－　 －137

山口学芸研究 第10号 2019年　pp.137～156

Is There a Correlation Between English Proficiency, Motivation, and Output?

Douglas PARKIN

1. Abstract Thepurposeofthisstudyistoseeifthereisacorrelationbetweenuniversityandcollegestudents’Englishproficiency levels, theirmotivation,andtheresultingoutputtheyproduce.Research has been conducted using 3rd and 4th year elementary education students inYamaguchiGakugeiUniversity（YGU）and1styeardaycareeducationstudentsinYamaguchiCollegeofArts（YCA）.ThecoursesusedinthisstudyaretheMethodsofEnglishLanguageEducation英語科教育法（小）courseforYGUelementaryeducationstudents,andtheEnglishCommunication 英語コミュニケーション courseforYCAdaycareeducationstudents. Thecorehypothesis of this study is thatEnglishproficiencyalonedoesnotdirectlycorrelatetomotivation,andtooutput.Thestudyhasbeenconductedbylookingattwosimilaryetuniquecourses,offered intwodifferent institutions. Giventheuniquedifferencesof thecourses,itmayappeartomanythatthereshouldbevastdifferencesinoutputbetweencollegeanduniversitystudents.Inthispaperwewilldiscussifthisisindeedtrue,consideringmanyvariableswhichdifferbetweenthecourses.Tosupportthisanalysis,wewilllookattheoriesconcerningEnglishproficiency,motivation,andoutput. Thispaperwillprovidequantitativeandqualitativedata,forthepurposeofillustratingtheneedtoalwaysconsidervariablefactorswhenestimatingoutputinanL2setting.Finally,inconclusion,thispaperwilladdresshowEnglishproficiencyaffectsmotivationandoutput,andlookatthevalidityofitbeingusedasauniversalindicatorofboth.

2. Introduction Themainproblembeingconsideredinthispaper,iswhatroleEnglishproficiencyplaysasanindicatorofmotivationandoutput,incoursesdesignedtoeducatehowtoinstructEnglishasa second language to Japanesestudents. As the instructorof theMethodsofEnglishLanguageEducationCourseatYamaguchiGakugeiUniversity fornineyearsnow, IhavetaughtmanystudentswithvaryinglevelsofEnglishproficiency.Fartoooften,studentswhohavebeenassessedasbeingProficientinEnglishusingtestslikeEiken,haveprovennottobeabletoproduceoutputgreaterthanorequaltothosewhodonotpossessanycertifications.“ Ithasbeennotedforseveralyearsnowthatalthoughstudentscanpasspapertests, they lacktheskills toengage inmeaningfulconversationswithrealpeople inrealsituations. ”（Parkin,2018a）. Ithas alsobeen found that studentspossessingcertifications likeEiken,donot

－　 －138

necessarily havehigher levels ofmotivation touseEnglish, than thosewhodonotholdproficiencycertificates. Proficiency testingandexperience in learningEnglishasasecondlanguage, all toooften tend topigeonhole students intobelieving theirabilities touse thelanguagearealreadyset,andtheycanonlyperformtothelevelthattheyhavebeenputat.Althoughexperience ishardtogagebygiving ita level,proficiencytests likeEikenclearlystatewhatlevelastudentisat,onascalepossessing7differentlevels.AstudentpossessinganEikenratingof5willnotbeexpectedtoproduceoutputatthesamelevelassomeonewhohas achieved a 2,which is amuchhigher level. Both the teachers’ and the students’expectationsseemtobegagedbyandlimitedtotheproficiencylevelsgiven.Eikenistheonlytestmentioneduptothispoint,giventhatthisstudyhasshownthatourstudentshaveonlyusedthistestandnottestslikeTOEIC,GTEC,orothers. Thegoalof thisstudy isnottochallengethevalidityof thecurrentEnglishproficiencytestingsystem in Japan, rather it isas thehypothesis statesabove, to showthatEnglishproficiencyalonedoesnotdirectlycorrelatetomotivation,andtooutput.TheimportanceofthishypothesisisthateducatorsofL2learnersofEnglish,shouldnotlimittheirexpectationsoftheirstudents’motivationandoutputbasedonproficiencylevelsgiven.Suchlevelsshouldbeconsideredandusedasmereguides,andnotasuniversalindicatorsofwhatstudentscando,givenproperinstructionandguidance. Thestrategyusedtoconductthisstudy,wastoanalyseifstudentswhoinitiallypossessedseeminglyhigher levelsofEnglishproficiency,scoredhigherwithregardstomotivationandoutput,thanthosewhohadlowerproficiencylevels.Thedatausedtoconductthisstudy,wasgatheredfromtheYCAcollegedaycarecourseandfromtheYGUuniversitycourse,andwasthendivided intothreeseparatesectionsbeingProficiency,Motivation,andOutput. OutputdatawasthenfurthersubdividedintoQualitativeandQuantitativesections.Eachofthedatafromthethreesectionswasthensystematicallydividedbycourse,byclass,andbyyear.Thefinalanalysisofthedataindicatedwhetherthehypothesiswasindeedtrueornot. Tobetterunderstandtheresultswhichwerefoundinthisstudy,itisnecessarytolookattheoriesandstudieswhichapply toeachof the typesofdata thatwewilldiscuss. Thisinformationwillbediscussedinsection3.oftheliteraturereview.

