THE DEVELOPMENT OF ORAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EU AND JAPANESE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Giáo Dục - Đào Tạo - Kỹ thuật - Kinh tế The Development of Oral Communication Skills: A Comparative Study of EU and Japanese University Students 2020 – 2021 EU Studies Diploma Programmes (EU-DPs) Yukiko JOZAKI (Student ID No. 3GS18005E) Research Paper Advisor: Narahiko INOUE 20th August, 2020 ii Abstract This paper presents a comparative analysis of English language competence of university students in Belgium and Japan in order to provide Japanese learners with suggestions on becoming independent and self-regulated learners in a global community. The paper aims to explore the challenges of Japanese university students in oral communication in English. A series of questionnaires were administered to three groups of university students in two countries (n=30, n=154, and n=26) to evaluate the students'''' self-assessment of their communication skills in English. The surveys investigated oral production (speaking) and spoken interaction in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR), and oral communication strategy (OCS) use. The data were quantitatively analyzed to capture the English competence of the Japanese subjects in comparison with the Belgian subjects, and supplemental follow-up interview was conducted. The results show significant differences in overall English language competence between Belgian and Japanese students according to six scales presented by the CEFR, self-assessment of production and interaction activities, as well as specific OCS use according to Oral Communication Strategy Inventory (OCSI) (Nakatani, 2006). The findings reveal the general challenges Japanese university students face and how they view their English skills in the context of English as a lingua franca (ELF) in academia, as well as the impact of different roles of English in the two countries on students with different sociolinguistic backgrounds. Keywords: CEFR, EFL, ELF, Plurilingualism, Oral Communication Strategy (OCS), Questionnaire Survey iii Table of Contents 1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….......1 1.1 Purpose of the paper …………………………………………………………………..1 1.2 Background ………………………………………………………………………….1 1.2.1 Japanese university students’ low self-assessment of their English communication skills ...1 1.2.2 Internationalization of Japanese universities …………………………………….2 1.3 Related studies ………………………………………………………………………..4 1.3.1 Foreign language learning in Japan ……………………………………………...4 1.3.2 The models of English …………………………………………………………...8 1.3.3 The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) …….12 1.3.3.1 Plurilingualism as a value of the CEFR ……………………………………14 1.3.3.2 Approaches of the CEFR …………………………………………………..16 1.3.3.3 Self-assessment and its application ………………………………………..21 1.3.4 Strategic behavior and studies in the field of strategy ………………………….22 1.4 Research Questions ………………………………………………………………….27 2. Methodology …………………………………………………………………………..…27 2.1 Subject Groups ……………………………………………………………..………..27 2.1.1 Group 1 ………………………………………………………………………….28 2.1.2 Group 2 ……………………………………………………………………….....28 2.1.3 Group 3 ………………………………………………………………………....28 2.2 Questionnaires for the Study ……………………………………………………..….29 3. Studies ………………………………………………………………………………..….31 3.1 Study 1: General Language Competence of Japanese University Students according to CEFR Scale 3.1.1 Purpose of Study 1 …………………………………………………………......31 3.1.2 Method of Study 1 ………………………………………………………….….31 3.1.3 Findings of Study 1 ……………………………………………………….…... 31 3.2 Study 2: Self-assessment on Two CEFR Activities: Oral Production (Speaking) and Spoken Interaction 3.2.1 Purpose of Study 2 ……………………………………………………………..34 iv 3.2.2 Method of Study 2 ……………………………………………………………..35 3.2.3 Findings of Study 2 ……………………………………………...……………..36 3.3 Study 3: Oral Communication Strategy Use ………………………………………..39 3.3.1 Purpose of Study 3 ……………………………………………………………..39 3.3.2 Method of Study 3 ………………………………………………………….….39 3.3.3 Findings of Study 3 …………………………………………………………….40 3.3.3.1 Frequency of OCS use …………………………………………………...40 3.3.3.2 Frequency of speaking and listening strategy use ………………………...42 3.3.3.3 Negative strategy ………………………………………………………….47 3.3.3.4 Nonverbal strategy ………………….……………………………………..49 3.4 After the Survey Interview ………………………………………………………….52 4. Results and Discussion ………………………………………………………………….54 4.1 Survey 1 Research Question: How competent are the Japanese subjects in English based on the six CEFR scales? ………………………………...54 4.2 Survey 2 Research Question: How do the Belgian and Japanese subjects differ in their self-assessments of two CEFR communication activities? …….55 4.3 Survey 3 Research Question: How do the Belgian and Japanese subjects differ in their self-assessments of oral communication strategy (OCS) use? ……56 5. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………….57 Acknowledgements References Appendix 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the paper This paper aims to examine the challenges and setbacks Japanese students face in their trajectory of learning English as a foreign language (EFL) or as a lingua franca (ELF) in higher education settings. In addition, the paper aims to explore suggestions to make students autonomous and confident language learners by examining self-evaluations of Japanese students and their counterparts in the EU. The survey was conducted at two national universities, one in Japan and one in a Dutch-speaking district in Belgium, where students belong to different sociolinguistic settings: monolingual and plurilingual. The comparative survey between the Japanese subjects and their counterparts in the EU on English competence and strategies for handling communicative tasks allows the study to induce the sociolinguistic impact on foreign language acquisition. The preliminary survey for this research revealed that Japanese university students have low self-assessment of their speaking and listening skills. Accordingly, this paper analyzes how subjects in these two countries perceive their English language competence using targeted Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) activities, as well as how they cope with speaking and listening tasks with oral communication strategy (OCS). This study aims to find out specific activities or challenges that lead Japanese learners to give a low self-assessment of their oral communication skills. 1.2 Background 1.2.1 Japanese university students’ low self-assessment of their English communication skills The study used a survey to examine English language competencies and self-assessment of Japanese students enrolled in undergraduate-level English language education. This preliminary survey discovered that the students reported low self-evaluations of their English skills, in particular speaking and listening – skills that directly relate to communication activities. The subjects were asked to self-assess their English language skills in four categories – speaking, listening, writing, and reading – using a 6-level Likert scale (0 = very weak, 1 = weak, 2 = somewhat weak, 3 = somewhat strong, 4 = strong, 5 = very strong). Table 1 shows the mean values of the self-assessment by 183 first-year university students (Q-under). The result shows that the respondents generally recognize their respective English skills as weak rather than as strong, with mean values as follows: speaking: 1.72, listening: 2 2.12, writing: 2.58, and reading: 2.91. There is a notable lack of confidence in skills relevant to oral communication, speaking and listening, compared with the less interactive skills of reading and writing. The lowest value observed is for speaking skills, with a mean of 1.72. Table 1 The survey includes open-ended questions asking the students to explain their reason for the score they gave. Quite a number of students pointed out a lack of experience in speaking English, both inside and outside the classroom. A social environment with less opportunity to speak English makes them feel insecure and less confident, even feel a sense of frustration or inferiority, when they communicate and interact in English. The subjects of the survey generally receive knowledge-intensive language education with the goal of passing entrance examinations for prestigious universities. The scores and responses regarding writing and reading skills show that the subjects have more positive opinions in these areas. Some comment that they are more accustomed to these skills through school curriculum and feel less time-pressured because the skills are not interactive. Despite the low self-assessment of their speaking and listening skills, the majority of the students wish to be linguistically competitive and recognize the importance of English as a language for global communication and its dominance in the academia. These students may still be at the stage where they can learn the language autonomously and independently considering their academic history so far. The preliminary survey implies the significance of providing learners opportunities to practice language skills. 1.2.2 Internationalization of Japanese universities Globalization and its rapid progress make higher education institutions face not only an acceleration of student mobility but also an increase in global competition among universities. Officials and educational 3 institutions are focusing on bringing international students and researchers to Japan and sending Japanese students and researchers abroad. Universities are developing international courses and study abroad programs, setting up overseas offices to recruit eligible students, and promoting their institutions. All these efforts are aimed to boost Japanese universities’ global presence and the development and utilization of “global human resources.” This is a global trend observed not only in Japan but also in other Asian countries and EU member nations. Globalization is often discussed in line with the internationalization of higher education, where globalization and internationalization are often used interchangeably. The issue of internationalization of Japanese universities accompanies the issue of English language dominance in the academic community as a whole. In the context of the internationalization of universities, providing a high level of English language education and instruction is key. Higher education institutions, therefore, are responsible for providing language programs, including English as a medium of instruction (EMI) classes, and opportunities for students to develop English competence by contributing to international journals, presenting at international conferences, engaging in discussions with their counterparts globally, and respecting the cultures of their fellow international students, in addition to traditional academic English teaching in the classroom. In addition, requirements for potential future global talent include English language competence. According to Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology - Japan (MEXT), the concept of global human resources includes qualities such as "1. linguistic and communication skills; 2. self-direction and positiveness, a spirit for a challenge, cooperativeness and flexibility, a sense of responsibility and mission; and 3. understanding of other cultures and a sense of identity as a Japanese” (MEXT, 2011). As such, the Japanese government and MEXT built various efforts to internationalize Japan’s universities and foster global human resources to meet the needs of globalization (MEXT, 2014a: 68). The efforts include Top Global University Project, Inter-University Exchange Project (Re-Inventing Japan Project), Global 30 Project, Go Global Japan, and Japan Revitalization Strategy (MEXT, 2011: 2014a: 2016: 2017). Japan aimed to increase the number of international students studying in Japan to 300,000 by 2020 (the Global 30) (MEXT, 2008). A series of government-led initiatives aim to provide Japanese university students more opportunities to foster communicative ability through actual use of English, to become aware of 4 the diversity of the global societies, and to feel the reality of English in the internationalized educational settings. English language learning in internationalized universities will require sociolinguistic knowledge and strategic communication skills, in addition to language competence. Ota suggests the importance of international and intercultural content and dimension in the scope of internationalization of universities and proposes the definition of a term internationalization as “a multifaceted and multidimensional process integrating international, intercultural, and global content and dimensions into the functions and aims of higher education institutions and systems” (Ota, 2018: 92-23). This is partly because globalization encompasses diverse English use by people with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds as a lingua franca (ELF). The English language has more gravity as a common language than as a second (ESL) or a foreign language (EFL), as English has spread as a dominant global language or as the only means of communication (Seidlhofer, 2017). This is undoubtedly the case in academia. Opening Japanese educational institutions to more international students and faculties fosters students’ linguistic and communicative competence and raises cultural awareness and identity. This is undeniably the right direction for both the country and the students. The significance of foreign language learning is not limited to learners’ linguistic competence. In this regard, the government policy reflects the importance of fostering learners’ multidimensional perspectives along with sociolinguistic knowledge and effective communication skills. However, a brief review of government policies reveals the need for more research to understand learner preference and challenges in the learning process or communicative behavior in order to create effective policies and allow learners to benefit from the internationalization of universities. 1.3 Related studies 1.3.1 Foreign language learning in Japan Japanese students, in general, learn English as a foreign language (EFL) in school under the government curriculum guidelines through MEXT, with the exception of some private school with a special curriculum. Cohen states that, “Technically, learning a second language means that the language being learned is that which is spoken in the community in which it is being learned, while a foreign language is not spoken in the local community” Cohen (1998: 5). According to his definition, Japanese students learn English as a foreign 5 language (EFL) that is not spoken in their community; in other words, it is “not a part of everyday social or institutional communication” (Widdowson, 2016: 214). This generally means that the exposure to the target language is limited to specific settings, for instance, in classrooms. The English language does not have an indispensable function in Japanese society so that learners usually do not have enough opportunity to use the language in their daily activities nor practice in real-life settings. Japanese students are familiar with English as their school subject, but not as a dominant language for communication in the contemporary global community. As such, language classrooms play an important role in language learning in Japan. The dominance of English makes it an indispensable language regardless of the role it has in the community and the proficiency level of the speakers. Due to the importance of English in academia, Japanese students in higher education are required to read and write literature, attend and present at conferences, and participate in discussions that are conducted in English to be successful members of the academic community. As such, English is virtually the only option to apply for international conferences and prestigious academic journals, where “manuscripts which lack the ‘key’ (English-language) references are more likely to be turned down” (Tardy, 2004:249). Some studies investigate the changing role of English. For example, there is an argument that “English language education policies throughout Asia typically operate on a deficiency model, wherein differences from ‘native speaker’ English are viewed as flaws requiring educational correction” (Haswell Hahn 2018: 57). In Japan, English taught in classrooms is modeled as native-speaker (NS) norm. In addition, Murata conducted an attitude survey and found that Japanese students’ tendency to regard NS English as the norm is deep-rooted on a subconscious level (Murata et al., 2019: 19, translated by the author). This mindset was also observed in my preliminary survey of Japanese undergraduate students (n=183). This mindset assumes US and UK as the linguistic and cultural representation of the English language; however, it does not match the reality of contemporary use of English as a lingua franca and an international means of communication. In global communication, “in most communicative exchanges that involve language users from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, which variety of English is used depends on the speakers involved and is thus unpredictable” (Matsuda Friedrich, 2011: 333). Furthermore, communicative effectiveness in real-world conversation is very different from the correctness-based classroom reality (Seidlhofer, 2017). From a pedagogical standpoint, a native English speaker (NES)-based model is not 6 necessarily appropriate for non-native English speaker (NNES) learners, since failure to use “correct or accurate” forms conforming to the native English norm tends to make the speakers feel ashamed or lose confidence in their English skills. This was also observed in my preliminary survey, with low self- assessment of speaking and listening skills (see 1.2.1 Table 1). NNES should be more aware of diverse English spoken in various regions where social identities are more reflected, focus more on strategic behaviors to facilitate communication, and understand