Akita University

秋 田 大 学
教養基礎教育研究年報
53 − 60 （2007）

Techniques for Reducing Foreign Language Anxiety: Results of a

Successful Intervention Study
Terri Lee NAGAHASHI

Faculty of Education and Human Studies

Akita University, Japan

Foreign language anxiety negatively impacts the quality of learning and is a critical factor in a learner’
s success
or failure in learning a foreign language (Gardner and MacIntyre, 1987). Reducing students’language anxiety can
enhance their overall learning experience and improve motivation and achievement. The purpose of this short-term
intervention study was to examine the effectiveness of cooperative learning techniques for reducing foreign
language anxiety among freshman students enrolled in Akita University’
s English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
course. A total of 38 students participated in this intervention study, all of whom were a subset of a larger cross-
sectional baseline study that was conducted to assess levels and primary sources of language anxiety (Nagahashi,
2007). Two survey instruments were used: the standardized Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS)
(Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986) and a post-intervention questionnaire. The findings of this study suggest that
structured cooperative learning activities may be effective in reducing language anxiety by providing a non-
threatening, supportive environment in which to develop language skills.

Key words: : Affective Domain, Foreign Language Learning Anxiety, Cooperative Learning, Teaching Strategies,
FLCAS

INTRODUCTION language learners, the students surveyed in this study

had significantly higher scores on the Foreign
Foreign Language anxiety is defined as “a distinct Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (see
complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and Appendix A) compared to published results for
behaviors related to classroom language learning students surveyed in other foreign language programs
arising from the uniqueness of the language-learning (Nagahashi, 2007). The primary source of the students’
process” (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986, p.128). anxiety appears to come from communication
The significant role of language anxiety in foreign apprehension, a result that correlated with a low self-
language learning has been demonstrated in several evaluation of speaking skills (Nagahashi, 2007). High
studies that show a negative correlation between high levels of anxiety, along with low self-evaluations of
levels of anxiety and language achievement (Clement, skills, are detrimental to the learning process.
Gardner, & Smith, 1977, 1980; Gardner, Smythe, According to MacIntyre (1999), “The combination of
Clement & Gliksman, 1976; Gardner, Smythe, & high levels of anxiety and low self-rated proficiency
Lalonde, 1984 as cited in MacIntyre, 1999). Although creates students with low levels of linguistic self-
language anxiety is quite common among foreign confidence, which reduces motivation for study and

