jnl10 最近の更新履歴 JACET関西支部ライティング指導研究会
70
0
0
全文
(2) . 10 2013 3 . Q[ Q[ Q[ Q[. [ no[ no[ no[ no[ cq cq*( W 9%;,BkvO|?fD *( W 9%;,BkvO|?fD 5 + 9$:4;- hg 5 + 9$:4;- hg mm. 1. UseUse of ETS of ETS Criterion Criterion to Prepare to Prepare for for thethe TOEFL TOEFL iBTiBT Independent Independent. Writing Writing Task Task FP FP H H13. bTzr@^x[ 2',5#,>TVK bTzr@^x[ 2',5#,>TVK FIjVKC` FIjVKC` L L ]H ]H25. 35 UAlSt{[VK UAlSt{[VKN_ N_ \e \e. 05$51:5 + 9$VK 05$51:5 + 9$VK 47 1 ;-/*#)'# 1 ;-/*#)'#w_ w_ iG iG. . no.;, no.;, ;, no.;, no.;, / 69!75 + 9$XaJIj} / 69!75 + 9$XaJIj} 57 W 9%;,+"',@^s`
(3) W 9%;,+"',@^s`
(4) My My E< E< . p. d p p d PRno38& #, PRno38& #, p p d 12d d2011–2012 PRno38& #, PRno38& #, PRno38& #, FIx~ZuI= FIx~ZuI=JACET yY yY FIx~ZuI= FIx~ZuI= yY yY FIx~ZuI= yY 5 + 9$VKno= 5 + 9$VKno= 5 + 9$VKno= 5 + 9$VKno= 5 + 9$VKno=.
(5)
(6) àðÞ 10 %rî$ . í÷·éfĔJACETĕċïµĆU7E6Z>¯ÙÜf&Ė2 !$ÙÜOYA8= G%¬Ã2àð$(!* oÎ (0&%Þ 10 !#.ĖÞ 12 ÊOYA8=G Ĕ2011 ¢ė2012 ¢ĕ$zuf 00%ÙܬÃ2/+%. . Þ 10 $&Ė5 %ÙÜú¹! 1 %ÙÜI\G ³Ā0 (ČĆ&Ėæè úĂ Ö[óĂÖT\H%9DC72h¬/. Èß9DC7 "%, $¥ď2_
(7) 2°.. ā.5Z?\G2Ô ĈÖ[üÖ$pÁ(%äÃĖæè Èß9DC7$ Ï$zç$ðá&ĖúĂT\H$ &ǬĖóĂT\H (& Criterion 2 TOEFL ±Å . &n !2. Ôþ2 (Criterion%B. @5%y!|ûè
(8) -%5Z?\G2pÁĖCriterion2Ôëaæ&U7E6Z>t% ]%^$ # /}ê©&/+%%Ė½$·
(9) -%ąq#M6\HJD=+¦ð. . /!ú (ĉ&čÓ%í¹5NBGU=G2Ǭðá!ðáđ¡
(10) -pÁä Ã2$Ėí¹5NBGU=Gh¬¯$ mgÖ$´ò (čÓXPW. っ もモ を模倣 大変困難 あ ，モ +5NBGU=GTFW2Èk/!&Ď. . 提示 仕方，構成要素 ンス 取 .ĖTFW5NBGU=G%´Û%. 方 を改善点 論 い 。嶋林 大学英語授業 論証文作成指導を例 あ eºĖǬðá%JUZB%{.º#"2¶ Í! ú (Â&í÷±Å. 批 %. 判的思考育成 重要性を訴え い 。論文 中 ，批判的思考 概念を歴史的&Ė®sÖ¨ 思想家 定 úõ¹h¬¯2i$ ®sÖ¨çé¬%ćð©2ô (ú¹%` 義を紹介 が 説明 ， た自身 オ ス 在外研究 体験を基 ，オ ç%Ƨ2Ë~Ö#¨ª%å2âd# -ø¼Ė(ëÿ%:\BGUV5. ス %Ù. 教育現場 育成さ 批判的思考 実践例も合わせ 報告 い 。若林 実践報告 ， Ü%gē2$Ė:\BGUV5%·éÐ é¬0/®sÖ¨ç%þi+1 ン 指導を通 ッ セ ッ を活 (ìÂ%þ&ĖKU>UM[U7E6Z>%¯2ă L5[M6\HJD= 用 ，学習者自身 推敲 手順を主体的 理解させ う試 たも 。報告 中 ， !CWM[M6\HJD=2ÌÔ Ėæèëÿ$²¸%đ2agÖ$Ññ/, ö) +%. ッ 教師 %`. ッ 機能 違いを明確化 相乗効果をもた 活用 ĖL5[M6\HJD=!·$,/M6\HJD=%Éê%Ą2¼. 必要性も論 い 。 Úy×bwÃ2+-ÌÔ%¦ð©+ú ( ï%ÙÜI\G. &Ė1 Ċ%Õ2ãē÷Ć%Ó$ î í÷[»À. ÷$,/J7VZ;WU7E6Z>±Å%Æð âd0 (±Å%wÃÄõ%]Ò! î °.ā.5Z?\G%E<BGpÁ2$Ėí÷[»À÷$,/9DC7h¬¯%Õ «cĐ$ +mgÖ$ú ( £ÙÜfàð&ÐĖÝf¾Ē$j0 .Ė(l%
(11) %¾Ē$ +ý ((ĖR\SQ\A (https://sites.google.com/site/jacetkansaiwrg/) $ PDF M47W%¤. ù3. /, $# (£ÙÜf%ÙܬÃ2. +%º$Ø U7E6Z>%¯!ÙÜ%]v!#0'Ė0$x/ & .(3 2013 3 ¿ í÷·éfĔJACETĕċïµĆ U7E6Z>¯ÙÜf Þ 12 ÊÙÜOYA8=G.
(12)
(13) 1. " '! *
(14) &(. ) # . + %$
(15) . Self-Assessment Using a Model Essay and Reflective Questionnaire: Focusing on the Difference of Writing Mode ABE, Makoto Dokkyo University. Abstract This study investigates how L2 writers utilize a model essay in self-assessing their own writing. Thirty two Japanese university students wrote an argumentative essay in week 1 and a descriptive essay in week 6 in a one-year essay writing course, where the students compared their own essay with a model essay, which was followed by a reflective questionnaire session. The questionnaire consists of items (Likert scales and free descriptions) mainly asking “what aspects (vocabulary, grammar, organization, and content) of the model essay were useful” and “how the participants assessed their own essay.” The results revealed the model essay of the argumentative task was more helpful to the participants and the most attention-getting aspect was organization, while content was regarded as the most helpful information in the descriptive mode. The results of qualitative coding of free descriptions suggests that reading a model essay has several advantages across different aspects of writing and writing modes.. Key Words: self-assessment, model essay, reflective questionnaire. 1. êȷ-ƪƧ ǝǹ{MdLVńď03œě2ƎÂHǧ. D-û /BȾÛȀǘ 50 Hȉ. DüœĈ,2{MdLVńď/.0+3ȾąŨƧ0ăǖǘ2m{V{p?Pb^MHƎ Â. D-3Ȯ #2A/R|Sy{v Ⱦ:%3ȾÀĠƧ/êȷú0>ȾńďƉ2Ǩ. óBȾœě2ƎÂťǜ2œǙƧ°,3/Üǚı>ųǰ /E4/B/ćȫȾœě 2ǮžƧ/pLglbUăǖǘ2{MdLV2 ȗ0ĭ! >nj5)/ûĂò. Dȼe.g., Truscott, 1996Ƚ:%Ⱦǘ-Ð. D\S}HǙĸ. Dƺ÷>. D-HƪŸ- +Ⱦ. oKpLglbU?ÐƧ{MdLV/.2ƋÊHď° %CȾǛƺ %ăǖǘHǙĸ D-Hƪń +ȾȎŤ¢Ơ?}q|bU/.2¢ŚHńď %C. D÷à>DŪƯƹ. 3ȾǛƺ %ŤĺHƪń %{MdLVńď0+ȾŹǁPb^M2ĨÅ0Ɗƪ. D. ______________________________________________________________________________________ JACET ȦǦőȜ{MdLVńďƯƹǃǧ
(16) ƽ 10 Þ pp. 1–12. (2013) © The Writing Research Group, JACET Kansai Chapter. Printed in JAPAN. ISSN 1883-7840.
(17) 2. ABE, Makoto. œěPb^M{MdLVńď0+ŹǁPb^MHŊƱ LVăǖ0+ŹǁPb^MHÖƗ. D-?Ⱦăǖǘ{Md. D-û{MdLV2œƵŤ03ƪŸ-. D. Ŗƻ2Źǁ£ʼnȍ E+CȾPb^M2A/:-:(%ȡ2ǝŖHŤȫ03Ⱦăǖǘ3 ŹǁPb^MHǼ<-,Ⱦm{V{p2Ŷĸ?ǭǹƧƙĬ-µĉHŵǫ,D#2ijå0 +ȾŹǁPb^M-3ȒĜȾŤĀ=DÃ0ŊƱ ED>2,D /BȾŤĀ= DÃ0ŹǁPb^MHǼI, :-Ⱦ#EHȖĠ0Źª + :-ÓȩıĂò ȼGoby, 1997Ƚ#2%=ȾǛƺ %Ťĺ0/D%=03ȾŹǁPb^MHŹª. D. D%=,3/. ȾǛ¹2Pb^M-2ƃȌHȒ +Ľ¼Ƨ0ǛB2{MdLVr^\HņCȐD%=2 c}- +ƋƠ,DĭǧD ŹǁƧ/ǝŖ-Ǜ¹,Ť% Ŗ-2ƃȌǡƔ3ȾƽǭǹǖĪ¹Ƞ0D)2{M dLVȦȔ2Ưƹ,>ǨBEDȼAbe, 2009; Hanaoka, 2007; Qi & Lapkin, 2001; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010ȽEB2Ưƹ3Ɓǹǵǘ2ǝǹœě0A(+ǭǹƧǧLJ2;HƎ E% ŖȼreformulationȽ?Źǁ£- +2ƮǝŖȼmodel textȽ-Ǜ¹2 ŖHƃȌ. D-,.2. A/-0Ƅ*Ⱦ# +#2Ƅ*ȼnoticingȽ.2A0Ťƫ 0Øş EDHǾ ű %>2,DEB2Ưƹ3Ⱦreformulation ? model text -Ǜ¹2 ŖHƃȌ. Dȫ2İǗ. Ʀǵ?kfdMU E%e`H language related episode (LRE) -Ñ0¹ǀ ȾƄ*2 ȶĠHǯƏ A- %EB2Ưƹ0DƄ*2ȡƧ¬ã3!E>Ⱦǹĥ0Ȧ. D LRE. ť>ûǫč E%-Ɠ,³Ȓ +CȾŹǁƧ/ǝŖ-Ǜę Ŗ2ƃȌǡÊ0A(+3Ⱦ ǹĥ0Ȧ. DƄ*Hť>ÉůƧ0¦. -,DÜǚıHƱé +D. Swain and Lapkin (1995) 32 LRE -ÑHȾǭǹȳƪ2ijå?Ħġ2žư /.0Ȧ Dǭ×?ȇê-ąǔ ȾE:,ŷ/Ưƹ0+Ʀǵe`2¹Ů/.0¢GE+% /BȾƄ*2ŵįƧąǔ3Ưƹǘȥ,ĭ! >Ǎ E+B!ȾƄ*Hŏ Üǚ0 D¹ŮƉ>Ưƹǘ0A(+ƥ/D DZ2{MdLVȦȔ2Ưƹ£0+>ȾȜ2ǟǘ #2ȧƢHǸ=+DA0ȾƄ*2ȶĠHǹĥ-Ħġ0Ȧ. D>2-2ȥ,ƃȌ. D-. Ǜ0.E&2ijåD3Ⱦ#E$E2Ưƹ2ƪƧ0Į +Ƿlj0Ȃǿ E/E4/B /&F:%Ⱦćȫ0ǝŖȣ/E4Ⱦǹĥ?Ħġ-ǭ(%ǭǹƧǧLJ&,/ȾŶĸ ?µĉ/.2~f|bU0Ȧ. DǧLJ0ƊijHĻĭǧƟ DƝò2ƽǭǹǖĪ¹Ƞ,2. Ƅ*2ŵįƧąǔ,ȾǭǹǧLJ-#Eú2ǧLJ72Ƅ*H.2A0ŔBEDÑ- +ļD-êȷ>Ⱦđ/->Pb^M{MdLVńď-ǫƓB3Ǘķ E DĭǧD 2A/êȷ72ijȁBȾŪƯƹ3ŹǁPb^M-Ǜ¹2Pb^MHƃȌ ǁ Ŗ2.2A/Ȝ¹0ijȁãBEDHňLj. D-HƪƧ-. D-,ȾŹ. D´Ƨ03ȾPb. ^M{MdLVńď0+ȾǛ¹2Pb^MHŤ%ĩ0ŹǁPb^MHÖƗ ȾPb ^MHƃȌ. D-,Ⱦ(1) ŹǁPb^M3 ÖǗ0/(% 2Ⱦ(2) ÖǗ0/(% -Ĵ . DĠà3Ⱦ{MdLV2ǧLJȼ ǹĥ Ⱦ ŖƉ Ⱦ Ŷĸ Ⱦ µĉ /.Ƚ½0Ⱦ:%ȾPb^ M2xg½ȼǿȑƧȾDZȑƧȾ/.Ƚ0Șà(%2Ⱦ(3) ƋÊĩȾăǖǘ2Ǜędz¤2Ġ à3ǧLJ½Ⱦxg½0Șà(%2Ⱦ0Ɗƪ Ǿű %njů2ǬȞ0+3Ⱦ®ǡ Ưƹ-ƃȌÜǚ/Ȝ¹0ȧą +Ⱦ Ƅ* 2ǫƓBǿ D&,/Ⱦćȫ0œĈ,2Ź ǁPb^MŊƱHņCȐCƋÊH0ÉůƧ0ǡ-ǩƓBǿ DŪƯƹ,3 ŹǁPb^M2ŊƱBņCȐC2%=2ȇêDžDZ°:,H¶Ƒ0ǡƪƧ,Ⱦm_XœĈ, Q{MKWfc}H¾Ơ ĉHŵǫ. D. D-ĺƀ,ǡ(%Žǀ0+Ⱦ:!#2ćȊµ.