3. Literature Review 3.1 Proficiency Proficiencyisdefinedashaving“greatskill,ability,andexperience…”（Proficiency,n.d.）.ThisdefinitionsupportstheuseofexperienceasoneofthecriteriainthisstudyforqualifyingstudentsashavingEnglishproficiencyornot.Thereasoningtosupportthistypeofthinking,wastopartiallyreducethestressgiventoEikenas theonlycriterionto judgeproficiency.“ELLstudentswhoareinadequatelyassessedmaybemisclassifiedwithrespecttotheirlevel

－　 －139

ofproficiency inEnglishandmayreceive inappropriate instruction. ”（Abedi, 2008）. Thisstatementsupportstheneedtoensureavarietyofmeans formeasuringproficiency, inthatimproperassessmentcanleadtopooreducationforL2learners.

TheEiken tests,which are backed by theministry of education, are designed andadministeredbyEikyo,theEikenFoundationofJapan…establishedin1963…Overits53-yearhistory,theEikentesthasbeentakenbymorethan90millionpeople…EikyoappearstohavenoresearchdataavailableonthevalidityoftheEiken…thenumberoftakersoftheEiken testhasbeen increasingover thepast fewyearswhileJapan’s ranking in theEFEnglishProficiencyIndexhasbeen falling, from14 in2011toNo.30 lastyear.（Karlsson,2016）.

This articlewritten byHansKarlsson in 2016 andpublished inThe JapanTimes,questionedhowdamagingtherelianceofusingEikenasthemainmeasureofEnglishabilitiesfor Japanesepeople, couldbe. Hesaidnoreal studieshadbeenconductedregarding thevalidityof theEikensystem,and itsmeasureofEnglishabilities. Manyargue thatEikenmerelysupportsanagingsystemthatproducesL2learnersofEnglish,whoareunabletousethelanguageinanypracticalways.ItisinviewofthisthistypeofinformationthatweagainneedtoquestionthecurrentsystemsforjudgingEnglishproficiency,inthiscountry.

“Similarities inpatternsofLLS（LanguageLearningStrategies）utilizationamonghighproficiencylearnersanddifferencessharedbylowproficiencylearnerssuggestthisvariableisasignificantdeterminantofeventualsuccessorfailure in language learning. ”（Fewell,2010）.ThisstatementwhichtalksaboutNormanFewell’sresearchof language learningstrategiesandEnglish languageproficiency,clearlyspeaks in favourofproficiency leveling. Hestatesthat those studentswithhigherEnglishproficienciesusedhigher level language learningstrategies,thanthosewithlowerlevelsofproficiencies.Hisresearchisofcourseinoppositiontothehypothesisbeingfoundtrueforthisstudy.

“Entrance-exam-measuredstrategies,whicharegenerallyacknowledgedas someof theeffectivemethodstopassuniversityentranceEnglishexaminations,arenotveryeffectivestrategiestoachievepracticalEnglishproficiencyespecially foruniversitystudents.Statedmoredirectly,tousestrategiessuchas“ rotememorization”or“grindingawaystudyingforexams”,isnotaseffectiveasmanyJapanesestudentsbelievedittobe. ”（Kato,2009）.

ThisstudybyMs.Katoquestionedhighlytheusefulnessofstudentscrammingfortests,toachieveanyproficientlevelsinpracticalEnglish.Herbeliefsaresharedbymanypeoplein

－　 －140

thiscountry,andsupportthehypothesisofthisstudy,whichpointstowardspracticaloutputandmotivationbeingachieved,regardlessofpre-universityEnglishproficiencylevels.

3.2 Motivation Just likeEnglishproficiency,measuringmotivation isaverydifficult task. However,understandinghowmotivationworkswith regards toEnglishbeing learnedasa secondlanguage,isessentialtothisstudy.Often,peoplebelievethosestudentswithhigherachievedlevelsofEnglishproficiencywillbemoremotivatedto learnthanthosewith lowerachievedlevels.However,ifthisfactisfoundtobetrueinthisstudythenthehypothesiswillfailoncemore.It isthebeliefofthisauthorthatmotivationmaybeindependentofproficiencyoratleastpartially,dependingagainonproperinstructionandguidancebeinggiventostudents.

OnestudyofSDT（Self-DeterminationTheory）lookedatmotivationrelatedto thethreefactorsofautonomy,competence,andrelatedness.Theresearchlookedindepthathowthethreefactorsaffecteduniversitystudents’motivationtolearnEnglishasaForeignLanguage

（EFL）. Thefindingsof thestudyrevealed“ the fulfillmentofcompetenceneedsstronglyindicatedhigher intrinsicand identifiedmotivation…therelationshipbetweenrelatednessandmotivation,thesametendencywasshown,but…Analysesofthedataonautonomyandmotivationrevealed thatgivingautonomymightnotnecessarilyenhanceJapaneseEFLlearners’motivation ;rather,itcouldinhibittheirmotivation…”（AgawaandTakeuchi,2016）.

（Parkin,2018b）.

