

this study, as primary ALT and HRT responses were received in separate envelopes to ensure

privacy, we were not able to compare HRT and ALT partners’ perspectives on their shared classes,

an inquiry that should be taken up, though with extreme care.

Updates and further research from the authors on this and related topics will be made available at

www.ipc.fukushima-u.ac.jp/~a085/

III. 参考文献 (References)

安達理恵。 (2004) 。「小学校の総合的学習の時間における英語教育・国際理解教育の実践

上の課題」。『第 30 回全国英語教育学会長野研究大会発表要綱』、588-591。

安達理恵。（2012）。「外国語活動時間増加に伴う小学生の動機づけとコミュニケーショ

ン」。『態度中部地区英語教育学会紀要』41 号、125-130。

猪井新一,真歩仁しょうん。（2013）。「小学校外国語活動は必修化後変したのか，し

ないのか」。『茨城大学教育実践研究』、第 32 号, 81-95。

猪井新一, 吉田孝, マホニー・ショーン, 板垣信哉。（2001）。『中学校・高等学校の日

本人英語教師と外国人教師の言語学習・指導に関する考え方の調査』平成 11 －12

年度科学研究費補助金（基盤研究（C）（1））[11689277] 研究成果報告書。

大下邦幸。(2007) 。小中連携の実態：アンケートとの結果から。In 松川禮子＆大下邦幸

（編集）『小学校英語と中学校英語を結ぶ』。高陵社書店、 25-61)。

佃紀子小。(2007)。「小中連携の英語教育の在り方に関する研究」。『高知県教育公務員

長期研修生平成 19 年度研究報告』、1-14。http://www.kochinet.ed.jp/center/

research_paper/h19_daigaku_kenshusei/01_shotyu-eigo.pdf

徳島県。(2013)。「"Hi，friends!"で使用されている英単語一覧表～小中連携の視点から

～」。学校政策課ホームページ。http://www.pref.tokushima.jp/docs/2013052000

049/

全国学校データ研究所 (編集)。（2011）。『全国学校総覧 2012 年版』。原書房。

日本英語検定協会。（2013）。「小学校の外国語活動及び英語活動等に関する現状調査」。

https://www.eiken.or.jp/eiken/group/result/pdf/syou_2012_12.pdf

バトラー後藤祐子。(2005) 。『日本の小学校英語を考える：アジアの視点からの験証と提

言』。三省堂。

バトラー後藤祐子。(2010) 。「評価をめぐる問題：評価をにらんだ目標設定の必要性」 in

湯川＆バトラー後藤。 Pp. 68-78.

ベネッセ。(2006) 。「第１回小学校英語に関する基本調査（教員調査）報告書」。

http://berd.benesse.jp/berd/center/open/report/syo_eigo/2006/index.shtml

ベネッセ教育研究開発センター。 (2010a) 。「第２回小学校英語に関する基本調査（教員

調査）」。http://benesse.jp/berd/center/open/report/syo_eigo/2010/index

ベネッセ教育研究開発センター。(2010b) 。「基礎集計表教務主任 5、6 年の学級担

任」。 http://berd.benesse.jp/berd/center/open/report/syo_eigo/2010/pdf/data_08.pdf

松川禮子&大下邦幸(編集)。(2007) 。『小学校英語と中学校英語を結ぶ』。高陵社書店。

文部科学省。(2008 ）。『小学校学習指導要領解説：外国語活動編』。

文部科学省。(2009 )。『小学校外国語活動研修ガイドブック』。

文部科学省。(2011a) 。「平成２３年度公立小・中学校における教育課程の編成・実施状

況調査（Ａ票）の結果について」。http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-

cs/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2012/01/31/1315677_1_1.pdf

文部科学省。(2011b) 。「平成 23 年度公立小・中学校における教育課程の編成・実施状

況調査(B 票）の結果について)」。http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-

cs/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2012/01/31/1315677_2_1.pdf

文部科学省。(2011c) 。「諸外国の外国語教育における目標について」http://www.mext.go.

jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/082/shiryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/01/31/1300649

_05.pdf

文部科学省。(2013) 。報道。「グローバル化に対応した英語教育改革実施計画」。http://

www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/25/12/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2013/12/17/1342458_01_1.