(18) Self-Assessment Using a Model Essay and Reflective Questionnaire. 3. 2. ć Ȋ 2.1 Ö Ç ǘ ŪƯƹõ*ŇŴćȊ2ÖÇǘ3ȾȦŭóŚ2Ƴƺüă2úñǹăȜǝǹăƵ0ĹĔ. D 1. ĞƟ 2 U{\ 32 â,(%ćȊǡGE%ŇŴ3ǟǘŁĤ %ƴăŨȤȀƵƪ “Basic Essay Writing” ,CȾU{\YM]3 1517 ,(%ÖÇǘ3°ăš0 TOEIC IP d\fHÛȺ +CȾ#2\XK,ņC¹BE%ǖƘĠ½U{\ǐÀ0ACȾ3 )2U{\0¹BE% ŪćȊÖÇǘ3dž~s}2U{\ȼTOEIC score 2ǁï3 510 B 715Ƚ0ĹĔ +% 2.2 ć Ȋ 2.2.1 Ň Ŵ 2 ŵ ǧ ŪćȊǡGE%ǝǹƵƪ3 1 ĞƟ2ƴăŨĭ¨Ƶƪ “Basic Essay Writing” ,DáƵƪ3Ⱦ ÏŨ2Ƶƪ&ȾÛȀǘ3 “Paragraph Writing” -ƵƪHá ăĞ2ŠăŨ0Ⱦá ŁĤǘ2 ńď2>-ÛȀ +% “Paragraph Writing” ,3Ⱦŷ/Ʒȹ2^d\{MdLV-ĝ ǡ +Ⱦp|{MdLV/.Hćś /BȾm{V{pµ2Ŷȓȼtopic sentence, supporting details, concluding sentence /.Ƚ0Ȧ. DƞǬHƍ=ȾĩÏ2 3 ȕƶĠ3Pb^M2m{V{pȥ. 2Ŷȓȼintroduction, body, conclusion /.Ƚ0)+ăǖ %ƴăŨ2 “Basic Essay Writing” 3 {MdLV2Ñ3Pb^M,ȾxgHǿȑƧȼargumentativeȽȾDZȑƧȼdescriptiveȽȾǻŝ ƧȼexpositoryȽPb^M2 3 Ʒȹ0G+ńďHǡ(%Ƶƪ->ŇŴ3m_XœĈ,ǡG E% ŪƯƹõ*ćȊǡGE%Ƶƪ3±Ȝ, 15 ȕBŶĸ EȾǿȑƧȾDZȑƧȾǻŝƧPb ^MHăǖ. D 3 `v0¹EȾß`v0 5 ȕ!)+BE%Week 15 0ćś %ǿ. ȑƧPb^M3Ⱦrrf0Ď 0ȆĸØĎHǢŝ. D-,Ǜȋ2ijǨHǿ D>2Ⱦ. Week 610 0ćś %DZȑƧPb^M3Ǣ?V{p/.2ǩǪIJöHDZȑ. D>2ȾWeek 11. 15 0ćś %ǻŝƧPb^M3ȾrrfHDzą"!ȾǛ¹,Ƈ=%fobU0ƈ(+ǛBIJ öHÙȬ +ȾD 1 )2Ű0)+ǻŝ. DPb^M-ąǔ %Week 1 - Week 5 03Ⱦ. šȥHǯ(+ȎŤH¢G!0Pb^MHŤƋÊȼtimed writingȽHǡ(%Timed writing Hǡ( %ƞơ3Ⱦšȥµ0DƶĠ:-:(%ȡHŤ-,D-Ⱦ. /G'Ⱦ ŖHŤƌŢ . HȻ=D-áƵƪ2¿ȗƪŸ2 1 ),(%-0ÇȾŇŴµ0Ť%ƫĩ29Ⱦ` \U2ƙĬ2Ȃǿ?oKpLglbUƋıÎ ED-Ǘ%%=,DWeek 1 2ĩÏ B Week 3 0+ introduction, body, conclusion #E$E2m{V{p2ŤŚHă5ȾWeek 4 03#EB2ßmf2 B/DƞǬ2%=0ȾtKU:%3V}rU,Pb^M± HŤƋÊH %ƂȕȾPb^M2!E2m{V{pHŤǽȷȾĠŇŴµ,Ť %Pb^M2Ťƫ ǽȷĊȷ- +ǽ EȾșĆȾœě2pLglbUBE% Week 610 2DZȑƧPb^Mńď2\W[y}3Ⱦŵ1 Week 5 :,2ǿȑƧPb^Mńď -á ,DȾ1 ȕƪ2 Week 6 0+3ȾV{p?Ǣ/.HDZȑ. D-`\UăƟ0. -(+ũƭ,(%%=Ⱦrrf2¹Ů-ǬȞ2ǑǖH®0ǡȾǕȕB introduction Ⱦ ßm{V{p2ŤŚHǑǖ %Week 1115 2ǻŝƧPb^M,3ȾǛ¹,fobUHȚ5Ⱦ IJöÙȬH +ȾKReubU/\`M},Ⱦ5 m{V{p,Ŷĸ EDPb^MHŤ-H ťNJǽȷ- +ǽ Ⱦ#EHƪŸ0ńďµĉƇ=BE%Week 1113 :,3ĭǧ/IJöųLj ŚƉ?Ⱦm{p~]?ǧDŽH +ȾĪ%IJöH.2A0ȅı2Dµĉ0:-=+ Hăǖ %Week 14 ,3oKpLglbUHǡȾŇŴú,œě2ƎÂHÇȾťNJȕ2 Week 15 ,3#2ƎÂHȐÔ ȾǏdz-:-=Hǡ(%ð 1 3ŇŴ2ƌE2ŵƣð,D JACET ȦǦőȜ{MdLVńďƯƹǃǧ
(19) ƽ 10 Þ (2013).
(20) 4. ABE, Makoto. Term 1: Argumentative. Term 2: Descriptive. Term 3: Expository. Week 1. Timed writing. Week 6. Timed writing. Week 11. Research skills. Introduction. Interpreting prompts. Essay outline. Week 2. Body paragraphs. Week 7. Body paragraphs. Week 12. Paraphrase, summary. Week 3. Conclusion. Week 8. Introduction and. Week 13. Unity and coherence. Week 4. Pair- or Group-work. Conclusion. Week 5. Timed writing Peer feedback. Citing and quoting. Week 9. Pair- or Group-work. Week 14. Peer feedback. Week 10. Timed writing. Week 15. Wrap-up. ð 11. ŇŴ\W[y}2ŵƣ 2.2.2 ȇ ê Dž H ¢ ( % Ǜ ę dz ¤ Ƌ Ê ȇêDžH¢(%Ǜędz¤ƋÊ3ȾWeek 1 - Week 6 2 timed writing ƫĩȾŇŴȤĀ 45 ¹HNjȖ %Ȳ0ǡGE%m_XœĈH¢%=ȾȇêDž3 SurveyMonkey Ʋ2Yn\H¾Ơ +Ⱦ M`jbf 0DzǓ %áYMf3dz¤\W}ȾǛơDZȑ/.ȾQ|[h}2ȇêȳƪ Hƕŗ, ĸ ȾM`jbf ,ȝĚ,DYn\,DQ{M,ìƾł,Ȭ ǯ,Dw|bf0ÇȾȬǯnjůǨ? ȂǿHƋıÎ. %=œĈµ,Ȭ=%ìƾH\{Mg ,²Ȥ Ⱦ. D-Ėý>,D. ŪćȊ0ÖÇ %ăƟ3ȾWeek 1 - Week 6 2ŇŴ0+Ⱦ¸ȷ E%rrfHǼ;Ⱦ 30 ¹2šȥÀȧ,Pb^MHŤ%Ǜ¹2Pb^M2êȷƓHƭD%=2Ǜędz¤ƪƧ/2 ,ȾȎŤ?M`jbf,2IJöÙȬ3Ǹ=/(%ăǖǘŤNJG(%ĩȾŹǁPb^ MHȝĚ %rrfȾŹǁPb^M->0Ⱦǟǘ2ÌËŲ2ŇŴőōZ\dvHƠ+Ⱦ M`jbfNjơ,ȝĚH ȾăƟ>áZ\dv2pJM}KbrgŻǚHƠ+Pb ^MHŊ¸ % ŁĤœè3ŹǁPb^MHȝĚ %ĩȾăƟ3#EHǼI,Ǜ¹2Pb^M-ƃȌ Ⱦ.I/ -FÖǗ0/DȾ:%ȾǛ¹2Pb^M2¸Ŭ3.&(%Ⱦ.2A/-FHŒë DĭǧDHȾǛȋ2{MdLVņCȐC/BǗDAńď %ŹǁPb^MH Ǽ<šȥȾȇêDžHDZ°. Dšȥ3àG"+ 20 ¹µ- %ŹǁPb^MHǼ;ȾȇêDž0DZ. ° +D&3ȾÕÁ2ăƟáø,IJöŋH"!Ⱦ:,©,ǗDAƆ=% #2ĩȾ5 ¹ȥ&Ǜơ0ǵHǸ=%ĩȾ\{Mg,ȬǯnjůH²Ȥ ȾâÃH"%ƚĵ,Ⱦ ȜìƾHǨ+ȾŹǁ ŖH.2A0ÖǗ0 %ȾǛ¹2Pb^MH.2A0dz¤ + D0)+œě-ăƟáø,ȂǿH %. 2.2.3 ` \ U - Ź ǁ P b ^ M ¢Ơ %`\U-ŹǁPb^M3 IELTS d\f2{MdLV^UZzȼKReubUx [y}Ƚ2ŹŐêȷHÙȢ %dS\f,D Scovell, Pastellas, and Knobel (2004) 2êȷ-Ź ǁPb^MH¢Ơ %IELTS 2{MdLVd\f3ŇŴ,ļǿȑƧPb^M-DZȑƧPb ^M2Ś,Ŷĸ ED%=ȾÏŨ2ŇŴHȒ +Ġ£ȷHƠ%ćȫ2 IELTS 2{Md LV^UZz3ĺŤ2d\f,CȾ#E$E Task 1 3 150 words ȾTask 2 3 250 words -ǹŔńąDȾŪćȊ3m_X0AD`MoV2ĦġH-CȾǹŔńą3 DZ2ŔHƪĄ0ŤA0Ɔ=% Week 1 0¢Ơ %`\U3 ſ»ÀĠÿĤ,DA/÷àD-. E4.2A/÷à.