−56−
Akita University

communication in the second language” (p.41). environment (in which students vie for admission to
high-ranking upper secondary schools and prestigious
Research studies show that communication universities) Japanese students are, nevertheless,
apprehension is relatively common among anxious familiar with the principles of cooperative learning.
students (Phillips, 1990; Young, 1990; Howitz,
Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Price, 1991 as cited in Cooperative learning is characterized by several
Phillips, 1999). Less anxious students can suffer as common elements that include: (1) positive
well because foreign language classrooms are places interdependence, where the group has a common goal
where learners “are frequently forced to perform in a and each member’s contribution is important to the
state of ignorance and dependence in front of their group’s success; (2) face-to-face group interactions in
peers and teacher” (Oxford, 1990, p. 142). Learning to which each member is encouraged to participate, help
communicate in a foreign language involves taking others succeed, and learn from each other; (3)
risks. The risk of appearing foolish in front of one’s individual and group accountability in which members
peers and teacher, and the risk of feeling frustrated or divide the work and are individually responsible for
ashamed about the inability to communicate effectively specific tasks; (4) development of small group social
in the target language, can inhibit efforts. When a skills involving negotiating and use of group
classroom environment is not conducive to taking interaction skills; and (5) group processing, which
appropriate risks, and there are few opportunities to involves students reflecting on the group’s experience
produce the target language, it is more challenging for (Slavin, 1983b, 1990, Spencer, 1989, 1994, Johnson
students to develop competence in oral skills. The and Johnson, 1989, 1994 as cited in Crandall, 1999,
challenge for teachers is to help create conditions that p.227-229). Research studies show that students feel
allow students more opportunities to communicate in less intimidated when working with partners and in
the target language in a relaxed, supportive small groups (Berjano, 1987; Chang & Smith, 1991;
environment. A cooperative learning environment has Gunderson & Johnson, 1980; McGoarty, 1989 as cited
been shown to reduce anxiety (Kagan, 1994) and in Campbell, 1998). Cooperative learning activities
provide more opportunities for students to produce can foster active participation, a sense of community,
language (Slavin, 1983a; Harel, 1992; Chamot and emotional support and provide more opportunities for
O’Malley, 1987; Long and Porter, 1985, as cited in students to use the target language.
Crandall, 1999).
The purpose of this short-term intervention study was
COOPERATIVE LEARNING to test the hypothesis that implementing cooperative
learning opportunities in the university classroom will
Most Japanese students are familiar with cooperative reduce foreign language classroom anxiety associated
learning. “From the beginning of formal education, with communication apprehension.
Japanese children are taught to see themselves as
equals, as part of a group.” and “Japanese elementary METHODS
schools place so much emphasis on the group, and the
individual as part of the group, that teaching and Participants
learning at this level cannot be taken out of an There were 38 participants (81.6% female, n=31) from
interpersonal context” (Ministry of Education, Culture, 2 majors at Akita University. All students were
Sports, Science and Technology [MEXT], 1998, p.8). freshmen enrolled in the university’s English for
Although there is a dramatic shift in Japanese Academic Purposes (EAP) class taught by the author
secondary schools from the cooperative learning and Professor Masako Sasaki. Students in Health
environment of lower grades to a competitive learning Sciences were designated as Group A (n=12) and

−57−
Akita University

students in the School of Education were designated as Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope,
Group B (n=26) (Table 1). The number of class 1986) (Appendix A), and a short, 2-item, post-
sessions was divided between the author and Professor intervention questionnaire. The FLCAS is a
Sasaki. This intervention study was conducted in the standardized 33-item survey that assesses levels of
author’s classes during the fall semester of 2006. anxiety related to three areas: (1) communication
apprehension, (2) test anxiety, and (3) fear of negative
Table 1. Participants (n=38) evaluation. This instrument was selected because of its
high internal reliability (r = 0.93), significant
Group n Major correlation between each item and the total anxiety
A 12 (1M/11F) Health Sciences score, high test-retest reliability, and high validity. The
B 26 (6M/20F) School of Education survey was translated into Japanese. Scores for 9
statements, items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 18, 22 28, and 32,
Intervention which were negatively keyed for anxiety, were
Cooperative learning activities, designed to reduce calculated using a 5-point scale with 1 being “strongly
language anxiety and increase opportunities for agree” and 5 being “strongly disagree” (e.g., Item 2 “I
students to speak English, were implemented in each of don’t worry about making mistakes in my English
the twelve classes taught by the author. Each class met class.”). Scores for the remaining twenty-four
for ninety minutes. Students were allowed to choose statements, which were positively keyed for anxiety,
their partners and group members. were calculated using a 5-point scale with 1 being
“strongly disagree” and 5 being “strongly agree” (e.g.,
Pair work. Students engaged in pair work activities Item 1 “I never feel quite sure of myself when I am
during each class session. Pair work activities included speaking in my English class.”). Possible scores
comparing answers for homework assignments, ranged from a minimum of 33 to a maximum of 165.
quizzing each other on new vocabulary, dictating Higher scores indicated a higher the level of anxiety.
model paragraphs and essays from the text, reading and
commenting on each other’s original paragraphs and In addition to the FLCAS, students also completed a
essays, and reading aloud from the video transcript. short, post-intervention questionnaire that was created
by the author. They responded to two questions: (1)
Group work. Small-group activities were designed to “How do you feel about working with your partner?”
provide more opportunities for students to share their and (2) “How do you feel about working with your
ideas and assist one another. Group work activities group?”
included “reading circles,” where students took turns
reading aloud from the text, comparing answers to Analytical Procedures
reading comprehension exercises, making and Data was collected during the fall semester of 2006 and
presenting inferences about the readings, making and analyzed using Excel statistical software (Microsoft
presenting summaries of the readings, brainstorming Corporation) and Sigmastat statistical software (Jandel
and presenting answers to questions posed by the Scientific). Means and standard deviations were
teacher, and reading and responding to group calculated for each group to determine their pre- and
members’ original paragraphs and essays. post-intervention levels of foreign language anxiety.
Each item of the survey was analyzed to determine
Survey Instruments some of the primary sources of the students’ anxiety.
Two survey instruments were used to assess the Results were compared with information gained from
effectiveness of the intervention for reducing students’ the post-intervention questionnaire. Data were
language anxiety: the Foreign Language Classroom statistically analyzed by paired t-testing. P values <

