Doré  Paul

Ishikawa  Haruko

Sano  Yumiko

English

Doré,  Paul

Ishikawa,  Haruko

Sano,  Yumiko

Tama University Institutional Repository / 多摩大学 学術情報リポジトリ

経営・情報研究No.12（2008）－ 27－［研究ノート］Course Development for the Tama UniversityEnglish Shower Program:Evaluations of the First Year CurriculumPaul Doré, Haruko Ishikawa and Yumiko SanoKey words: university curriculum, program development, evaluation, needs analysisAs part of a university-wide curriculum reformeffort, the School of Management and InformationSciences at Tama University instituted a compulsoryEnglish-language education program, the EnglishShower Program, in April 2002. The twofold objectiveof the program is to develop (a) the Englishproficiency, and (b) the general and interculturalcommunication skills of all undergraduate businessstudents in the school, who will need such skills intheir careers (English Shower Program Handbook2007). The program contents and criteria have beenreviewed periodically, and based on feedback frominstructors and students, new activities have beenadded to the curriculum. This paper presents the resultsof a survey of first-year students conducted in July,2007 to assess the needs of current students and thecurrent state of the program. A questionnaire wasdistributed on the day of the final exam for EnglishShower courses in the Spring 2007 semester; studentsselected responses to survey questions from amongalternatives provided.English Shower classes for the first-year of theprogram meet four days a week, with the coursecontents divided into two curricula, each offered ontwo days per week. The I-A curriculum, offered onTuesdays and Thursdays, emphasizes speaking andlistening activities for developing communicationskills; this curriculum is designed to foster students’ability to engage in discourse ranging from small talkto discussions on social issues. The I-B curriculum,offered on Wednesdays and Fridays, emphasizes thedevelopment of speech and presentation skills, whichwill be essential in the future workplaces of thebusiness-major students for whom the program wasdesigned.In view of the structure of the course, thequestionnaire comprised three parts. The first partinvestigated students’ responses to the overallcurriculum, the second the I-A curriculum, and thethird the I-B curriculum.Ⅰ. Students’ Responses to the OverallCurriculumThe English Shower Program takes a com-municative approach, and therefore maintains anEnglish-only policy that requires instructors andstudents to use English at all times during classes. For（原稿受領日　2007.10.13）Course Development for the Tama University English Shower Program: Evaluations of the First Year Curriculum－ 28－first-year students, who are unfamiliar with such alearning environment, understanding this policy andmaintaining a positive engagement in learning Englishrepresents a major challenge. Hence, this section ofthe questionnaire was designed to answer thefollowing two questions. (1) What are the learningobjectives of students in the program, and are theEnglish Shower curriculum objectives in accord withthese objectives? (2) How effective is the EnglishShower curriculum in developing students’ Englishproficiency?1.  Students’ learning objectivesFigure 1 shows the English skills that studentsindicated a desire to develop through their universityEnglish classes.In that English Shower classes emphasize thedevelopment of speaking skills, the survey resultspresented in Figure 1 show that the objectives of theprogram corresponded well with students’ objectives;the skill that students most want to develop is the focusof the program. However, students do not seem to beas interested in other skills that are also important; inparticular, one main objective of the program, thedevelopment of presentation skills, was not sharedwidely by students, as we had hoped. The surveyresults show that as we help to improve students’speaking skills, we need to communicate moreeffectively to students the importance of presentationskills.2. Students’ reported progress in English ShowerclassesThe questionnaire asked students to reportimprovement that they observed in particular skillareas as a result of a semester of study in an EnglishShower course. Figure 2 shows their responses.The data show that 86% of students observed someimprovement in their English skills while 14% didnot observe any improvement. The focus oncommunication in English Shower classes seems tohave led to improved speaking and listening skills,and the heavy focus on presentation skills also seemsto have yielded improvement.The questionnaire also asked students’ to reportaffective changes resulting from their English Showercourse. Figure 3 presents students’ responses.020406080100120140160系列1 144 12 15 2 23 29Speaking Writing Reading Presentation ListeningTOEICperforma nceFigure 1: Skills students wish to developFigure 2: Skills improved through EnglishShower course0102030405060708090系列1 79 18 20 34 37 1 32Speaking Writing Reading Presentation ListeningTOEICnceperformaNochange経営・情報研究No.12（2008）－ 29－Ⅱ .  