pdf

山口美穂&巽徹。(2010) 。「英語教育における小中連携に関する一考察」。岐阜大学教育

学部、教師教育研究 6, 203-213．http://www.ed.gifu-u.ac.jp/~kyoiku/info/kyosi/6.

html

湯川笑子＆バトラー後藤祐子。(2010) 。『小学校英語活動必修化のためのカリキュラム、

教材、教え方』公開研究会報告書。

湯川笑子, 小山哲春＆山岡憲史。(2012) 。『評価結果に基づき小・中学校教師とともに開

発する英語授業・教材・指導法』。平成 20－23 年報告書。課題番号：20320087。

吉田研作(編集)。(2008a) 。『 21 年度から取り組む小学校英語―全面実施まで

にこれだけは (「新学習指導要領」実践の手引き (4)』。研作教育開発研究所。

吉田研作。（2008b）。「小学校・中学校移行措置への対応ポイント」。（高階玲治編）

教育開発研究所、10（1）、 pp. 118-120。

AJET. (2008). Team teaching materials report. In AJET Reports: English version. Retrieved from

http://ajet.net/downloads/reports/2008/Nov/All%20Nov%202008%20Reports%20EN.pdf

Bradburn, N., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions. San Francisco: John-Wiley &

Sons.

Cheong, M.Y. (2010). Korean teachers' beliefs about English language education and their impacts

upon the ministry of education-initiated reforms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Georgia State University, USA. 193 pages. Retrieved from http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/

alesl_diss/14/

Chesterton, P., Steigler-Peters, S., Moran, W. and Piccoli, M.T. (2004). Developing

Sustainable Language Learning Pathways: An Australian Initiative. Language, Culture and

Curriculum , 17(1), pp. 48-57.

Choi, Y. H., Lee, J. W., Lee, W. K., & Boo, K. S. (2003). Effects of elementary school English

education on middle school English education: Focused on the analysis of students’ survey

responses. Primary English Education, 9(1), 131-165.

Clavel, Toru. (2014, January 20). Team-teaching rules can lead to confusing situations. The Japan

Times, p. A11.

Coleman, James A.; Galaczi, Á. and Astruc, L. (2007). Motivation of UK school pupils towards

foreign languages: a large-scale survey at Key Stage 3. Language Learning Journal, 35(2),

pp. 245–280.

Crump, A. (2008). TEFL without training: What are the consequences? Saarbrücken, Germany:

VDM Verlag.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Enever, J., Moon, J., Raman, U (Eds.). (2009). Young learner English language policy and

implementation: international perspectives. Reading: IATEFL.

Falout, J., & Maruyama, M. (2004). A Comparative Study of Proficiency and Learner Demotivation.

The Language Teacher, 28 (8), 3-9.

Gaynor, B., Copland, F., Takizawa, J. & Yukawa, E. (2011, November). Teaching children:

Elementary and Preschool Forum. Forum presentation at the meeting of the Japan

Association for Language Teaching (JALT), Tokyo, Japan.

Goto Butler, Y. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to

attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan? TESOL Quarterly,

38(2), 245-278.

Hashimoto, K. (2011). Compulsory “foreign language activities” in Japanese primary schools. Current Issues in Language Planning. DOI:10.1080/14664208.2011.585958.

IBM SPSS. (2011). Text Analytics for Surveys 4.0.1 User’s Guide. Software pdf booklet.

Koster, Cor. (1986). English FLES in The Netherlands: How good must a teacher be? The modern

language journal, 70(1), 8-12.

Larson-Hall, J. (2008). Weighing the benefits of studying a foreign language at a younger starting

age in a minimal input situation. Second Language Research, 24, 35-63.

Mahoney, S., Inoi, S., and Yoshida, T. (2003). Toward improving JET: Top team-teaching concerns in

review. 東北英語教育学会研究紀要、第 23 号、35-44. Tokyo: 東北英語教育学会.

McConnell, D. L. (2000). Importing diversity: Inside Japan’s JET program. Los Angeles: University of

California Press.

MEXT English FLA homepage. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-

cs/youryou/eiyaki/gai.pdf

Narcy-Combes, J. P., Aden, J., Delasalle, D., Larryea, P., Le Bihan, J.C., Poirier, F., Raby, F., & Tardieu,

C. (2007). Rapport sur l’enseignement de l’anglais à l’école, Société des Anglicistes de

l’Enseignement Supérieur. Retrieved from http://espace- langues.paris.iufm.fr/IMG/

pdf/RapportAnglaisPrimr.pdf

Nicholls, J.G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task

choice, and performance. Psychological review, 91(3), 328-346.