−58−
Akita University

0.05 were considered statistically significant. The top five sources of foreign language classroom
anxiety among the students surveyed in this study are
RESULTS shown in Table 2. All items are related to
communication apprehension and are represented in
Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale statements 33, 18, 1, 24, and 13, respectively, of the
(FLCAS) Baseline Results FLCAS.

Table 2. Top five sources of anxiety (n=38)

Ranking FLCAS Statement Mean Score Standard Deviation

33. I get nervous when the English teacher asks questions which I
1 4.16 0.59
haven’t prepared in advance.

18. I feel confident when I speak in my English class. (Score

2 4.05 0.66
indicates disagreement with statement)

1. I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in my

3 3.95 0.93
English class.

24. I feel very self-conscious about speaking English in front of

4 3.90 0.92
other students.

5 13. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my English class. 3.87 0.78

Note: Scores are based on a 1 to 5 scale in which 1 represents “strongly disagree” and 5 represents “strongly agree,”
except in statement number 18 which was negatively keyed for anxiety with 1 being “strongly agree” and 5 being
“strongly disagree

Mean baseline total FLACS scores were 109.8 + 13.7 during the intervention. The results of pre- and post-
among Health Science majors and 106.8 + 18.5 among intervention FLACS assessments shown in Table 3
the School of Education majors, both of which were demonstrate that mean scores for Health Sciences
relatively high compared to published scores for majors (group A) decreased from 109.8 + 13.7 at
students in other foreign language learning situations baseline to 97.8 + 16.4 after intervention for a mean
(Nagahashi, 2007). decrease of 12 (P=0.033). The School of Education
majors (group B) mean scores decreased from 106.8 +
Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale 18.5 at baseline to 104.5 + 19.8 after intervention for a
(FLCAS) Intervention Results mean decrease of 2.3 (P=0.563). The FLCAS mean
All 38 students completed the Foreign Language score for the combined groups (group A + group B)
Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) prior to and after decreased from 107.8 + 17.0 at baseline to 102.4 + 18.8
intervention. The results give some insight into the after intervention for a mean decrease of 5.4
changes in levels of anxiety that students experienced (P=0.095).

−59−
Akita University

Table 3.Pre- and post-intervention Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) results (n=38)

Group n Major Assessment Mean Standard Deviation Range

A 12 Health Sciences Baseline 109.8 13.7 91/131
After 97.8 16.4 73/132

B 26 School of Education Baseline 106.8 18.5 79/149

After 104.5 19.8 71/145
Total 38 Both Baseline 107.8 17.0 79/149
After 102.4 18.8 71/145

The responses to FLCAS statements 33, 18, 1, 24, and shown in Table 4.
13 all decreased significantly for the total group, as

Table 4. Pre- and post-intervention comparison of top five sources of anxiety (n=38)