meaning by negotiation behavior rather than paying attention to the difference from NES. Some studies suggest introducing EMI and ELF-oriented education. This is partly based on the view that the current English form and its use are beyond the traditional framework of the Three Circle Model (Kachru, 1985) and does not belong to any of the circles, with its function as a means of transcultural communication. According to the British Council, EMI is “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English” (Dearson, 2014: 4). The English language in EMI classes is “any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice” (Seidlhofer, 2011). This classroom situation corresponds to how people use English as a lingua franca (ELF) or a shared communication tool. Seeing the demographic and sociolinguistic reality today, “countless interactions worldwide take place every day in which only a small minority of native speakers of English, if any, participate” (Seidlhofer, 2017: 8-9) in most communicative exchange. The English in ELF is not an English of native-speaker norms, but it is an English spoken and used by people with diverse backgrounds as the “instrument of international communication,” which is the goal of English acquisition proposed by Seidlhofer (2017: 5, original italic by the author). The number of EMI classes has been increasing in Japanese universities due to promotion by MEXT (2011: 2014b). Numerous studies are being conducted on the English use in the classroom in the fields of EMI, ELF, TESOL, and World English, and papers in these fields agree that the E in EMI stands for English as a lingua franca (Murata, 2019: 20). A study conducted on multinational students (n=163) in EMI classes at one of the leading private universities in Japan revealed that the majority of the students had positive feedback on EMI classes and English use in the class (Murata et al., 2019: 23). The participants of the study commented that EMI classes not only helped improve their language competence but also brought them 7 opportunities to communicate with students with diverse backgrounds, mitigate the fear of making mistakes and sense of shame, and become less hesitant in discussing or speaking in public in English (Murata et al., 2019: 24-26). The study assumes that EMI classes promote learner experience in speaking English and help students build confidence. Some students in the study also demonstrated the development of ELF-oriented attitude and perceptions (Jenkins et al., 2011): that is, freedom from NS norm and placing more importance on effective communication and mutual understanding (Murata et al., 2019: 26-27). Adopting EMI classes and ELF-oriented education could be an option in university classrooms to help mitigate the sense of shame or difficulty by posing a model that helps learners to prepare for the reality of English as “as an instrument of the international community (Seidlhofer, 2017). Furthermore, some studies point out that the use of strategic behaviors is observed as well in international communication. Matsuda Friedrich observe language users from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds as they are “likely to employ various strategies to negotiate linguistic and other differences to make themselves mutually intelligible and to communicate effectively” (Matsuda Friedrich 2011: 333-334). The study implies that ELF learners are required to have a certain extent of sociolinguistic knowledge and intercultural understanding, as well as the application of communication strategy. We will examine strategic behaviors during communication in the following section. It is not too much to say that the process of foreign language learning will allow learners to have a plurilinguistic or multilinguistic view and contribute to developing their language resources. A publication from British Council adds, One of the main aims of policymakers, teachers, parents and students in implementing EMI is to internationalize the education on offer in their country, particularly in the higher education phase. The speed at which universities are internationalizing and English is being used as the academic lingua franca is accelerating. Ironically, EMI means that learning in English no longer means going to a UK or US university. (Dearden, 2014: 29) 8 As such, the reality of English in global societies is relevant to various pedagogical aspects, such as English language learning in Japanese universities, its internationalization, and the model of English for learning and teaching. English language education in Japan should reflect the contemporary use of the language and demographic and sociolinguistic aspects, while taking into accounts Japanese learners’ pedagogical background and general tendency to be anxious about deficiency and less confident in interactive communicative activities. Since this is a sensitive area of language learning, further research is required to make learning easier, more effective, and self-directed for the learners. 1.3.2 The Models of English With the acceleration of globalization and the development of information technology, English is most commonly used as the international communication language. This transition has increased English varieties used by people with diverse cultural backgrounds and national identities. It is acknowledged that the modern English language is a global language, with its emergence putting the language as a “triumph language” and developing a new paradigm that allows English “the new status as a global lingua franca and the new cultural, linguistic, political and economic issues surrounding English as it is used in a postmodern world” (Graddol, 2006). Graddol (2006) also suggested that the world will expect a confusing time characterized by four kinds of change: 1. ephemeral, 2. transitional, 3. the declining old paradigm, and 4. the rising new paradigm for 10 – 15 years, then gradually experience the rise of the new paradigm which reflect the reality and dynamics of the emerging new world order (Graddol, 2006: 66). In the context of current English use, the new paradigm has also created a phenomenon called “linguistic imperialism” (Graddol, 2006: 112), “linguistic hegemony” (Haswell and Hahn, 2018: 2), or “intellectual imperialism” (Fewer, 1997: 764) beyond the framework of international communication language. This transition to the new paradigm has understandably influenced English models for learners of the language. In the 1980s, Kachru (1985) developed the traditional Three Circle Model of World Englishes that categorized English into three concentric circles: 1. the Inner Circle, 2. the Outer Circle, and 3. the Expanding Circle according to “the types of spread, the patterns of acquisition, and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages” (Kachru, 1985: 12). This model has been influential to describe the spread of English and its varieties until today; however, it does not represent the subsequent 9 growth of English driven by globalization and information technology development. The number of Inner Circle native speakers (NS) who provide the “norm” of the English language is now outnumbered both by the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circles of non-native speakers (NNS). In the scope of World Englishes, Global Englishes, and a lingua franca, speakers embrace linguistic and cultural diversity for communication, so that the Inner Circle speakers not necessarily provide the norm, and the Outer and Expanding Circle speakers not necessarily develop and depend on the English provided by the Inner Circle speakers as Kachru described. This is because “social identities and networks that languages reflect and construct are becoming dispersed and less geographically tied”, causing the “destandardization” of English (Graddol, 2004: 1329- 1330). Thus, due to international communication beyond national borders, the English language functions “as a means of transcultural communication that ‘cuts across’ all three circles” (Seidlhofer, 2017: 8, original emphasis) and makes the distinction of the circles blurry. The Three Circle Model questions the model of English that should be used and learned in the contemporary world, and the reality of English makes language learners and teachers reconsider the norm as well as the sociolinguistic complexity of the language involved in a highly globalized and interacted world. With the transition to a new paradigm, more diversified varieties of English are prevailing and becoming widely accepted as practical communication languages. NNSs including EFL, ESL, and ELF speakers account for a big part of the English-speaking population so that NSs are not the majority and their norm is not the mainstream anymore. Both NSs and NNSs speak English as a lingua franca due to “the demographic and sociolinguistic reality today is that the vast majority of ELF users have first languages other than English” (Seidlhofer, 2017: 8-9). This situation makes more speakers see English as a common tool for global communication, and the trend makes NNSs unique existence who might not speak standard English but with distinct cultural and linguistic backgrounds of their first language. For an instance, one of the innate potentialities make them unique and special is that “they are already communicatively capable in their language(s) and can, therefore, extend this capability by drawing on English as a resource to extend their communicative repertoire” (Seidlhofer, 2017: 20). Studies on the role of English in the academic community suggest that “international graduate students represent future influential users of English” (Tardy, 2004: 253) because of the demographic future of English and possible language change over time (Graddol, 2006; Tardy, 2004; Widdowson, 2016). Another noteworthy aspect of ELF is the neutrality in its nature, in 10 addition to its diversity and uniqueness. Tardy mentions by citing Kaplan (2001) that “an additional and separate argument is that English’s ‘pluricentric’ nature has allowed its varieties flourish, in turn leading to its success as a global language” (Tardy, 2004: 249). It is reasonable that the spread and acceptance of diversified English and its standing as a lingua franca will be further developed by reflecting the benefits and speakers’ capabilities. The reality of English dominance, however, gives rise to controversy such as “academic imperialism” (Fewer, 1997: 764), “linguistic hegemony” (Haswell and Hahn, 2018: 2), or even a “linguistic carnivore” (Tardy, 2004: 263). A specific case observed in academia is that English became a language for international publication. Current English dominance makes non-Inner Circle (Kachru, 1985) researchers “increasingly less likely to publish in their mother tongue, and their English-language publications are cited more often” (Tardy, 2004: 250). Fewer (1997: 764) warns that this monoglot publication practice results in “academic imperialism”. Although the term “imperialism” may be rather strong, this is a cause for concern for researchers who would like to avoid falling into a mono-linguistic and monopolized view. As mentioned above, NNSs, potentially influential users of English with unique backgrounds, should be proud of taking their multilinguistic or plurilinguistic views into their activities including academic publication. Controversial arguments on the dominance of the English language entail a reconsideration of the educational model. Japanese education policies have operated with the aim of NES competence and conformity to their norm based on the “deficiency model, wherein differences from ‘native speaker’ English is viewed as flaws requiring educational correction” (Haswell Hahn, 2018: 57). Some researchers encourage introducing ELF to EMI classes in higher education and as language used in a globalized world (Murata, 2019; Murata et al., 2019) in a bid to reflect the need and reality of the language in the classrooms through a learner-oriented perspective. Such research explores the best possible way to take advantage of the resources NNSs have and the merits of English to mitigate the controversies and misunderstandings related to the language. The benefit of introducing ELF to classrooms is the potential to prevent learners’ negative attitudes toward their English variability, as well as to overcome the concerns regarding a monopolized view caused by the global supremacy of English. However, studies show that sociolinguistic diversity should be adopted with caution in language classrooms, as merely showing the reality of global English use is not sufficient, partly due to negative images on some specific language varieties among Japanese university 11 students (Haswell, 2017; Haswell Hahn, 2018: 63). Further studies are required to explore learner preferences and attitudes toward foreign language communication in order to suggest an appropriate pedagogical model. One of the significant aspects of foreign language learning is to provide learners different views from their L1-based pre-existing views and flexibility to respond to real situations. This can help build real language competence and capability rather than attempting to fill in the gap created by deficiency with native speaker models. Various studies suggest possible pedagogical models for the future. These suggestions can be divided into two categories. The first category recommends: a) prioritizing facilitation of interactive communication, such as giving more time to learning which is linked communication and communication strategies, proactive listening, and accommodation skills (Haswell Hahn, 2018: 10; Matsuda Friedrich: 339; Seildhofer, 2017: 20), b) providing students with opportunities to use English in ELF environments, and experience and realize the importance, difficulty, and joy of communicating across cultures (Murata, 2019: 21), and c) raise awareness of learner autonomy to develop strategies for using their linguistic resources (Widdowson, 2016: 222). The second category is a shift from correctness-oriented NS models to intelligibility-oriented practice (Crystal, 2012; Graddol, 2006; Haswell Harn, 2018; Murata, 2019: 21; Seidlhofer, 2011: 2017; Widdowson, 2016). The shift is achieved by emphasizing communicative appropriateness over conformity to correct linguistic forms which focus on receiving and mimicking a fixed standard (Haswell Hahn, 2018: 10; Seildhofer, 2017: 20). This seems to coincide with communication and language learning in the scope of plurilingualism advocated by the Council of Europe (CoE). The CEFR developed by the CoE incorporates diverse culture into foreign language learning due to the idea that communicative language competence includes not only linguistic competence (CoE, 2001: 13) but also communication skills, strategic behaviors, and sociolinguistic understanding parallel to linguistic skills. Previous studies have attempted to explore and provide possible models of English and accommodate the preferences and needs of learners and teachers, as well as national educational policies, producing some useful findings and successful recommendations. Contemporary English is a shared language for people in global societies where diverse language varieties, cultures, and social identities coexist. With the emergence of a new paradigm, as proposed by Graddol (2006), the role of English will continuously evolve as global societies change, suggesting that one model does not fit nor work effectively for all learners. Accumulated 12 knowledge from numerous previous studies implies that learners, especially university-level learners who have already achieved a certain level of competence, have to be autonomous and self-regulatory as their competence evolves, and should think about which specific skills they require. Piccardo (2018) suggests that “using learners’ personal language(s) of origin to scaffold their metalinguistic reflection, …, are extremely powerful to enhance senses of self-efficacy and autonomy.” (Piccardo, 2018: 13). A single model is not universal nor suitable for all learners; rather, learner specific models are necessary. As such, the attitude of a specific group of learners must be clearly understood. 