• 検索結果がありません。

Fostering Active Interaction and Engagement among Students via Translanguaging: The Case of Students in Japanese Universities from Diverse Cultural Backgrounds

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

シェア "Fostering Active Interaction and Engagement among Students via Translanguaging: The Case of Students in Japanese Universities from Diverse Cultural Backgrounds"

Copied!
15
0
0

読み込み中.... (全文を見る)

全文

(1)

Fostering Active Interaction and Engagement among

Students via Translanguaging: The Case of Students in Japanese

Universities from Diverse Cultural Backgrounds

KANDUBODA P. B.*

Abstract:

Recently, Japanese university education has started to encourage active learning among students. However, progress has been limited due to a lack of strategic planning regarding pedagogical approaches and learner barriers. To find solutions to support teaching and learning, this study examines the applicability of a combined pedagogical approach: The Interaction for Learning Framework (ILF) and translanguaging. The ILF has proven effective in fostering students’ active interaction in monolingual classes, as has translanguaging in dealing with linguacultural matters. However, the application of these two approaches together in the classroom has never been examined in the Japanese context, especially in liberal arts classes. Thus, this study seeks to investigate whether such a combined approach can provide a high degree of engagement for students and enable them to meet their educational goals with a high degree satisfaction. Students’ assessment of the approach was obtained via a questionnaire. The analysis focused on students’ assessment of the environment, interaction, learning of new concepts, and reflection. Results showed that students were highly satisfied with the course setting, suggesting the applicability of this pedagogical approach to meet specific educational needs. This study concludes that a pedagogical approach utilizing the ILF with translanguaging can provide a satisfactory class environment for students to foster active interaction and engagement, especially in Japanese university liberal arts classes.

Keywords: student’s active interaction and engagement, translanguaging, the ILF model, class assessment, teacher’s role

1. Introduction

Over the past decade, the expansion of globalization has produced rapid mobilization of students' activities worldwide. For instance, both out-bound and in-bound study abroad programs have

* Associate Professor, Ritsumeikan International, Ritsumeikan University Email: kanda@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp

Received on 2019/12/23, accepted after peer-reviews on 2020/7/3. ©Asia-Japan Research Institute of Ritsumeikan University:

Journal of the Asia-Japan Research Institute of Ritsumeikan University, 2020. PRINT ISSN 2435-0184 ONLINE ISSN 2435-0192, Vol.2, pp.151-165.

(2)

increasingly become a popular feature in many institutions of higher education. This process is expected to localize and promote global standards in local higher educational institutions via cross-language and cross-cultural interaction, especially among students.

In Japan, for example, globalization has affected many universities, changing the student composition from predominantly local students to a mixed (local and international1) student

population. The Japanese government has also taken the necessary steps to support this process. For example, a plan aimed at enhancing internationalization, the MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology- Japan) “Plan for 300,000 international students” is set to be achieved by 2020 (MEXT, 2018). As a result, many local universities have taken the initiative to accept numerous international students with the support of MEXT.

Despite the increasing number of international students, the reality of increasing global standards has lagged behind due to a lack of strategic planning in local settings (Rappleye and Vickers, 2015; Yonezawa, 2015). To tackle this problem, it is vital to understand the important aspects of developing higher education standards. Arkoudis (2006) stated that there are two prominent domains in localizing international standards in higher education: internationalizing content and internationalizing learning and teaching. The focus of this study lies within the second domain: how students’ satisfaction towards learning fluctuates when the teacher plays a passive role, only providing necessary guidance rather than direct teaching. Specifically, this study tested a student-focused, active learning-oriented approach compared to a teacher-focused content-oriented approach (Entwistle, 2003).

In global educational standards, higher educational institutions worldwide have also been experiencing a significant diversification in classroom settings due to the shifts in students’ learning environments, notably a considerable modification from conventional passive learning to active learning. The definition of active learning (hereafter, AL) differs according to different disciplines. For example, MEXT defines AL as ‘a general term for teaching and learning methods that incorporate active participation in the learning process, unlike teaching in a one-way lecture format by teachers’ (MEXT, 2012: 37; 2017, Author’s translation).

AL has multiple applications, from individual work to pair-work, group work, online collaborative work with project/theme-based learning, and so on (Kamegai and Crocker, 2017; Quek et al., 2007). While AL offers multiple opportunities for students to work on hands-on activities, it simultaneously reduces the interaction time between teacher and student. Teacher-student interaction plays an important role. The application of AL in the curriculum must be treated with care as teachers still have a responsibility to provide a satisfactory classroom environment (Šteh et al., 2014; MEXT, 2017). In other words, teachers must take the necessary steps to make sure students are satisfied with the course regardless of the shift in interaction (from active to passive or vice-versa). The shift in interaction requires teachers to provide guidance where necessary rather than teaching continuously. This may affect a student’s overall classroom engagement and curricula satisfaction.

Unlike teacher-centered (lecture-based) large-scale classes, small-scale student-centered (and seminar-type) classes generally comprise twenty-five to thirty-five students. One goal of these classes is to develop communication skills and promote interaction among the students. Therefore, the teacher’s

1 This study uses the term local/domestic students to represent students who enroll in a university as regular students within Japan (either native/non-native Japanese language speakers). The term “international students” means visiting students from overseas universities. The term “local Japanese students” represents native Japanese-speaking students who enroll within Japan.