FLCAS Statement n Mean Std Dev P

33 38 4.158 0.594 <0.001
33-post 38 3.368 1.051

18 38 4.053 0.655 <0.001

18-post 38 3.526 0.951

1 38 3.947 0.928 0.003

1-post 38 3.421 0.948

24 38 3.895 0.924 0.016

24-post 38 3.421 0.976

13 38 3.868 0.777 <0.001

13-post 38 3.289 1.011

Although the reduction in the total (group A + group

B) FLCAS mean score did not quite reach statistical In response to the first question, “How do you feel
significance (P=0.095, a strong trend) due to about working with your partner?” the majority of the
insufficient power (not enough subjects), the responses students, (92.1%, n=35), responded positively. The top
to key statements 33, 18 1, 24, and 13 all decreased responses included: “good” (n=8); “fun” (n=6);
significantly for the two groups. Group A improved “helpful” (n=4); “interesting” (n=4); “friendly” (n=3);
significantly for each of the 5 statements (P=<0.001, and “comfortable” (n=3). One student (2.6%) reported
<0.001, <0.003, <0.016 and <0.001 for statements 33, feeling “confused” because she had not been able to
18, 1, 24, and 13). Group B improved significantly for find a partner. Two students (5.3%) did not respond to
statements 33, 18, 1, and 13 (P=0.003, 0.039, 0.016, the question.
and 0.037), but not statement 24 (P=0.142).
In response to the second question, “How do you feel
Secondary Questionnaire Results about working with your group?” the majority of the
All 38 students completed the questionnaire, which students, (84.2%, n=32) responded positively. The
provided information about the students’ feelings about adjectives that they used to describe their feelings
their partners and groups. included: “good,” “very good,” and “great” (n=7);

−60−
Akita University

“interesting” (n=6); “fun” (n=5); and “helpful” (n=2). intervention might produce a greater reduction in the
Four students (10.5%) responded with other comments levels of language anxiety that students are
including “not enjoy,” (n=1) “slightly nervous,” (n=2) experiencing.
and “feel confusion,” (n=1). Two students (5.3%) did
not respond. CONCLUSION

Overall, the students’ responses to the structured In conclusion, the results of this short-term,
cooperative activities were positive. The majority of intervention study suggest that cooperative learning
students seemed to enjoy and benefit from the strategies may help reduce students’ anxiety in the
experience of working with their partners and group foreign language classroom. Communication
members. apprehension, in particular, may be diminished by
providing opportunities for students to develop
DISCUSSION speaking skills in small, supportive groups of their
Foreign language anxiety inhibits students’ efforts, peers. While it may be difficult for some instructors to
reduces motivation, and slows acquisition progress. integrate cooperative learning activities into a
Baseline levels of foreign language classroom anxiety traditional classroom, the results of this study show
among the 38 EAP students surveyed in this study that students benefit from the availability of
were relatively high and primarily associated with opportunities to actively engage in the learning
communication apprehension. The purpose of this process. This study demonstrates that implementation
short-term, intervention study was to help alleviate of cooperative learning strategies is a technique that
communication apprehension by creating opportunities teachers can use to help reduce foreign language
for students to produce the target language in a more anxiety and provide more opportunities for students to
relaxed, supportive environment. Cooperative learning produce language. Further studies are required to
activities were selected because they were culturally determine whether this technique improves overall
appropriate and easily integrated into the established learning success, but the results of previous studies
EAP course. suggest that the reduction in learning anxiety in this
study would be associated with improved learning
Quantitative analyses of the top five key statements outcomes.
associated with communication apprehension revealed
a statistically significant decrease in scores for both REFERENCES
groups. This reduction correlated with a very positive
response to the cooperative learning activities. Changes Campbell, C. (1999). Language anxiety in men and
in the total FLACS mean scores were different in the women: Dealing with gender difference in the
two groups. Quantitative analyses of the data revealed language classroom. In D. Young (Ed.), Affect in
that the students majoring in Health Sciences foreign language and second language learning: A
experienced a greater reduction in the level of language practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom
anxiety than students majoring in Education. The atmosphere. (pp. 191-215). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
reason for the difference is unknown, but it could be
related to relatively higher baseline levels of learning Crandall, J. (1999). Cooperative language learning and
anxiety among Health Sciences majors. Despite the affective factors. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language
improvement in anxiety scores, the amount of residual learning. (pp. 226-245). Cambridge: Cambridge
learning anxiety remained high after the intervention. University Press.
The short duration of the intervention may be a
contributing factor, and it is possible that a longer Gardner, R.C., & MacIntyre, P.D. (1987). The role of