Ogawa, C. (2010). Perceptions about team teaching: From Assistant Language Teachers and

Japanese Teachers of English. JALT 2010 Conference proceedings. Pp. 473-486.

Oppenheim, A.N. (1996). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. New

Edition. London: Continuum international publishing group Ltd.

IV. 資料 (Appendices)

A. 小学校の 5 及び 6 年学級担任用アンケート（Primary HRT questionnaire）

小学校外国語活動に関する全国調査（小学校の 5 年及び 6 年学級担任対象）

*open-ended answer spaces omitted

Part 1 背景的情報

1. 年齢: 1) 20 代 2) 30 代 3) 40 代 4) 50 代 5) 60 代

2. 勤務校所在地都道府県名 ( )都道府県

3. 何年生を担任（担当）していますか。（）年生（）人

4. 学級の中に、英語塾や英語教室等に通っている児童は何人ですか？（）人

5. ア) 現在の勤務校では、外国語活動の年間時間数は何時間ありますか？（）時間

イ)今年度を含めて、外国語活動担当経験年数（総合的な学習の時間などの経験を含む）

は、何年になりますか（）年

6. 今年度の外国語活動の指導形態の割合を教えてください。

1) 学級担任 1 人による指導（）％

2) ALT とのティームティーチング（）％

3) 外国語活動協力員(EAA)とのティームティーチング（）％

4）その他（具体的に：（）％

（合計が 100％になるようにしてください）

7. 英語の教員免許はお持ちですか。 1) はい 2) いいえ

8. 出身大学の学部：（）学部

9. 英語検定試験や TOEIC などを受験したり、「小学校英語教育指導者」などの資格をお持ちですか。

1) はい 2) いいえ

「はい」と答えた方は,合格した級、点数や資格などを記入してください。

10. 先生は時間があれば、もっと英語の学習をしたいですか。

1) とてもしたい 2) 少ししたい 3) あまりしたくない 4) 全くしたくない

11. 先生はご自分の英語力をどのように評価していますか。

1) かなり高い 2) 中程度 3) 初歩的 4) 全くない

Part 2 小中連携について

12. 今まで、どのような小中連携をなされましたか。以下の項目に○印をつけてください (複数回答可)。さらに、

○印をつけた項目は、役に立ったかどうかについても、○をつけて答えてください。

a) 中学校での英語の授業参観（役に立った / 役に立たない）

b) 中学校の先生との外国語活動の指導法・教材等についての話し合い

（役に立った / 役に立たない）

c) 中学校の先生との外国語活動のカリキュラムについての話し合い


d) 小学校の ALT/EAA との話し合い（役に立った / 役に立たない）

e) 中学校の ALT/EAA との話し合い（役に立った / 役に立たない）

f) 中学校の先生との外国語活動の目標についての話し合い


g) その他（具体的に）（役に立った / 役に立たない）

13. 先生は外国語活動指導について中学校の英語教師ともっと連携をはかりたいですか。

1) はい 2) いいえ 3）わからない

14. 質問 13 で「はい」と答えた方は、どのようなことについて連携をはかりたいですか。具体的に書いてくだ

さい。「いいえ」と答えた方は、その理由をかいてください。

15. 先生は小・中連携した英語のカリキュラムについてどう思いますか。

a) 必要である。

1) はい 2) いいえ 3) わからない

b) 先生の学区では、そのようなカリキュラムは作成が可能であると思われますか。

1) はい 2) いいえ 3)わからない

Part 3 外国語活動について

16. 今年度、外国語活動の目標はどの程度達成されたと思いますか。数字に○をつけてく

ださい。

（低い）１２３４５６７８９１０（高い）

17. 外国語活動を実施する上で、これまでどのようなこと（または人）が最も役に立ちましたか。

18. 先生はティームティーチングを行う場合、ALT/外国語活動協力員等と授業内容についての事前打ち合わせ

を行なっていますか。

（1）必ず行なっている（2）おおむね行なっている（3）時々行なっている

（4）あまり行なわない（5）全く行なわない

19. ティームティーチング（TT）で外国語活動を指導する場合、どなたが主に指導していますか。

1) 学級担任

2) 学級担任以外（ALT、英語専科教員、外国語活動協力員、ボランティア）

3) 両方

4)その他（具体的に）：

20. 外国語活動の TT 学習指導案はどなたが主に作成していますか。

1) 学級担任

2) 学級担任以外（ALT、英語専科教員、外国語活動協力員、ボランティア）

3) 両方

4)その他（具体的に）：

21. 小学校での外国語活動が将来、英語の教科として扱われるためには、どのような条件

が整えば良いと思いますか。

22. 外国語活動は先生のクラスの児童にとって、大切であると思いますか。

1) とてもそう思う 2) まあまあそう思う 3) あまりそうは思わない

4) そう思わない 5）わからない

23. 先生のクラスの児童は、概ね、英語学習に対して積極的ですか。

1)とても積極的である 2)まあまあ積極的である 3)あまり積極的でない 4)積極的でない

24. 外国語活動の導入によって、児童が担任の先生と接する（コミュニケーションする）際に何か変化はあり

ましたか。


25. 前問 24 で「はい」と答えた方は、どのように変化したのかを具体的に書いてください。

26. 先生が外国語活動を指導されていて、成功した、うまくいったと感じるのは、どのような時ですか。その

理由を含めて、できるだけ具体的に書いてください。

27. 先生が外国語活動を指導されていて、うまくいかなかったと感じるのは、どのような時ですか。その理由

を含めて、できるだけ具体的に書いてください。

28. 先生の学校の外国語活動を改善するためには、どのようにすれば良いと思いますか。先生のお考えを書い

てください。

B. 全国小学校 ALT アンケート (Primary ALT questionnaire)

National Survey on Elementary Foreign Language Activities (ALT version)