(3)

role in such classes is crucial in guiding students through the planned activities to reach the intended goals. In most of these classes, teachers take the initiative to build an active interaction with the students. However, if the teacher minimizes their interaction with the students, the students will face difficulties in reaching the planned goals. Thus, while the teachers play the role of a facilitator, they should give clear guidelines to their students on how to engage in the planned classroom activities.

It is important to establish that the switch from passive to active learning (AL) cannot happen unless the students are prepared by the teacher to participate in learning activities. Accordingly, teachers must carefully plan and prepare the curricula by utilizing available resources to facilitate AL. This study assumes that to promote AL among students, teachers must first support students in improving communication and interaction among themselves. If students build a better rapport with other classmates, a teacher’s passive interaction may not adversely affect learning outcomes as students can help each other, thus leading to high student satisfaction with the overall classroom setting. Arkoudis et al. (2013) reported that the Interaction for Learning Framework (ILF) provides teachers with an opportunity to strategically plan a well-balanced interaction among their students. The ILF identifies six main stages that teachers can employ to organize lessons in a manner that emphasizes students’ academic engagement. Based on the ILF, this study conducted an investigation to develop a pedagogical approach and examine its application. This study focuses on Japanese university liberal arts classes2 where both domestic and international students learn collaboratively, and examines

the applicability of the ILF with the support of translanguaging, with the expectation that student-student interaction will improve with reduced language barriers. The results of this study will provide insight into two areas: promoting AL in the courses learned in English and collaborative learning between local and international students, especially pertaining to the Japanese university context.

The following section provides information on the ILF and translanguaging. Section 3 deals with the action research3 conducted to gather data, while Section 4 discusses the results. Finally, the

conclusion section provides an overall summary of the study with possible pedagogical implications.

2. The ILF Model and Translanguaging

The main task of this research is to gather evidence on how teachers can enhance active interaction and engagement among students in Japanese university settings. This study assumes that the strategic teaching techniques proposed by the ILF model provide excellent insight for teachers in planning classroom activities for improving students’ interaction. Besides, to promote student interaction, this study aims to apply translanguaging throughout all the intended classes. This section provides details on these two aspects: the ILF model and translanguaging.

(1) Features of the ILF Model

Arkoudis et al. (2013) proposed an ILF model comprising six stages (planning for interaction, creating environments for interaction, supporting interaction, engaging with subject knowledge, developing a reflexive process, and fostering communities of learners). Planning interaction, the first stage, focuses on designing the curriculum with the primary purpose of including in-class activities

2 The liberal arts classes are open to all students regardless of discipline, registered program, etc.

3 The term ‘Action Research’ was coined by Lewin, K. (1946), and it has been widely used in social sciences. The present study applied the method to observe and examine the proposed pedagogical approach and assess students’ involvement.

(4)

that would enhance peer interaction among students. Second, creating environments for interaction focuses on increasing students’ participation in the planned activities. Collaborative learning is always fraught with several obstacles due to the differences in language and cultural backgrounds. Thus, teachers must carefully consider how to involve all the students in the scheduled activities. Planning how to create an environment where anyone can quickly join in develops students’ confidence in interaction and helps them move out of their cultural comfort zones. In the third stage, supporting interaction, teachers need to prepare basic guidelines that can help students understand the expectations and benefits of engaging in teamwork. This helps students grasp the basic idea of peer values and setting up ground rules during the interaction. The fourth stage, engaging with subject knowledge, concerns how and what students gain through the collaborative work mentioned in the curriculum. Incorporating this stage will benefit the students in learning how to utilize their existing linguistic and cultural skills to achieve new academic knowledge. The fifth stage focuses on developing a reflexive process. Here, students will be able to promote interaction to a higher level while developing assessment skills amongst themselves. The last stage, fostering communities of learners, aims to confirm students’ cross-cultural mobility that would enhance learning outcomes.

This study focuses on liberal arts classes where students from different backgrounds are enrolled. While the ILF provides an excellent opportunity for curriculum designing when preparing for their classes, teachers themselves must figure out practical pedagogical techniques for dealing with students from different backgrounds, especially from a language perspective. Prior research (Burdet, 2003; Johnson and Stage, 2018; Suematsu, 2017) has postulated that language plays a unique and vital role when it comes to interactive activities. In the case of Japanese university classes, the monolingual approach (mostly Japanese and/or English) has always been a barrier for academic interaction among students (Sueshige et al., 2016). Although there are classes that accept both local and international students, lack of interaction has become a major drawback due to language difficulties. Thus, in order to overcome the language barrier, this study proposes utilizing translanguaging in the classrooms. (2) Translanguaging to Overcome the Language Barrier

One of the factors that hinders students’ active interaction and engagement lies in language perspective: either lack of proficiency and or lack of confidence in using a second or a foreign language. Language competence plays an important role especially where exchange between domestic students and international students is concerned. For example, in the case of students in Japanese university environments, we can assume two scenarios: either Japanese students experiencing difficulties utilizing English language skills or international students experience difficulties in using Japanese language skills. To mitigate possible language difficulties and improve communication among the students, this study hypothesizes that the application of the norm translanguaging can be supportive both for the instructor and the students.