ThestudybyAgawaandTakeuchiregardingSelf-DeterminationTheoryofMotivationcanbequitedifficulttounderstand,butitisveryrelevanttothecoursesinquestionforthispaperandtothestudyconducted.Onefactorinachievingmotivationforuniversitystudents,isforthestudentstofulfillcompetenceneeds,wheretheyfeeltheycandotherequiredtaskswell.Uponachievementofthiscompetencefulfillment,intrinsicandidentifiedmotivationwilloccur.Thismeansinthecontextofthisstudythatastheeducationstudentslearnandfeelconfident in usingnewEnglish teaching techniques, that theywill become intrinsicallymotivatedandwillidentifythemselvesascompetentteachers,producingevenmoremotivation.Intrinsicmotivation is thehardesttoachieveandthemostvaluablemotivationtoattain forstudents.Properinstructionwillyieldhighlevelsofmotivation,regardlessofpre-classlevelsofEnglishproficiency, ifwedonotstress“perfect ”Englishbeingtherequiredoutput. ThestudybyAgawaandTakeuchialsofoundthatstudents’motivationincreasedastheybecamemorerelatedtothecontentbeingtaught.Again,motivationincontextofthecoursesinthisstudy,willbe improvedgreatly ifproper instruction isgiven,byshowingstudentsthattheycan achieve success usingwhat theyhave learned in the course. This success occurs

－　 －141

independentofproficiencycertificationlevels. Oncemotivation isachieved, ithasbeenshown insomestudies tomakeup for lowerlevelsofEnglishproficienciesprior to thestartofcoursesorspecifictasks,yieldinghigherlevelsofoutputnotforeseenbythestudentsorbytheteachers.“ Infact,highmotivationcanmakeup fordeficits in languageaptitudeandenvironmental factors,particularlywherethesocialsettingdemandsL2proficiency（Dörnyei,1998）.”（Robinson,2001）.

3.3 Output Output isaverywidebasedterm,usedbymanytodescribetheproductioncreatedbystudentswhengivenatasktocomplete. Outputmaytakethe formofpracticallyanything,rangingfromPowerPointpresentationstohanddrawncomicbooks.IntermsofEnglishasasecond language,weshouldconsideroutputwithregardsto languageusageandacquisition.Asforthisstudy,outputisusedtodescribeanythingstudentsproduceuptoandincludingthefinalproductof theirgiventasks. Tasksgiventothestudents includemini lessons,activelyaskingquestions,usingsoftware, andnumerousother items, allbeingdeliveredusing thetargetlanguageofEnglish. Outputbasedlearningmaybeconfusingforsometounderstand,butmuchresearchhasbeendevotedtowardsitintermsofL2learnersofEnglish.ProfessorEmeritaMerrillSwainoftheUniversityofToronto, is creditedwithcreating thecomprehensiveoutputhypothesis,which looksatoutputasameans for languageacquisitionbyL2 learners. “（O）thers（forexample,Swain,1985）haveproposedthatoutputisessentialtoacquisitionandismorelikelyto facilitateacquisitionwhen the learnersarepushed ”（Hayashi, 1993）. This statementsupports the idea thatwhen students arepresenteda challenging task,where theyareobligated toproduceoutputusinga foreign language, that thenaturalbiproduct of suchendeavoursistheacquisitionoflanguage.Thepsychologyorlogicbehindthis,isthatstudentsfocusmoreontheendgoalsortasksbeinggiven,andlessonthelanguageneededtoachievesuchtasks.Giventhisshiftinfocus,studentsnolongerseetheacquisitionoflanguageastheendgoal,andthereforecanacquirelanguageskillsmucheasierwithoutthenegativeresistancetheyusuallyattachtolanguagelearning.MerrillSwaindescribesthislearningprocess,astherecognitionbystudentsthat theircurrent languageknowledgebase is lackingcomparedtowhattheyneedtoaccomplishagiventask.

This issue iswhatSwainreferstoasthe“gap”betweenwhatonecansayandwhatonewould like tobe able to say.And itwouldbe on realizing this gap, that learners aremotivatedtowardsmodifyingtheiroutputinordertolearnsomethingnewaboutthetargetlanguage.…Whereasinanunderstandingprocesstheuseofsyntaxmaynotbeessential,itisintheproductionstagesthatlearnersareforcedtoconsidersyntacticaspectsofthetarget

－　 －142

language.（Luis,2016）.

Learning language by focusing on output, provides L2 learners of Englishmanyacquisitionalbenefitswhich includevocabulary,grammar,pronunciation,aswellasvariousotherelementsof language. Output“ forcessyntacticprocessing（i.e.obliges learnerstopayattentiontogrammar）.…Ithelpstoautomatiseexistingknowledge.…（and）isimportantforhelpinglearnerstodevelopa‘personalvoice’.（Ellis,2005a）.Providingoutputactivities,allowsstudents tobecomepart of the language learningprocess, bygiving themenjoyableyetchallengingtasksthatnotonlymotivatebutnecessitatelearningnewlanguageskills.

4. Method4.1 Participants Theparticipantsforthisstudyasmentionedabovecomefromtwodifferent institutions,YamaguchiGakugeiUniversity（YGU）andYamaguchiCollegeofArts（YCA）.FromYGU,thestudentsinthisstudytaketheMethodsofEnglishLanguageEducationcourseforteachinginElementarySchools,while theYCAstudents taketheEnglishCommunicationcourse forteachingindaycares. TheYGUstudentsareintheirthirdandfourthyears,takinggenerallyoneoftwocourses,theelementaryeducationcourseorthejuniorandseniorhighschoolEnglishteacher’scourse.Somestudentsintheclassesalsostudyspecialneedseducation,aswellasdaycareeducation.About 85%of the students areelementaryeducation students. TheMethods ofEnglishLanguageEducationcourse,hasbeentaughtbytheauthorofthispaperforalmostnineyears.Theclasssizeshaverangedfromasfewas5studentstoasmanyas26students.

TheYCAstudentsinthisstudyareallintheirfirstyearofatwo-yearprogram,andarestudyingtobedaycareteachers.Theclasssizesareonaverage23students.Forthisstudy,only4suchclasseshavebeenusedasdatathusfar.