(21) Self-Assessment Using a Model Essay and Reflective Questionnaire -rrf0Ď +Ǜ¹2ijǨHǿȑ. 5. D`\U,D2êȷHȚI&ƞơ3Ⱦ. fobU2ȮŞĠșº,D-Ǘ%-0ÇȾrrfȆĸØĎ0¹E+ǿ D -HƆ=+/%=ȾǛ¹Ť%Pb^M-ŹǁPb^M2µĉȹ ? ƃȌ. ȾǘH. DƋÊ0ș +D-Ǘ%%=,D. Week 6 0ćś %`\U3 MT|\2ǫ¯0Ȧ. DŽ2ǢHDZȑ"A -êȷŖ-Ǣ-. ǩǪIJörrf0/(+D'B3ȾijǨHǿ D2,3/Ⱦ:,Ǣ0Ť E+DIJöHDZȑ. D-ƪƧ/2,ȾŹǁPb^M-ăǖǘ2Pb^MDƶĠ%. ǘ0/CȾƃȌHÜǚ0 "D>2,D-Ǘ%ȼȢ 1, 2 ÖƗȽ 2.2.4 ȇ ê Dž ȇêDž2ȇêȳƪ3ȾâÃHDZ°. Dȳƪ 1 ú3Ⱦ Źǁ Ŗ2ÖƗȼȳƪ 2, 3Ƚ - Ǜę. dz¤ȼȳƪ 46Ƚ 2 2 Ʒȹ0¹EDȳƪ 2 3 ŹǁPb^M3ÖǗ0/C: %ɂ ȇê0 ǹĥ ŖƉ Ŷĸ µĉ 2 4 ǧLJ0Ȧ +Ⱦ ±ÖǗ0/B/ B ȯ Ĝ0ÖǗ0/D :,2 5 ƀȪ2dz¤\W}HDzą +ŊƱ %:%Ⱦȳƪ 2 03 4 ǧLJ# E$E0Ȧ + ÖǗ0/(%ƓH´Ƨ0Ť+& -Ǜơìƾż>Ơij % B0Ⱦ ȼŹǁPb^M,ȽƤÖǗ0/(%-3,. ɂ -ǛơìƾġȇêHȳƪ 3. - +Dz% Ǜędz¤0Ȧ +3Ⱦȳƪ 4 3 Ǜ¹2Pb^MHȳƪ½0Ǜędz¤ +;: @ - ȇêŖ,Ⱦȳƪ 2 -áŷ0 ǹĥ B µĉ :,2 4 ǧLJ½0Ⱦ ±&=&(% B ȯ Ĝ0A,% :,2 5 ƀȪ2dz¤\W}Dzą EȾ ´Ƨ/ŒëƓ3&-İ: ɂ -ǛơìƾżH%ȳƪ 5 3ƛƺ %Ǜơìƾġ2ȳƪ,Ⱦ Ǜ¹2Pb^M2 Ƥ2ŒëƓ3.,. ɂ -ȇêŖHDzą %:%ȾŒëƓ&,3/ȾǛ¹A. ,%-İƓHņCȐDȳƪ 6 >Ⱦăǖǘ2ǛęÉÆĴ?xasZz-(%ǧLJHǗķ %,Ơij % Ⱦ6 ȳƪ2Q{MȇêDžM`jbf ,ȝ§ E%üă ú2NOqYMfH¢Ơ. D%=ȾâÃHŤȳƪ 1 03ȾŪƵƪ2%=0B =ăƟDz. ą %ƙą2ibUjvH¢Ơ. DAńƱ %. 2.2.5 ¹ Ů ŪƯƹ2ƪƧBȾȇêDž2ȳƪ 2ȼ5 ƀȪdz¤\W}2ìƾ«-Ǜơìƾ2ŚȽ, 3, 4ȼ5 ƀȪdz¤\W}2;Ƚ, 5 ¹ŮĎȄ0/(%:!Ⱦȳƪ 2 - 5 0+Ⱦ5 ƀȪdz¤\W }2ìƾ2ȶĠųǰ E%:%Ⱦdz¤\W}2ȴğĒĠHƠ+ĪBE%ìƾ«2þ« ȼĝô{UȽHPb^Mxgȥ,ƃȌ. D%=Ⱦkm{wf|bUųą2 Wilcoxon 2ƼÞ. ȴæųąHƠȾŦijƅƐH 5%0Dzą %:%ȾÉůȡ- +ȾȔȦ2ģ HƱ. ƬȦ¥. Ŕ r Hǯƿ % :%ȾăǖǘŹǁPb^M2.2A/Ȝ¹0Ɗƪ +DHǷlj0ľŌ. D%=Ⱦȳƪ. 2 2ǛơìƾHȇƧXeLVȼǠ, 2008Ƚ0A(+¹ȹ %´Ƨ03Ⱦ±+2Ǜơìƾ H ǹĥ /.2ǧLJ -0Ⱦijå2 ,ǤŔ2QrXg0¹ȹ ȼQrXeL VȽȾ#EBHACŀȄƧ/ ŵį0ŕƞ %ȼƖƓƧXeLVȽ B0Ⱦ®ǡƯƹ,î Ȯ,(% ǹĥ - ŖƉ /.2ǧLJȥ2ƃȌHACûȰƧ0ǡ%=Ⱦȳƪ 3 -ȳƪ 5 2 Ǜơìƾ3ȾPb^M{MdLV2 4 ǧLJȼ ǹĥ Ⱦ ŖƉ Ⱦ Ŷĸ Ⱦ µĉ Ƚ-ŜĂ 2¹ȹõƐH¢(+¹ȹ ȾȶĠHųǰ %. JACET ȦǦőȜ{MdLVńďƯƹǃǧ
(22) ƽ 10 Þ (2013).
(23) 6. ABE, Makoto. 3. nj ů 3.1 Ź ǁ Ŗ 2 Ö Ǘ 0 / ( % Ǣ 1 3Ⱦ32 â2ÖÇǘ2ȳƪ 2 ŹǁPb^M3ÖǗ0/C: %ɂ 0Ď. Dìƾ2ȶĠ. ȼŔȽHƱ +DǿȑƧȾDZȑƧPb^M2Ś0Ȧ +ȾüȜ¹2ìƾ ȯĜ0ÖǗ 0/(% - ÖǗ0/(% 0Ȭ:CȾ :CÖǗ0/B/(% Ⱦ ±ÖǗ0/B/( % B3ìƾ3 G! ǨBE/(%xg½0ǨD-Ⱦ ȯĜ0ÖǗ0/(% 2 ìƾŔACû(%23ǿȑƧPb^M,Ⱦ±2 46 m^fHÒ=% Ǣ 1.ȳƪ 2ìƾ«2ȶĠ ǿȑƧ. DZȑƧ. ǹĥ ŖƉ Ŷĸ µĉ. ǯ. ǹĥ ŖƉ Ŷĸ µĉ. ǯ. ȯĜ0ÖǗ0/(%. 12. 8. 21. 18. 59 (46). 7. 5. 14. 10. 36 (28). ÖǗ0/(%. 15. 22. 10. 11. 58 (45). 22. 22. 12. 16. 72 (56). ÖǗ0/D/B/Ï. 5. 2. 1. 3. 11 (9). 3. 3. 6. 4. 16 (13). :CÖǗ0/B/(%. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 (0). 0. 2. 0. 2. 4 (3). ±ÖǗ0/B/(%. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 (0). 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 (0). Note. (%) Ǣ 2 3ìƾ«H Wilcoxon 2ƼÞȴæųąHƠ+¹Ů %njů,DǢ0Ʊ E+D A0Ⱦ ǹĥ Ⱦ ŖƉ Ⱦ Ŷĸ Ⱦ µĉ 2± 4 ǧLJ0+ȾDZȑƧ/xgAC>ŹǁPb ^M290Ȼìƾ«H)+DÖÇǘû(%#2,>Ⱦƙ0 Ŷĸ ȼz = -2.36, p = .018, r = 30Ƚ- µĉ ȼz = -2.29, p = .022, r = -.29Ƚ0+3Ŧij/ĘǨBEȾÉůȡ3 ƶĠ,(%. Ǣ 2. ȳƪ 2 2ìƾ«2Pb^Mxg½2ƃȌ þ« ǧLJ. ǿȑƧ. DZȑƧ. ǹĥ. 4. 4. ŖƉ. Ŷĸ. µĉ. . 4. 5. 5. 4. 4. 4. n. ĝô{U. ȴæ. z. p. r. ǿȑƧɁDZȑƧ. 9. 6.78. 61.00. -0.56. .572. -.07. ǿȑƧȿDZȑƧ. 5. 8.80. 44.00. ǿȑƧɀDZȑƧ. 18. ǿȑƧɁDZȑƧ. 9. 8.33. 75.00. -1.50. .135. -.19. ǿȑƧȿDZȑƧ. 5. 6.00. 30.00. ǿȑƧɀDZȑƧ. 18. ǿȑƧɁDZȑƧ. 13. 9.46. 123.00. -2.36. .018. -.30. ǿȑƧȿDZȑƧ. 4. 7.50. 30.00. ǿȑƧɀDZȑƧ. 15. ǿȑƧɁDZȑƧ. -2.29. .022. -.29. 12. 9.17. 110.00. ǿȑƧȿDZȑƧ. 4. 6.50. 26.00. ǿȑƧɀDZȑƧ. 16.