This study aims to demonstrate that the application of translanguaging can improve students’ satisfaction with overall classwork due to language freedom. Translanguaging was first coined by Cen Williams in 1994 to denote a pedagogical practice among bilingual students (Welsh/English) (García and Lin, 2016). The term is defined as ‘the ability of multilingual speakers to shuttle between languages4, treating the diverse languages that form their repertoire as an integrated system’ (Creese

4 It should be noted that translanguaging is different from code-mixing or code-switching (refer to Treffers-Daller, 2018, for details).

(5)

and Blackledge, 2010; Garcia and Lin, 2016). Translanguaging can assist bi/multilingual speakers to meaningfully interact, despite language and cultural differences. Utilizing translanguaging can facilitate communication among students in Japanese university education, since it may ease students’ language difficulties.

The ILF was initially proposed based on an English-speaking context where all students are expected to possess sufficient language skills. The applicability of the model has not been confirmed in a non-English speaking country with similar circumstances, such as collaborative learning between local and international students. Thus, the significance of this study lies in examining the applicability of the ILF in a Japanese university context, regarding students’ collaborative and active learning.

It is common knowledge that in the Japanese university context, local Japanese students are relatively passive or less aggressive about using a foreign language compared to international students. The use of English language, for instance, is said to be limited among students despite the extended learning environments. One reason may be Japan’s English language educational and examination systems, which showed little interest in productive skills (writing and speaking) but highly valued receptive skills (Iwamoto, 2016; Kikuchi, 2016), until the recent reforms. On the other hand, from a cultural perspective, students highly appreciate personal space and collectivism (Thomson, 2011), which in turn leads to an aversion toward heated conversations or discussions. Thus, based on the author’s teaching experience, making students engage actively is quite challenging, even for teachers or instructors who are willing.

This study examines the effectiveness of this pedagogical approach in two liberal arts classes at a private university in the Kansai area of Japan. The present study assumes that the combination of the ILF and translanguaging would enhance student interaction despite the teacher’s passive involvement with the students. The next section provides details of the action research.

3. The ILF with Translanguaging in Japanese University Settings

(1) Goal of the Study

Students' satisfaction ratio is one of the durable classroom/course content assessment tools (Brennan and Williams, 2004). The author conducted an action research seeking answers to one main research question and two secondary questions.

Primary research question - Can the application of ILF and translanguaging lead to student satisfaction with the overall class settings?

Secondary research question one - Is there a discrepancy in satisfaction between campuses due to the differences in majors (e.g., humanities and sciences) and students’ status (e.g., local Japanese students and international students)?

Secondary research question two - What aspects show a correlation within each class?

While the primary research question’s answer offers information on the effectiveness of the current approach, secondary question one will show whether students from different backgrounds will have different satisfaction levels. Moreover, secondary question two will provide information on aspects with positive or negative correlation.

(2) Data Gathering

This study conducted a questionnaire at the end of the semester to gather data from students. Since students were unaware of the ILF and translanguaging, alternative questions were prepared to

(6)

obtain assessments. As a result, the study assessed students' satisfaction on nine aspects, choosing five stages from the ILF: creating environment (in mixed groups, and language freedom), students' interaction (inside and outside class), support for interaction (from ES, Educational Supporter and teacher), learning new concepts, and conducting reflection (via group members and comment sheets).

The study expects to obtain high satisfaction (preferably more than 50%) in overall students' assessment. If the students’ satisfaction average is high, it will suggest the present pedagogical approach is acceptable for small-scale liberal arts classes in Japanese universities. However, if students are not satisfied with the class settings, the results will be lower (less than 50 percent), suggesting the need for critical adjustments to the present approach.

(3) Class Arrangements

The selected course is a trial course at a private university in Japan aimed at expanding students’ cross-cultural knowledge. The course goals were two-fold: making students understand cultural diversity and raising awareness of the challenges in intercultural communication. The intended course offers no lectures to students. Instead, students must collaborate and integrate to fulfill the class requirements. The first half of the course (Lessons 1 to 7) consisted of ice-breaking, group discussion, and idea-sharing sessions. The beginning of the second half (lessons 8 to 12) comprised group presentations, Q&A, and discussion time. Lessons 13 and 14 consisted of individual presentations on culture shock. Finally, Lesson 15 included a reflection and Q&A session. In all the lessons, the lecturer first explained the activity, objectives, sample flow, and expected outcomes. Students were instructed to decide individual roles (i.e., turn-taking) and choose the language (e.g., English, or Japanese, or another) in all activities (ice-breaking, discussion sessions, group and individual presentations). At the end of each lesson (last 15 min), there was a reflection session followed with a Q&A time conducted by the lecturer. Thus, the lecturer's involvement was limited to 10-20 minutes in each lesson, excluding the first and the last classes. Thus, in sum, students actively engaged in varied activities during 70 percent of each lesson while the lecturer had less than 30 percent engagement time. Due to this setup, teacher-student interaction was somewhat moderate, while student-student interaction was elevated.