Part 1: Background information

1. Approximately what percentage of your classes are taught at elementary schools?

a) less than 25% b) 25-49% c) 50-74% d) 75-99% e) 100%

2. Under what program are you teaching in primary schools? (Please circle)

a) JET Programme

b) Local government contract

c) Private agency contract

d) Other (please specify):

3. The name of the prefecture in which you teach:

4. To which grade(s) do you teach “Foreign Language Activities” (=FLA)? _____________________

5. What percentage of these primary school FLA classes are taught…

a) alone, or mainly alone (with a homeroom teacher present)? ____ %

b) together with a homeroom teacher? ____ %

c) other? (describe) ____ %

6. Total length of teaching experience (in any country, including Japan): __________

7. Length of teaching “Foreign Language Activities” (FLA) at primary schools in Japan: _________

8. Main area of training in university/college. Please include any education or language-related

certificates or courses, if any:

9. Your approximate age (please circle): 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s

Part 2: Experiences of FLA (= Foreign Language Activities)

10. On a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), how satisfied are you with FLA classes…

a) for grades 1-4? _____ b) for grade 5? ____ c) for grade 6? ____

11. In terms of support for FLA, how important are the following? (Ascending order of 0= not at all important; 1= not

very important; 2= important; 3= extremely important)

a) Japanese teachers’ English ability __________

b) teaching materials __________

c) regular schedule for the ALT __________

d) motivation of homeroom teachers at school __ _______

e) help from other teachers at school _________

f) help from management (at schools or company) _________

g) training for primary homeroom teachers ___ _______

h) links with other primary schools ______ ___

i) links with junior high schools _ ______ __

j) pupils’ motivation __________

k) my knowledge of language education __________

l) my knowledge of the Japanese language ___________

m) other ( ) ___________

12. In general, do you feel FLA is important for your students?

1 no 2 not really 3 not sure 4 moderately 5 very

13. Given the time, would you like to learn more Japanese?

1 not at all 2 not really 3 not sure 4 a little 5 very much

14. Overall, how would you describe fifth grade pupils’ attitude towards FLA?

1 very negative 2 slightly negative 3 don’t know 4 fairly positive 5 very positive

15. Overall, how would you describe sixth grade pupils’ attitude towards FLA?

1 very negative 2 slightly negative 3 don’t know 4 fairly positive 5 very positive

16. How proficient do you consider your own level of Japanese?

1 none 2 beginner 3 intermediate 4 high

Part 3: Inter-school communication

17. For those who teach at BOTH elementary and junior high: Are you able to reuse words and phrases introduced at the

primary level in your junior high classes?

