鋤 網贈■の5窃いず襯登■鰍額澗國胴●聖丹うマも、る● 凄 1 2 3 4 S e
◎o愈の（）◎
（亜x璽）
触剛網麹鋤灘
G劇剛】be騰・一鯨・鋤蝕 Figure 7． A sample image of the web−based survey
personal information including their name， sex， the name ofthe Junior high school where
they taught at the time of the survey， and the length of their teaching experience．
However， we promised them that their profiles would be kept confidential and would have no bearing on our study．
2．2．3 Data analysis
We calculated the mean score of usefulness and standard deviation （SD） of the
rating for each assessment item （See Table 1 below）． Generally， the usefulness of the
items were rated positively， but items rated lower （No． 17， 22， 41， 55 and 60） were
deleted丘om the list．
Table 1． The mean scores of the main features
Prep PracticelBuilding Compre， Strategies lnteraction Appli
bckgr input
Lesson delivery
Revievvl
Asses＄
TT Mean
SD
5．21
1．11
4．96
O．97
5．01
O．98
4．76
1．f5
5．02
1．16
5．06
1．07
5．47
O．84
4．83
1，05
4．B7
1．10
量目︒︒日一日ObPOρ口ψOO円OooOh一ゲO口q◎Oうロ一昌Oo自︒りOhgooo自0ωω旨90昌一ぽ0旨Pm
嫡
p
．Tーー
障 tW
r wwl
．騙 劉
一 鴇
鉾 ．M ．W 幽 燐 ．躰
解
躍
﹃ 鱒 焔 酔醒Pい樋口 渦 一︐︐ ﹁ 卍 ︐︐一 ． ．． 揮 く 温 向． ︵
9脚締あ鱒鱗舛樋樋樋◎姿嫉0器回榊．掃．Nω．袈鱒袖噌幅㈹麟OWゆω晒W仲．W嘱駕．のψψ噛鱒剛
蓬一4
κ 岸 ．． ・ 凡 行 犠卿璽◎ψO拳ウ恥静あ檜魯W叢幽勘ゆ幽唄勧◎5．診．㊥一群峨妙UP．凶り甥い粥切噸回φ．頓⑫謂︽懲いP ⁝︷︸⁝薫そ一喜﹃ チ点︷︸■■垂︸．斎7零夢︸手妻﹁暫モ茎ゴ三一評
︷
1
1
1
i
P一﹁多 P蛋戸
⑰
2．2．4 Defining the assessment items
To diminish overlap among the items and to increase the feasibility of the
assessment tool， the initial 61 items were reduced to around thirty． We did so by
combining some items； for example， in featues of building background， ltem 8， New
words and phrases emphasized by the use of flash cards and repeated and ltem 13 New grammar emphasized by flash card and repeated overlap as； both concerned the
repetition of lexico−grammatical items （See Appendix C）． These were combined into
a new item New language materials are visually presented with flash cards and students repeat them aloud． Other overlapping items were found in features of
scaffolding， ltem 7 To help students responses， using paraphrasing and ltem 21 Toprompt students responses， using think−aloud techniques ． Both items aim to scaffold
student performance and help elicit student response （See Appendix C）． So these
were combined into a new item Scaffolding teclmiques， such as modeling or giving examples， are consistently used to assist student understanding ． We also separated the
original main feature Strategy into strategies and scaffolding because we found that
these two were considered separate in the Japanese EFL context． Thus， we separate them as two distinct main features． As a consequence， our assessment instrument comes
to thirty−two features in ten main headings （See Figure 9）．
Lesson Preparation
1 Lesson obj ectives are clearly defined and linked to the term or yearly syllabus．
2 Pair work and group work activities conducted in meaningful situations．
Building Background
3 Previously learned words and phrases reviewed and explicitly linked to lesson
obj ectives
Figure 9． Assessment features ofthe lesson evaluation instrument （continued）
4
New language materials are visually presented with flash cards and students repeat them aloud．Comprehensible lnput
5 The pace and complexity of teacher s talk is appropriate for
proficiency levels．
6 Clear explanation of ianguage activity is provided．
7 Gestures and body language are used effectively to help
understanding．
students
students
Strategies
8 Problem solving skills and cognitive learning strategies are taught
systematically．
9 Reflective and self−corrective strategies are taught systematically．
10 Strategies， such as asking somebody when having learning difficulties， are
taught systematically．
Scaffolding
11 Scaffolding techniques， such as modeling or giving examples， are consistently used， assisting students understanding．
12 A variety of questions are asked to promote students higher−order thinking
skills．
13 Understanding and fair treatment of individual students is frequently observed．
Interaction
14 1nteraction between teacher−student and among students in English is
丘equently observed．
15 Grouping and pair configurations support cooperative learning in language
コ リ
act1Vltles．
16 Sufficient wait time for stUdent responses is consistently provided．
17 LI is used effectively to enhance students understanding．
Practice／ Application
18 Topics and situations of the language activities are relevant to the students and realia is used．
19 Hands−on materials and visual aids are used effectively to support students understanding．
20 Communicative activities are provided for students to use language content
learned in the lesson．
Figure 9． Assessment features ofthe lesson evaluation instrument （continued）
21 Opportunities are provided for students to repeat and memorize language
content learned in the lesson．
22 Students are encouraged to take risks and learn from errors in language
actlvlttes．
23 Class discipline is defined explicitly．
Lesson Delivery
24 Links are explicitly made between the textbook and language activities．
25 The lesson is organized to engage students in language activities．
26 Pacing of the lesson delivery is appropriate for students proficiency levels．
27 Students learning is reinforced by reviewing the content learned in the lesson．
Assessment
28 Students are assessed while being observed and listened to by the teacher．
29 Opportunities are provided for self evaluation and mutual evaluation in the
lesson．
30 A quiz is given to assess students learning immediately．
Team Teaching
31 ALT and JTE work collaboratively， communicating with each other and
modeling−dialog in the language activities．
32 Ample opportunities are provided for students to interact with ALT．
Figure 9． Assessment features of the lesson evaluation instrument
2，2．5 The product of observation instrument
In the next step， we would like to determine the scoring criteria by which teachers
performance for each assessment item is rated． As noted in Chapter 1， the SIOP uses a
five−point scale ranging丘om O to 4． Following the SIOP， description of the scale of
each item is given for the thirty−two assessment criteria． Figure 10 shows a sample
rating scale for Pair work and！or group work conducted in meaningfu1 ways ．
There are some scoring options indicated by not applicable （NA） in the SIOP
observation instrument． NA means the item is not observed in the lesson and to be differentiated丘om the score of 0 ． It is important to provide a scoring option of NA
because a11 fea加res are not always present in every lesson． Team teaching， fbr example，
is a most typical feature ofthe English lesson in Japanese j unior high schools but not all
English lessons are tearri taught． Figure 11 shows a provisional version of our lesson
observation protocols．
購藝攣難
2． Pair work and／or group
vvork activities are
conducted in the ways in which the activities are meaningfu1 to the students．
Pair work and／or group
work activities are
conducted during the lesson，
but the activities are not necessarily meaningfu1 to
the students．