In the author's teaching experience, international students demand more opportunities for interaction with Japanese students and vise-versa. In Japanese university classes, for example, international students claim that they do not have enough opportunities to interact with domestic students. Although many courses are open to both local and international students, lack of interaction has become a significant drawback in many classes. Japanese students have limited experience in actually utilizing English language skills, while international students strive to survive with limited Japanese language skills. International students stay together during their Japanese language courses, as do Japanese students in the English language classes. Besides, the content-based classes are naturally less interactive. To avoid this situation, the intended classes were designed with maximum opportunities for peer interaction during the planning stage. As per creating the environment, translanguaging is applied to improve communication among students. This is the stage where a lesson planner must consider how to address the issue of domestic and international student interaction throughout a semester (15 lessons). Some studies suggest that interactions between peers across cultures are sometimes stinted mainly due to language barriers and lack of opportunities (Anderson, 2008). The primary purpose of creating environments was to develop students' confidence in interaction and help them move out of their cultural comfort zones. Thus, during the semester, students

(7)

belonged to one primary group (until their group survey and presentation ended), and many sub-groups for short discussions. The first ten lessons had ice-breaking activities for about 5-10 minutes prior to the main lesson, with different topics and languages. Students were instructed to discuss and decide the language/s they would use before commencing discussions on the given topics.

Many students prefer to stay in their familiar groups unless instructed to move (Arkoudis, 2006; Arkoudis et al., 2013). Thus, this study provided multiple chances for students to progress. All the students were mixed into new groups in every class (using an ATR5), to ensure all class participants

would have interacted by the end of the semester. This was expected to develop students' confidence in interaction and help them move out of their individual comfort zones.

In supporting students' interaction and engagement, the lecturer ensured students took initiatives in deciding discussion topics, language usage, etc. In addition, the ES provided extra support to the students. Furthermore, to foster community building outside the classrooms, some in-class ice-breaking topics were intentionally focused on discussing extra-curricular activities, community work, and circle activities. This was to provide information to both domestic and international students about in-school activities while improving the speaker's self-esteem in their work. Moreover, it was hoped that this would assist students in fostering different communities outside the classroom through sharing information and joining extra-curricular activities.

In engaging with subject knowledge, the classes had two objectives: understanding different cultural backgrounds and recognizing multiple aspects of bi/multilingual discussion via cultural issues. It was expected that students would gain knowledge about different cultural backgrounds by exploring information on various topics such as rituals and festivals, religious practices, and cultural or social taboos. In the initial discussion sessions, students were asked to conduct the same session twice, first in Japanese and then in English. This exercise was to improve the student’s awareness of using different languages for the same theme. Students were advised to use both languages in such a way that all the members could understand them. Thus, students had to adjust their speaking style (speed, tone, etc.) and select the appropriate words and grammar to convey ideas.

These objectives were set for students to learn how to utilize their existing linguistic and cultural knowledge to gain new knowledge. No direct lectures were conducted during the fifteen class sessions. However, each activity was explained before commencing. For example, one activity required students to discuss differences in working culture between their own country and another. If the group consisted of Japanese and international students, they could easily make a comparison. However, when a group consisted of only Japanese students, they were instructed to conduct internet-based research to obtain sufficient information to be able to discuss the topic. In either case, students were asked to utilize ICT (Information Communication Technology) tools to gather information. For instance, a preliminary web-search can be done using the Google search engine, Wikipedia, etc. However, students were instructed to follow the links in the articles to reach the primary sources and academic articles.

Finally, in developing the reflexive process among students, reflection was conducted in two ways. First, a written, productive task (writing comments) was performed. In addition, after each general assessment task (i.e., group projects and individual projects), a reflection session was

5 For most of the short discussions, students were grouped by using an ATR (Automated Total Randomizer). ATR is made by using Microsoft excel software. Once all the names are entered, it produces a random list. This file is available for use upon request.

(8)

conducted to write and share opinions among peers. (4) Participants' Information and Campus Differences

The current observation is unique when considering the participants' backgrounds. A group of forty students participated in this study, which took place on two different campuses (C1 & C2). While the C2 class only consisted of local Japanese students, the C1 class comprised students from Japan, China, Spain, Ireland, the USA, and Korea. The mixture of students is the main difference between C1 and C2, besides the countries and majors. It is highly likely the engagement among students on the two campuses will be different due to the different student compositions. This study seeks to ascertain whether the present pedagogical approach would yield different results due to the above-mentioned differences.

All the participants in C1 belonged to humanities (18 [12F, 6M] from Law, Social science, International relations, Literature, Image arts and science departments), while the C2 participants (22 students [8F, 14M]) comprised science (88 percent from Sport and health science, Science and engineering, Information science and engineering, and Life science departments) and humanities (12 percent Economics) majors. School years ranged from first years to seniors, with the minimum age being 16 years and 11 months, and the maximum age being twenty years and four months.

In addition, the course secured a senior grade student as an ES (Educational Supporter). Since the class sought to expand students’ active interaction, the support from an ES was vital. The ES’s main role was to support the lecturer by observing student participation, giving advice, informing the lecturer of any problematic situations, verifying whether students understood the lecturer’s instructions, and so on. The lecturer in charge of the class selected the ES based on language proficiency (having a sound command of English and Japanese), motivation (in supporting student activities), leadership, and organizational skills. The lecturer was a non-native speaker of both English and Japanese, with sufficient language proficiency skills (possessed N1 of JLPT and TESOL certification6) and a minimum of ten years of teaching experience at Japanese higher educational

institutions (universities and technical schools). (5) Questionnaire and Method of Analysis

Based on previous studies (Arkoudis, 2006: Arkoudis et al., 2013), this study employed five dependent variables (creating environment, supporting interaction, students' interaction, learning new concepts, and conducting reflection) to ascertain students' assessment of overall class management via a post-survey. The questionnaire consisted of multiple-choice questions (see Appendix 1. for details). All questions were provided in both English and Japanese. The answers were presented in an ascending order as 1-2-3-4 (1 - strongly dissatisfied/disagree and 4 - strongly satisfied/agree).