(24) Self-Assessment Using a Model Essay and Reflective Questionnaire Ǣ 3 3ȳƪ 2 2Ǜơìƾ2ȇƧXeLV2njů,Dƕìƾ? ǹĥ 0Ȧ. 7. DǧLJH. ŖƉ 2-F0Ť+ :/.2Ǻ(%ìƾ3 #2 - +RNf Ⱦ¹ŮB3 Ȩú %njůȾŦÉìƾ3 189 ,(% ǹĥ Ⱦ ŖƉ Ⱦ Ŷĸ Ⱦ µĉ 2 4 ǧLJ,àǯ 25 2QrXgŀ¸ EȾƥ/DǧLJȥ0ȹƓ2ǨBEDXgáøHŵį- +ł( %njůȾ6 ©2ŵįǢ¸ %ȾQrXg3Ƀ ɄȾŵį3 ,Ʊ ǹĥ 0Ȧ. . DìƾB3Ⱦ6 ©2QrXgŀ¸ E%ť>ȶĠ2Ȼ(%>2. 3ɃǛ¹2ƭB/ǹĥɄȼ34%Ƚ,CȾŽ0Ƀûŷ/ǹĥɄȼ28%Ƚ,(%#2ȾɃKR eubU/ǹĥɄȾɃfobU06 G ǹĥɄȾɃȮǬ/ǹĥɄȾɃǹ2ƠƉɄ/.ÖǗ0/D Ɠ- +ìƾ E%Pb^M2xg½2ƪƺ(%Ș- +3ȾɃûŷ/ǹĥɄȼ£. ) 2-,>FF/ǢƝ2ŚD-G(% Ƚǿȑxg2ìƾ0û(%20Ç ȾɃǹ2ƠƉɄȼ£. except H exception -¢ŚH +% Ƚ2 4 2ìƾ±+DZȑx gB2ìƾ,(%-ŅBED Ǣ 3. ȳƪ 2 2Ǜơìƾ2XeLV . ŵį. QrXg. ǿȑƧ. DZȑƧ àǯ. ũƭ2ǧLJ. Ǜ¹2ƭB/ǹĥ. 9. 8. 17 (34). KReubU . KReubU/ǹĥ. 2. 2. 4 (8). fobU-2ȦȔ. fobU06 G ǹĥ. 2. 5. 7 (14). ȮǬ Ǥȭ . ȮǬ/ǹĥ. 3. 1. 4 (8). ûŷ . ûŷ/ǹĥ. 11. 3. 14 (28). ǹĥ. ŖƉ. ǹ2ƠƉ. 0. 4. 4 (8). fobU-2ȦȔ. ©½2ŖƉȳƪ. 11. 13. 24 (51). ȮǬ Ǥȭ . ȮǬ/ŖƉ/-. 3. 3. 6 (13). ûŷ . Ŗ2Ʒȹ2ûŷ . 3. 2. 5 (11). ž ŖƉ. 2. 1. 3 (6). ȣ . Ŗ2ȣ . 5. 4. 9 (19). m{V{pȥ2ēȤȾȴğ. 11. 7. 18 (35). m{V{p2¹Ś. 4. 4. 8 (16). ßm{V{p2ŤŚ. 6. 3. 9 (18). Ŷĸ ȣ . ßm{V{pƙŦ2ǹĥ. 3. 3. 6 (12). m{V{p2ȣ . 3. 6. 9 (18). m{V{pµŶȓ. 1. 0. 1 (2). Ťĭǧ(%µĉ. 7. 8. 15 (37). µĉ2Ƿ . 2. 4. 6 (15). µĉ2ǻĪÆ. 5. 0. 5 (12). GC?. 1. 4. 5 (12). 1. 1. 2 (5). KReubU/ŤŚ. 0. 2. 2 (5). Ť-2ǩƓ. 1. 3. 4 (10). 2. 0. 2 (5). ũƭ2ǧLJfobU -2ȦȔ ȣ . µĉ. ȮǬ Ǥȭ . ŤŚ. µĉ2ȅı KReubU . fobU-2ȦȔ. Note. (4 ǧLJ -2àǯ0Ď. fobU0Ȧ. Dƭȁ. DßQrXg2ȶĠ2Åà). JACET ȦǦőȜ{MdLVńďƯƹǃǧ
(25) ƽ 10 Þ (2013).
(26) 8. ABE, Makoto. ŖƉ 0)+3 5 ©2QrXgŀ¸ EȾť>ȶ¸ %>23Ƀ©½2ŖƉȳƪɄ ȼ£. ąƉ:¢GE+% Ƚ,CȾ±2 24 m^fHÒ=D#2ȾɃȮǬ /ŖƉ/-ɄȾɃŖ2Ʒȹ2ûŷ ɄȾɃž ŖƉɄȾɃŖ2ȣ Ʉ-XeLV E% Pb^Mxg2ƙĬ- +3ȾǿȑƧPb^M2ÖǗ0/(%Ƀ©½2ŖƉȳƪɄ3ÄǴȾȦ ¥âǴȾąƉȾÛÊĵȾÃǓǴ/.ûĕ0G%(%20ƃ8ȾDZȑƧPb^M3 13 © 9 © Ǣ2ŔāIJöHDZȑ. Dȫ0¢Ơ. DƃȌdžȾť dž0Ȧ. D>2,(%. Ŷĸ 3 6 ©2QrXgB/CȾťȶ3Ƀm{V{pȥ2ēȤȾȴğɄ ȼ£. introduction , three conditions -ǭ(+Ⱦbody ,ȴŽǻŝ +D2GC?. Ƚ,CȾ Ŷĸ ±. 2 18 m^fHÒ=%03ȾɃm{V{p2¹ŚɄȾɃßm{V{p2ŤŚɄȾɃßm{ V{pƙŦ2ǹĥɄȾɃm{V{p2ȣ ɄȾɃm{V{pµŶȓɄ0Ȧ +ÖǗ0/(%-ìƾ E% µĉ 3ǧLJ½0ǨD-ť>Ŕ2û 8 ©2QrXgHµÍ. Dnjů-/(%Ⱦ#. E3ǿȑƧPb^M-DZȑƧPb^M2ȥ2fobU2ȘƇąƧ0>%B í. µĉ2Ș0Ȉ. D>2,(%ť>ûƝE%ìƾ3ɃŤĭǧ(%µĉɄ,(%Ⱦ£4Ⱦǿ. ȑƧPb^M,3 4 ƀǞƪ,Ǜ¹-3ȘijǨH+%ȾǛ¹3Ť+/(% / . ØĎ2ijǨ 0Ȧ. D>2üȜ¹,(%20Ď ȾDZȑƧPb^M,3Ⱦ Ǣ22´. Ƨ/Ŕā>Ť+ǻŝ /E4/-¹(% /. ŔāIJö 0Ȧ -I.,(% µĉ 3#2ȾɃµĉ2Ƿ ɄȾɃµĉ2ǻĪÆɄȾɃGC? Ƀµĉ2ȅıɄȾɃKReubU/ŤŚɄȾɃŤ-2ǩƓɄȾɃfobU0Ȧ. D>29 ŤŚɄȾ DƭȁɄ/.. ŀ¸ E%ȾǿȑȾDZȑxg!E2;0ƝEDQrXg#2' 3 ©CȾ XeLVfobU2ħȱHÛDnjů-/(% EB2QrXg2)3Ⱦ#2µĉ2ȹıB ũƭ2ǧLJȾ ȮǬ Ǥȭ Ⱦ ûŷ Ⱦ KReubU Ⱦ ȣ Ⱦ fobU-2ȦȔ2 6 )2ŵį0łBE% ũ ɃǛ¹2ƭB/ǹĥɄ?ɃŤĭǧ2 ƭ2ǧLJ-3 ǹĥ - µĉ 0ưǸ E%ŵį,Ⱦ (%µĉɄ/.3ȾŽ2Ż0¢%ǹĥ?ȾPb^M0ƩCȏ<ĭǧ2Dµĉ/. E0ǶĤ. D ȮǬ Ǥȭ 3 ǹĥ Ⱦ ŖƉ Ⱦ µĉ 2 3 ǧLJ0G%(+ǨÛBED. ŵį,ȾɃȮǬ/ǹĥɄ?ɃȮǬ/ŖƉ/-ɄȾ:%3ɃGC?. ŤŚɄ/.E. 0ÍŎ ED0>Ⱦ ûŷ 3Ƀûŷ/ǹĥɄ?ȾÑŖ?ǤŖ?ŷ/ŶŖH¢-0ċ KReubU 3 ǹĥ - µĉ. DɃŖ2Ʒȹ2ûŷ Ʉ0)+Ⱦǭ× E+DŚȾ 0Ȧ. Dǭ×,(%:%Ⱦ ȣ 0Ȧ +3ȾŖ2ȣ ?m{V{p2ȣ -(% ŖƉ. > 3 Ŷĸ 0Ȧ Č Hijå. D>2&,/Ⱦ Ƀµĉ2Ƿ ɄPb^M±2ȡƧ/Ƿlj Ⱦȃ. D÷à3Ⱦ ȣ 2ŵį0ä:EDÜǚıD:%Ⱦ fobU-2ȦȔ-. ŵį30ɃfobU06 G ǹĥɄ-ɃfobU0Ȧ ¹E%ȾǢHDZȑ į0ƬĤ. DƭȁɄ2QrXg0. DDZȑƧPb^MHŤ%=2ƃȌdžť dž/.2ŖƉȳƪ>2ŵ. D-ǨŚ>Üǚ,D. 3.2 Ǜ ę dz ¤ Ǣ 4 3ÖÇǘ 32 â2Pb^M2Ǜędz¤2ìƾ«ȼȳƪ 3 2 ì2Ǜ¹2Pb^MHȳƪ½ 0Ǜędz¤ +;: @ Ƚ2ȶĠȼŔȽHƱ. ìƾ2üȜ¹3 6) - :CA. ,/(% 0ìƾȬ:(%Pb^Mxgȥ2Ș,ƪƺ(%23Ⱦ :(%,/ (% -ìƾǿȑƧPb^M0+ 17 ȼ±2 13%Ƚ&(%20Ď ȾDZȑƧPb^ M0+3G!0 3 ȼ±2 2%Ƚ,(%-,D.
(27) Self-Assessment Using a Model Essay and Reflective Questionnaire. 9. Ǣ 4. ȳƪ 3 2ìƾ«2ȶĠ ǿȑƧ. DZȑƧ. ǹĥ ŖƉ Ŷĸ µĉ. ǯ. ǹĥ ŖƉ Ŷĸ µĉ. ǯ. ȯĜ0A,%. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 (0). 0. 2. 1. 1. 4 (3). A,%. 5. 2. 5. 5. 17 (13). 1. 1. 5. 3. 10 (8). 6). 6. 17. 14. 12. 49 (38). 15. 20. 7. 8. 50 (39). :CA,/(%. 16. 10. 10. 9. 45 (35). 16. 8. 18. 19. 61 (48). ±,/(%. 5. 3. 3. 6. 17 (13). 0. 1. 1. 1. 3 (2). Note. (%) Ǣ 5 ,3 Wilcoxon 2ƼÞȴæųąHƠ%ìƾ«2¹ŮnjůHõ0ȾPb^Mxgȥ2 Ǜędz¤2ĠàHƃȌ +DŔB¹DA0Ⱦ Ŷĸ Ⱦ µĉ 0ƃ8+ ǹĥ. ȼz = -1.29, p = .196, r = -.16ȽȾ ŖƉ. ȼz = -1.50, p = .133, r = -.19Ƚ0+3ȾDZȑƧPb^M0AC Ȼdz¤H)DÖÇǘû(%Ⱦp «3.E>Ŧij,3/ȾÉůȡ>Đ >2,( % Ǣ 5. ȳƪ 3 ìƾ«2Pb^Mxg½2ƃȌ þ«. ǹĥ. ŖƉ. Ŷĸ. µĉ. ǿȑƧ. DZȑƧ. 2. 2.5. 3. 3. 3. 3. 2. 2. n. ĝô{U. ȴæ. z. p. r. ǿȑƧɁDZȑƧ. 6. 7.50. 45.00. -1.29. .196. -.16. ǿȑƧȿDZȑƧ. 10. 9.10. 91.00. ǿȑƧɀDZȑƧ. 16. ǿȑƧɁDZȑƧ. 5. 6.90. 34.50. -1.50. .133. -.19. ǿȑƧȿDZȑƧ. 10. 8.55. 85.50 -0.45. .654. -.06. -0.02. .987. -.10. ǿȑƧɀDZȑƧ. 17. ǿȑƧɁDZȑƧ. 12. 12.67. 152.00. ǿȑƧȿDZȑƧ. 11. 11.27. 124.00. ǿȑƧɀDZȑƧ. 9. ǿȑƧɁDZȑƧ. 12. 11.46. 137.50. ǿȑƧȿDZȑƧ. 11. 12.59. 138.50. ǿȑƧɀDZȑƧ. 9. ťĩ0ȳƪ 3ȼ ȼŹǁPb^M,ȽƤÖǗ0/(%-3, b^M2Ƥ2ŒëƓ3.,. ɂ Ƚ0Ď. ɂ Ƚ-ȳƪ 5 Ǜ¹2P. DǛơìƾH ǹĥ Ⱦ ŖƉ Ⱦ Ŷĸ Ⱦ µĉ. ½0¹ȹ %Pb^M2ÖǗ0/(%ǧLJ- +ť>û(%ìƾ3ȾǿȑƧPb^M,3 Ŷ ĸ ȼ32 ȖÏŔ2 20 ìƾȾǎ+ ǹĥ 9 Ⱦ µĉ 5 Ⱦ ŖƉ 1 ȽȾDZȑƧP b^M0+ť>û(%ìƾ3 µĉ. ȼ32 ȖÏŔHü ìD 24 ìƾȾǎ+ Ŷĸ 5 Ⱦ ǹĥ 2 Ⱦ ŖƉ 1 Ƚ,(% Pb^M2ŒëƓ0Ȧ +3ȾǿȑƧPb^M0+3 32 DŽÏŔ2 15 ìƾ % ǹ ĥ ťȶ,Ⱦ µĉ ȼ7 ȽȾ Ŷĸ ȼ6 ȽȾ ŖƉ ȼ4 Ƚ-ǎ%:%Ⱦ ǹĥ 0Ȧ +ŒëƓHȑ8% 15 2' 14 Ƀûŷ/ǹĥɄ0Ȧ +Xwf +%ȼ£. ǹĥ2l JACET ȦǦőȜ{MdLVńďƯƹǃǧ
(28) ƽ 10 Þ (2013).