1.3.3 The Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR) This section will give an overview of the CEFR (CoE, 2001) issued by the Council of Europe, introducing a summary of some key features of the CEFR that are relevant to the aims of this paper. The CEFR is a framework developed by the CoE, originally designed to apply to any European languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001). The CEFR covers some practical matters, “such as describing language policies, developing syllabuses, designing courses, developing learning materials, creating examstests, marking exams, evaluating language learning needs, continuousself-assessment, and teacher training programs” (Tono, 2017, 31). As such, the framework’s unique and innovative nature widely spread outside the EU. The first page of the CEFR opens with the following remarks: The Common European Framework provides a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe. It describes in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to do in order to use a language for communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively. The description also covers the cultural context in which language is set. The Framework also defines levels of proficiency which allow learners’ progress to be measured at each stage of learning and on a life-long basis. (CoE, 2001: 1) This excerpt expresses that the CEFR not only presents a pedagogical guideline but also encourages an action- oriented approach for learning to be an effective communicator as a member of society, to raise cultural 13 awareness during the process of foreign language learning, and for life-long progress and achievement in multiple activities and stages. In addition, North suggests that “an action-oriented approach suggests focusing on relevant content and experiences, systematically including holistic activity so that learners can develop strategic competence” (North, 2007: 656). The underlying concepts of the CEFR include plurilingualism, an action-oriented approach, self-assessment of proficiency levels by grid and descriptor, and organized use of strategies. Negishi et al. (2012) state that “the CEFR is accepted as an international standard for language teaching and learning” partly because “it is comprehensive in terms of skills and range of language proficiency” and its concepts (Negishi, Takada, Tono, 2012: 136-137). Those concepts are well-presented and widely known, and make the CEFR unparalleled to other frameworks, such as the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). Originally, the CEFR developed following the CoE language policy and its principles of advocating plurilingualism, which include: That the rich heritage of diverse languages and cultures in Europe is a valuable common resource to be protected and developed, and that a major educational effort is needed to convert that diversity from a barrier to communication into a source of mutual enrichment and understanding. (CoE, 2001: 2) In addition, CoE’s political objectives in the field of modern languages include “to promote mutual understanding and tolerance, respect for identities and cultural diversity through more effective international communication” (CoE, 2001: 3). Although these ideas were originally developed for the European context, we believe they can be applied to Japanese foreign language education. Studies in sociolinguistics show the increasingly plurilingual nature of discourse. Regional diversity and heritage in terms of culture, language, and policy is a phenomenon observed not only in the EU but also in East Asia and Asia-Pacific regions. Some studies have examined the compatibility of the CEFR with English language education in Japan, and development and modifications of usable models are in progress (Negishi et al., 2012; Tono, 2017). Piccardo et al. (2019) suggest that the CEFR and its concept of the learner-user as a plurilingualpluricultural social agent imply a 14 paradigm shift in language education (Piccardo et al., 2019: 18). This paper overviews the key CEFR concepts from the following perspectives: 1. plurilingualism as a value of the CEFR, 2. approaches of the CEFR, and 3. self-assessment and application for research. 1.3.3.1 Plurilingualism as a value of the CEFR The plurilingualism in which the CoE emphasizes its importance reflects linguistic plurality in language learning. Since the 1980s, studies in language education have proposed several new concepts, including multi-competence, translanguaging, and polylingualism. All these notions have contributed to conceptualizing linguistic plurality and highlighting issues related to multilingualism. Subsequently, “the limits of the term multilingualism have become increasingly evident when it comes to capturing the dynamic aspects of language use or the holistic and hybrid nature of linguistic phenomena and practice” (Piccardo, 2018: 6). Criticism has arisen regarding the underlying conception of languages as separate entities, which is the most widespread view of the term multilingualism (Piccardo, 2018: 6). The concept of plurilingualism was introduced by the CoE as an effective approach to language learning. In terms of the definition, the CoE clearly distinguishes the definition of plurilingualism from that of multilingualism. Multilingualism is defined as: The knowledge of a number of languages, or the co-existence of different languages in a given society. Multilingualism may be attained by simply diversifying the languages on offer in a particular school or educational system, or by encouraging pupils to learn more than one foreign language, or reducing the dominant position of English in international communication. (CoE, 2001: 4) On the other hand, plurilingualism takes a more holistic approach and emphasizes the fact that: As an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands, from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of other peoples (whether learnt at school or college, or by direct experience), he or she does not keep these 15 languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. (CoE, 2001: 4) The definitions set by the CoE imply that multilingualism does not focus on relationships between languages or flexibility in language use, while plurilingualism puts the relational principle at the core (Piccardo, 2018: 7). In a plurilingual approach, the learner keeps both hisher mother tongue and language(s) learned in the same mental compartment as linguistic and cultural resources; therefore, the learner can interrelate and interact with these linguistic resources to build hisher plurilingual communication competence. For instance, Piccardo states that, “a multilingual classroom is one in which there are children who speak different mother tongues”, while “a plurilingual classroom is one in which teachers and students pursue an educational strategy of embracing and exploring the linguistic diversity present in order to maximize communication and hence both subject learning and plurilingualpluricultural awareness” (Piccardo, 2018: 7). According to the CEFR, plurilingual and pluricultural competence refers to “the ability to use languages for the purposes of communication and to take part in intercultural interaction, where a person, viewed as a social agent, has proficiency, of varying degrees, in several languages and experience of several cultures” (CoE, 2001: 168). This is because “it is a central objective of language education is to promote the favorable development of the learner’s whole personality and sense of identity in response to the enriching experience of otherness in language and culture”(CoE, 2001: 1). Furthermore, “as a social agent, each individual forms relationships with a widening cluster of overlapping social groups, which together define identity” (CoE, 2001: 1). We believe that the idea of plurilingualism and its introduction to language learning help create an environment for building an identity as a global citizen, as well as confidence for learners whose target language is deficient only within the native speaker model. Thus, plurilingualism aims to achieve communicative competence through an action-oriented approach in which language is learned and used through various activities in real life as “a social agent”. Communicative competence is built by experiencing cultural awareness through language learning including the learner’s own language(s) and culture(s), where significance is placed more on what the learners can do with the language rather than setting native speakers as models. This approach is based on the idea that 16 language acquisition is a lifelong activity through various settings and different stages of life with various social contexts. Tono describes the concept as, “those who can hold and accept plural languages and cultures in them, make the best decision according to the scenes and situations based on the plural linguistic and cultural understanding, those are the individuals who can cross the linguistic and cultural barriers, and realize genuine peace” (Tono, 2010: 60: translated by the author). The plurilinguistic value rooted in the linguistic plurality in the EU is not a familiar idea for many learners of English as a foreign language in Japan. However, Japanese foreign language learners recognize that the importance of linguistic plurality with respect for identity and cultural diversity. 1.3.3.2 Approaches of the CEFR This section overviews specific approaches of the framework. Some of the taxonomic components may overlap because of its nature and the complexity of human language. First and foremost, one of the unique features of the CEFR and its approaches is its taxonomic nature. The framework says that “the taxonomic nature of the Framework inevitably means trying to handle the great complexity of human language by breaking language competence down into separate components” (CoE, 2001:1). The overview should start with the concept of two dimensions of communicative proficiency: horizontal and vertical. The CEFR conceptualizes communicative proficiency in terms of what the learner- user can do in a second language in two dimensions, horizontal and vertical, which are represented by the well-known “Common Reference Levels: self-assessment grid” (CoE, 2001: 26-27); the self-assessment grid summarizes proficiency by six scale levels and by five communicative activities. 1. Horizontal dimension This dimension is a representation of the action-oriented approach. It “views users and learners of a language primarily as ‘social agents’, i.e. members of society who have tasks (not exclusively language- related) to accomplish in a given set of circumstances, in a specific environment and within a particular field of action” (CoE, 2001: 9). In the CEFR documents, the terms horizontal dimension and action- oriented approach are used interchangeably. The horizontal dimension summarizes proficiency through 17 five communicative activities: listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, and writing (Little, 2007: 646). 2. Vertical dimension This is a dimension of different levels on the proficiency scale. This dimension introduces a composition of six scales to define communicative proficiency: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2, where the six scales are common reference levels for learner achievement. Each scale describes in general terms what the learner can do and in terms of respective language activities (reception, production (oral andor written), interaction, and mediation), and language tasks. Descriptions of the “can-do statements” are written using general and positive wording, so that descriptions have no compulsory nature. The six reference levels in three bands (basic, independent, and proficient) are a representation of a trajectory of foreign language learning from the onset of the learning to the lifetime career path in the public, personal, educational, and occupational domains. (CoE, 2001: 1). The B1 level is designated as a threshold level beyond which learners become independent users of the language. The Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT) is planning a reform of English language education that aims to “make it possible to attain B1 competency by the end of upper secondary school” (Tono, 2017: 32-33). Figure 1 The Common Reference Levels (CoE, 2001: 23) 3. Can-do statementsdescriptors CEFR provides illustrative descriptors to assess learner level. The “can-do” descriptors are provided for these language activities: reception, interaction, and production. Six levels of descriptors are not used for all three activities, as “some activities cannot be undertaken until a certain level of competence has been reached, whilst others may cease to be an objective at higher levels” (CoE, 2001: 25). For instance, oral 18 production (speaking) sustained monologue, putting a case (e.g. in a debate), has only two levels, B2 and B1 (CoE, 2001: 59). Therefore, this activity cannot be undertaken until a learner reaches the B2 or B1 level of proficiency. As mentioned above, the CEFR proficiency descriptors are always positive, even for lower levels “in terms of what the learner can do rather than in terms of what they can’t do”, with the following set of guidelines: positiveness, definiteness, clarity, brevity, and independence (CoE, 2001: 205- 206). 4. Self-assessment grid with “illustrative descriptors” The self-assessment grid summarizes learner proficiency through the vertical dimension (six scale levels) and the horizontal dimension (five communicative activities). The CEFR intends to use its framework for planning self-directed learning including self-assessment, as well as raising awareness of the learner’s current level of knowledge, self-setting of feasible and worthwhile objectives, and selection of materials (CoE, 2001: 6). The self-assessment grid with illustrative descriptors defines standards and criteria for the learner to assess hisher proficiency by level and by activity. Therefore, the learner can self-assess hisher communicative performance and linguistic knowledge by using a grid of activities, while determining which scale is relevant to their needs and the appropriateness and feasibility for their pedagogical purposes. According to the CEFR, self-assessment, that is, judgment about your own proficiency is “an effective complement to tests and teacher assessment (CoE, 2001: 191)”, and “the main potential for self-assessment … is in its use as a tool for motivation and awareness-raising: helping learners to appreciate their strengths, recognize their weaknesses and orient their learning more effectively” (CoE, 2001:192). This paper conducted a survey based on learners’ self-assessments, introducing some of the interaction and production activities according to the guideline of the framework. 5. Communicative activities There are five communicative activities: listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, and writing (CoE, 2001: 26-27 Table 2). This study uses spoken production (speaking) and spoken interaction activities and self-assessment grids for a comparative self-assessment survey (Refer to chapter 2 for details). 6. Language activities The CEFR set up four language activities: reception, production (oral andor written), interaction, and mediation (CoE, 2001: 14). These activities activate communicative language competence of the 19 learner-user. To carry out communication and learning tasks, it necessitates the specific domain of processing along with the use of strategies (CoE, 2001: 15). The framework describes the activities as follows (CoE, 2001: 14): Reception includes “silent reading and following the media. It is of importance in many forms of learning (understanding course content, consulting text-books, works of reference, and documents)”. Production has “an important function in many academic and professional fields (oral presentation, written studies, and reports), and particular social value is attached to it (judgments made of what has been submitted in writing or of fluency in speaking and delivering oral presentations)”. Interaction is where “at least two individuals participate in an oral andor written exchange in which production and reception alternate and may in fact overlap in oral communication. Not only may two interlocutors be speaking and yet listening to each other simultaneously. Even where turn-taking is strictly respected, the listener is generally already forecasting the remainder of the speaker’s message and preparing a response. Learning to interact thus involves more than learning to receive and to produce utterances. High importance is generally attributed to interaction in language use and learning given its central role in communication”. Mediation “makes communication possible between persons who are unable, for whatever reason, to communicate with each other directly. Translation or interpretation, a paraphrase, summary, or record, provides for a third party (re)formulation of a source text to which this third party does not have direct access. Mediating language activities – (re)processing an existing text – occupy an important place in the normal linguistic functioning of our societies”. 20 7. Communicative language competences: linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic The CEFR differentiates communicative language competences from general competences. General competences are “those not specific to language, but which are called upon for actions of all kinds, including language activities”, while communicative language competences are “those which empower a person to act using specifically linguistic means” (CoE, 2001: 9). The CEFR regards competence as a composition of linguistic, sociolinguistic, and pragmatic components. Linguistic competence, which includes “lexical, phonological, syntactical knowledge and skills and other dimensions of language as system”, “not only to the range and quality of knowledge but also to cognitive organization and the way this knowledge is stored and to its accessibility” (CoE, 2001: 13). Sociolinguistic competence refers to “the sociocultural conditions of language use”, and “the sociolinguistic component strictly affects all language communication between representatives of different cultures, even though participants may often be unaware of its influence” (CoE, 2001: 13). This competence is concerned with “the knowledge and skills required to deal with the social dimension of language use since language is a sociocultural phenomenon” (CoE, 2001: 118). Pragmatic competences are concerned with “the functional use of linguistic resources, drawing on scenarios or scripts of interactional exchanges. It also concerns the mastery of discourse, cohesion and coherence, the identification of text types and forms, irony, and parody” (CoE, 2001: 13). 8. Domains Domain refers to “the broad sectors of social life in which social agents operate” (CoE, 2001: 10) and language activities are contextualized within. The CEFR adopts major categories relevant to language 21 learning and teaching and uses fourfold classification of public, personal, occupational, and educational domains (CoE, 2001: 14). Each domain is referred to as follows: The public domain refers to everything connected with ordinary social interaction, …. Complementarily, the personal domain comprises family relations and individual social practices. The occupational domain embraces everything concerned with a person’s activities and relations in the exercise of hisher occupation. The educational domain is concerned with the learningtraining context where the aim is to acquire specific knowledge or skills. (CoE, 2001: 15) As mentioned above, the approaches of the CEFR are multifold and cover extensive areas of competence. Human language competence is so complex that it requires a wide scope of approaches to properly assess and grasp it. Figueras argues that the success of the CEFR provided “a common currency” for governments and applied linguists who wanted t...