Overall data was analyzed from three angles. First, a simple calculation was done to produce the mean scores of the dependent variables (providing a direct answer to the primary research question). Then, a Chi-Square Test was applied to check whether the campus average between C1 and C2 was random (which answers secondary question one). Finally, an additional analysis using Spearman rank correlation matrices was performed to examine the relationships between variables within each class

6 JLPT is the acronym for Japanese Language Proficiency Test, and it consists of five levels from N1 (being the highest level) to N5 (being the lowest level). TESOL stands for a certified course of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.

(9)

(to answer secondary question two). Table 1 illustrates the results for analyses one and two, while Tables 2 and 3 represent the correlation results.

(6) Results

First, the simple calculation of mean scores demonstrated that all the students were significantly satisfied with the dependent variables, with all satisfaction levels above 50 percent.

The high satisfaction scores in Table 1 suggest that the present pedagogical approach was effective. All the aspects illustrate an overall mean score above three points, except conducting reflection via comment sheets (which, however, remains above average). In addition, the chi-square test revealed that there was no difference between the mean scores in all aspects [x2(1)=.000,ns.]7,

indicating that the expected differences in satisfaction due to the differences in student composition were not apparent.

The correlation results provide information on what aspects demonstrate a positive (with a * mark) or negative (with a - mark) relation. Table 2 shows that in C1, there is a positive correlation

7 The chi-square test was conducted on each aspect between campus average (C1 and C2 displayed in Table 1). The ns. stands for not significant.

Table1. Overall results of students’ class assessment

Questioned aspect Overall

mean score Chi-square test results C1 C2 C1&C2 mixed groups 3.58 3.56 3.59 ns. language freedom 3.70 3.89 3.50 ns. ES support 3.75 3.89 3.61 ns. teacher support 3.72 3.67 3.77 ns. inside-class interaction 3.05 3.33 2.77 ns. outside-class interaction 3.86 3.89 3.82 ns.

learning new concepts 3.58 3.61 3.55 ns.

0 5 . 3 9 8 . 3 0 7 . 3 s p u o r g a i v ns.

via comment sheets 2.81 3.06 2.55 ns.

Supporting interaction Students’ interaction Learning new concepts Conducting reflection

Note1: 1-4 scale (1 strongly dissatisfied/ disagree, and 4 strongly satisfied /agreed) Note2: C1 stands for Campus one, C2 stands for Campus two

Dependent variable Campus

average

Creating environment

Table 2. Spearman correlation in C1 course.

N=18 Mxiniggorusp Langauegrfeedom nIc-alssnietartcoin Otuc-alss interaction

ES support Teacher support Learning new concepts Reflection via groups Reflection via comment sheets 0 0 0. 1 sp u or g g ni xi M Language freedom 0.262 1.000 In-class interaction 0.283 0.225 1.000 Out-class interaction 0.367 -0.125 0.225 1.000 5 2 2. 0 5 2 1. 0-7 6 3. 0 tr o p p us S E 1.000** 1.000 5 3 0. 0-tr o p p us re h ca e T .500* 0.175 0.125 0.125 1.000

Learning new concepts 0.277 0.103 .492* .577* .577* 0.288 1.000

Reflection via groups 0.262 0.438 -0.075 -0.125 -0.125 0.125 0.103 1.000

Reflection via comment sheets 0.208 .471* 0.325 0.036 0.036 .495* 0.049 0.018 1.000

(10)

pertaining to 7 aspects while Table 3 shows that in C2, there is a positive correlation between 11 aspects.

In correlation tests, a positive relationship means that when the first aspect increases, the second aspect also increases. Conversely, a negative correlation indicates that when the value of one aspect increases, the other value decreases. Thus, if the independent variables (the questioned aspects) demonstrate a positive relationship, it can be interpreted that both aspects are important. In the present study, C1 resulted in seven aspects (as in Table 2) and C2 eleven aspects (as in Table 3) having a positive correlation. Both C1 and C2 results demonstrate that the ES's support had a strong positive relationship with students' interaction outside the class. It is highly likely that the ES in this class was able to provide useful advice and support that accelerated students' interaction outside the class too. Identical correlation results can be found between several other aspects (teacher support and mixed groups, learning new concepts and outclass interaction, reflection via group works and outclass interaction, reflection via group works and learning new concepts, reflection via comments sheets and in-class interaction).