ESI-A curriculumEnglish Shower I-A (henceforth, I-A) is designedto develop students’ proficiency in English in the fourskill areas: listening, speaking, reading, and writing.In this section, we focus on three main program-wideactivities, vocabulary quizzes, listening marathon, andwriting marathon, in the curriculum and attempt toevaluate students’ perceptions and satisfaction levelsof them by looking into our questionnaire surveyresults.1. Vocabulary QuizzesThe I-A sets eight vocabulary quizzes during thesemester. The main purposes of the quizzes are forstudents to strengthen their vocabulary and providethem with an opportunity to develop study habits.Students take one vocabulary quiz every week duringthe class. There are 20 questions in each quiz,consisting of 15 questions on vocabulary and fivequestions on grammar they have learnt in previousclasses. Each correct answer is worth one point. Hence,the full mark is 20 points. All words tested in thequizzes are either taken from or closely related to thevocabulary found in the materials which are used inthe classes (textbooks, handouts etc.) A word list foreach quiz is given in the student handbook distributedat the beginning of the academic year.In our questionnaire survey, we asked the studentsthe following four questions on vocabulary quizzes:1) Did weekly vocabulary quizzes benefit you?2) Why do you think weekly vocabulary quizzes wereeffective?3) What was your usual target score?4) How did you study for weekly vocabulary quizzes?First, Figure 4 shows that almost 85% of the studentsfound vocabulary quizzes beneficial to them.Second, close to 45% of the students found thevocabulary quizzes useful since they helped them learnnew words, while 16% of the students felt that thequizzes helped them develop study habits (Figure 5).Next, 90% of the students answered that their targetscore is above 10 points (Figure 6).0102030405060708090系列1 79 65 25 20 11 17No longer hesitant about speaking in EnglishNo longer feel nervousEnjoys communi cation moreFeels closer to people from other countriesFeels more confidentNo changeFigure 3: Affective changes resultingfrom English Shower courseFigure 4: Did Weekly Vocabulary Quizzesbenefit you?16％Figure 5: Reasons: Weekly VocabularyQuizzes were effectiveCourse Development for the Tama University English Shower Program: Evaluations of the First Year Curriculum－ 30－As for the way the students study for quizzes, morestudents learn new words by checking them in adictionary than writing them many times to memorizethem (Figure 7).2.  Listening MarathonIn I-A, students are required to do listeninghomework to improve their listening skills. They areassigned a unit from a textbook and a dictation sheetto complete every week. The teacher checks thetextbook and collects the dictation sheets in class,which are returned to the students in the followingweek. By the end of the semester, they have completed10 units from the textbook and 10 dictation sheets.In our survey, we asked the students the followingquestions on Listening Marathon:1) Did Listening Marathon benefit you?2) Did you work by yourself?3) How long did it take to finish each listeningassignment?First, 85% of the students answered listeningmarathon was beneficial to them (Figure 8). Second,Figure 9 shows that approximately 75% of the studentsdid the assignments by themselves and did not copytheir friend’s answers. For the majority of students(about 70%), it took from 10 to 30 minutes to completeone assignment (Figure 10).Figure 8: Did Listening Marathon benefit you?Figure 9: Did you work by yourself?Figure 6: Target score set by studentsFigure 7: How did you study for WeeklyVocabulary Quizzes?Figure 10: How long did it take to finisheach listening assignment?30％経営・情報研究No.12（2008）－ 31－3. Writing MarathonIn addition to