The Development of Oral Communication Skills: A Comparative Study of EU and Japanese University Students

2020 – 2021

EU Studies Diploma Programmes (EU-DPs) Yukiko JOZAKI

(Student ID No 3GS18005E)

Research Paper Advisor: Narahiko INOUE 20th August, 2020

Abstract

This paper presents a comparative analysis of English language competence of university students in Belgium and Japan in order to provide Japanese learners with suggestions on becoming independent and self-regulated learners in a global community The paper aims to explore the challenges of Japanese university students in oral communication in English A series of questionnaires were administered to three groups of university students in two countries (n=30, n=154, and n=26) to evaluate the students' self-assessment of their

communication skills in English The surveys investigated oral production (speaking) and spoken interaction in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR), and oral communication strategy (OCS) use The data were quantitatively analyzed to capture the English competence of the Japanese subjects in comparison with the Belgian subjects, and supplemental follow-up interview was conducted The results show significant differences in overall English language competence between Belgian and Japanese students according to six scales presented by the CEFR, self-assessment of production and interaction activities, as well as specific OCS use according to Oral Communication Strategy Inventory (OCSI) (Nakatani, 2006) The findings reveal the general challenges Japanese university students face and how they view their English skills in the context of English as a lingua franca (ELF) in academia, as well as the impact of different roles of English in the two countries on students with different sociolinguistic backgrounds

Keywords: CEFR, EFL, ELF, Plurilingualism, Oral Communication Strategy (OCS), Questionnaire Survey

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ……… 1

1.1 Purpose of the paper ……… 1

1.2 Background ……….1

1.2.1 Japanese university students’ low self-assessment of their English communication skills 1

1.2.2 Internationalization of Japanese universities ……….2

1.3 Related studies ……… 4

1.3.1 Foreign language learning in Japan ……… 4

1.3.2 The models of English ……… 8

1.3.3 The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) …….12

1.3.3.1 Plurilingualism as a value of the CEFR ………14

1.3.3.2 Approaches of the CEFR ……… 16

1.3.3.3 Self-assessment and its application ……… 21

1.3.4 Strategic behavior and studies in the field of strategy ……….22

3.3.3.1 Frequency of OCS use ……… 40

3.3.3.2 Frequency of speaking and listening strategy use ……… 42

3.3.3.3 Negative strategy ……….47

3.3.3.4 Nonverbal strategy ……….……… 49

3.4 After the Survey Interview ……….52

4 Results and Discussion ……….54

4.1 Survey 1 Research Question: How competent are the Japanese subjects in English based on the six CEFR scales? ……… 54

4.2 Survey 2 Research Question: How do the Belgian and Japanese subjects differ in their self-assessments of two CEFR communication activities? …….55

4.3 Survey 3 Research Question: How do the Belgian and Japanese subjects differ in their self-assessments of oral communication strategy (OCS) use? ……56

5 Conclusion ……….57

Acknowledgements

References

Appendix

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the paper

This paper aims to examine the challenges and setbacks Japanese students face in their trajectory of learning English as a foreign language (EFL) or as a lingua franca (ELF) in higher education settings In addition, the paper aims to explore suggestions to make students autonomous and confident language learners by

examining self-evaluations of Japanese students and their counterparts in the EU The survey was conducted at two national universities, one in Japan and one in a Dutch-speaking district in Belgium, where students belong to different sociolinguistic settings: monolingual and plurilingual The comparative survey between the Japanese subjects and their counterparts in the EU on English competence and strategies for handling communicative tasks allows the study to induce the sociolinguistic impact on foreign language acquisition The preliminary survey for this research revealed that Japanese university students have low self-assessment of their speaking and listening skills Accordingly, this paper analyzes how subjects in these two countries perceive their English language competence using targeted Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) activities, as well as how they cope with speaking and listening tasks with oral communication strategy (OCS) This study aims to find out specific activities or challenges that lead Japanese learners to give a low self-assessment of their oral communication skills

1.2 Background

1.2.1 Japanese university students’ low self-assessment of their English communication skills

The study used a survey to examine English language competencies and self-assessment of Japanese students enrolled in undergraduate-level English language education This preliminary survey discovered that the students reported low self-evaluations of their English skills, in particular speaking and listening – skills that directly relate to communication activities

The subjects were asked to self-assess their English language skills in four categories – speaking, listening, writing, and reading – using a 6-level Likert scale (0 = very weak, 1 = weak, 2 = somewhat weak, 3 = somewhat strong, 4 = strong, 5 = very strong) Table 1 shows the mean values of the self-assessment by 183 first-year university students (Q-under) The result shows that the respondents generally recognize their respective English skills as weak rather than as strong, with mean values as follows: speaking: 1.72, listening:

2.12, writing: 2.58, and reading: 2.91 There is a notable lack of confidence in skills relevant to oral

communication, speaking and listening, compared with the less interactive skills of reading and writing The lowest value observed is for speaking skills, with a mean of 1.72

Table 1

The survey includes open-ended questions asking the students to explain their reason for the score they gave Quite a number of students pointed out a lack of experience in speaking English, both inside and outside the classroom A social environment with less opportunity to speak English makes them feel

insecure and less confident, even feel a sense of frustration or inferiority, when they communicate and interact in English The subjects of the survey generally receive knowledge-intensive language education with the goal of passing entrance examinations for prestigious universities The scores and responses regarding writing and reading skills show that the subjects have more positive opinions in these areas Some comment that they are more accustomed to these skills through school curriculum and feel less time-pressured because the skills are not interactive

Despite the low self-assessment of their speaking and listening skills, the majority of the students wish to be linguistically competitive and recognize the importance of English as a language for global

communication and its dominance in the academia These students may still be at the stage where they can learn the language autonomously and independently considering their academic history so far The

preliminary survey implies the significance of providing learners opportunities to practice language skills

1.2.2 Internationalization of Japanese universities

Globalization and its rapid progress make higher education institutions face not only an acceleration of student mobility but also an increase in global competition among universities Officials and educational

institutions are focusing on bringing international students and researchers to Japan and sending Japanese students and researchers abroad Universities are developing international courses and study abroad programs, setting up overseas offices to recruit eligible students, and promoting their institutions All these efforts are aimed to boost Japanese universities’ global presence and the development and utilization of “global human resources.” This is a global trend observed not only in Japan but also in other Asian countries and EU member nations

Globalization is often discussed in line with the internationalization of higher education, where globalization and internationalization are often used interchangeably The issue of internationalization of Japanese universities accompanies the issue of English language dominance in the academic community as a whole In the context of the internationalization of universities, providing a high level of English language education and instruction is key Higher education institutions, therefore, are responsible for providing language programs, including English as a medium of instruction (EMI) classes, and opportunities for students to develop English competence by contributing to international journals, presenting at international conferences, engaging in discussions with their counterparts globally, and respecting the cultures of their fellow international students, in addition to traditional academic English teaching in the classroom

In addition, requirements for potential future global talent include English language competence According to Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology - Japan (MEXT), the concept of global human resources includes qualities such as "1 linguistic and communication skills; 2 self-direction and positiveness, a spirit for a challenge, cooperativeness and flexibility, a sense of responsibility and mission; and 3 understanding of other cultures and a sense of identity as a Japanese” (MEXT, 2011)

As such, the Japanese government and MEXT built various efforts to internationalize Japan’s

universities and foster global human resources to meet the needs of globalization (MEXT, 2014a: 68) The efforts include Top Global University Project, Inter-University Exchange Project (Re-Inventing Japan Project), Global 30 Project, Go Global Japan, and Japan Revitalization Strategy (MEXT, 2011: 2014a: 2016: 2017) Japan aimed to increase the number of international students studying in Japan to 300,000 by 2020 (the Global 30) (MEXT, 2008) A series of government-led initiatives aim to provide Japanese university students more opportunities to foster communicative ability through actual use of English, to become aware of

the diversity of the global societies, and to feel the reality of English in the internationalized educational settings

English language learning in internationalized universities will require sociolinguistic knowledge and strategic communication skills, in addition to language competence Ota suggests the importance of international and intercultural content and dimension in the scope of internationalization of universities and proposes the definition of a term internationalization as “a multifaceted and multidimensional process integrating international, intercultural, and global content and dimensions into the functions and aims of higher education institutions and systems” (Ota, 2018: 92-23) This is partly because globalization encompasses diverse English use by people with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds as a lingua franca (ELF) The English language has more gravity as a common language than as a second (ESL) or a foreign language (EFL), as English has spread as a dominant global language or as the only means of communication (Seidlhofer, 2017) This is undoubtedly the case in academia

Opening Japanese educational institutions to more international students and faculties fosters students’ linguistic and communicative competence and raises cultural awareness and identity This is undeniably the right direction for both the country and the students The significance of foreign language learning is not limited to learners’ linguistic competence In this regard, the government policy reflects the importance of fostering learners’ multidimensional perspectives along with sociolinguistic knowledge and effective

communication skills However, a brief review of government policies reveals the need for more research to understand learner preference and challenges in the learning process or communicative behavior in order to create effective policies and allow learners to benefit from the internationalization of universities.