4. Discussion

(1) Application of the ILF and Translanguaging in Japanese University Settings

The students’ high satisfaction indicates that the combination of these two approaches provided a high degree of engagement for students to meet the educational goals, fostering their active interaction and engagement in fulfilling the tasks, which in turn provided answers to the primary research question. However, the chi-square test on campus average indicated no significant difference due to majors and student status, thus answering secondary research question one. Accordingly, the present pedagogical approach is effective, and it would yield identical results regardless of differences in students’ majors and status if applied under the present conditions. Finally, secondary research question two sought out the aspects that show a correlation within each class. While some of the aspects illustrated an identical correlation between the campuses, C1 and C2 had positive correlations with seven aspects and eleven aspects, respectively. The C1 results indicated learning new concepts as the most correlated aspect. For C2, it was conducting reflection via groups. The next section elaborates on the results pertaining to the class settings.

Table 3. Spearman correlation in C2 course.

N=22 Mixigngorusp Lagnauegferdeom nIc-alss tnirecaoitn Otuc-alss interaction

ES support Teacher support Learning new concepts Reflection via groups Reflection via comment sheets 0 0 0. 1 sp u or g gn ixi M Language freedom 0.093 1.000 In-class interaction 0.020 0.218 1.000 Out-class interaction 0.083 0.152 0.176 1.000 0 7 2. 0 0 3 3. 0 5 2 0. 0 tr o p pu s S E .869** 1.000 Teacher support .562** 0.181 0.177 .467* 0.387 1.000

Learning new concepts 0.319 0.379 0.124 .613** .475* .434* 1.000

Reflection via groups -0.141 .497* -0.075 .565** .440* 0.150 .684** 1.000

Reflection via comment sheets -0.040 0.155 .540** 0.144 0.080 0.356 0.060 0.012 1.000

(11)

(2) Planning and Creating Environments for Interaction with Translanguaging

The participants’ high satisfaction confirms that planning is necessary, as indicated by Arkoudis et al. (2013). Moreover, like Anderson (2008), this study found that students (whether local or international) seek opportunities to interact with others. The results in Table 2 clearly show that many students enjoy peer interaction, both in a general group and discussion groups. It can be assumed that ice-breaking time makes students comfortable in the classroom and motivates them to go beyond their limits, which eventually puts them at ease. The freedom of decision-making (choosing languages and topics) may have been a major factor at this point.

Students demonstrated high satisfaction in mixed groups (3.58) and enjoyed choosing and using different languages (language freedom=3.70). This study intentionally applied translanguaging to make the students feel comfortable and relaxed in conveying their ideas during peer interaction. Although the class instructions were given only in English and Japanese, students were encouraged to practice and utilize other languages provided all the members could understand the content. For example, some students used Chinese, while others used Korean during the same ice-breaking time. Furthermore, students free-written comments on ice-breaking and mixed groups showed the application was a success: ‘mixed groups helped them to make new friends’, ‘share similar opinions’, ‘learn different aspects of the same topic’, ‘helped to improve cooperative skills with different students’, etc. In addition, translanguaging smoothed the communication among the allocated members; ‘use of Japanese and English made it easy to ask questions, clarify unclear points, confirm general ideas’, etc.

(3) Supporting Interaction and Students' Engagement

Detailed instructions for each activity, including the purpose and expectations, were provided before the commencement of each exercise. The assessment of the ES’s and the lecturer’s roles indicated high satisfaction: support for interaction from the ES (94%) and the teacher (93%). It should be noted that the lecturer was involved mainly at the beginning of an activity to provide instructions, and at the end to check on the overall outcome. However, the ES engaged more actively with students in supporting them in carrying out the activities. Since the teacher's involvement was limited, students had to take the initiative to interact with others to fulfill the given tasks. As a result, the evaluation of students' interaction also showed high satisfaction: in-class (76%) and outside class (96%). The task instructions for each activity (on the purposes and expectations) must have been useful, which suggests that students' active engagement can benefit from one-way lecturing, especially in these classes.

Furthermore, to foster community building outside the classrooms, some in-class ice-breaking topics were intentionally focused on discussing extra-curricular activities, community work, and circle activities. This was to provide information to both domestic and international students about in-school activities, while improving the speaker's self-esteem in their work. Furthermore, it was hoped that this would assist students in fostering different communities outside the classroom through sharing information and joining extra-curricular activities.

(4) Engaging with Subject Knowledge

Regarding attaining subject knowledge, many activities involved surveying, data gathering, and sharing. These tasks had made students eventually read and follow scholarly articles and information for their discussions. Concerning work culture differences between two countries, some students found

(12)

that there was a big difference between Japan and some other countries pertaining to the sense of time (monochronic and polychronic), hierarchy system (how status and power is considered), gender considerations, etc.

The overall percentage demonstrates a very high satisfaction among the participants (90%) in improving and acquiring subject knowledge. Students discussed different cultural traits with their peers. Besides, group presentations focused on conducting a comparison between Japan’s and another country’s (or countries’) cultures. Participants must have gained new knowledge from these activities as can be seen in the following comments: ‘the internet search was effective to gather unknown information regardless of nationality’, ‘I learnt new things about my country especially from the web search’, etc.

(5) Developing a Reflexive Process

Students shared their opinions on activity participation and conduct via group reflection time. This was to offer an opportunity for students to provide an overall assessment of each activity. These sessions aimed to encourage students to notice their achievements and challenges and improve their self-confidence in acquired skills. Comment writing was done anonymously so that students could freely express themselves. Collected comments and questions were later shared with the whole class.