Listening Marathon, students aregiven writing homework to improve their writingability. Students are assigned altogether five to sixpieces of writing homework during the semester.Writing topics may vary from class to class, but usuallythey are something closely related to the subjects theyhave studied or discussed in classes, for example,describing their neighborhood or describing someonethey respect.Our survey asked the following questions to ourstudents on Writing Marathon:1) Did writing marathon benefit you?2) How long did it take to finish each writingassignment?3) Did you use translation software when you did yourwriting homework?Figure 11 shows more than 90 percent of the studentsfound writing homework useful. The time spent oneach assignment varies from student to student (Figure12). Thirty seven percent of the students spent up to15 minutes, 33% of the students spent 15 to 30minutes, and 30% of the students spent 30 minutes ormore. As for the use of translation software, 70% ofthe students answered that they did not use them whilethe rest of the students (30%) answered that they did(Figure 13).Figure 11: Did Writing Marathon benefit you?The above survey results show that the students aregenerally satisfied with the activities in I-A and findthem useful. Writing marathon, in particular, isregarded as most beneficial by the students.Ⅲ .  ESI-B curriculumIn the I-B curriculum, students are taught thestructure of two types of speech as well as beinginstructed on how to prepare and give speeches thatinclude power point visual aids. All speeches arepresented to their home room classmates and teacherwith exception of the end-of-year speech given to aguest teacher as well. Since 2002 until the present day,the I-B curriculum content has primarily consisted ofspeech structure and to a much lesser degree, non-verbal communication, and speech presentation skills.Figure 12: How long did it take to finish eachwriting assignment?Figure 13: Did you use translation softwarewhen you did writing homework?Course Development for the Tama University English Shower Program: Evaluations of the First Year Curriculum－ 32－1.  A new approachPre 1980’s approaches to teaching English as asecond or foreign language (ESL & EFL respectively)can be summarized as a Second Language Instruction(SLI) approach. After the 1980’s, the general approachfocused on Second Language Acquisition (SLA).Research done in social-psychology and applied tosecond language learning has been the catalyst for themost recent adaptation of focus, a Second LanguageSocialization (SLS) approach. The data in the eightquestions about the I-B curriculum, viewed from theSLS perspective, identifies areas that with someadjusting, will better suit students’ needs and providemore opportunities for successful language learningexperiences.Question by question, data is studied with the viewof adding practices, based on SLS concepts, to thecurriculum. A report on these changes is planned forthe next edition of the Tama University Journal ofManagement and Information Sciences.2.  I-B curriculum objectivesThe main, though not exclusive, aims of the I-Bcurriculum are as follows;1. introduce oneself2. make simple descriptions3. make a short speech4. make a short presentation(English Shower Program Handbook 2007)3.  I-B curriculum workloadTable 1 shows the curriculum requirements forindividual speeches and group presentationrequirements from 2003 － 2007. At the time of thissurvey, students had only completed the springsemester of 2007, and so had not yet experienced theend-of-year group presentation.4.  The dataThe prescribed I-B speech topics are; Self-introduction, Demonstration, and Show and Tell. Thefirst question aims to discern the student satisfactionlevel with the current speech topics and also learn whatother topics may be of interest.The data reveals that one of the prescribed topics,the Self-introduction, is quite popular gaining a 19 %positive response. However, two of the prescribedtopics, Demonstration and Show and Tell, were lesspopular than five of the other newly suggested topics.The interestingly high (25%) response to the topicof Personal Experience implies that a significantnumber of students are interested in sharing theirexperiences with, and hearing about the experiencesof others.Figure 14: What topic would you like togive a speech on?Table 1: Curriculum Speech and