1.3 Related studies

1.3.1 Foreign language learning in Japan

Japanese students, in general, learn English as a foreign language (EFL) in school under the government curriculum guidelines through MEXT, with the exception of some private school with a special curriculum Cohen states that, “Technically, learning a second language means that the language being learned is that which is spoken in the community in which it is being learned, while a foreign language is not spoken in the local community” Cohen (1998: 5) According to his definition, Japanese students learn English as a foreign

language (EFL) that is not spoken in their community; in other words, it is “not a part of everyday social or institutional communication” (Widdowson, 2016: 214) This generally means that the exposure to the target language is limited to specific settings, for instance, in classrooms The English language does not have an indispensable function in Japanese society so that learners usually do not have enough opportunity to use the language in their daily activities nor practice in real-life settings Japanese students are familiar with English as their school subject, but not as a dominant language for communication in the contemporary global

community As such, language classrooms play an important role in language learning in Japan The dominance of English makes it an indispensable language regardless of the role it has in the community and the proficiency level of the speakers Due to the importance of English in academia, Japanese students in higher education are required to read and write literature, attend and present at conferences, and participate in discussions that are conducted in English to be successful members of the academic community As such, English is virtually the only option to apply for international conferences and prestigious academic journals, where “manuscripts which lack the ‘key’ (English-language) references are more likely to be turned down” (Tardy, 2004:249)

Some studies investigate the changing role of English For example, there is an argument that “English language education policies throughout Asia typically operate on a deficiency model, wherein differences from ‘native speaker’ English are viewed as flaws requiring educational correction”(Haswell & Hahn 2018: 57) In Japan, English taught in classrooms is modeled as native-speaker (NS) norm In addition, Murata conducted an attitude survey and found that Japanese students’ tendency to regard NS English as the norm is deep-rooted on a subconscious level (Murata et al., 2019: 19, translated by the author) This mindset was also observed in my preliminary survey of Japanese undergraduate students (n=183) This mindset assumes US and UK as the linguistic and cultural representation of the English language; however, it does not match the reality of contemporary use of English as a lingua franca and an international means of communication In global communication, “in most communicative exchanges that involve language users from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, which variety of English is used depends on the speakers involved and is thus unpredictable” (Matsuda & Friedrich, 2011: 333) Furthermore, communicative effectiveness in real-world conversation is very different from the correctness-based classroom reality (Seidlhofer, 2017) From a pedagogical standpoint, a native English speaker (NES)-based model is not

necessarily appropriate for non-native English speaker (NNES) learners, since failure to use “correct or accurate” forms conforming to the native English norm tends to make the speakers feel ashamed or lose confidence in their English skills This was also observed in my preliminary survey, with low self-assessment of speaking and listening skills (see 1.2.1 Table 1) NNES should be more aware of diverse Englishspoken in various regions where social identities are more reflected, focus more on strategic behaviors to facilitate communication, and understand meaning by negotiation behavior rather than paying attention to the difference from NES

Some studies suggest introducing EMI and ELF-oriented education This is partly based on the view that the current English form and its use are beyond the traditional framework of the Three Circle Model (Kachru, 1985) and does not belong to any of the circles, with its function as a means of transcultural communication According to the British Council, EMI is “the use of the English language to teach

academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English” (Dearson, 2014: 4) The English language in EMI classes is “any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice” (Seidlhofer, 2011) This classroom situation corresponds to how people use English as a lingua franca (ELF) or a shared communication tool Seeing the demographic and sociolinguistic reality today,“countless interactions worldwide take place every day in which only a small minority of native speakers of English, if any,

participate” (Seidlhofer, 2017: 8-9) in most communicative exchange The English in ELF is not an English of native-speaker norms, but it is an English spoken and used by people with diverse backgrounds as the

“instrument of international communication,” which is the goal of English acquisition proposed by Seidlhofer

(2017: 5, original italic by the author)

The number of EMI classes has been increasing in Japanese universities due to promotion by MEXT (2011: 2014b) Numerous studies are being conducted on the English use in the classroom in the fields of EMI, ELF, TESOL, and World English, and papers in these fields agree that the E in EMI stands for English as a lingua franca (Murata, 2019: 20) A study conducted on multinational students (n=163) in EMI classes at one of the leading private universities in Japan revealed that the majority of the students had positive feedback on EMI classes and English use in the class (Murata et al., 2019: 23) The participants of the study commented that EMI classes not only helped improve their language competence but also brought them

opportunities to communicate with students with diverse backgrounds, mitigate the fear of making mistakes and sense of shame, and become less hesitant in discussing or speaking in public in English (Murata et al., 2019: 24-26) The study assumes that EMI classes promote learner experience in speaking English and help students build confidence Some students in the study also demonstrated the development of ELF-oriented attitude and perceptions (Jenkins et al., 2011): that is, freedom from NS norm and placing more importance on effective communication and mutual understanding (Murata et al., 2019: 26-27) Adopting EMI classes and ELF-oriented education could be an option in university classrooms to help mitigate the sense of shame or difficulty by posing a model that helps learners to prepare for the reality of English as “as an instrument of the international community (Seidlhofer, 2017)

Furthermore, some studies point out that the use of strategic behaviors is observed as well in international communication Matsuda & Friedrich observe language users from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds as they are “likely to employ various strategies to negotiate linguistic and other differences to make themselves mutually intelligible and to communicate effectively” (Matsuda & Friedrich 2011: 333-334) The study implies that ELF learners are required to have a certain extent of sociolinguistic knowledge and intercultural understanding, as well as the application of communication strategy We will examine strategic behaviors during communication in the following section

It is not too much to say that the process of foreign language learningwill allow learners to have a plurilinguistic or multilinguistic view andcontribute to developing their language resources A publication from British Council adds,

One of the main aims of policymakers, teachers, parents and students in implementing EMI is to internationalize the education on offer in their country, particularly in the higher education phase

The speed at which universities are internationalizing and English is being used as the academic lingua franca is accelerating Ironically, EMI means that learning in English no longer means going to a UK or US university (Dearden, 2014: 29)

As such, the reality of English in global societies is relevant to various pedagogical aspects, such as English language learning in Japanese universities, its internationalization, and the model of English for learning and teaching English language education in Japan should reflect the contemporary use of the language and demographic and sociolinguistic aspects, while taking into accounts Japanese learners’ pedagogical background and general tendency to be anxious about deficiency and less confident in interactive

communicative activities Since this is a sensitive area of language learning, further research is required to make learning easier, more effective, and self-directedfor the learners

1.3.2 The Models of English

With the acceleration of globalization and the development of information technology, English is most commonly used as the international communication language This transition has increased English varieties used by people with diverse cultural backgrounds and national identities It is acknowledged that the modern English language is a global language, with its emergence putting the language as a “triumph language” and developing a new paradigm that allows English “the new status as a global lingua franca and the new cultural, linguistic, political and economic issues surrounding English as it is used in a postmodern world” (Graddol, 2006) Graddol (2006) also suggested that the world will expect a confusing time characterized by four kinds of change: 1 ephemeral, 2 transitional, 3 the declining old paradigm, and 4 the rising new paradigm for 10 – 15 years, then gradually experience the rise of the new paradigm which reflect the reality and dynamics of the emerging new world order (Graddol, 2006: 66) In the context of current English use, the new paradigm has also created a phenomenon called “linguistic imperialism” (Graddol, 2006: 112),

“linguistic hegemony” (Haswell and Hahn, 2018: 2), or “intellectual imperialism” (Fewer, 1997: 764) beyond the framework of international communication language

This transition to the new paradigm has understandably influenced English models for learners of the language In the 1980s, Kachru (1985) developed the traditional Three Circle Model of World Englishes that categorized English into three concentric circles: 1 the Inner Circle, 2 the Outer Circle, and 3 the Expanding Circle according to “the types of spread, the patterns of acquisition, and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages” (Kachru, 1985:12) This model has been influential to describe the spread of English and its varieties until today; however, it does not represent the subsequent

growth of English driven by globalization and information technology development The number of Inner Circle native speakers (NS) who provide the “norm” of the English language is now outnumbered both by the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circles of non-native speakers (NNS) In the scope of World Englishes, Global Englishes, and a lingua franca, speakers embrace linguistic and cultural diversity for communication, so that the Inner Circle speakers not necessarily provide the norm, and the Outer and Expanding Circle speakers not necessarily develop and depend on the English provided by the Inner Circle speakers as Kachru described This is because “social identities and networks that languages reflect and construct are becoming dispersed and less geographically tied”, causing the “destandardization” of English (Graddol, 2004: 1329-1330) Thus, due to international communication beyond national borders, the English language functions

“as a means of transcultural communication that ‘cuts across’ all three circles” (Seidlhofer, 2017: 8, original

emphasis) and makes the distinction of the circles blurry The Three Circle Model questions the model of English that should be used and learned in the contemporary world, and the reality of English makes language learners and teachers reconsider the norm as well as the sociolinguistic complexity of the language involved in a highly globalized and interacted world

With the transition to a new paradigm, more diversified varieties of English are prevailing and becoming widely accepted as practical communication languages NNSs including EFL, ESL, and ELF speakers account for a big part of the English-speaking population so that NSs are not the majority and their norm is not the mainstream anymore Both NSs and NNSs speak English as a lingua franca due to “the demographic and sociolinguistic reality today is that the vast majority of ELF users have first languages other than English” (Seidlhofer, 2017: 8-9) This situation makes more speakers see English as a common tool for global communication, and the trend makes NNSs unique existence who might not speak standard English but with distinct cultural and linguistic backgrounds of their first language For an instance, one of the innate potentialities make them unique and special is that “they are already communicatively capable in their language(s) and can, therefore, extend this capability by drawing on English as a resource to extend their communicative repertoire” (Seidlhofer, 2017: 20) Studies on the role of English in the academic

community suggest that “international graduate students represent future influential users of English” (Tardy, 2004: 253) because of the demographic future of English and possible language change over time (Graddol, 2006; Tardy, 2004; Widdowson, 2016) Another noteworthy aspect of ELF is the neutrality in its nature, in

addition to its diversity and uniqueness Tardy mentions by citing Kaplan (2001) that “an additional and separate argument is that English’s ‘pluricentric’ nature has allowed its varieties flourish, in turn leading to its success as a global language” (Tardy, 2004: 249) It is reasonable that the spread and acceptance of

diversified English and its standing as a lingua franca will be further developed by reflecting the benefits and speakers’ capabilities

The reality of English dominance, however, gives rise to controversy such as “academic imperialism” (Fewer, 1997: 764), “linguistic hegemony” (Haswell and Hahn, 2018: 2), or even a “linguistic carnivore” (Tardy, 2004: 263) A specific case observed in academia is that English became a language for international publication Current English dominance makes non-Inner Circle (Kachru, 1985) researchers “increasingly less likely to publish in their mother tongue, and their English-language publications are cited more often” (Tardy, 2004: 250) Fewer (1997: 764) warns that this monoglot publication practice results in “academic imperialism” Although the term “imperialism” may be rather strong, this is a cause for concern for researchers who would like to avoid falling into a mono-linguistic and monopolized view As mentioned above, NNSs, potentially influential users of English with unique backgrounds, should be proud of taking their multilinguistic or plurilinguistic views into their activities including academic publication