(29) 10. ABE, Makoto. {PdLđ/Ⱦá A/ǢƝ0/(+ :(%- ȽŚȾDZȑƧPb^M2ŒëƓ +ť>û(%ìƾ3 32 ȖÏŔ2 17 ìƾ % µĉ 0Ȧ. D>2,CȾ#2. ' 10 2ìƾɃŤĭǧ2(%µĉɄȼ£. ƳĴ°CȾǢBǼ;ÚE/->Ť + :(% Ƚ0Ȧ. D>2,(%. . 4. Ǘ č :!ȾŪƯƹõ*ćȊ,¢Ơ E%ŹǁPb^M3!E>ȾPb^MHŤNJ%ĩ, ŊƱ EȾǛę2{MdLVǡÊHņCȐD%=2c}- +Ⱦŵ1ÖǗ0/(%-ǭD Pb^M2xg0Ȧ +3ȾǿȑƧ`\U2ŹǁPb^MACÖǗ0/(%-2ǸȁģȾ #E30 Ŷĸ ? µĉ -(%ǧLJ0+,(% /BȾǛơìƾ2¬ã /.HǤàƧ0ǗD-Ⱦǿȑxg2ŹǁPb^M,ť>Ŧƨ,(%ǧLJ3 Ŷĸ ,CȾ DZȑxg2ŹǁPb^M3#2 µĉ ť>ÖǗ0/DǧLJ- +Ǹȁ E+%->ŝ B0/(% :%ȾǛơìƾ2ȇƧXeLV2¹ŮnjůBȾăǖǘŹǁPb^MHÖǗ0. DǡÊ. - +ȾǛ¹ƭB/(%`\U2ǧƆ?Ķ£HưǸ ȾǛ¹2Pb^M0+3ȗĸ, /(%ȾŹǁPb^M2ǭǹ?µĉ2ȾǤȭ Ⱦǂƒ Ⱦûŷ ȾKReubU /.0ƪH ãȾfobUƙŦ2`\U2ǧƆ0)+ƭȁHƍ=A- +%%-GD:%Ⱦ ŖȾm{V{pȾ:%3µĉƧ0.E9. ȣ 2ŧ: 2-êȷ3Ⱦĭ! >P b^M2ȇHƇąƧ0ėÝ. D>2,3/0>GB!ȾăǖǘŹǁPb^MHÖƗ. ,Ⱦȶǒ0Ƅ0/Dêȷ- +Ǣ¸. D. D->ưǸ E%. ì2Ǜędz¤2dzą«2njůHǨD-ŵ +ȾA,%-F3đ/Ⱦ:&:&, /(%Ȝ¹ûȾ->2&(%#2ȫPb^Mxgȥ2Ę?ȾǧLJ½2ȸǟ/Ș 3ǨBE/(%:%ȾPb^M2ŒëƓ0Ȧ. DǛơDZȑ,2ìƾ2¹ŮnjůHǨD-Ⱦ. ǿȑƧ`\U0+3ûŷ/ǹĥH¢-2ȟǧıHȾDZȑƧ`\U0+3rrf ,DǢ22Ŕā/.H´Ƨ0DZȑ. DĭǧıHȾû2ăƟǸȁ +%-GD. /BȾ#E3ǣHȐ"4ȾDZȑƧPb^M0+ɃŤĭǧ(%µĉɄHB =œěǻŝ +B timed writing Hǡ4ȾACµĉú2ÖƗǡÊ>¦"%Üǚı>D ăǖǘŹǁPb^MHǼ< ,ÖǗ0/(%23 ŖƉ AC> ǹĥ 0(%-/. 3Ⱦnjů2ŷ/-F0ƝE+CȾ®ǡƯƹ2njů2ȜHǣD>2,(%:%Ⱦ5 ƀȪdz¤\W}-ǛơDZȑH¡Ơ %ȇêȳƪ3ȾŚ,3ŃE/ăǖǘ2ÖƗǡÊ? Ǜędz¤2¬ãHǷlj0ľŌ. DÈ0/(% B0ȾǛơìƾ2ȇƧXeLV3Ⱦăǖ. ǘ2ŹǁPb^M2ņCȐCǡÊHȾǧLJźŘƧ0Vl}/ǩƓ,ǬȞ. D%=0ȾƵƪŁ. Ĥœè,DǟǘǛȋ0-(+Ŧƨ,(%ĩȾĪBE%njů?QrXg?ŵį- (%ÖǗ0ȾȇêDž2ŒǜHÇD&,/Ⱦ½2{MdLV`\U?ŹǁPb^MH¢( +ȾØīćȊƯƹHƸ;ȟ1D-ĭǧ0/D,F ì2ćȊ,3ǿȑxg2ŹǁPb^M2 Ŷĸ 0Ȧ +ÖǗ0/(%-0)+2 Ǜơìƾ, ßƀǞ2·ȵ,Ⱦƪ,ƀǞ2ŵǧGDA/ŤŚ E+% -ì ƾ(%ŠăŨBƴăŨ0+{MdLV2Ñm{V{pBPb^M0ùG( %%=Ⱦ Ŷĸ 2ìƾ2ûɃm{V{pȥ2ēȤȴğɄ0Ȭ. D/Ⱦ2ăƟ3Ƀm. {V{pµŶȓɄ0>ƪHã+%#,ȾŁĤœè32ăƟ2ŹǁPb^M2ÖƗ2 ŚHǥ=))Ⱦ2ăƟ0>Ƀm{V{pµŶȓɄ0)+ŠăŨ2īǖH +>B%=0Ⱦ ßm{V{p2fobU^d\3.E&-İɂ -êHĿ+Ⱦăǖǘá.
(30) Self-Assessment Using a Model Essay and Reflective Questionnaire ø0ǵ àH +>B(%2A0ȾǛędz¤H 2Ǽ;ŚHœěăǖǘ0ŚƧ0ńď. D%=2c}- +2ŹǁPb^M. D&,/ȾŇŴµ2ăǖǘáø2ȂǿHƋıÎ. D%=2ūŗ- +Ⱦ.2A/ŹǁPb^MH.2A/ĺƀ,ŊƱ Ģǎųǰ. 11. D80Ȧ +>Ⱦ. DĭǧD. Ö ǗŖƜ Abe, M. (2009). Noticing in comparing own essay with model essay: An exploratory study of Japanese L2 writers. KATE Bulletin, 23, 71–82. Goby, V. P. (1997). Arguments against providing model answers in the writing skills classroom: The Singaporean case. TESL Reporter, 30(2), 28–33. Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 459–479. Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303. Ǡțç (2008). ȇƧe`¹ŮƉ
(31) řţƲ. Scovell, D., Pastellas, V., & Knobel, M. (2004). 404 Essential tests for IELTS: Practice tests for IELTS: Academic module book. Sydney: Adams & Austen Press. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369. Ȣ 1. ǿ ȑ Ƨ P b ^ M - DZ ȑ Ƨ P b ^ M 2 ` \ U Week 1 Writing task Present a written argument to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic: Discuss when, if ever, capital punishment can be viewed as a valid punishment for crime. You should use your own ideas, knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence. Week 6 Writing task Tourism in the United Kingdom contributes billions of pounds sterling to the UK economy. The table below identifies the twelve most visited paid-attentions in the UK in 1999 and 2000. Write a report describing the information shown in the table. The Top Most Visited Paid-Admission Attractions in the UK 1999 & 2000 Attraction City Country Visits 2000. Visits 1999. % Change. Millennium Dome. London. England. 6,516,874E. Not opened yet. N/A. British Airways London Eye. London. England. 3,300,000E. Not opened yet. N/A. Alton Tower. Alton. England. 2,450,000. 2,650,000. -7.5. JACET ȦǦőȜ{MdLVńďƯƹǃǧ
(32) ƽ 10 Þ (2013).
(33) 12. ABE, Makoto. Madame Tussaud’s Tower of London Natural History Museum. London London London. England England England. 2,388,000 2,303,167 1,577,044. 2,640,000 2,428,603 1,696,725. -9.5 -5.2 -7.1. Chessington World of Adventures. Chessington. England. 1,500,000E. 1,550,000. -3.2. Legoland Windsor. Windsor. England. 1,490,000. 1,620,000. -8.0. Victoria & Albert Museum. London. England. 1,344,113. 1,251,396. 7.4. Science Museum. London. England. 1,337,432. 1,483,234. -9.8. Flamingo Land Thema Park & Zoo. Kirby Misperton. England. 1,301,000E. 1,197,000E. 8.7. Canterbury Cathedral. Canterbury. England. 1,263,140E. 1,318,065E. -4.2. E = Estimated. N/A = Not Applicable. Ȣ 2. Ź ǁ P b ^ M Model essay for Week 1 To many people, capital punishment is abhorrent, but it is possible to view it as a valid means of punishment. In my opinion, it can be justified as a penalty when three conditions are present. In this essay, I intend to discuss these three issues in more depth. The rules of society are made and enforced for the purpose of protecting its members. In cases where the murder that has been committed is so frightful that society cannot allow the perpetrator back into its fold, then the death penalty may be the only answer. For example, crimes against humanity such as genocide; terrorist attacks which have resulted in many lives lost. If the offender shows no remorse at all and is incapable of feeling any shame for his terrible actions, the only solution may be death. In these cases, it is clear that the offender cannot be rehabilitated. Another important consideration is to ensure to the best of everyone’s ability that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If someone is punished with imprisonment, and later found to be innocent, he can be released from prison. However, when the punishment is death, it is impossible to make amends. There have been a number of examples in history where a man was found to be innocent after being hanged. In conclusion, I believe that it is important to consider three main issues. The crime must be so bad that it would be impossible to welcome the perpetrator back into society. There must be no hope that the perpetrator can ever be rehabilitated back into society. There must be no doubt as to the perpetrator’s guilt. In any situation that does not contain these components, I believe it is morally wrong to impose the death penalty. (294 words) Model essay for Week 6 The table identifies the twelve most popular tourist attractions in the United Kingdom in 1999 and 2000. The table clearly shows that the two newest paid-admission attractions, The Millennium Dome and The British Airways London Eye, were the most popular in 2000 with an estimated 6,516,874 and 3,300,000 visitors respectively. In 2000, all of the other attractions with the exception of The Victoria and Albert Museum and Flamingo Land had lower numbers than in 1999. The most significant decrease was experienced at the Science Museum (-9.8%) followed closely by Madame Tussaud’s (-9.5%). However, Madame Tussaud’s still remains one of the top four UK paid attractions with over two million visitors in 2000. The least significant change was experienced at Chessington World of Adventures which had 1,500,000 paid visitors in 2000 and 1,550,000 in 1999..