1 not at all 2 not often 3 don’t know what they learned at primary school 4 yes, in general

5 yes, very much

18. If you have witnessed or participated in links between primary and jr high schools in your area regarding English

education, please circle the letter that describes the nature of this linkage (multiple answers accepted).Then please

circle whether you feel each type of link was helpful.

a) demonstration class at primary/junior high school (Helpful/Not helpful)

b) consultation with jr high teacher on teaching materials/teaching methods

(Helpful/Not helpful)

c) consultation with jr high English teacher on courses (Helpful/Not helpful)

d) consultation with jr high English teacher about class goals (Helpful/Not helpful)

e) consultation with ALT who (also) works at the jr high level (Helpful/Not helpful)

f) other (describe ____________________________________) (Helpful/Not helpful)

19. Do you think a primary through jr high English curriculum is:

a) Necessary? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know

b) Possible in your locality? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know

20. Is there a need for more links between the two school levels?

1 yes 2 no 3 don’t know

21. If “Yes,” what kind of links would be best? If “No,” why not?

Part 4: Class content & Effects of FLA

22. If you engage in team-taught FLA classes, who usually plans them at your school(s)?

1 the homeroom teacher 2 the ALT, volunteer, or jr high teacher

3 both homeroom teacher and person in “2” above 4 other (explain)

23. Should English become a full, core (i.e., evaluated) subject in elementary schools?

1 yes 2 no 3 don’t know.

Why or why not?

24. Teaching basic English literacy is not currently considered a priority at primary schools. Should it be?


25. Please let us know of any unsuccessful FLA classes you’ve experienced. Describe them in some detail, and include

grade level if possible.

26. Please let us know of any successful FLA classes you’ve experienced. Describe them in some detail, and include

grade level if possible.