Controversial arguments on the dominance of the English language entail a reconsideration of the educational model Japanese education policies have operated with the aim of NES competence and

conformity to their norm based on the “deficiency model, wherein differences from ‘native speaker’ English is viewed as flaws requiring educational correction” (Haswell & Hahn, 2018: 57) Some researchers encourage introducing ELF to EMI classes in higher education and as language used in a globalized world (Murata, 2019; Murata et al., 2019) in a bid to reflect the need and reality of the language in the classrooms through a learner-oriented perspective Such research explores the best possible way to take advantage of the resources NNSs have and the merits of English to mitigate the controversies and misunderstandings related to the language The benefit of introducing ELF to classrooms is the potential to prevent learners’ negative attitudes toward their English variability, as well as to overcome the concerns regarding a monopolized view caused by the global supremacy of English However, studies show that sociolinguistic diversity should be adopted with caution in language classrooms, as merely showing the reality of global English use is not sufficient, partly due to negative images on some specific language varieties among Japanese university

students (Haswell, 2017; Haswell & Hahn, 2018: 63) Further studies are required to explore learner preferences and attitudes toward foreign language communication in order to suggest an appropriate pedagogical model One of the significant aspects of foreign language learning is to provide learners different views from their L1-based pre-existing views and flexibility to respond to real situations This can help build real language competence and capability rather than attempting to fill in the gap created by

deficiency with native speaker models

Various studies suggest possible pedagogical models for the future These suggestions can be divided into two categories The first category recommends: a) prioritizing facilitation of interactive communication, such as giving more time to learning which is linked communication and communication strategies, proactive listening, and accommodation skills (Haswell & Hahn, 2018: 10; Matsuda & Friedrich: 339; Seildhofer, 2017: 20), b) providing students with opportunities to use English in ELF environments, and experience and realize the importance, difficulty, and joy of communicating across cultures (Murata, 2019: 21), and c) raise

awareness of learner autonomy to develop strategies for using their linguistic resources (Widdowson, 2016: 222) The second category is a shift from correctness-oriented NS models to intelligibility-oriented practice (Crystal, 2012; Graddol, 2006; Haswell & Harn, 2018; Murata, 2019: 21; Seidlhofer, 2011: 2017;

Widdowson, 2016) The shift is achieved by emphasizing communicative appropriateness over conformity to correct linguistic forms which focus on receiving and mimicking a fixed standard (Haswell & Hahn, 2018: 10; Seildhofer, 2017: 20) This seems to coincide with communication and language learning in the scope of plurilingualism advocated by the Council of Europe (CoE) The CEFR developed by the CoE incorporates diverse culture into foreign language learning due to the idea that communicative language competence includes not only linguistic competence (CoE, 2001: 13) but also communication skills, strategic behaviors, and sociolinguistic understanding parallel to linguistic skills

Previous studies have attempted to explore and provide possible models of English and accommodate the preferences and needs of learners and teachers, as well as national educational policies, producing some useful findings and successful recommendations Contemporary English is a shared language for people in global societies where diverse language varieties, cultures, and social identities coexist With the emergence of a new paradigm, as proposed by Graddol (2006), the role of English will continuously evolve as global societies change, suggesting that one model does not fit nor work effectively for all learners Accumulated

knowledge from numerous previous studies implies that learners, especially university-level learners who have already achieved a certain level of competence, have to be autonomous and self-regulatory as their competence evolves, and should think about which specific skills they require Piccardo (2018) suggests that “using learners’ personal language(s) of origin to scaffold their metalinguistic reflection, […], are extremely powerful to enhance senses of self-efficacy and autonomy.” (Piccardo, 2018: 13) A single model is not universal nor suitable for all learners; rather, learner specific models are necessary As such, the attitude of a specific group of learners must be clearly understood

1.3.3 The Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR)

This section will give an overview of the CEFR (CoE, 2001) issued by the Council of Europe, introducing a summary of some key features of the CEFR that are relevant to the aims of this paper

The CEFR is a framework developed by the CoE, originally designed to apply to any European

languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001) The CEFR covers some practical matters, “such as describing language policies, developing syllabuses, designing courses, developing learning materials, creating

exams/tests, marking exams, evaluating language learning needs, continuous/self-assessment, and teacher training programs” (Tono, 2017, 31) As such, the framework’s unique and innovative nature widely spread outside the EU The first page of the CEFR opens with the following remarks:

The Common European Framework provides a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc across Europe It describes in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to do in order to use a language for communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively The description also covers the cultural context in which language is set The Framework also defines levels of proficiency which allow learners’ progress to be measured at each stage of learning and on a life-long basis (CoE, 2001: 1)

This excerpt expresses that the CEFR not only presents a pedagogical guideline but also encourages an oriented approach for learning to be an effective communicator as a member of society, to raise cultural

action-awareness during the process of foreign language learning, and for life-long progress and achievement in multiple activities and stages In addition, North suggests that “an action-oriented approach suggests focusing on relevant content and experiences, systematically including holistic activity so that learners can develop strategic competence” (North, 2007: 656) The underlying concepts of the CEFR include

plurilingualism, an action-oriented approach, self-assessment of proficiency levels by grid and descriptor, and organized use of strategies Negishi et al (2012) state that “the CEFR is accepted as an international

standard for language teaching and learning” partly because “it is comprehensive in terms of skills and range of language proficiency” and its concepts (Negishi, Takada, & Tono, 2012: 136-137) Those concepts are well-presented and widely known, and make the CEFR unparalleled to other frameworks, such as the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)

Originally, the CEFR developed following the CoE language policy and its principles of advocating plurilingualism, which include:

That the rich heritage of diverse languages and cultures in Europe is a valuable common resource to be protected and developed, and that a major educational effort is needed to convert that diversity from a barrier to communication into a source of mutual enrichment and

understanding (CoE, 2001: 2)

In addition, CoE’s political objectives in the field of modern languages include “to promote mutual

understanding and tolerance, respect for identities and cultural diversity through more effective international communication” (CoE, 2001: 3)

Although these ideas were originally developed for the European context, we believe they can be applied to Japanese foreign language education Studies in sociolinguistics show the increasingly

plurilingual nature of discourse Regional diversity and heritage in terms of culture, language, and policy is a phenomenon observed not only in the EU but also in East Asia and Asia-Pacific regions Some studies have examined the compatibility of the CEFR with English language education in Japan, and development and modifications of usable models are in progress (Negishi et al., 2012; Tono, 2017) Piccardo et al (2019) suggest that the CEFR and its concept of the learner-user as a plurilingual/pluricultural social agent imply a

paradigm shift in language education (Piccardo et al., 2019: 18) This paper overviews the key CEFR concepts from the following perspectives: 1 plurilingualism as a value of the CEFR, 2 approaches of the CEFR, and 3 self-assessment and application for research

1.3.3.1 Plurilingualism as a value of the CEFR

The plurilingualism in which the CoE emphasizes its importance reflects linguistic plurality in language learning Since the 1980s, studies in language education have proposed several new concepts, including multi-competence, translanguaging, and polylingualism All these notions have contributed to

conceptualizing linguistic plurality and highlighting issues related to multilingualism Subsequently, “the limits of the term multilingualism have become increasingly evident when it comes to capturing the dynamic aspects of language use or the holistic and hybrid nature of linguistic phenomena and practice” (Piccardo, 2018: 6) Criticism has arisen regarding the underlying conception of languages as separate entities, which is the most widespread view of the term multilingualism (Piccardo, 2018: 6) The concept of plurilingualism was introduced by the CoE as an effective approach to language learning

In terms of the definition, the CoE clearly distinguishes the definition of plurilingualism from that of multilingualism Multilingualism is defined as:

The knowledge of a number of languages, or the co-existence of different languages in a given society Multilingualism may be attained by simply diversifying the languages on offer in a particular school or educational system, or by encouraging pupils to learn more than one foreign language, or reducing the dominant position of English in international communication (CoE, 2001: 4)

On the other hand, plurilingualism takes a more holistic approach and emphasizes the fact that:

As an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands, from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of other peoples (whether learnt at school or college, or by direct experience), he or she does not keep these

languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a

communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact (CoE, 2001: 4)

The definitions set by the CoE imply that multilingualism does not focus on relationships between languages or flexibility in language use, while plurilingualism puts the relational principle at the core (Piccardo, 2018: 7) In a plurilingual approach, the learner keeps both his/her mother tongue and language(s) learned in the same mental compartment as linguistic and cultural resources; therefore, the learner can interrelate and interact with these linguistic resources to build his/her plurilingual communication competence For

instance, Piccardo states that, “a multilingual classroom is one in which there are children who speak different mother tongues”, while “a plurilingual classroom is one in which teachers and students pursue an educational strategy of embracing and exploring the linguistic diversity present in order to maximize communication and hence both subject learning and plurilingual/pluricultural awareness” (Piccardo, 2018: 7) According to the CEFR, plurilingual and pluricultural competence refers to “the ability to use languages for the purposes of communication and to take part in intercultural interaction, where a person, viewed as a social agent, has proficiency, of varying degrees, in several languages and experience of several cultures” (CoE, 2001: 168) This is because “it is a central objective of language education is to promote the favorable development of the learner’s whole personality and sense of identity in response to the enriching experience of otherness in language and culture”(CoE, 2001: 1) Furthermore, “as a social agent, each individual forms relationships with a widening cluster of overlapping social groups, which together define identity” (CoE, 2001: 1) We believe that the idea of plurilingualism and its introduction to language learning help create an environment for building an identity as a global citizen, as well as confidence for learners whose target language is deficient only within the native speaker model

Thus, plurilingualism aims to achieve communicative competence through an action-oriented approach in which language is learned and used through various activities in real life as “a social agent”

Communicative competence is built by experiencing cultural awareness through language learning including the learner’s own language(s) and culture(s), where significance is placed more on what the learners can do with the language rather than setting native speakers as models This approach is based on the idea that

language acquisition is a lifelong activity through various settings and different stages of life with various social contexts

Tono describes the concept as, “those who can hold and accept plural languages and cultures in them, make the best decision according to the scenes and situations based on the plural linguistic and cultural understanding, those are the individuals who can cross the linguistic and cultural barriers, and realize genuine peace” (Tono, 2010: 60: translated by the author) The plurilinguistic value rooted in the linguistic plurality in the EU is not a familiar idea for many learners of English as a foreign language in Japan However, Japanese foreign language learners recognize that the importance of linguistic plurality with respect for identity and cultural diversity

1.3.3.2 Approaches of the CEFR

This section overviews specific approaches of the framework Some of the taxonomic components may overlap because of its nature and the complexity of human language First and foremost, one of the unique features of the CEFR and its approaches is its taxonomic nature The framework says that “the taxonomic nature of the Framework inevitably means trying to handle the great complexity of human language by breaking language competence down into separate components” (CoE, 2001:1)

The overview should start with the concept of two dimensions of communicative proficiency:

horizontal and vertical The CEFR conceptualizes communicative proficiency in terms of what the user can do in a second language in two dimensions, horizontal and vertical, which are represented by the well-known “Common Reference Levels: self-assessment grid” (CoE, 2001: 26-27); the self-assessment grid summarizes proficiency by six scale levels and by five communicative activities

learner-1 Horizontal dimension

This dimension is a representation of the action-oriented approach It “views users and learners of a language primarily as ‘social agents’, i.e members of society who have tasks (not exclusively language-related) to accomplish in a given set of circumstances, in a specific environment and within a particular field of action” (CoE, 2001: 9) In the CEFR documents, the terms horizontal dimension and action-oriented approach are used interchangeably The horizontal dimension summarizes proficiency through

five communicative activities: listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, and writing (Little, 2007: 646)

2 Vertical dimension

This is a dimension of different levels on the proficiency scale This dimension introduces a composition of six scales to define communicative proficiency: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2, where the six scales are common reference levels for learner achievement Each scale describes in general terms what the learner can do and in terms of respective language activities (reception, production (oral and/or written), interaction, and mediation), and language tasks Descriptions of the “can-do statements” are written using general and positive wording, so that descriptions have no compulsory nature The six reference levels in three bands (basic, independent, and proficient) are a representation of a trajectory of foreign language learning from the onset of the learning to the lifetime career path in the public, personal, educational, and occupational domains (CoE, 2001: 1) The B1 level is designated as a threshold level beyond which learners become independent users of the language The Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT) is planning a reform of English language education that aims to “make it possible to attain B1 competency by the end of upper secondary school” (Tono, 2017: 32-33)

production (speaking) sustained monologue, putting a case (e.g in a debate), has only two levels, B2 and B1 (CoE, 2001: 59) Therefore, this activity cannot be undertaken until a learner reaches the B2 or B1 level of proficiency As mentioned above, the CEFR proficiency descriptors are always positive, even for lower levels “in terms of what the learner can do rather than in terms of what they can’t do”, with the following set of guidelines: positiveness, definiteness, clarity, brevity, and independence (CoE, 2001: 205-206)