−61−
Akita University

anxiety in second language performance of language APPENDIX A

dropouts. Research Bulletin No 657. London,
Ontario: University of Western Ontario. The Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale

Horwitz, M.B., Horwitz, E. K., & Cope, J. A. (1986). １．I never feel quite sure of myself when I am
Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern speaking in my English class.
Language Journal, 70 (2), 125-132. 英語の授業で，英語で話しているときまった
く自信が無い。
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Juan ２．I don’
t worry about making mistakes in my
Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learniing. English class.
英語の授業で，間違えることを気にしない。
MacIntyre, P. (1999). Language anxiety: A review of ３．I tremble when I know that I’
m going to be called
the research for language teachers. In D. Young (Ed.), on in my English class.
Affect in foreign language and second language 英語の授業で，あてられそうだとわかると
learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety （ひとりでに）震えてしまう。
classroom atmosphere. (pp. 24-45). Boston: ４．It frightens me when I don’
t understand what the
McGraw-Hill. teacher is saying in the English class.
英語の授業で，先生の言っていることが理解
Ministry of Education, Culture Sports, Science and できないと落ち着かなく不安になる。
Technology (MEXT) (1998). The educational system ５．It wouldn’
t bother me at all to take more English
in Japan: Case study findings. Chapter 3 Individual language classes.
differences in the Japanese education system. 英語の授業を増やしても全然苦にならない。
Retrieved May 17, 2006, from ６．During English class, I find myself thinking about
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/JapanCaseStudy/chapter3d.html things that have nothing to do with the course.
英語の授業中，授業とは全く関係の無いこと
Nagahashi, T.L. (2007). A cross-sectional study of について考えていることがある。
foreign language anxiety among freshmen at Akita ７．I keep thinking that the other students are better at
University. Bulletin of The Center for Educational English than I am.
Research and Practice, 29. Akita University. 他の生徒の方が自分より英語ができるといつ
も思っている。
Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: ８．I am usually at ease during my English class.
What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & 英語の授業中はたいてい緊張せずに不安がな
Heinle. い。
９．I start to panic when I have to speak without
Phillips, E. (1999). Decreasing language anxiety: preparation in my English class.
Practical techniques for oral activities. In D. Young 英語の授業で準備無しに英語で話さなくては
(Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language ならなくなるとあわて出してしまう。
learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety 10．I worry about the consequences of failing my
classroom atmosphere. (pp. 124-143). Boston: English class.
McGraw-Hill. 英語の授業の単位を落としてしまわないかと
不安である。
11．I don’
t understand why some people get so upset
over English class.
英語の授業となると落ち着かなくなる人がい