(34) 13. Use of ETS Criterion® to Prepare for the TOEFL iBT Independent Writing Task OTOSHI, Junko Okayama University Abstract This paper reports on a classroom-based research project examining the use of ETS Criterion® for the TOEFL iBT independent writing task. Nine students who registered for the TOEFL ITP preparation class completed the five Criterion writing assignments in 15-week class sessions. The students received the scores and feedback from Criterion as well as written and oral feedback from the teacher. From the results of scoring reports, regular practice of Criterion can be influential for improving the scores regardless of the different mode of prompts. Also, this paper provides pedagogical suggestions for the use of Criterion outside of the classroom. While the students participating in this study recognized the possible effects of Criterion on writing practice, they still expected the teacher’s feedback on their texts, especially for rhetorical features such as content and organization. Additionally, checking vocabulary seemed to be another important task for the teachers. Considering the possible weaknesses of Criterionin terms of feedback, teachers should provide their students feedback on their texts and classroom activities, taking into account their students’ needs.. Key Words: TOEFL iBT, Criterion, feedback. 1. Introduction Teachers sometimes have students work on writing tasks outside of the classroom in order to dedicate class time to instruction. Those tasks usually become writing assignments and are collected by the teacher the following week. From the perspective of students, they want their papers back promptly with personalized feedback from the teacher. In reality, however, busy teachers cannot provide each student with such detailed feedback instantly. Writing tasks consequently tend to become troublesome to both students and teachers. According to the output hypothesis (Swain, 1995, 2005), on the other hand, producing target language promotes language acquisition because learners can monitor and test their target language ability through actual practice. In the case of writing, regular practice is very important due to the productive characteristics of writing skills. Ideally, learners should have ______________________________________________________________________________________ JACET ybC09/F3`\nqKszr 10 V pp. 13–24. (2013) © The Writing Research Group, JACET Kansai Chapter. Printed in JAPAN. ISSN 1883-7840.
(35) 14. OTOSHI, Junko. regular opportunities to produce writing work in order to develop their writing abilities. Also, having feedback on their written texts can make the learners aware of the readers’ expectations and values. From a social constructivist view of second language acquisition (SLA), Swales (1980) argues that information exchange and feedback are undertaken based on the set of the goals of a discourse community. In this respect, learners can notice the rules and aims of the discourse community through interacting with peers, and the most important peer in a classroom setting should be the teacher. Therefore, responding to students’ writing is a crucial task for teachers. In order to realize the regular writing practice, this classroom -based project examined the use of the online writing practice tool, Criterion®, in a TOEFL preparation class. This report will encompass to a teacher’s feedback in using Criterion since feedback from a teacher is still important as mentioned earlier despite the different mode of writing practice. This is followed by a discussion of the students’ response to their experiences using Criterion. The paper concludes by considering some pedagogical implications for the study.. 2. Study Context 2.1 Classroom Setting This classroom-based project was carried out in a large national university in Japan during the fall semester of 2012. The university has “Advanced English” classes as elective courses for students whose TOEIC score is 500 or above. The themes of the Advanced English classes vary from teacher to teacher but they can be mainly categorized according to the following skills: reading, listening, speaking, writing, and proficiency test preparation. The class in this report was a TOEFL preparation class, and nine students were registered for the course. They came from various faculties: three from the Faculty of Medicine, two from the Faculty of Letters, and one from the Faculty of Environmental Science, Education, Law, and Economics, respectively. All of the nine students met the requirement for taking Advanced English, in other words, they had a TOEIC score above 500, and were seriously planning to study abroad or applying for an internship in English speaking countries. The textbook Power-up Trainer for the TOEFL ITP (Stafford & Tsumatori, 2010) was used in the fifteen classroom sessions. TOEFL ITP is a paper-based test for institutions and individual test takers who currently have to take the TOEFL iBT. It was introduced by Educational Testing Service (ETS) in 2005 (Rogers, 2007). The instructor, however, decided to use the textbook for TOEFL ITP for practical reasons. There were few TOEFL iBT textbooks used in university classrooms. Also, reinforcing students’ basic English abilities was considered very important for having them prepare for the TOEFL iBT test..
(36) Use of ETS Criterion® to Prepare for the TOEFL iBT Independent Writing Task. 15. 2.2 TOEFL iBT Independent Writing Task The TOEFL iBT independent writing task requires test-takers to complete an essay after responding to a prompt within thirty minutes. In this allotted time, test takers are encouraged to write an essay of 300 words that encompasses a minimum of five paragraphs (Hatanaka, 2011). The prompts have two types: persuasive and expository. While persuasive essays ask for writers’ opinions in order to convince readers of a viewpoint, expository essays are focused on explaining and describing the writers’ ideas. In either type, logical writing skills using specific reasons and examples are necessary. The prompts below are examples of these two types (ETS, 2010): Some people prefer to work for a large company. Others prefer to work for a small company. Which would you prefer? Use specific reasons and details to support your choice (persuasive). If you could study a subject that you have never had the opportunity to study, what would you choose? Explain your choice, using specific reasons and details (expository). The evaluation is conducted with a holistic scoring ranging from 0~5. According to Hatanaka (2011, p. 33, translation mine), the scoring points of the TOEFL iBT independent writing task are described as follows. Is the writing corresponding to the prompt?. Are the opinions developed appropriately and clearly with explanations, examples, and supplements? Are the paragraphs structured appropriately and do they indicate the relatedness to the prompt clearly? Is the essay coherent? Are grammar, usage, and vocabulary used appropriately?. Does the essay use various sentence structures? Is the language usage natural? 2.3 Criterion Criterion was released by ETS in 2002. The effects on writing practice are described as follows: “The Criterion service motivates English-language learners by giving them frequent writing practice that helps build confidence and improve skills.” (ETS, 2008, p. 3). Essays submitted online receive a score instantly by an automated rating system, called e-rater. As well as a rating system, Criterion has a feedback function called View Trait Feedback Analysis. View Trait Feedback Analysis informs the writers of the number of errors of grammar, usage and mechanics, and repetition of words in their writing. Regarding organization and development, specific elements such as thesis statement and ideas are highlighted in colors, allowing writers notice the major components of the essay submitted. E-rater evaluates the essays with a holistic scoring ranging from 1~6 which takes into account the following dimensions: grammar, usage, mechanics, style, organization development, lexical complexity, topic-specific vocabulary usage (Quinla, Higgins, & Wolff, JACET ybC09/F3`\nqKszr 10 V (2013).
(37) 16. OTOSHI, Junko. 2009). While the TOEFL iBT independent writing task mentioned above uses 0~5, Criterion provides a 1~6 scale rating. Since the TOEFL iBT was introduced after the release of Criterion by ETS, the rating scale of Criterion still follows the Test of Written English (TWE) which used to be the paper-based writing test for the TOEFL. Compared with the scoring points by Hatanaka, the dimensions evaluated by e-rater are all included. Therefore, Criterion was used in the target classroom to prepare for the TOEFL iBT independent writing task because it had the same prompt mode and same scoring scale. . 3. Instruction Procedures 3.1 Procedures of the Use of Criterion All of the nine students completed the five Criterion assignments during a 15-week semester. The procedure for the use of Criterion, which included an online presentation, was explained to the students in Week 2 in class. The students referred to the instruction sheet (see Appendix 1) made by the teacher, confirming their own user name and password. The first Criterion assignment was announced in Week 3 in class and students were instructed to complete it by the following class session (Week 4). Figure 1 below summarizes the instruction procedures of the use of Criterion.. Week 3 3. •Prompt 1 Group Member or Leader (persuasive) •In Week 4, confirmed any technical problem in the first use ofCriterion® •No feedback provided. • Prompt 2 Change Your Hometown (Expository) •In Week 6, explained feedback of Pop-up Notes and Create a comment by the teacher; distributed the Week 5 evaluation sheet (see Appendix 2) •Feedback provided by the Week 7 •Prompt 3 Experience or Books (persuasive) •In Week 9, explained the target assessment, Experience or Books, focusing on the organization of the Week 8 essay and using a visual aide •Feedback provided by the Week 10 •Prompt 4 Preferred Teacher style(persuasive) Week 11 • In Week 12, commented on the overall quality of the students’ assignment • Feedback provided by Week 13 •Prompt 5 Successful Student(expository) Week 14 • In Week 15, summarized the use of Criterion® and conducted a survey • No feedback provided. Figure 1. Flow of Criterion Assignment Work Students were told to complete all Criterion assignments within a week. The feedback from the teacher was given to the students’ texts on Criterion and the students were told to check the teacher’s feedback before the due date of the next assignment. Also, some classroom instructions concerning the Criterion assignments were given during class, thus taking up a small amount of class time. These instructions were carried out depending on the quality of the students’ work and the difficulty of the Criterion assignments. The feedback by the.
(38) Use of ETS Criterion® to Prepare for the TOEFL iBT Independent Writing Task. 17. teacher was provided using the functions of Pop-up Notes and Create a comment, which will be described in more detail later. 3.2 Online Written Feedback by the Teacher As mentioned earlier, teacher feedback was provided using the two functions of Criterion: Pop-up Notes and Create a comment. The website operates only in English, so the feedback was done in English. Feedback which was provided took into account “the overarching functions of praise, criticism, and suggestions” (Hyland, 2003, p. 187). Pop-up Notes were inserted into the text directly. Clicking before and after the target word of the text, teachers can make comments or correct grammar in the blank boxes. In the students’ text screen, “I” marks appear, making the students notice the teachers’ feedback. The students can check the content of the feedback by clicking on the “I”. The teacher in this report used Pop-up Notes mainly for linguistic features; she indicated more appropriate vocabulary and sometimes corrected sentence structure. At the same time, personalized comments were also inserted in Pop-up Notes. For instance, when the teacher found the content of writing interesting, praising comments such as “good point!” or “you hit on a point here!” were made. For unclear parts or ungrammatical structures, on the other hand, the teacher tried to rewrite the sentence making the best effort to predict what the student was trying to say in those parts. Since some comments such as “what is your focus here?” asking for unknown information (Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti ,1997) did not seem helpful to the students, the teacher in this report decided to rewrite the sentences with unclear parts. Regarding Create a comment, it is placed in the bottom margin in the student text. Teachers can write comments in the box screen which appears by clicking on Create a comment, the right side of the screen of the student’s text. The teacher in this study used Create a comment for content and organization. She introduced an evaluation sheet (see Appendix 2) which was developed by the teacher after modifying the definitions of coherence introduced by Lee (2002). The evaluation sheet was distributed to the students in class in Week 6 with the expectation that the students would be able to understand the teacher’s feedback easily. She explained to the students that the feedback in Create a comment would be based on the evaluation sheet distributed in class. . JACET ybC09/F3`\nqKszr 10 V (2013).