4 Self-assessment grid with “illustrative descriptors”

The self-assessment grid summarizes learner proficiency through the vertical dimension (six scale levels) and the horizontal dimension (five communicative activities) The CEFR intends to use its framework for planning self-directed learning including self-assessment, as well as raising awareness of the learner’s current level of knowledge, self-setting of feasible and worthwhile objectives, and selection of materials (CoE, 2001: 6) The self-assessment grid with illustrative descriptors defines standards and criteria for the learner to assess his/her proficiency by level and by activity Therefore, the learner can self-assess his/her communicative performance and linguistic knowledge by using a grid of activities, while determining which scale is relevant to their needs and the appropriateness and feasibility for their pedagogical purposes According to the CEFR, self-assessment, that is, judgment about your own proficiency is “an effective complement to tests and teacher assessment (CoE, 2001: 191)”, and “the main potential for self-assessment […] is in its use as a tool for motivation and awareness-raising: helping learners to appreciate their strengths, recognize their weaknesses and orient their learning more effectively” (CoE, 2001:192) This paper conducted a survey based on learners’ self-assessments, introducing some of the interaction and production activities according to the guideline of the framework

5 Communicative activities

There are five communicative activities: listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, and writing (CoE, 2001: 26-27 Table 2) This study uses spoken production (speaking) and spoken interaction activities and self-assessment grids for a comparative self-assessment survey (Refer to chapter 2 for details) 6 Language activities

The CEFR set up four language activities: reception, production (oral and/or written), interaction, and mediation (CoE, 2001: 14) These activities activate communicative language competence of the

learner-user To carry out communication and learning tasks, it necessitates the specific domain of processing along with the use of strategies (CoE, 2001: 15) The framework describes the activities as follows (CoE, 2001: 14):

• Reception includes “silent reading and following the media It is of importance in many forms of learning (understanding course content, consulting text-books, works of reference, and documents)”

• Production has “an important function in many academic and professional fields (oral presentation, written studies, and reports), and particular social value is attached to it (judgments made of what has been submitted in writing or of fluency in speaking and delivering oral presentations)”

• Interaction is where “at least two individuals participate in an oral and/or written exchange in which production and reception alternate and may in fact overlap in oral communication Not only may two interlocutors be speaking and yet listening to each other simultaneously Even where turn-taking is strictly respected, the listener is generally already forecasting the remainder of the speaker’s message and preparing a response Learning to interact thus involves more than learning to receive and to produce utterances High importance is generally attributed to interaction in language use and learning given its central role in communication”

• Mediation “makes communication possible between persons who are unable, for whatever reason, to communicate with each other directly Translation or interpretation, a paraphrase, summary, or record, provides for a third party (re)formulation of a source text to which this third party does not have direct access Mediating language activities – (re)processing an existing text – occupy an important place in the normal linguistic functioning of our societies”

7 Communicative language competences: linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic

The CEFR differentiates communicative language competences from general competences General competences are “those not specific to language, but which are called upon for actions of all kinds, including language activities”, while communicative language competences are “those which empower a person to act using specifically linguistic means” (CoE, 2001: 9) The CEFR regards competence as a composition of linguistic, sociolinguistic, and pragmatic components

Linguistic competence, which includes “lexical, phonological, syntactical knowledge and skills and other dimensions of language as system”, “not only to the range and quality of knowledge but also to cognitive organization and the way this knowledge is stored and to its accessibility” (CoE, 2001: 13)

Sociolinguistic competence refers to “the sociocultural conditions of language use”, and “the sociolinguistic component strictly affects all language communication between representatives of different cultures, even though participants may often be unaware of its influence” (CoE, 2001: 13) This competence is concerned with “the knowledge and skills required to deal with the social dimension of language use since language is a sociocultural phenomenon” (CoE, 2001: 118)

Pragmatic competences are concerned with “the functional use of linguistic resources, drawing on scenarios or scripts of interactional exchanges It also concerns the mastery of discourse, cohesion and coherence, the identification of text types and forms, irony, and parody” (CoE, 2001: 13)

8 Domains

Domain refers to “the broad sectors of social life in which social agents operate” (CoE, 2001: 10) and language activities are contextualized within The CEFR adopts major categories relevant to language

learning and teaching and uses fourfold classification of public, personal, occupational, and educational domains (CoE, 2001: 14) Each domain is referred to as follows:

The public domain refers to everything connected with ordinary social interaction, […] Complementarily, the personal domain comprises family relations and individual social practices The occupational domain embraces everything concerned with a person’s activities and relations in the exercise of his/her occupation The educational domain is concerned with the learning/training context where the aim is to acquire specific knowledge or skills (CoE, 2001: 15)

As mentioned above, the approaches of the CEFR are multifold and cover extensive areas of competence Human language competence is so complex that it requires a wide scope of approaches to properly assess and grasp it Figueras argues that the success of the CEFR provided “a common currency” for governments and applied linguists who wanted to link language learning, language teaching, and language assessment to a more real-life oriented approach (Figueras, 2012: 478) He adds that “the positive wording of the level descriptors, and its non-compulsory nature with a structure open to multimodality and adaptations (Figueras, 2012: 479)” also contribute its success The original CEFR is compatible, with some

modifications, to contexts outside the EU, such as Japan (Negishi et al., 2012: 135) It is believed that the concepts introduced by the CEFR could be a positive influence for Japanese language learners in a more real-life oriented approach

1.3.3.3 Self-assessment and its application

The CEFR was constructed to accommodate various purposes, including the planning of self-directed learning This section examines learners’ self-assessment included in one of the surveys in my study

The subjects of the study are university students who have generally acquired an independent and autonomous level of English language skills corresponding to the B1 level or higher The CEFR states that, “in considering the role of a common framework at more advanced stages of language learning it is necessary to take into account changes in the nature of needs of learners and the context in which they live, study, and

work” (CoE, 2001: 7) Learners above the threshold for independent users of the target language (B1) should generally be self-directed learners Considering the academic history of Japanese university students in this study, we can assume they are capable of his/her present level of proficiency and/or skill while using the necessary strategy to complete language activities and carry out academic tasks

Self-assessment is contrary to the judgment by the teacher or examiner The framework says that this self-assessment “can be an effective complement to tests and teacher assessment” (Coe, 2001: 191) Indeed, the act and process of self-assessment could be a positive experience for learners and help them understand their level of competence Furthermore, they can observe the transition of their competence in self-regulatorily and subjective view, in addition to the teacher’s or examiner’s objective view The CRFR presents two types of assessment grids: self-assessment grid for learners and examiner version of rating grids (CoE, 2001: 26-29, Table 2 & 3), where the scales and descriptors in the grids could be learner guidelines The CEFR states that accuracy in self-assessment is increased (a) when assessment is in relation to clear descriptors defining standards of proficiency and/or (b) when assessment is related to a specific experience (CoE, 2001: 191)

For Japanese foreign language learners, however, self-assessment is a novel approach Under the conventional Japanese school culture, teachers or test organizations evaluate competence and learners tend to obediently accept the judgment or evaluation and are likely to be critical of their own skills or try to

compensate for the mistakes they made Although there is some criticism that the illustrative descriptors are “not based on second language acquisition (SLA) research” (North, 2007: 657), the CEFR approaches of action-oriented education and positive wording of proficiency levels may change Japanese students’ attitude toward foreign language

1.3.4 Strategic behavior and studies in the field of strategy

Human communicative language competence is highly complex and involves multitasking Plural

competencies, such as linguistic, sociolinguistic, and pragmatic, are considered indispensable for smooth and natural interaction Furthermore, each competence is comprised of multiple components including

knowledge, skills, existential competence, and ability to learn (CoE, 2001: 11) Therefore, the learner needs to be a holder of various resources, such as systematic knowledge on the target language, social conventions in

distinct cultures, and organization of discourse, as this is how communicative language competence and activities are constructed Piccardo states that, “In a plurilinguistic vision, mixing, mingling, and meshing languages in no longer stigmatized, but recognized as a naturally occurring strategy in real-life

communication” (Piccardo, 2018: 11)

The process of building communicative competence accompanies situations that create challenges for learners EFL learners, especially those with less opportunity to use the target language and its varieties in real life, are more likely to cope with many tasks that are not simply language-related, such as those including affective and emotional social aspects As a result, many learners feel anxious about speaking or behaving correctly in social contexts, as found in my preliminary survey

Seidlehofer argued that it is reasonable to encourage people to actually use target language/English in real-world situations by “giving more time to communication strategies, proactive listening and

accommodation skills and less to getting the linguistic forms right” (Seidlehofer, 2017: 20) Haswell & Hahn suggested the necessity of teaching communicative strategies and “the teaching of culture as a tool of communication” (Haswell & Hahn, 2018: 61) This is insightful in light of the trend toward more diversified and plurilinguistic contemporary global communities In that environment, communicative activities are rooted in a dynamic and strategic process, meaning-making, purposeful use of resources, and reflection as well asopenness to linguistic and cultural diversity (CoE, 2001) Based on these assumptions, this section reviews some studies in the field of language learning and communication strategy

First, the CEFR defines communication strategies as “a means the language user exploits to mobilize and balance his or her resources, to activate skills and procedures” (CoE, 2001: 57) In addition,

communicative language competences are described as “those which empower a person to act using especially linguistic means”, strategy is described as “any organized, purposeful and regulated line of action chosen by an individual to carry out a task which he or she sets for himself or herself or with which he or she is confronted” (CoE, 2001: 9-10) Furthermore, “strategies are also seen as a hinge between the learner’s resources (competences) and what he/she can do with them (communicative activities)” (CoE, 2001: 25), and that:

Communication and learning involve the performance of tasks that are not solely language tasks even though they involve language activities and make demands upon the individual’s communicative competence To the extent that these tasks are neither routine nor

automatic, they require the use of strategies in communicating and learning (CoE, 2001: 15)

This indicates that strategic behavior could help learners mobilize their resources and use regulated actions during communication and learning activities, eventually improving their language, as supported by previous studies (Oxford, 1990: Cohen, 1998)

A considerable amount of knowledge has been accumulated since Selinker coined the term

“communication strategy” in 1972 (Selinker, 1972) A series of studies show the positive effects of strategic behavior on foreign language acquisition, communication ability development, and self-regulatory learning attitudes Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons states that, “self-regulated learners are distinguished

metacognitively by their awareness of strategic relations between regulatory processes and learning outcomes

and their use of specific strategies to achieve their academic goals” (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1992: 185original italic) For specific communication strategies, various taxonomies had been introduced based on function, especially in the 1980s and 1990s research These taxonomies cover wide aspects of activities including cognitive, metacognitive, memory, affective, interactional, and non-verbal communication, as well as negative behavior such as avoidance and reduction (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997: 196-197)

The studies present several definitions of communication strategies by focusing on different aspects Tarone claimed that the aim of language learning strategies is learning itself and defined it as “an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language” (Tarone, 1980: 419-420) In contrast, she stated that communication strategies emphasize interactional aspects that aim to maintain communication as “a mutual attempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations where requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared” (Tarone, 1990: 419-420) Canal and Swain presented a famous model of four communication competences including strategic competence, where communication strategy is defined as “strategic competence involving the ability to use verbal and nonverbal strategies to avoid communication breakdown” (Canal & Swain, 1980) Oxford, one of the prominent researchers in this field of language learning strategies emphasizing effects on learner psychology in addition to pedagogy,

defined language learning strategies as “specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (Oxford, 1990: 8) She classified them into two categories: direct and indirect strategies Direct strategies, which “involve direct learning and use of the subject matter, in this case a new language,” are memory, cognitive, and

compensations strategies; on the other hand, indirect strategies, which “contribute indirectly, but powerfully to learning,” are meta-cognitive, affective, and social strategies (Oxford, 1990) Her study also shows distinct strategies and behaviors that are often observed among successful language learners, naming them as good learner strategies Cohen focused on learners’ awareness and defined strategies as processes which are consciously selected by learners (Cohen, 1998) Cohen’s classification distinguishes two types of strategies: language learning and language use strategies Language learning strategies include cognitive, meta-

cognitive, affective, and social strategies, while language use strategies include retrieval, rehearsal, cover, and communication strategies Previous studies had made based on different perspectives, but they share the view of the complexity of contextual nature and purposes of strategic behaviors, as well as its benefits and effects on the application to foreign language learning