5. Conclusion

This study investigated a combined pedagogical approach (the ILF and translanguaging) in fostering students’ active interaction and engagement, focusing on the Japanese university liberal arts classes. The study sought to investigate whether such a combined approach could provide a high degree of engagement for students and enable them to meet their educational goals with a high degree of satisfaction. The analysis focused on students’ satisfaction towards the class environment, interaction, learning new concepts, and conducting reflection. Based on the data gathered from the post-course questionnaire, students were highly satisfied with the course settings, suggesting the applicability of the present pedagogical approach. This study concludes that a pedagogical approach utilizing the ILF with translanguaging can provide a satisfactory class environment for students to foster active interaction and engagement, especially in Japanese university liberal arts classes.

Overall, the combination of the ILF model and translanguaging in this study can be considered successful. The results provided encouraging information for planning future classes. Notably, the students’ high satisfaction results demonstrate that the techniques used were appropriate. However, given Japanese native students’ passiveness, some students may not have given critical feedback when answering the questionnaire. Further, most of the questions were multiple-choice. These methodological issues must address in a future study.

Five significant implications can be drawn for future pedagogical approaches focused on fostering students’ active interaction and engagement. First, establishing ice-breaking times prepares students for upcoming class activities. The lecturer can select the topics; however, topics provided by students make the discussion livelier and student friendly. Most importantly, it is essential to avoid sensitive topics.

Second, the interaction must begin with pair work activities that enable students to get along with each other comfortably, and then extend to group tasks. This allows students to build personal friendships and contacts. The pair work activities allow students to freely share ideas one-to-one rather

(13)

than in groups, thus keeping a close relationship with the interlocutor.

Third, the temporary short-discussion groups provide a great chance for students to make new friends. These groups offer a great opportunity for students to test their language abilities, primarily through listening and speaking on different topics. Nonetheless, some students become aware that they need to engage more actively to improve discussion skills rather than language skills.

Fourth, long-term groups (presentation groups in this class) help students build a better rapport with a sense of belonging to a specific community. Unlike the short-discussion groups, these groups required students to engage outside the classroom for preparing group presentations. This outside interaction involves building efficient communication utilizing ICT tools, time management, negotiation for meetings and topics, etc.

Fifth, it is crucial to employ the support of an assistant (in the present case, an ES), especially if the teacher’s interaction is controlled. The ES’s role in the current investigation was crucial in supporting students’ interaction and engagement. A post-reflection conducted with the ES revealed that the active engagement enabled the ES to improve leadership skills and communication skills that could be utilized in other classes. These skills have been proven useful in job hunting activities and career development activities after graduation. Thus, supporting the ES to help students with sufficient instructions plays a vital role in their future employment.

This research was very successful in revealing the aspects of this combined method. Nevertheless, the present investigation results indicate that further investigation is required to address relevant pedagogical issues. In addition, future research must be done focusing on the teacher’s satisfaction with students’ performance, evaluating the combined method’s effectiveness in increasing students’ academic knowledge, and making guidelines to promote such courses in fostering students’ academic interaction and engagement.

APPENDIX 1. QUESTIONNAIRE8

This is a survey about students’ interaction during the semester. Your answers will not be reflected to any of your class evaluations in any way. Thus, answer freely according to your involvements. Note that, the information provided below will be used for developments in class settings and further research purposes.

この調査は、皆様の相互作用に関するものです。アンケートの回答は授業の成績に反映させるものではな いので、ご自由に記入してください。尚、お答えいただく項目は、今後の教育の開発・研究等の活動に用いる場 合があります。 Date       Class Gender         M       F 性別 Status

Full time students 1   /   2   /   3   /   4 Exchange students 6 months    /    12 months Others

1.  What is your opinion on having different groups for discussions 各回のディスカッショングループの変更? 1 2 3 4 9

2.  Why なぜ (write freely 自由執筆)?

3.  Were you able to build communities (i.e., friendship) outside the class 授業外でもお話したりできましたか ? 1 2 3 4

8 Only the used questions are illustrated.

(14)

4.  Were you able to interact with many students in the class クラスメンバーとよく交流できましたか ? 1 2 3 4

5.  Did you have enough support for interaction from the ES 交流のための ES のサポートは十分でしたか ? 1 2 3 4

6.  Did you have enough support for interaction from the teacher 交流のための教員のサポートは十分でしたか ? 1 2 3 4

7.  Were you able to learn new concepts in this class 何か新しい学びを得ましたか ? 1 2 3 4

8.  Were you able to conduct reflection via group discussions グループディスカッションを通じて振り返りをするこ とができましたか ?

1 2 3 4

9.  Were you able to conduct reflection via comments sheets コメントシートを通じて振り返りをすることができま したか ?

1 2 3 4

References

Anderson, J. 2008. Towards an Integrated Second-Language Pedagogy for Foreign and Community/Heritage Languages in Multilingual Britain, The Language Learning Journal, Vol.36, pp.79–89. DOI: 10.1080/09571730801988553. Arkoudis, S. 2006. Teaching International Students: Strategies to Enhance Learning, Melbourne: Centre for the Study

of Higher Education.

Arkoudis, S., Watty, K., Baika, C., Yua, X., Borland, H., Chang, S., Lange, I., Lang, J. & Pearce, A. 2013. Finding Common Ground: Enhancing Interaction Between Domestic and International Students in Higher Education, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol.18, pp.222–235.