27. Further comments on FLA in Japan’s elementary schools:

C. 全国中学校英語教師アンケート (Junior high English teacher questionnaire)

小学校外国語活動に関する全国調査（中学校英語教師対象）

Part 1 背景的情報

1. 年齢 1） 20 代 2) 30 代 3) 40 代 4）50 代 5) 60 代

2. 勤務校所在地都道府県名 ( )都道府県

3. 何年生を担当していますか。

（）年生クラスサイズ（）人クラス数（）クラス



4. 学区内には、いくつの公立小学校がありますか。（）校

5.１クラス当たり何人ぐらいが英語塾や英語教室に通っていますか？ ( )人

6. 今年度の先生の英語指導形態の割合について、以下にご記入ください。

1）学級担当 1 人による指導（）％

2） ALT とのティームティーチング（）％

3）その他（）％

（合計が１００％になるようにしてください。）

7. 出身大学の学部：（）学部

8. 英語検定試験や TOEIC などを受験したことがありますか。

１）はい２）いいえ

「はい」と答えた方は合格した級、点数などを記入してください。

9.小学校外国語活動導入後の生徒は、導入以前の生徒と比べて、英語の学習により積極的だと思いますか。

１）そう思う２）まあまあそう思う３）そう思わない４）全く思わない５）わからない

Part 2 小中連携に関して

10. 今まで、どのような小中連携をされましたか。以下の項目に印をつけてください(複数回答可)。

さらに、○印をつけた項目は、役に立ったかどうかについても、○をつけて答えてください。

a) 小学校での英語の授業参観 (役に立った / 役に立たない）

b) 小学校の先生との外国語活動の指導法・教材等についての話し合い


c) 小学校の先生との外国語活動のカリキュラムについての話し合い


d) ALT との小中連携についての話し合い（役に立った / 役に立たない）

e) 小学校の先生との外国語活動の目標についての話し合い


ｆ) その他（具体的に）（役に立った / 役に立たない）

11. 先生は小学校の先生と、英語指導についてもっと連携をはかりたいですか。


12. 上で「はい」と答えた方は、どのような内容について連携をはかりたいですか。具体的に書いてくださ

い。

13. 先生は小・中連携した英語のカリキュラムについてどう思いますか。

a) 必要である。


b) そのようなカリキュラムは作成が可能であると思われますか。


14. 先生は小学校で、外国語活動を実施したことがありますか。

1) はい 2) いいえ

15. 学区内の小学校の外国語活動の年間計画や指導内容を、どのぐらい把握していますか。

1)かなり把握している 2)ある程度把握している

3)少ししか把握していない 4)全く把握していない

Part 3 外国語活動について

16. 小学校の外国語活動において、文字指導はした方がよいと思いますか。

１)そう思う 2)やや思う 3) あまり思わない４)思わない５）分からない

その理由を書いてください。

17. 小学校での外国語活動が将来、英語の教科として扱われるためには、どのような条件が整えば良

いと思いますか。

18. 小学校での外国語活動導入により、中学校での英語指導に何らかの影響がありましたか。

１)良い影響 2)悪い影響 3)良い影響と悪い影響４）影響なし５）わからない

19. 上で選択「１」～「３」と答えた方は、具体的にどのような影響があったのかについて、述べて

下さい。

20. 小学校外国語活動に関して、感じること、思うことなど、自由に書いてください。

D 全国中学校 ALT アンケート (Junior high ALT questionnaire)

National Survey on Junior High English and Elementary Foreign Language Activities (ALT Version)

Part 1: Background Information

1. Approximately what percentage of your classes are taught at junior high schools? (Please circle)

a) less than 25% b) 25-49% c) 50-74% d) 75-99% e) 100%

2. Which grade(s) do you teach there? ________________

3. Under what program are you teaching in jr high?

a) JET Programme

b) Local government contract

c) Private agency contract

d) Other (please specify):

4. The name of the prefecture in which you teach: _______ _ ________

5. Total length of teaching experience (in any country, including Japan): __________

6. Length of teaching at jr high school in Japan: ___________

7. Main area of training in university/college. Please include any education-related certificates or

courses, if any:

8. Your approximate age (please circle): 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s

Part 2: Inter-school communication

9. Are you familiar with any of your local elementary school’s “Foreign Language Activities” (FLA)

curriculum, i.e., pre-jr high English?

1 not at all 2 not really 3 yes, a little 4 yes, very

10. If you have witnessed or participated in links between primary and jr high schools in your area regarding English

education, please circle the letter that describes the nature of this linkage (multiple answers accepted).Then please

circle whether you feel each type of link was helpful.

a) demonstration class at primary/junior high (Helpful/Not helpful)

b) consultation with primary teacher on teaching materials/teaching methods (Helpful/Not helpful)

c) consultation with primary teacher on courses (Helpful/Not helpful)

d) consultation with primary teacher about class goals (Helpful/Not helpful)

e) consultation with ALT who (also) works at the primary level (Helpful/Not helpful)

f) other (describe _____________________________________________) (Helpful/Not helpful)

11. Is there a need for more links between the two school levels?


12. If “Yes,” what kind of activity would be best? If “No,” why not?

13. Do you think a primary through jr high English curriculum is:

a) Necessary? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know

b) Possible in your locality? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know

14. For those who teach at BOTH junior high and elementary: Are you able to reuse words and phrases introduced at the primary level in your junior high classes? 1 Not at all 2 Not often 3 Don’t know what they learned at primary school 4 Yes, in general 5 Yes, very much

Part 3: Language learning

15. In general, do you feel English classes are important for your students?

1 no 2 not really 3 don’t know 4 moderately 5 very

16. How would you describe your students’ attitude towards English class for each year you teach? (Response code: 1=

very negative; 2= slightly negative; 3= don’t know; 4= fairly positive; 5= very positive)

a) first year ___ _ b) second year __ __ c) third year ___ _

17. Given the time, would you like to learn more Japanese?

1 not at all 2 not really 3 a little 4 very much

18. How proficient do you consider your own level of Japanese?

1 none 2 beginner 3 intermediate 4 high

Part 4: Class content & Effects of FLA

19. Some JTEs note that they haven’t enough time to plan for team-taught classes. Who usually plans them at your jr

high(s)?

1 the JTE 2 the ALT

3 both the JTE and ALT 4 other (explain):

20. English is not yet a full, core (i.e., evaluated) subject in elementary schools. Should it be?


Why or why not?

21. Teaching basic English literacy is not currently considered a priority at primary schools. Should it be?


22. If known, please indicate when children begin Foreign Language Activities at public schools in

your area.

1) don’t know 2) from grade ________

23. Has the official introduction of Foreign Language Activities had any effect on your English classes?

Yes No Don’t know

Please explain in some detail:

24. Let us know if you have any further comments on Foreign Language Activities in Japan’s

elementary schools.

小・中学校の英語学習・指導の一致性に関する調査a085/full.pdf小・中学校の英語学習・指導の一致性に関する調査...

Documents