Second, the effects of intentional use of strategies are not limited to educational benefits – it also helps improve learner awareness and self-regulation According to Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, “self-regulated learners view acquisition of proficiency as a strategically controllable process and accept greater

responsibility for their achievement outcomes” (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1992: 185) Cohen & Macaro itemizes five factors that relate to the effects of systematic learning: autonomous language learning, self-regulation, self-management, independent language learning, and individual language learning (Cohen & Macaro, 2007: 40-44) This is similar to the action-oriented approach of the CEFR that sees the strategy as an action in the regulatory process and intends to use the CEFR for the planning of self-directed learning (CoE, 2001: 6)

Third, some studies focus on oral communication strategies, a narrower segment of the series of strategy studies This paper aims to investigate the oral communication activity of Japanese EFL learners due to the findings of the preliminary survey that suggest many of the students have low self-evaluation of their English speaking and listening skills

Oral communication strategy “specifically focuses on strategic behaviors that learners use when facing communication problems during interactional tasks” (Nakatani, 2006: 152) Generally, when a learner carries out communicative activities or tasks, there is often noise in the process of communication Communication strategies are employed to repair the noises or make up for the miscommunication In addition, many oral communication activities are a multidimensional process that by nature involves, for example, oral production and receptive listening skills as well as interactive skills This is a process where a learner mobilizes his/her resources to accommodate various tasks and problems Oral communication strategies are effective in completing activities and overcoming challenges Furthermore, strategies, in general, are used by all speakers, both native and learners, during communicative activities Therefore, “communication strategies should not be viewed simply with a disability model – as a way of making up for a language deficit or a miscommunication” (CoE, 2001: 57) Smooth communication embraces the behaviors such as reducing the message, simplifying the expression, or supplementing with nonverbal means like gestures or facial expressions, while some are considered negative behaviors, generally called negative strategies

Nakatani (2006: 2010) conducted surveys on systematic communication tasks by questionnaire and interview The study revealed that the frequency of social affective strategies that control feelings helps reduce anxiety and enjoy conversation and that strategies for negotiation to avoid communication disruptions showed a positive correlation with the subjects’ posttest scores for conversation tasks (Nakatani, 2010: 125) Nakatani developed the Oral Communication Strategy Inventory (OCSI) to assess the frequency of strategies categorized by function (Nakatani, 2006), which has been used in many subsequent studies In addition, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL Version 7.0) developed by Oxford (Oxford, 1990) for students of ESL/EFL is well-known and widely used worldwide, along with OCSI

Previous studies focused on learner characteristics, such as age, level of proficiency, linguistic or cultural backgrounds, and methodology; however, relatively little attention has been paid to the sociolinguistic aspect of strategy use This study aims to address this gap by targeting a specific segment of learners

1 How competent are the Japanese subjects in English based on the six CEFR scales?

2 How do the Belgian and Japanese subjects differ in their self-assessments of two CEFR communication activities?

3 How do the Belgian and Japanese subjects differ in their self-assessments of oral communication strategy (OCS) use?

2 Methodology

This study uses a questionnaire to collect quantitative data from university students in two countries, Belgium and Japan The study consists of three types of surveys for three groups of subjects In addition, follow-up interviews with a Belgian teacher is conducted and analyzed qualitatively to analyze foreign language learning in a community that is sociolinguistically different from Japan First, Japanese university students’ English language competence is statistically analyzed on the basis of the CEFR scale Second, a comparative analysis of Belgian and Japanese university students’ self-assessment of productive and interactive activities in English is conducted Finally, comparative statistical analyses on Belgian and Japanese university students’ self-assessment of oral communication strategy use are carried out The details are as follows

2.1 Subject Groups

The participants consisted of three groups The paper aims to investigate Japanese learners’ attitudes and challenges in the process of learning English as a foreign language The same survey was also conducted with Belgian university students to examine the differences and whether they relate to social and linguistic environments

2.1.1 Group 1

The first group (G-under) consists of 30 Belgian university students They are second-year undergraduate students majoring in Japanology at a distinguished national research university in the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium (Flemish-Dutch) Belgium has three official languages, Dutch, French, and German, along with non-official minority languages and dialects Because of this plurilingual environment, this group of

students are multiple language speakers exposed to multiple languages in their home, school, and community Dutch is the first language for most of the students, except for three students whose first languages are

Russian, Polish, and Vietnamese In the Flemish Belgian educational system, students have two years of official English curriculum during secondary education The survey was conducted in February 2019 when the students hosted a group of Japanese university students visiting the university as part of an EU study and exchange program

2.1.2 Group 2

The second group (Q-under) consists of 154 undergraduate students studying at a leading research-oriented national university in Western Japan They belong to different schools, from liberal arts to STEM studies This questionnaire was administered in January and February 2017 The study used the students’ TOEFL-ITP scores from April 2017 to evaluate their English competence This timeframe covers a transitional period of Japanese academic year that starts in April and ends in March The subjects completed the questionnaire at the end of their freshmen year and the TOEFL-ITP test at the beginning of their sophomore year For Japanese students of this generation, official English classes started from junior high school, making their English education history at least six years Their first language was Japanese Most of them were raised in Japan and studied under the Japanese education system The numbers of students who have experience living abroad or studying English outside Japanese official curriculum was 15

2.1.3 Group 3

The third group (G-grad) consists of 26 graduate students who belong to the same Japanese university as under They belong to various school years, ages, and faculties (see Table 2) The data for this group were collected from December 2018 to July 2019 Their first language was Japanese, and they were educated in

Q-Japan Some have experience in participating in several weeks’ foreign exchange or study abroad programs The subjects’ academic background, as well as their motivation and focus on English language learning, is diverse; however, they are regarded as highly competent academically

Table 2

The study seeks to examine the influence and reflection of their attributes, different academic background, and social and cultural experience on their foreign language competence.

2.2 Questionnaires for the study

The study used two versions of the questionnaire: the English version administered to Belgian students, and the Japanese version administered to Japanese students The translation was done by an author

The primary goal is to examine Japanese university students’ language competency from multiple dimensions Varied subjects and methods were used due to the limited conditions of the survey and the aims of this study

Table 3

The following three sets of questionnaires were used:

Questionnaire 1: demographic information and general attributes of the subject

Questionnaire 2: self-assessment of English competency according to two CEFR activities Instrument:

1 oral production(speaking): consists of five items (CoE, 2001: 58-60) 2 spoken interaction: consists of eight items (CoE, 2001: 74-82) Questionnaire 3: self-evaluation of oral communication strategy use

Instrument:

Oral Communication Strategy Inventory (OCSI) (Nakatani, 2006; 2010)

Study 2 and Study 3 introduced the self-assessment method for competency using CEFR descriptors based on the approach of the CoE mentioned in section 1.3.3 The data collected from questionnaires were converted to a numerical figure and processed statistically The subject groups, methods, and results are introduced for each group

Questionnaire 1 is about demographic information and the professional and/or academic background of the subjects, including questions on how subjects see the role of English in academia This information is used for all analyses Questionnaire 2 uses the CEFR illustrative descriptors and six-level scales (CoE, 2001) The activities and descriptors relevant to oral communication are selected for questionnaire 2 Data from this questionnaire are used for Study 1 and Study 2 Questionnaire 3, OCSI developed by Nakatani (2006, 2010), is introduced to elicit the OCS use of the subjects OCSI is a two section inventory of questions on speaking and listening developed by Japanese researchers based on factor analysis on Japanese university students The speaking section has 32 questions and the listening section has 26, which asks subjects how frequently they use the specific strategy in the inventory to execute communication tasks on a five-level Likert scale: from 1, the least frequent, to 5, the most frequent A substantial number of studies have used these methods for analyzing ESL or EFL learners in and outside of Japan Both instruments, CEFR illustrative descriptors and OCSI, are regarded as being reliable and valid and are suitable for this study

3.1.2 Method of Study 1

Questionnaire 2 was used for Study 1 The subject groups are Q-under, Q-grad, and G-under First, study 1 shows the English language competency of Q-under in light of the TOEFL-ITP test score, which was

administered at the beginning of their sophomore year The score was converted to the six scales of the

CRFR according to the TOEFL ITP®Overall Performance Descriptors mapped by the Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEEJ) Second, the study shows self-assessed proficiency of the graduate students on communication-related activities of the CEFR Data relevant to this part of Study 1 are collected by a part of questionnaire 2 The results are further compared with corresponding data collected for Belgian students Study 2 provides more detailed comparative analysis by sub-activity items within these two activities (five for oral production and eight for spoken interaction)

3.1.3 Findings of Study 1: Overall oral communication competence ofJapanese vs Belgian university students Figure 2 shows the distribution of the subjects’ TOEFL-ITP scores converted to the CEFR scales according to

the mapping demonstrated by TOEFL ITP® Overall Performance Descriptors The description is developed on the basis of the survey and mapping conducted by the Educational Testing Service (ETS), the organizing body of TOEFL-ITP

demonstration that little more than half of the subjects are on their way to becoming an independent learner Three students have B2 (543-626, colored yellow) level proficiency, indicating they are independent vantage users of English The average test score of this group is 457 The university’s average score for freshmen on the test is 470, which is 13.4 points higher than the average of the subjects’ According to the survey of Negishi et al (2012), 96% of Japanese students after five years of learning English are below the B1 level Another one of their surveys on employees of an electronics manufacturer in Japan revealed that over 80% had a proficiency level below B1, “even after they have undergone 10 years of English instruction at secondary and tertiary levels “ (Negishi, Takada, & Tono, 2012: 140-141)

Secondly, the study examined Q-grad English language competence using questionnaire 2, which consists of two CEFR activities: oral production (speaking) with five sub-activities and spoken interaction with eight sub-activities Later, study 2 shows each sub-activity individually and the overall results as a reference to determine the relative difference between two subject groups Figure 3demonstrates that the

majority of Q-grad group see their overall English proficiency as A2 or B1, as with the Q-under group in Figure 2

Figure 3

Self-assessment by Q-grad: Overall Oral Production and Overall Spoken Interaction by Q-grad

Some graduates, however, assess themselves as C1 (colored light blue) or C2 (colored green), scales not observed among undergraduates It would be natural to interpret that some graduate students have gained oral communication-related English skills during their university years, although the total number is small It is also noteworthy that Q-grad’s self-assessment is distributed from A1 (colored blue) to C2, which is wider than Q-under There are some Q-grad learners who place their competence at A1, a level not observed in Q-under TOEFL-ITP It could be a manifestation of one of Japanese language learners’ lack of confidence, since the TOEFL-ITP scores correspond to higher CEFR scores Findings from Survey 1 need to be investigated further from a qualitative perspective

Lastly, the same questionnaire was distributed to under Figure 4 shows the comparative results of under with that of Q-grad, revealing the gap in how learners view their proficiency All G-under except one student see their competence as being above the B2 level, including C1 and C2 C1 and C2 are considered proficient users of the language according to the Council of Europe (CoE, 2001:23), with C1 as the level of effective operational proficiency and C2, mastery Regarding overall oral production (speaking), the scales of B2, C1, C2 are evenly distributed among G-under students Regarding overall spoken interaction activity, there is some dispersion, with C1 having more students, C2 having relatively less, and one B1 student Even though the outcome shows an apparent contrast with most Q-grad students under the threshold level (A1 and

G-A2) for spoken interaction, Figure 4 suggests that Belgian students are above the threshold to be considered independent and competent English language users From the outcome of Study 1 it is clear that there is English language competence disparity between Belgian and Japanese university students

attitude of the subject groups for the subsequent studies in the paper

3.2 Study 2: Self-assessment on two CEFR activities: oral production (speaking) and spoken interaction 3.2.1 Purpose of Study 2

The purpose of Study 2 is to identify which specific sub-activity is more challenging to Japanese learners compared with their Belgian counterparts, as well as to see the extent of disparity with them Study 1