4.2 Overview of Courses4.2.1 YGU - Methods of English Language Education TheYGUstudentstakingthiscourseallhavetakenitbychoice,inthatitisstillofferedasanelectivecourse, toboth theelementaryand junior/seniorhighschoolEnglish teacher’scoursestudents.TheelementarycoursestudentsenteringtheschoolasofAprilof2019,willbeobligatedtotakethecoursewhentheyenterthethirdyearoftheirprogram.Theelectivenatureofthiscoursewillbechangedasof2021,tobeinganobligatorycoursetoallelementaryeducationstudents. Thecourseshouldremainopenforothereducationcourses,butwillbemandatedasa required lesson forelementaryeducation students. Thecurrentandpast

－　 －143

students inYGUtakingthiscourse,havedonesohopefullybecause theybelieved itwouldbenefitthemasfutureteachers.Thisfactorisveryimportanttothisstudy,formostifnotallthestudentsstudiedfromYGU,shouldhavebeenintrinsicallymotivated,giventheautonomyofchoicetheyhad. Inaddition,againgiventhatthestudentsfromYGUtookthecoursebychoice,thereisamuchhigherpercentagechancethattheyenjoyEnglishmorethantheYCAstudents,whoaremandated to take theircourse. Thecontentof thecourse ishigher inEnglishcontent,given that it isdesigned to teachelementaryschool studentsrather thanyoungerdaycare students. Finally, the instructional languageused for this courseasapercentage ismuchlarger infavourofEnglish. Englishasan instructional language isusedbetween95-99%ofthetime,whileJapaneseisusedamere1-5%ofthetime.

4.2.2 YCA - English Communication TheYCAstudentstakingthiscourseallmusttakethecourseasitisaMandatorycoursefor each first-yeardaycare course student. Given themandatorynatureof the course,motivation ismore likely tobe extrinsic, originating from the instructor or from fellowclassmates. Also, inconsiderationof themandatorynatureof thecourse, there isamuchhigherprobabilitythattheywilldislikeEnglishcomparedtotheYGUstudentsinthisstudy.Afterbeingaskedthequestion“DoyoulikeEnglish? ”moststudentsbecometheoppositeofshy,byansweringinveryclearunderstandableEnglish“No ! ”Thecontentofthecourse,isataleveldesignedfordaycareandlowerlevelelementarygrades.Thelogicbehindthisistoallow for scaffolding the language, if thestudentsare inclined todosoafter theybecometeachers,andaftertheyhavefinishedteachingthebasicstotheirstudents.TheinstructionallanguageusedinthiscourseismainlyEnglish,butthepercentageofEnglishtoJapaneseusedisdifferent thantheYGUcourse. Englishused for instruction is88-95%of the time,whileJapaneseisofcoursetheotherlanguageutilizedforinstruction.

4.3 Procedures The Methods of English Language Education course in YGU and the EnglishCommunicationcourseinYCAareverysimilarincontentandinprocedure.Oneofthemaindifferencesinthecoursesoffered,isthelevelofinstructionalEnglishcontentbeingused,whichisbasedoneitherelementaryordaycarelevels.TheothermaindifferenceisthepercentageofEnglishbeingusedasameansofinstruction.Tobetterunderstandthedatawhichwilllaterbepresented, it isnecessarytodiscuss thesix instructionalmethodsused inbothcourses,whichincidentallyarealsousedforevaluation.However,beforediscussingthesixmethodsitisfirstnecessarytodiscusshowtimeisallocatedforthelessons.

－　 －144

4.3.1 Time Thecoursesaregivenonceweek inninety-minutesessions. Within theninety-minutesessions,theclassesarethensubdividedintothree25-minuteblocks,with5minutesbetweeneachblockand5minutes left for thebeginningand theendingof the lessons. The first25-minuteblock, is forstudentstouseanEnglish language learningsoftwarecalledTellMeMore. Thesecond25-minuteblock, is forthe instructortoteachanexampledemonstrationlessontothestudents.Thethird25-minuteblock,isusedforstudentstotaketurnstoconduct5-minuteminilessons.

4.3.2 Tell Me More – Language Learning Software TellMeMore（TMM）Languagelearningsoftwareisusedindividuallybythestudentsinthefirstsessionofeachclass,forapproximately25minutes.TMMisamultipurposeprogramusedtohelpstudents improvetheir listeningandspeakingskills,aswellas tohelpdevelopseveralothernecessaryEnglishskills.Writingisnotpartofthesoftware,butactivelisteningandupper levelcognitiveprocessingare. Thesoftwareprovidessix levels forstudents tochoosefrom,basedontheircurrent levelsandneeds. Studentsusuallyareabletocompletetwofulllevelsoftheprogramwithinonetermoronecourse.Theprogramallowsinstructorstotrackcurrentproficiencylevels,motivation,andoutputlevels.（Parkin,2018b）.

