English Proficiency Required for Elementary School Teachers： A Functional Analysis of Classroom English in Korean and Japanese Elementary Schools

全文

(1)Eng1ish Proficiency RequiIed for E1ementary Schoo1Teachers： AFunctiona1Ana1ysis ofC1assroom Eng1ish in Korean and Japanese E1ementary Schoo1s. 教科・領域教育学専攻言語系コ一ス. M 0 6 1 9 1 F 中塚由美子. The purpose of this I・esearch is to. teachers as the MEXT d1d to jun1or h1gh. investigate what kind of Eng1ish. schoo1 Eng1ish teachers， but it is not. proficiency e1ementary schoo1teachers. sufficient．Certain1y，setting the criterion. need．This study was functiona1ana1ysis. of Eng11sh prof1c1ency can c1ar1fy the. which was performed on c1assroom. targeted Eng1ish 1eve1 that teachers. Eng1ish in teacher’s guide of “Eng1ish. shou1d have to teach Eng1ish，however it. note”5tb and6tb grade of e1ementary. is aoubtfu1whether doing so can re1ate to. schoo1in Japan and Eng1ish text books. fostering students’Eng1ish ski11s or not．. teacher’s guide3正d，4th，5th and6t11grade. Chapter 2 describes the Eng1ish. ofe1ementary schoo1in Korea．. proficiency with previous study．. Chapter 1 states the current. Matsuhata （1989） divides Eng1ish. Eng1ish education and its prob1ems in. proficiency in two ways： quantitative. this thesis and describes the purpose of. approach and qua1ity approach． As. this thesis．In2003，MEXT set strategic. out1ined by Matsuhata，we founa four. concepts to foster Japanese who can use. competences to teach Eng1ish for. Eng1ish，and they suggest that Eng1ish. teachers． First， Lado （1961） expresses. teachers in junior high schooI and senior. that the approximate degree of the. high schoo1shou1a acquire Eng1ish ski11. proficiency of the three 1anguage. of STEP pre・first 1eve1， TOEFL 550，. e1ements and five ski11s define1anguage. TOEIC 730 or more． Having these. competence． Second， Hymes （1972）. strategic p1ans as the background，the. descr1bes “commun1cat1ve competence”. new course of study was announced in. that focusea on 1anguage “use”．Thira，. 2008 and “foreign 1anguage activity”，. Yamamori（2006）schematizes Educative. which is most1y Eng1ish activity，is set to. function of Eng1ish which entai1s. start at the 5th and 6th grades of. educational teaching objects for Eng1ish. e1ementary schoo1 in 2011． However，. teachers．Fourth，JACET（2005）aescribes. specific Eng1ish proficiency 1eve1s have. competence of character and competence. been presented for neither elementary. of profession of teaching． In addition，. schoo1students nor teachersl It may be. Nakata （2008） suggests the idea of. necessary to c1arify the quantitative. deve1oping criteria for Eng1ish. criterion ofEng1ish ski11sfore1ementary. proficiency in c1assr00m．. 一300一.

(2) Chapter 3 out1ines the entire. students，In this study，we cou1dn’t find. design ofstudy1and attempts functionaI. “redundancy” and “expansion” on the. ana1ysis using c1assroom Eng1ish in the. ana1ysis based on MERRIER Approach−. teacher’s guide at e1ementary schoo1in. From the new course ofstudy，we can see. Japan and Korea−This ana1ysis is basea. contents to 1earn foreign 1anguage. on thresho1d1eve1（JAvan EK，1990）．The. activity “through various experiences”一. resu1ts derivea from study1revea1the. Redundancy and expansion，which is a. fo11owing．First，teachers use c1assroom. paraphrase ofperceptiona1change shows. Eng1ish for instructiona1purposes many. that students can notice and 1earn. times at the e1ementary schoo1．Second，. through various expeIliences．Thira，it is. teachers neea to consiaer what functions. I・equired for1…lng1ish proficiency to have. of c1assroom Eng1ish，depending on the. an educative function．. objectives and contents of. a）Management c1asses depend on. 1earning／teaching． Third， “Structuring. the students’situation．. diSCOurSe”and “COmmuniCatiOn repair”. b）Incorporate other subjects．. can not be seen on this ana1ysis． So，. c） Corporate and incorporate each. c1assroom Eng1ish is IRE that teachers. of teachers. one way exp1ain directions and give. d）Assessment equa1ity. OrderS．. Fina11y， Chapter 5 conc1udes the. Chapter4，the out1ine of Study2. discussions ofthis research and examines. attempts functiona1ana1yzes using the. 1ts 1mp11cat1ons for furthe r stuay To. same materia1as Study3．This ana1ysis. summar1ze the ma』or f1ndmg m study1. is based on the MERRIER Approach. and stuay2，Teachers need not on1y the4. （Watanabe， 1995）． The difference. ski11s of the 1anguage but a1so 4. between Thresho1d Leve1 and the. proficiencies we describe in chapter 4−. MERRIER Approach 1ies in its. Te achers can inte ra ct using the se 4. perspectives． The perspective of. competences with the students，even. Thresho1d Leve1is directed to our dai1y. teachers who don’t have enough Eng1ish. 1ife．The perspective of the M1児RRIER. proficiency such as1inguistic competence−. Approach is directea to teaching．The. In addition，teachers try to communicate. resu11二s derived from study 2 revea1the. with students using Redundancy and. fo11owing．First，using Japanese，visua1. Expansion． TPR he1ps interaction. aids，gestures and know1eage of other. between teachers and stuaentsl. subjects a11ows for interaction between. the teachers and students．Second，we ana1yzed interaction apProaches．Most1y， eye contact and TPR can be seen．As the. resu1t of that， TPR is the key of interaction between teachers ana. 一301一. 主任指導員今井裕之指導教官今井裕之.

(3)