(39) 18. OTOSHI, Junko. 4. Results of the Use of Criterion and Discussions Table 1 summarizes the results of the Criterion scores for the nine students.. Table 1 Mean Scores of the Participant Students’ Criterion Writing Tasks Prompt 1. Prompt 2. Prompt 3. Prompt 4. Prompt 5. Mean 1 a. Student 1. 4. 4. 6. 5. 6. 5. Student 2. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. Student 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. 6. 4.8. Student 4. 2. 4. 3. 4. 4. 3.4. Student 5. 3. 5. 4. 3. 4. 3.8. Student 6. 4. 5. 5. 6. 6. 5.2. Student 7. 4. 4. 3. 4. 4. 3.8. Student 8. 2. 5. 5. 5. 4. 4.2. Student 9. 3. 5. 5. 4. 4. 4.2. 3.4. 4.5. 4.5. 4.5. 4.7. Mean 2. b. a. Note. Mean 1 indicates the mean scores of Criterion scores for each student; b. Mean 2 indicates the mean scores of Criterion scores for each prompt.. The Friedman test reveals a significant difference in the five Criterion writing tasks, 2 = 11.45 (4, n = 9), p = .05. For further statistical analysis, the Wilcoxon signed ranks test was conducted to compare each prompt’s mean score, as shown in Table 2.. Table 2 Statistical Comparison of the Scores of Criterion Writing Tasks z. p. r. Prompt 1 Prompt 2. -2.06. .039. .49. Prompt 1 Prompt 3. -2.15. .031. .51. Prompt 1 Prompt 4. -2.23. .026. .53. Prompt 1 Prompt 5. -2.46. .014. .58. Prompt 2 Prompt 3. .00. 1.000. -. Prompt 2 Prompt 4. .00. 1.000. -. Prompt 2 Prompt 5. -.649. .516. .15. Prompt 3 Prompt 4. .00. 1.000. -. Prompt 3 Prompt 5. -.816. .414. .19. Prompt 4 Prompt 5. -1.00. .317. -.24. From Table 2, statistically significant differences are found between Prompt 1 and Prompt 2, 3, 4, and 5 at the .05 level. The more the students work on Criterion writing task, the larger the effect size is; the strongest statistically significant difference is between Prompt 1 and.
(40) Use of ETS Criterion® to Prepare for the TOEFL iBT Independent Writing Task. 19. Prompt 5, showing a large effect size (z = -2.46, p = .014, r = .58). Furthermore, it was also found that there is a statistical difference between Prompt 1 and Prompt 2, showing a medium effect size (z = -2.06, p = .039, r = .49). The teacher did not provide feedback on the first assignment even though she recommended that the students refer to View Trait Feedback Analysis. Getting accustomed to Criterion, therefore, is deemed to be the main reason why these essay scores rose. A closer look at the individual progress of Student 2 and Student 4 from Table 1 can raise deeper issues regarding the use of Criterion. First, although Student 2 achieved a score of 5 on the first assignment, the student never achieves the full mark, a score of 6. A review of the student’s writing reveals that the student has, from the beginning, an ability to write more than 300 words, understanding the preferred structures of academic English writing. The student’s texts always included enough reasons and examples to support the main ideas. The teacher, therefore, decided to focus her feedback in Create a comment on the content of the introduction which was deemed to be a problematic area in the student’s writing. For instance, the student’s introduction in Prompt 4 (Preferred Teacher Style) was: Although both an enjoyable way and a formal way should be presented in a classroom lesson, I think that a serious formal way of learning is better. There are two reasons why I think so. The teacher writes the comments in Create a comment as follows: Pay attention to the “context of situation and thesis statement in introduction.” Introduce the background of the prompt. Don’t start your essay with the conjunction “Although” because it leaves the impression that readers already know the prompt. Remember, your readers don’t know what you are supposed to write. However, her Prompt 5 text (Successful Student) does not show any changes: Although there are many reasons why successful students do well in school, I definitely point out honesty and concentration as two important personal characteristics. There are two reasons why I choose these. For an advanced writer like Student 2 who has already established his/her English academic writing ability to some degree, feedback from only the teacher might not be enough to improve this student’s writing. More active activities such as having the students evaluate others’ texts, referring to a rubric, might be one way to reflect on their own texts more objectively. As for Student 4, the student is considered the weakest writer in class. From the student’s texts in the writing assignments, a generally poor command of English writing can be noticed due to limited usage of vocabulary and ungrammatical structures. Student 4 also has a problem with the introduction of his essay. The student writes the introduction in Prompt 4 (Preferred Teacher style) as follows: I prefer to lean in an interesting classroom lesson rather than to lean in a stereo typed People learn best when a classroom lesson is presented in an interesting way. JACET ybC09/F3`\nqKszr 10 V (2013).
(41) 20. OTOSHI, Junko. The feedback from the teacher towards the writing of prompt 4 (Preferred Teacher style) was as follows: Introduction is the most important part in the essay. It includes the following elements. (1) Restatement of the prompt (2) Brief background information (3) Thesis statement (writer’s opinion) (4) Key words in the body The introduction written by Student 4 in Prompt 5, (Successful Student), shows a slight improvement as follows: Students who success in school have many reasons to do well. Recognizing several personality urge students to success in school. I am going to write about the above idea. Compared with the quality of the text written by Student 2, the writing by Student 4 has more variety of errors of verb usage and structures; however, the introduction leaves the impression that Student 4 is going to discuss his ideas taking readers into account. Since the student’s writing has only 201 words with less variety of vocabulary and poor development of the thesis, the score still stays same at 4. However, from the teacher’s point of view, the last writing text has a good macro structure and the writer is aware of the presence of readers. . 5. Results of the Students’ Responses to the Use of Criterion and Discussion A brief questionnaire survey was conducted in the final class session, Week 15, asking the students’ responses concerning the use of Criterion. The questionnaire items were as follows. 1. How useful was Criterion for your writing practice? 2. How accurate do you think is the score given by Criterion? 3. On which category do you most want your teacher to provide feedback, “content,” “organization,” “vocabulary,” “grammar,” or “spelling and format”? Figures 2 to 4 below show the results of the survey.. Figure 2. How useful was Criterion for your writing practice?. Figure 3. How accurate do you think is the score by Criterion?.
(42) Use of ETS Criterion® to Prepare for the TOEFL iBT Independent Writing Task. 21. 6 4 2 0 Content. Organization. Vocabulary. Grammar. Spelling and Format. Figure 4. On which category do you most want your teacher to provide feedback “content,” “organization,” “vocabulary,” “grammar,” or “spelling and format”?. For question 1, three students responded “Very useful” and six students responded “Useful,” showing positive attitudes to the use of Criterion overall. As for the accuracy of Criterion scoring, eight students responded to “To some extent accurate” and one student responded to “Not very accurate.” Although the students in this report admitted the scoring accuracy of Criterion in some degree, it is suspected that they were confused by the scores, especially in cases where they keep receiving the same scores. They might not be able to understand how their writing skills were developed throughout writing practice on Criterion. As for question 3, five students chose “content,” three students chose “organization” and one student chose “vocabulary.” The comments for the reasons for choosing “content” include “unless somebody reads my text, I’m not sure whether my message is delivered or not”, and “I need teacher’s feedback because my writing sometimes become illogical.” These comments reflect the needs of readers’ views on their writing. On the other hand, there are some comments which point out the possible weaknesses of Criterion. Those comments are “feedback only by Criterion is not enough,” and “Criterion can’t provide feedback to content.” The comments on “organization” are “poor structure texts cannot be convincing to the readers even though the content is strong,” “I always wonder how my texts should be organized.” These comments reflect well the importance of organization which can significantly affect the quality of a student’s writing. Also, the comment, “I’m not sure whether or not my text organization is clear enough to the readers,” reflects the student’s awareness of the reader, as do the comments on “content.” One student chose “vocabulary” as an area in which he/she expected to receive feedback. The student commented that “the instructor’s vocabulary suggestions reinforce my knowledge of vocabulary leading to improvement in my next writing assignment.” The feedback on vocabulary from Criterion only indicates the number of words that are repeated in the text, and inappropriate expressions are under the Style category, so students cannot learn more suitable vocabulary or expressions only from using Criterion. It is certainly debatable whether such a direct suggestion from the teacher is helpful for students’ JACET ybC09/F3`\nqKszr 10 V (2013).
(43) 22. OTOSHI, Junko. subsequent writing or even if the teacher’s suggestion is actually accurate or not. However, checking the appropriateness of vocabulary might be an important task for teachers (Nakanishi, 2008) in the use of Criterion for writing practice. . 6. Conclusions and Pedagogical Implications This classroom-based research project was undertaken to explore the use of Criterion for writing practice outside the classroom. While the possible effects of technology on education have been widely discussed (e.g., Kawamura, 2009), the teachers’ role in using technology effectively also has to be clarified. The following are some pedagogical suggestions for the use of Criterion based on the current study, and reflecting the author’s experience with introducing Criterion for the TOEFL iBT independent writing task: (1) Clarify the objectives for the use of Criterion for writing practice and have students set their own goals or target scores at the beginning of the course. (2). Have students evaluate Criterion writing samples based on the TOEFL iBT independent writing scoring points in order to reflect on their own essays more objectively.. (3). Have students understand clearly what feedback is given by the teacher in Pop-up Notes and Create a comment with the use of sample feedback before providing actual feedback. This report was undertaken based on only nine students’ experience with using Criterion. Furthermore, the participant students possessed a high English proficiency and had a strong motivation to study English, since they were preparing to study abroad or embark on an internship. Therefore, the results from this classroom project should not be generalized to other classroom environments. However, all of the nine students completed Criterion following the time schedule given to them and seriously responded to the end of semester questionnaire. Therefore, this classroom report should provide some pedagogical considerations for using Criterion as a writing practice tool for the TOEFL iBT independent writing task outside of the classroom. . References Educational Testing Service. (2010). ETS official guide for TOEFL® iBT. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill Education Asia. Educational Testing Service. (2008). ETS® CriterionSM. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/s/criterion/pdf/9286_CriterionBrochure.pdf Ferris, D., Pezone, S., Tade, C., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 155–182. Hatanaka, Y. (2011). Kyokara hajimeru TOEFL test sogotaisaku [Preparation for TOEFL test starting from today]. Tokyo: Shinseisyuppan-sha. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
(44) Use of ETS Criterion® to Prepare for the TOEFL iBT Independent Writing Task. 23. Press. Press. Kawamura, K. (2009). E-learning nyumon [Introduction to e-learning]. Okayama: Daigakukyoikusyuppan. Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135–159. Nakanishi, C. (2008). The effects of trained self-feedback on revision. JACET Journal, 47, 35–49. Quinlan, T., Higgins, D., & Wolff, S. (2009). Evaluating the construct-coverage of the e-rater® scoring engine. (ETS research report January 2009). Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/research/contact.html. Rogers, B. (2007). The complete guide to the TOEFL test. Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning. Stafford, M. & Tsumatori, C. (2010). Power-up trainer for the TOEFL® ITP. Tokyo: Cengage Learning. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: England:Cambridge CambridgeUniversity UniversityPress. Press.. Appendix 1: The Instruction Sheet 1. I{ .265 http://criterion.ets.org/. 2. Go to Criterion Student Website ,2D82. 3. Log In ,2D82. 4. I{ User Name Password ,ORContinue ,2D82 . User Name ******. . Password ******. 5. 70?l H ao*) TOEFL C09/F3 } [C09/F3,w ]H Make Plan (" Qk%g"-Xd&AB,L%g ~c&e L+ - 0F7G<8: ~c&e L+ . JACET ybC09/F3`\nqKszr 10 V (2013).
(45) 24. OTOSHI, Junko. . J. Save and Keep Writing hv,LZNY, , S$" Check Spelling ,L5@E Pf"
(46) Save And Finish Later *!^ '"} U(t#
(47) ". Submit Essay ,_1860 aP (20 p^ 54. xo*"6 jij "Criterion |Mm W >/G;=82
(48) "View Trait Feedback Analysis ,Tu . Appendix 2: The Evaluation Sheet Macrostructure ( Introduction; Body; Conclusion). Context of situation and thesis statement (Introduction) Topical development (list of reasons/examples) Cohesive devices (First, Moreover, In conclusion). Information distribution (avoiding unmatched sentences or unnecessary information). Awareness of readers. 4= Very Good . TOTAL (out of 6). 3= Good. 2= Not Very Good. 1= Not Good at ALL.
(49) 25. ! .