4.3.3 Question Crazy Card System TheQuestionCrazyCardSystem, is aproactive interactive systemdesignedby theauthor of this paper, toprovide output opportunities for students to speakwith facultymembers. Itspurposesarevaried,butactive learning is oneof thekeyelements to thesystem. Studentsaregivenonecardat thebeginningof thecourse,whichhas thirty-fiveblocksonit,thatmustbecompletedbytheendofthecourse.Studentsareprovidedsamplequestionsonthecardwhichtheyhavethechoice touseornot,but theymuststarteveryinteractionwiththephrase“Excuseme,mayIaskyouaquestionplease? ” Afterthisfirstquestionisansweredbya“Yes”fromafacultymember,thenthestudentsproceedtoaskanyquestion,whichwillbeansweredandawardedpointseitherbyreceivingasignatureorastampontheircard.Pointsawardedforthequestionsarebasedonwhatlevelthequestionisperceivedtobe.Englishproficiencycanbemeasuredwiththissystemand“（m）otivationisquicklymonitoredbased on factors such as cards completed, students activelygoing toteacher’soffices, levelsofquestionsasked,（and）frequencyof interactions.…Thecard ismuchmore thananEnglish language learningdevice, as ithasalso shown itselfuseful increatingrelationshipsbetweenstaffandstudents thatnormallywouldnotexist. ” （Parkin,2018b）.

－　 －145

4.3.4 Course Instructor Demonstration Lessons Instructordemonstration lessonsareconducted in thesecondsessionofeachclass, forapproximately25minutes.Duringthelessons,theinstructorplaystheroleofanelementaryschool teacherteachingEnglishtovaryinggrade levels,while thestudentsplaytherolesofelementaryschoolstudents.Eachlessonisbasedonnewtopicssuchascolourorbodyparts,andaredesignedaccording tospecifiedgrade levels. Vocabulary,grammar,and teachingtechniques,arevariableswhicharechanged,basedonthegrade levelsbeingdemonstrated.Pedagogicalpractisesandtheoriesarediscussedduringthelessons,astheinstructortakesanasideandsays“ teachertoteacher”,indicatingtheyshouldbelisteningasuniversityeducationstudentsandnotaselementarystudents. Duringthesetimesespecially,studentsshouldbeabsorbingasmuchinformationaspossibletouseintheirownminilessons,whichtakeplaceinthethirdsessionofeachclass.（Parkin,2018a）.

4.3.5 Mini Lessons Taught by Students Theminilessonstaughtbythestudentsoccurduringthefinalsessionofeachlesson,forapproximately25minutes. Thedemonstration lessonpreviously taughtbythe instructor isbrokendown into5-minutesubsections,whicharetobetaughtby individualstudents. Theclassesaredividedintothreegroups,andthestudentstaketurnstoteachtheothermembersoftheirgroup, in5-minute intervals. Atfirst, themini lessonsprovetobeverychallenging.Studentsoftenstruggletomimicwhatthecourseinstructorpreviouslydemonstrated,howeveraftertheygetusedtothesystem,pedagogicaltheoriesarebetterutilized,asaretheEnglishskillstheyuse.Afterafewclasses,studentsdevelopbetteractivelisteningskills,employanddevelopbetterEnglishproficiency,andaremuchmoremotivatedtoteacheachotherusingEnglishasthemaininstructionallanguage.Moststudentsusealmost100%English,andfullyutilizetheirownproficiencylevelstoperformtheirlessons.Enjoymentisstressedasonekeyfactortosuccess,asisconfidenceandprofessionalism.（Parkin,2018a）.

4.3.6 Final Team-Teaching Exam The final team-teaching exam is the culminating activity, where students mustdemonstratealltheyhavelearnedduringthecourse,anditexemplifieswhat“output ”isinanEnglishteachingcontext.Thetestrequiresofstudents,toutilizealmosteverythingtheyhavelearned inEnglishand intheirpedagogical trainingas futureteachers. Theymustwork inpairstopreparefortheirlessons,bychoosingreviewtopics,selectingandcreatingactivities,selectingandmakinglessonmaterials,writinglessonplans,andbypractisingforthelessons.Preparations for the testare just likewritingapaper fora journal, in that theymustbecarefullydesignedandrewrittenseveral times,before theyareready. After thewriting isfinished,theymustalsopractisewhattheyhavedesigned,severaltimesbeforetheycanuse

－　 －146

theirideasandmaterialsintheiractuallesson.Theteam-teachingexamisinvaluabletothestudentsfor :

Onestudy foundthat “The teacherswhoparticipated in [the] studyvaluedcollaborativelearning for itspotential toboost [EnglishLanguageLearners]ELLs’socialandacademicengagement in the classroomand school, and for the gains in content and languageproficiency…”（Lee,2014）.Thefinaltestteachesourstudentsthatcollaborativelearningisuseful forteamteachingandforL2 learnersofEnglishtoacquire languageskills.（Parkin,2018a）.

4.3.7 Final Reflections“Reflectionas itpertainstopedagogy, isanessential tool thateducatorsneedtoutilize inordertointrinsicallypromotegrowthwithinourstudents. ”（Parkin,2017a）.Consideringthisstatement,weusethereflectionprocess toallowourstudents to lookatwhat theyhaveexperiencedanduse it tobecome stronger, bothpersonally andprofessionally.As thereflectionsheetiswrittenentirelyinEnglish,astheirresponsesmustalsobe,studentslearnthatmeaningfulcommunicationcanoccurinanylanguageandEnglishisjustamediumofexpression.（Parkin,2018a）.

4.4 Data Collection Procedures Data collected for this studywas divided into three sections,English proficiency,motivation,andoutput.Wewilldiscusshowandwhythedatawascollectedforeachsection,intermsofEnglishlanguageacquisitionforL2learners.