Brennan, J. and Williams, R. 2004. Collecting and Using Student Feedback: A Guide to Good Practice, Learning and Teaching Support Network, UK. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/id352_collecting_and_ using_student_feedback_a_guide_to_good_practice.pdf (accessed on 16th Oct. 2017).

Burdet, J. 2003. Making Groups Work: University Students' Perceptions, International Education Journal, Vol.4, pp.177–191.

Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. 2010. Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching? The Modern Language Journal, Vol.94, pp.103–115.

Elliott, K. M. and Shin, D. 2002. Student satisfaction: an alternative approach to assessing this Important Concept, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol.24, pp.197–209.

Entwistle, N. 2003. Promoting Deep Learning through Teaching and Assessment: Conceptual Frameworks and Educational Contexts, retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003220.htm (accessed on 28th Oct. 2019).

García, O. and Lin, A. M. Y. 2016. Translanguaging in Bilingual Education, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1-14.

Iwamoto, N. 2016. An Investigation of Japanese University Students’ English-Speaking Skills, The Japan Association of English Linguistics and Literature, Vol.26, pp.1–16.

Johnson, S. R. and Stage, F. K. 2018. Academic Engagement and Student Success: Do High-Impact Practices Mean Higher Graduation Rates? The Journal of Higher Education, Vol.89, pp.753–781. DOI:10.1080/00221546.2018.14 41107.

Kamegai, M. and Crocker, R. 2017. Defining Active Learning: From the Perspective of Japanese High School Teachers of English, General Education Bulletin of Asahi University, Vol.42, pp.65–79.

Kikuchi K. 2006. Revisiting English Entrance Examinations at Japanese Universities after a Decade, JALT Journal, Vol.28, pp.77–96.

Lewin, K. 1946. Action Research and Minority Problems, Journal of Social Issues, Vol.2, pp.34–46.

Quek, C.-L., Wong, A. F. L., Divaharan, S., Liu, W.-C., Peer, J. & Williams, M. D. 2007. Secondary School Students’ Perceptions of Teacher–Student Interaction and Students’ Attitudes Towards Project Work, Learning Environments Research, Vol.10, pp.177–187.

(15)

Šteh, B., Kalin, J. and Mažgon, J. 2014. The Role and Responsibility of Teachers and Students in University Studies: A Comparative Analysis of the Views Expressed by Pedagogy Students, Zbornik Instituta za pedagoska istrazivanja, Vol.46, pp.50–68. DOI: 10.2298/ZIPI1401050S.

Suematsu, K. 2018. Internationalization at Home - Enhancing Students' Intercultural Competence in Intercultural Collaborative Co-Learning Class. The Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Education.

Sueshige, M., Prichard, C. and Rucynski, J. 2016. Designing a Collaborative Class for International Students and Japanese Students, Bulletin of Institute for Education and Student Services, Okayama University, Vol.1, pp.83–92. (In Japanese)

Thomson, R. 2011. Why am I being ignored? In Mostafa, Y.S (Eds.) Tasting Japanese Culture: Through Diverse Interpretations. Nagoya University Co-op. Nagoya, Japan. pp. 53-58.

Yonezawa, A. 2015. Higher Education Research, Vol.18, pp.105–125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32116/jaher.18.0_105.

Other Resources

MEXT. 2012. Glossary (yougoshu)

http://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/shingi/toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2012/10/04/1325048_3.pdf (accessed on 7th May 2019).

― 2017. Concepts of New Study Plan (atarashigakushushidoyouryonokangaekata) www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/ shotou/new-cs/__icsFiles/afieldfile/.../1396716_1.pdf (accessed on 8th Oct. 2019).

― 2018. “Plan for 300,000 International Students” http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/043/ siryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2018/05/28/1404629_4_1.pdf (accessed on 28th Oct. 2019).

Rappleye, J and Vickers, E. 2015. Can Japanese Universities Really Become Super Global? University World News, November 6, 2015.

Treffers-Daller, J. 2018. Code-switching and Translanguaging: Exploring the Creativity of Multilinguals. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/322677346_Code-switching_and_translanguaging_exploring_the_creativity_of_ multilinguals (accessed on 11th Mar. 2020)

Table 2. Spearman correlation in C1 course.
Table 3. Spearman correlation in C2 course.

参照

関連したドキュメント

【Details of the study】Surveys were conducted for a wide range of interviewees, including doctors, Japanese students, foreign students studying abroad in Japan, stakeholders of

This paper aims to study the history of Chinese educational migration and state policies which influence overseas Chinese students, to explore the mobility tendency of

In the present study, we investigated the prevalence of HPV infection and HPV types in the oropharynx (oral cavity) and urine of male Japanese patients who attended a

  The number of international students at Kanazawa University is increasing every year, and the necessity of improving the international students' Japanese writing skills,

The mGoI framework provides token machine semantics of effectful computations, namely computations with algebraic effects, in which effectful λ-terms are translated to transducers..

Compared to working adults, junior high school students, and high school students who have a 

This study examines the consciousness and behavior in the dietary condition, sense of taste, and daily life of university students. The influence of a student’s family on this

From February 1 to 4, SOIS hosted over 49 students from 4 different schools for the annual, 2018 AISA Math Mania Competition and Leadership Conference.. Students from