(50) . " Instructing English Abstract Writing through Analysis of Elements: Effectiveness for Japanese Graduate Students ONABE, Tomoko Ritsumeikan University. Abstract Learning English abstract writing is vital for graduate students when we consider the present rapid-moving modern academia. Yet how to write abstracts has not been systematically taught at the postgraduate level, and the effective methods for graduate students have yet to be explored. This paper discusses how the analysis of elements in an abstract can contribute to improve students’ writing. Two important factors are discussed: the order of elements and their proportion. The data was taken from twenty abstracts written by thirteen Japanese graduate students majoring in the humanities. My conclusion shows that even for graduate students with relatively high English proficiency compared to undergraduates, simply imitating the model writing is not a simple task and perhaps not very effective. Some significant tendencies were also observed in Japanese graduate students’ early drafts in terms of the proportion of elements. They tend to write much more background information than necessary at the beginning of the abstract, which makes it difficult for readers to identify the essential information, the purpose of the paper. This study can help future teachers and researchers find better methods to improve students’ abstracts more efficiently.. Key Words: abstract writing, ESP, graduate student. 1. 6#@3
(51) An abstract is the window to your paper.ǩŃǘʼn6ȥ'5ǩŃ95Ƨ/G 0D ǜJHG. ùÊșƑǕȢcall for papersȣ95ĹÓȥ®ƀ"(ǩŃǦLJ3Ǧ=HGÓȥ HENRa n^T2ƫ5ì3.6ƝƦ«ÿ3¸3Nj[bsTbǿ°,ºŝƓ3«ÿ KÇō".GĬÓ3JG [h{cECG 03ǘŮ!HGŎȥǩŃNj[b sTb5ȃǘĥ6Ě=$=$ò 2F '$HĈ! 2G 062/I 'H3A JE%ȥNj[bsTbŃĶć6ů".ÿŌ/62 06Öƚ5ý/G E(3N ______________________________________________________________________________________ JACET ȊǗĿȁsP`OxUĶćƝƦƶǘƬ 10 Í pp. 25–33. (2013) © The Writing Research Group, JACET Kansai Chapter. Printed in JAPAN. ISSN 1883-7840.
(52) 26. ONABE, Tomoko. Ran^T2ƫ5ì9Ÿ".C òùȌƊ30+.Nj[bsTb5ŗſ!ȥùƑǕŧ D8ǩŃŘǦLJ5ƄĜȐí32FG 0Kdžī$G0ȥǐŃNj[bsTbĬ6ȥȃ ǘ,ĠȘ5ùDžȖƔ5 1 ,/FȥòùȌƊ95ǐǥsP`OxUĶć3.ȥDFñ Ų ĨKİJHȃǘǚ!H.DǧȜ5 1 ,0+.D . 1.1 Ɲ Ʀ Lj ő. ŘƝƦ/ıǐŃNj[bsTb06ȥù5òkvUso3DZ&GD2Ȇ@5A5/6 2 ȥǺĐ5ƝƦǩŃNj[bsTbȢ1 fsUsi/ 200300 ǥȣ/G ǩŃ]Pbu0© 3ŠƺY{g[3ĺDZ!HGÌljĥȠ ȥǦLJǩŃ5¨ŃKǦ>ǻ?15³Ņřń3 2GìÏñ =(Nj[bsTb"Ǧ=2ǦLJAłñ GýĦG 5D3ȃ ǘ3AJE%ȥNj[bsTb5ǡBŀÞŇű6ŋƞ2êŹȥĶćű6=)ƞƨ". G06ǜ2 ƜTx_Ȣ2010ȣĶľ$GD3ȥǏNj[bsTb5Ś0". 1ȣƲź 2ȣJFB$ Ǧ>B$ 3ȣũƞ 215ǡêŹěśdžEH.( =(Nj[bsTb3Ô=HG:ÎţĬǘƹ6 H= /"7"7Ķć!H.( )Ʋźũƞ6ŬǰƓüDŽ"B$JFB$!Ǧ>B$! 3L".6üDŽȒ" ȥŬǰƓƛŃƩ5=0=F/GNj[bsTb3.KA+ .ǦLJJFB$ Ǧ>B$0ĩ#G56+F06Ķľ!H. 2+((@ȥĶć AáȒ/+( ũƞ!BƲź!ţĬǘƹ5ŕżð3ȥ15D2ŀÞŇűG50 1 ,5ǧȜøæ$G 1 ŘƝƦ6ȥòùȌƊ5Nj[bsTb3 G 5 ,5ǘƹȢƝƦLjőȥƝƦƔƓȥįűza{ ]ȥƽŝȥƽǩȣ5ŕż) /2 ȥǿ°2ȗēȂ±¨3"@GţĬǘƹŬƅK¯Ŝ$G 0 3DGĶćȥ15D2ùDžºŝKƊ>ȥ15D3üƙ$GKŠǠ$G òùȌƊĄǭǥ ù0".5ǐǥĸš6ċłĉ2 ȥ=(¨Ù$:.5ǧȜKļ®$G06ȋE2(@ȥ V{[[]aO301=G )ȥþǛƓǡBłȅƓŬǰ"3 Nj[bsTbzsP` OxUĶć3.ȥƁ3Nj[bsTb5ǘƹţĬD8ǘƹŬ6ĆśȅƓƝƦĄǭ02F G(@ȥĚ5Nj[bsTbĶć3ýǮƓ3Ęƨ.G 0Ŗę/G . 1.2 Ɲ Ʀ Ɣ Ɠ. ŘƝƦ5ƔƓ6~ 2 ,/G ȢȦȣNj[bsTbţĬǘƹ¯Ŝ3D+.ȥňŘòùȌƊǐǥùDžLJ5Nj[bsTb5Ĝ ĞKƝƦ"ȥŀÞĶćŻKļƠ$G ȢȧȣĶć¶Ě5ŀÞŻKÅž55*ȥýȏ5ùDžüƙĔK6FĚ5ÝȜŻKŋE3$G . 2. §ǓƝƦ ňŘǐǥùDžLJ5Nj[bsTbzsP`OxUĶć3,.5§ǓƝƦ6łñ06ǜ 2ȥƇƣƵƁ3ĎùƵ5ȠƮąȇùşȥĎƣòùȌ/5ŔDz5ĶćëÕ EG. ƇĎƵ3ȑ".GƇƌ0".ȥƇĎƵIJǔLJBƝƦLJ6äȏùB'55ëÕ/ý¼5| Ɖ0".ǐŃNj[bsTbĬKDŽ¼- EH.G 0džEHG Kunishige (2007)6ȥ ĎšȠƮąȇùş/qauK>&2EĶćKǢ>(ȥƛǐŃ3AJE%Ķć6áȒK.
(53) Instructing English Abstract Writing through Analysis of Elements. 27. Ţ@(0ǵ:.G !E3ǼÄ 3 Ēȉ5ÀšƊ5ļ®ƥNj[bsTb 230 ƿKǨŞ"ţĬǘ ƹK¯Ŝ"(0 Iȥ10ȡ3ƝƦƔƓŨ ȥ60ȡ3ƽǩ2+(0ëÕ".G Shioya (2010)6ĎšȠƮąȇùş/ TOEIC-IP đè 344.4 Ż5ùƊ3Ą".Nj[bsTb ĬĶćKǢ>( =%ňŘǥ/Nj[bsTbKĬ!&ȥ'5ǐǟKǧ"(D/G Nj [bsTbK 1 ,5 genre 0ıȥ`S[bf]{x5ĶćKǢ>.G5ƁĞ/G ŔĚ3ŘǩŃ5ƝƦĄǭ3|ƏDz ȥòùȌƊKĶć"(0". Watanabe (2008) 5ƝƦKķ .( ĎùƵòùȌƊ3ǐǥÊșƑǕ0ǐŃNj[bsTb5ŇKĶć"(ƽŝȥÊ șƑǕ/óĬǀK (ùDžLJ6Nj[bsTbĬ5ĬǀAƾ#.Ƞ+(53Ą".ȥNj [bsTb/óĬǀK (ùDžLJ62E%"AÊșƑǕ/ȠĜŻK 2+(0Ǎ× ŴëÕK".G }5ƝƦAĶľ$GD3ȥǥł5ĉ2!EĶć'H;1áȒ06ħ!H3 Nj [bsTb6ȥ(0qauBţĬǘƹKļƠ"Ŧ¡K".Aȥéƭ36áȒK0ë Õ©Ǻ".G ŘƝƦ/AÐŤ5áȒKƼȟ"( . . 3. Ňű 3.1 Ǩ Ş Ą ǭ LJ ǨŞĄǭLJ6GòùȌǐǥƣƔKċ"(DzƐç¾5ƢƨòùŃƣƵòùȌ3ĮĊ$GÂî ¶ŖǧƤD8ĚŖǧƤ5ȌƊ 13 Ñ/G ĄǭLJ536ǐǥå95ƛŖƍùKƼȟ"(LJA łÑG ąȇ¯Ȅ6ÚùȥǃùȥçƇùȥdžËùȥňŘŃùȥǐŃù21ñč3J(G ùƊ ÉǪ"(òùȌǐǥƣƔ6ĕǣòùȌȈǪƣƔÜ|5ǥù0".5ǐǥƣƔ/FȥȀĴƣ Ɣ/G ùDžLJ5ǐǥ95Ȋğ6Ƞ ȥùƑǕƮ5(@3ǐŃNj[bsTbĬ3Džſ$ GĠǘ3ǴEH(ùƊAFȥ»ŧ 6¦¯/.G 3.2 a { ] ŘƝƦ5ǨŞĄǭ0"(56ȥ}Ǟĸš3.ùƊļ®"(Nj[bsTb5*ŘƝƦ 5ƔƓ5(@¯ŜÌlj2ƂĪ3´ǽ".(ǝ 20 ƿ/G «ǟ6²ƥ 3 ƿȥƬ 2 ƥ 1 ƿȥŔƻ ƥ 11 ƿȥĶćĚ5ņ(2²ƥ 5 ƿ/G 1 Wm 90 ¯5¿Ŗ 15 ß5ĸš5*Ʒ 45 ¯K 3 ß +.Ķć"( ùƊ6Nj[bsTb5`{m0".ȥéƭû %>/NJ¯5ąȇ5ǩŃȢ 7ùȁÀšǩŃȣ3,.5Nj[bsTbKœ 0KĶƠ!H( 2 ,Ɣ5Nj[bsT b3L".6bh^TKĶü!H2+( ǥł6 ƿ3, 150 E 200 ǥƤĔ0Ķü 3.3 Ƌ Ł ř Ådžqau0". 150 ǥƤĔ5/+(qauzNj[bsTbKƋ ÅdžŃƃ0".ơƣùƵ5(@5ǐǥƝƦǩŃ5œŇȫéƭEƑǕzijƥ=/5êƟ ƚǫƜTx_Ȣ2010ȣKƋ 3.4 Ķ ć Ǽ Ƥ éƭ¶ĶćsP`OxUKõ@G¶5Ź£ūȎ0".~5ȗ/Ķć"( 1. ÅdžŃƃKƋ.Nj[bsTb5ǘƹ5ƞǤȢǕ 1ȣ 2. Îǘƹ5ȗē5ļƠ 3. Îǘƹ5D'5¯ȅ0¨3Ą$GŬƅ5ƞǤ 4. ¨5Ȇ!5ƕǾ3DGǘƹŬƅ5etQ{ZrxļƠȢ100 ǥ/ 200 ǥ/ 250 ǥȣ JACET ȊǗĿȁsP`OxUĶćƝƦƶǘƬ 10 Í (2013).
関連したドキュメント
The number of international students at Kanazawa University is increasing every year, and the necessity of improving the international students' Japanese writing skills,
私たち区民サービス機能研究部会（以下、「部会」という。）は、新庁舎建設
) ︑高等研
東北支部 華北支部 華東支部 華南支部.
本稿で取り上げる関西社会経済研究所の自治 体評価では､ 以上のような観点を踏まえて評価 を試みている｡ 関西社会経済研究所は､ 年
世界規模でのがん研究支援を行っている。当会は UICC 国内委員会を通じて、その研究支
世界規模でのがん研究支援を行っている。当会は UICC 国内委員会を通じて、その研究支