4.4.1 English Proficiency Englishproficiencyasmentionedbefore,isveryhardtomeasureandtojudge.Thisbeingthecase,datacollection forthisstudywasadifficult task. Forthepurposeofcollectingasmuchmeaningfuldataaspossible,Englishproficiencyforthisstudywasdefinedasastudent : 1）HavinganyEnglishproficiencylevelsusinganytypeofEnglishproficiencytest. 2）HavinganyexperienceinanEnglishconversationschool（Eikaiwa）andorinacram

school（Juku）,forthepurposeofstudyingEnglish. 3）HavinganyoverseesexperienceinanEnglish-speakingcountry. Figure1showsthequestionnaireusedtogathertheabovedata.Althoughthequestionsappear tobecomplex innature, itwaseventuallydecided for simplicity sake touse theinformationasapositive“yes”oranegative“no”,answeringiftheyhaveEnglishexperiencesandproficiencylevelsornot.

－　 －147

Figure 1.  English Qualifications and Experience Questionnaire

4.4.2 Motivation Measuringmotivationisalsoadifficulttaskforthesakeofanalyzingdata,soforthisstudyquestionnairesgiventothestudentsat theendof thetermwereused. Table2showstheresultsofoneofthequestionnairesfromaYCAEnglishcommunicationclass.

Figure 2.  End of Term Questionnaire Given to Students - Used for Motivation Data

－　 －148

Theinformationfromthequestionnaireswereusedtocreate7sectionsforcomparativeanalysis.The7sectionswerethentranslatedandarelistedinfigure3below.

Figure 3.  7 Sections Used to Evaluate Motivation

4.4.3 Output Twotypesofoutputdatawerecollectedforthisstudy,quantitativeandqualitative.

4.4.3.1 Quantitative Output Thequantitativeoutputdatacollectedforthisstudywastakenfromthegradesgiventothestudents,basedonthevarioustaskstheyweretocompletethroughoutthecourse.Figure4showshowthegradeswerecalculated.

Figure 4.  How Grades were Calculated – Used for Quantitative Output Analysis

Theonlyitemthathasnotalreadybeendiscussedinthispaper,isthesectionlookingat“PreparedNotebooksDictionariesAttitudeetc ”. Thissection isexactlyas itreads, in thatstudentsaregiven10%or their coursegradebasedonhowwell theyprepare for class,concerning items likenotebooksanddictionaries. Inaddition, theyarealsogradedonwhatkindofattitudetheybringtoclass,whichisofcoursecloselyrelatedtomotivationaswell.

4.4.3.2 Qualitative Output Thequalitativeoutputdatausedinthisstudywasalsotakenfromoneofthetasksusedforgrading,whichwastheFinalCourseReflections.Thefinalcoursereflectionsweregradedoutof5%,butalsowarrant furtherattention,given thegreatvalue theyholdas tools forqualitativeanalysis.Figure5isasectiontakenfromthereflectionformgiventostudents.

－　 －149

Figure 5.  Reflection Form – Used for Qualitative （and Quantitative） Analysis

Thereflectionssubmittedbystudentsallowustoanalysemanythings. Thefirst itemwhichiseasilyseen,istheirlevelofwritingwithregardstosyntax.Reflectionsalsoshowushowwellstudentsunderstandcoursecontent,withregardstotechniquesandpurpose,andinadditionhowwelltheycanreflecttheseitemstowardsthemselves,sotheymayeventuallyusethemasteachersintheirfutures.

5. Results and Discussion Theresultsof thisstudyaregivenasacomparativeanalysisof thedatacollected fromtheYGUMethodsofEnglishEducationcourseandtheYCAEnglishCommunicationcourse.ThedataispresentedinthreemainsectionsEnglishProficiency,Motivation,andOutput,withthe laterbeingthensubdivided intoQuantitativeandQualitative. Thedata ispresented inchartandinwrittenformandananalysisofthedatafollows.

－　 －150

5.1 English Proficiency

Table 1  English Proficiency Questionnaire – Quantitative Analysis

Asmentionedbefore,thedatashownintable1wasacquiredfromgivingYGUandYCAstudentsquestionnaires,withregardsto theirEnglishproficiency levels. TheclassesgiventhesequestionnairesinYCAwerethedaycarecoursestudentsclassesA-Dinthefirsttermof2018,whoweretakingtheEnglishcommunicationcourse.TheclassesgiventhequestionnairesinYGUweretheMethodsofEnglishLanguagecoursestudentsintheelementaryandjunior/seniorhighschoolEnglishcourses, inyearthreeandyear four in thesecondtermof2018.Theresultsaredisplayed in threecolumns. Thefirstcolumnonthe left,displayswhetherstudentshaveachievedanEikenEnglishproficiency level,eitheryesorno. No informationhasbeenprovidedastowhatlevel,itonlyindicatesthatalevelofsomesorthasbeenearned.23.54%of theYCAstudentshadachievedanEikenproficiency level,whileanaverageof67.82%ofYGUstudentshadachievedanEikenproficiencylevel.Basedonthesefiguresalone,itwouldbeeasy forpeople topredict thatmotivationandoutputproducedby theYCAstudents shouldbe lower than theYGUstudents. Thenext threecolumnsshow thatnostudentsinallsixclasses,hadachievedanEnglishproficiencylevelinTOEIC,GTEC,orothercertificationtests. The fifth row indicates if students have attended a cram school and or anEnglishconversationschool. Again,nodetailshavebeenprovidedas towhereorhow long theyattended, only a percentage has been given indicating howmany students had someexperience.TheYCAstudentshada33.01%ratingofstudentswhohadexperienceinacramschooloranEnglishconversationschool,while35.40%ofYGUstudents indicatedtheyhad