PresentationRequirementsSPRINGindividualspeechesAUTUMNgrouppresentationsSPRING & AUTUMNwrittentests2005 2006 20077 6 55 5 42 2 2経営・情報研究No.12（2008）－ 33－The second question shows students’ preferencesfor either spending a short time covering a wide rangeof speech topics, or spending a long time on fewerspeech topics.Fifty nine percent of the respondents would preferto move at a slower than current pace, spending moretime on developing their content and presentationskills. There was also a 35% positive response to notincreasing the current number of speeches, which isthree.A convincing 94% response clearly states the wishto keep the number of speeches at either three or fewer.Figure 15: Preference for range or depth of speechesEvidence supporting the notion of the empoweringeffect of social networks can be found in the data fromthe third question (figure 16). Ninety percent of thestudents said they were inspired, interested (or both),or amused by their classmates’ speeches. Theremaining 10% felt that it was the difficulty of contentor language articulation that was the root of theirexperienced lack of interest.The implications from the data below (figures 17and 18) can be used by teachers to review their classtime allocation for the various public speaking practiceactivities they introduce in class.Figure 18: Methods of practice outside of classFigure 16: How did you feel when you listenedto your classmates’ speeches?Figure 17: Which part of speech giving would youliked to have spent more time on?Course Development for the Tama University English Shower Program: Evaluations of the First Year Curriculum－ 34－Ⅳ .  SummaryDespite being a compulsory EFL program taughtentirely in English, indications from the data in thespring 2007 survey show that program objectives andthe students’ study objectives are somewhat in sync.In addition, students are generally happy with theEnglish Shower curriculum, and 86% of respondentsobserved some improvement in their language skills.In regards to the I-A curriculum, vocabularyquizzes, listening marathon, and writing marathon allhad close to a 90% positive response for perceivedbenefit.In the I-B curriculum, the majority respondednegatively to inquiry about the belief that training inpublic speaking was beneficial to language skillsdevelopment. Possible reasons for this are the lack ofinvolvement of the learners in curriculumdevelopment, limited attention paid to confidencebuilding for public speaking, and the un-fulfillmentof the need for peer interaction deliberately structuredto enhance individual development through thebroadening of their social network.Involvement of learners in the design of curriculumis not a new idea. What is relatively new is the SLSapproach to ESL and EFL teaching arena. At present,the English Shower I-B curriculum content reliesheavily upon teacher instruction (SLI).Research into content, methodologies, andclassroom practices in alignment with an SLSapproach will be carried out in order to include themin the I-B curriculum from spring 2008.ReferenceHinkleman, D. (2007). Learner Solidarity vs LearnerAutonomy: Building Blended Learning Communities. Anunpublished presentation at Kanda Institute of ForeignLanguages.著者プロフィール佐野　裕美子（Yumiko Sano）神奈川県出身。獨協大学外国語学部英語学科卒。カリフォルニア州立大学ソノマ校大学院修士課程修了（MA in Education）。獨協大学非常勤講師、多摩大学非常勤講師を経て、現在、多摩大学経営情報学部准教授。石川　晴子（Haruko Ishikawa）神奈川県出身。関東学院大学文学部英米文学科卒。ヨーク大学大学院言語学部博士課程修了（Ph. D. inLinguistics）。関東学院大学非常勤講師、日本大学短期大学部非常勤講師、多摩大学非常勤講師を経て、現在、多摩大学経営情報学部准教授。ポール・ドーレ（Paul Doré）An Applied Languages and Linguistics major, specializingin second language teaching and learning, he graduatedfrom Griffith University, Australia in 2001. His interestsare language evaluation and testing, and more recentlyeducational psychology.

Course Development for the Tama University English Shower Program: Evaluations of the First Year Curriculum

https://tama.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=111&item_no=1&attribute_id=22&file_no=1

Course Development for the Tama University English Shower Program: Evaluations of the First Year Curriculum

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Tama University Institutional Repository / 多摩大学学術情報リポジトリ

Course Development for the Tama University English Shower Program: Evaluations of the First Year Curriculum

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Tama University Institutional Repository / 多摩大学 学術情報リポジトリ

Tama University Institutional Repository / 多摩大学学術情報リポジトリ