－　 －151

experience.Lookingatthesefiguresalone,youcouldonlypredictanalmostequallevelbeingproducedinmotivationandinoutputbybothsetsofstudents. The final sixthrow indicates thepercentageof studentswhohavehadat least someoverseasexperience inanEnglish-speakingcountry. 2.18%ofYCAstudents indicatedtheyhadoverseasexperiences,while18.37%ofYGUstudentshadindicatedtheyhadexperienceinanEnglish-speakingcountry. Again, lookingat these figuresalonewouldallowpeople topredictahigherlevelofmotivationandoutputfortheYGUstudentsovertheYCAstudents. Overall, ifyouwere toaddall thepercentages together,youwouldsee that theYGUstudentsclearlypossessthepotentialtobemuchmoremotivated,whilebeingabletoproducemuchhigherlevelsofEnglishoutputthantheYCAstudents.

5.2 Motivation

Table 2  Motivation Questionnaire Given to Students – Quantitative Analysis

Thedatapresentedintable2,showstheresultsofthequestionnairesgiventotheYCAandYGUstudents.Thisdatahowever,doesdifferfromtable1,inthatthedatawasgatheredbyfromthesamegroupofYCAstudentsbutnotfromthesamegroupofYGUstudents.ThedatausedforthistablefortheYGUstudents,wascollectedfromyearfourstudentsfrom2014-2016,whereastable1wascollectedfrom2018studentsinyearthreeandfour.Thereasonforthisdiscrepancy, is that this study is relativelynew,and information for table2wasnotavailablefrom2018students,aswasinformationfortable1notavailablefromYGUstudentsinprioryears. It is thehopeof this researcher, that thisdata canbeuseduniversally as

－　 －152

indicators ifnotat leastestimators,ofwhatcanbeexpectedofYGUcoursestudents inthefuture. Table2hasbeen listed showing7headings, all relating tomotivation inonewayoranother.Itisbelievedthatstudentswithhighermotivationwillgenerallyhaveamorepositiveoutlookwithsuchquestionnaires,usuallyresultinginhigherscoresgiven.Consideringthis,plusthe actual percentages listed, itwould again appear thatYGU students have higherpercentagesinmotivationaswell.However,thedifferencesbetweenthepercentagesgivenbyYGUandYCAstudents, range froma lowof 4%difference for students “Prepared forLessons”,toahighof11%forstudents’“ InterestintheCourse”andifit“WasitEasytoaskQuestions? ”. Overall, itwouldagainappearaccording to table2 thatYGUstudentswilleventuallyproducehigheroutputthanYCAstudents,basedonhighermotivation,eventhoughthelevelswerenotthatmuchdifferent.

5.3 Output5.3.1 Quantitative Output

Table 3  Grades Given to Students Listed by Course and by Class - Quantitative Analysis

Table3showstheresultsofthegradesgiventotheYCAandYGUstudentsinthisstudy.However, thestudentssampleddifferonceagain fromtable1andtable2, in that theYGUMethodscoursestudentsfrom2017appearforthefirsttimeinthisstudyintable3.TheYCAstudentssurveyedarestill thesameas theprevious twotables. The table isdivided intosevensectionswiththefinalcolumn indicatingtheoverallscores foreachof thesixclasses

－　 －153

listed.TheresultsshowthattheYCAstudentsreceivedandaverageof88.8%,whiletheYGUstudentsreceivedanaverageof92.9%.　　Basedonquantitativedataalone,wecancalculatefromtable1thatYGUstudentswereonaverage21.68%higherregardingEnglishproficiency.Fromthedataintable2,wecanseethatYGUstudentswereonaverage7.8%higherregardingmotivation.However,wecanseefromtable3,thatYGUstudentswereonaverageonlyamere4.1%higherregardingoutput.Consideringquantitativedataalone,itwouldbeverydifficulttounderstandhowsuchresultscouldhavehappened.However,consideringthequalitativeoutputbelow,wemaybeabletoseemoreclearlyiftheYCAstudentsdoproducehigheroutputlevelsthaninitialpredictionswouldhavesuggested.

5.3.2 Qualitative Output5.3.2.1 YGU - Reflections by Students

Figure 6.  Reflections from YGU Students – Qualitative Analysis

ThesereflectionsbyYGUstudentsshowaclearunderstandingofthevalueofthecoursetheytook,plushowEnglishshouldbetaughtintheuniversityandtostudentsinelementaryschools.Thegrammarisnotperfect,buttheEnglishisactuallyquitegood,andthemessagesarewell thoughtout,demonstrating thathigh levelsofcognitiveprocessingwereused tocreatethem.

－　 －154

5.3.2.2 YCA - Reflections by Students

Figure 7.  Reflections from YCA Students – Qualitative Analysis

ThelevelofEnglishwritingislowerintwoofthethreesamples,comparedtothesyntaxusedbytheYGUstudents,buttheunderstandingofpedagogicalprincipalsisverygood,andaccurately representswhatwas taught in the course. Furtherpointsmentionedby thestudents, indicate thatmanyother lessonswere learned in addition towhatwasmerelywrittenonthelessonplans,whichwereprovidedbytheinstructor.

Inbothcases,insightfulremarksweremaid,pedagogicalprincipalsused,andartisticintentdelivered.IfeelthesereflectionsareincontrasttowhattheoriginalEnglishproficiencyscoreswouldhaveindicatedtheYCAstudentsandeventheYGUstudentswouldhavebeenabletoproduce.

6. Conclusions Thepurposeofthispaperandthisstudy,istoseeifthereisacorrelationbetweenEnglishproficiency,motivation, and output. The core hypothesis to this study is thatEnglishproficiencyalonedoesnotdirectlycorrelate tomotivation, and tooutput. Initial findingsshowedtherewasagreatdifferencebetweenYCAstudents’EnglishproficiencylevelsandthelevelsofYGUstudents.Suchfindingsshouldhavealmostcertainlyproventhehypothesisforthis study to bewrong. TheYCAstudents appeared onpaper and in the eyes of theinstructor,initiallytonothavetheneededskillstoproducethelevelsofmotivationandoutputrequired tobeeffective teachers. However, thenumbersproved thesesuppositions tobewrong. Thefinalnumbersshowedadifferenceofonly4.1%betweentheclassfinalgradesoftheYCAandtheYGUstudents,withbothsetsofstudentsscoringalmosta90%average. TheinitialEnglishproficiencyscoresshowedthattheYCAstudentswere21.68%lowerthantheYGUstudents, but somehowduring their course of study, the student’smotivation and

－　 －155

eventuallyoutputincreasedunbelievably.

Johnson（1995）identifiesfourkeyrequirementsforinteractiontocreateanacquisition-richclassroom:1.Creatingcontextsoflanguageusewherestudentshaveareasontoattendtolanguage2.Providingopportunities for learners tousethe languagetoexpress theirownpersonalmeanings3.Helpingstudentstoparticipate in language-relatedactivities thatarebeyondtheircurrentlevelofproficiency4.Offeringafullrangeofcontextsthatcaterfora‘fullperformance’inthelanguage.（Ellis,2005b）

ThesestatementsclearlysupportandalmostechowhatMerrillSwain’shypothesisreferstowhentalkingaboutoutputandlanguageacquisition.ThecoursesofferedtotheYGUandYCAstudentsinthisstudy,considerinitiallytheEnglishproficiencylevelsoftheparticipants,buttheyonlyusethesenumbersasmereguidesofwherethestudentsareandnotwheretheycango. Thecoursesprovide learningopportunitiesboth in languageand inpedagogy,bygivingstudents taskswhichareslightlybeyondtheirpresentabilities,and farbeyondtheirownexpectations. It is throughthesetasksandopportunitiesgiventothem,thatgainsaremadeinlearningEnglish, inunderstandingeducationaltheories,andinbuildingconfidencetoapplywhattheyhavelearnedinrealclassrooms.

Itismybeliefthatthehypothesisofthisstudyhasbeenproventobetrue,regardlessofthe4.1%differenceremainingbetweenthecourses.Reachforthestarsandtheskyisneverofflimits !

ReferencesAbedi,J.（2008）.MeasuringStudentsLevelofEnglishProficiency :EducationalSignificanceand

AssessmentRequirements.Educational Assessment, 13（2-3）, 193-214. doi :10.1080/10627190802394404

Ellis,R.,NewZealand.MinistryofEducation.ResearchDivision,&UniServices,A.（2005a）.Instructed Second Language Acquisition : A Literature Review.

Ellis,Rod.（2005b）.Principlesof instructed language learning.System.7.209-224.10.1016/j.system.2004.12.006.

Fewell,N.（2010）.Language learning strategies andEnglish language proficiency :Aninvestigationof JapaneseEFLuniversity students.TESOL Journal,2（June）,159-174.Retrieved January14, 2019, fromhttps ://tesol-international-journal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/A11V2_TESOL.pdf.

Hayashi,N.（1993）.CiNii論文 -Reexamining theEffect ofOutput onSecondLanguageAcquisition.RetrievedJanuary15,2019, fromhttps ://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/120005626919ISSN

－　 －156

1340-3613Luis,PW.（2016,August27）.SecondLanguageAcquisition :Swain’sOutputVsKrashen’sInput.

RetrievedJanuary15,2019, fromhttp ://eslarticle.com/pub/english-as-a-second-language-esl/139016-Second-Language-Acquisition-Swain-s-Output-Vs-Krashen-s-Input.html

Karlsson,Hans. “ Is theEikenDoingJapan’sEnglishLearnersMoreHarmthanGood?”The Japan Times,8 June2016,www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2016/06/08/issues/eiken-japans-english-learners-harm-good/#.XD3zuFwzaw4.

Kato.S.（2009）.TheRelationshipofLanguageLearningStrategiesandPersonalityonEnglishProficiencyinJapaneseUniversityStudents.THE JOURNAL OF ASIA TEFL, 6（1）,141-162.RetrievedJanuary14,2019,fromhttp ://journal.asiatefl.org/

Parkin,D.（2018a）.ChangingTimes :21stCenturyElementarySchoolEnglishEducation inJapan.Yamaguchi Gakugei Bulletin of Educational Science,9,177-195.

Parkin,D.（2018b）.TheEffectsofUtilizingOutputOrientedStudent-CenteredActivitiesonL2Learners ’MotivationandPerformanceLevels.JACET Chugoku-Shikoku Chapter Research Bulletin,15,11-126.

Proficiency|meaningintheCambridgeEnglishDictionary.（n.d.）.RetrievedJanuary16,2019,fromhttps ://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/proficiency.

Robinson,P.（2001）.SecondlanguageacquisitionresearchinJapan.RetrievedJanuary14,2019,fromhttps ://www.academia.edu/4694948/Second_language_acquisition_research_in_Japan