−62−
Akita University

るが，私にはその理由が理解できない。 と，いつも思う。
12．In English class, I can get so nervous I forget 24．I feel very self-conscious about speaking English
things I know. in front of other students.
英語の授業となると，とても緊張し，わかっ 他の生徒の前で英語を話すととてもあがって
ていることも忘れてしまう。 しまう。
13．It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my 25．English class moves so quickly I worry about
English class. getting left behind.
英語の授業で自分から進んで答えるのは恥ず 英語の授業はとても早く進むので，落ちこぼ
かしく当惑してしまう。 れるのではないかと心配である。
14．I would not be nervous speaking English with 26．I feel more tense and nervous in my English class
native speakers. than in my other classes.
ネイティブ・スピーカー（英語母語話者）と 英語の授業では，他の教科の授業のときより
英語で話しても緊張しないだろう。 緊張する。
15．I get upset when I don ’
t understand what the 27．I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in
teacher is correcting. my English class.
先生が間違いを直している内容を理解できな 英語の授業で英語を話すとき緊張し混乱して
いと動揺する。 しまう。
16．Even if I am well prepared for English class, I feel 28．When I am on my way to English class, I feel very
anxious about it. sure and relaxed.
英語の授業の準備をよくしたとしても，授業 英語の授業に向かう途中，とても自信があり
のことを考えると不安になる。 リラックスしている。
17．I often feel like not going to my English class. 29．I get nervous when I don’
t understand every word
英語の授業に行きたくないとよく思う。 the English teacher says.
18．I feel confident when I speak in my English class. 英語の先生の言う単語一語一語がすべて理解
英語の授業で，自信を持って英語を話している。 できないと落ち着かない。
19．I am afraid that my English teacher is ready to 30．I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules you
correct every mistake I make. have to learn to speak English.
英語の先生は私がする間違いをすべて直そう 英語を話すために学ばなくてはならない規則
としているのではないかと思う。 の数に圧倒される。
20．I can feel my heart pounding when I am going to 31．I am afraid that other students will laugh at me
be called on in my English class. when I speak English.
英語の授業であてられそうになると，心臓が 英語を話すと他の生徒が自分のことを笑うの
どきどきするのがわかる。 ではないかと思う。
21．The more I study for an English test, the more 32．I would probably feel comfortable around native
confused I get. speakers of English
英語のテスト勉強をすればするほど，混乱し 英語のネイティブ・スピーカー（英語母語話
わからなくなってしまう。 者）のそばにいても，おそらく苦痛を感じな
22．I don’
t feel pressure to prepare very well for my いだろう。
English class. 33．I get nervous when the English teacher asks
英語の授業のための準備を十分にしなくては questions which I haven’
t prepared in advance.
というプレッシャーは感じない。 事前に準備していなかった質問を英語の先生
23．I always feel that the other students speak the から受けると，緊張する。
English language better than I do.
他の生徒の方が自分より英語をうまく話せる

−63−
Akita University

秋 田 大 学
教養基礎教育研究年報
61 − 67 （2007）

Evaluating the EAP Program of Akita University–the Second

Round Study

教養基礎科目『大学英語Ⅰ』の効果検証
渡部 良典

Yoshinori WATANABE

抄  録
教養基礎科目『大学英語I』および『大学英語２』の効果検証結果の一部を報告する。当科目は2004年
度まで行われていた『英語リスニング』、『英語ライティング』を改変させ、2005年度から実施された全
学部１年生必修の科目である。2005年４月学年当初に行ったクラス編成テスト、および2006年２月学年
末に行った学年末テストの結果をもとに初年度の効果を検証した。その結果読解能力、聴解能力には有
意に向上したが、語彙・文法に関しては変化が見られなかった。さらに2006年度のテスト結果について
は次年度からの結果を比較検証するための基礎データとして使用されるよう、基本統計を報告した。効
果をさらにきめ細かく検証するために授業観察、面接調査などを行うことが望まれる。

Introduction observations and experiences of the teaching staff, who

had been involved in the English teaching program for
The purpose of the EAP program of Akita a number of years. A brief description of the rationale
University is to help students to acquire academic skills for the curricular innovation is in order below.
as well as English skills that they need to function in In 1997 major curricular changes were made
various courses of the university in the subsequent involving all the three departments of the university.
years. The present paper reports on part of the The English program was also innovated in various
evaluation study of the program by referring to the ways. The most important changes were as follows: 1)
scores of the tests that were carried out at the beginning a common textbook should be used by all teachers, 2)
and the end of the 2005 academic year. Besides the the same test should be administered to all the twenty-
evaluation of the initial year of the program, the results one classes, each of which was taught by different
of the placement test of the second year that started in teachers, 3) a common set of criteria should be used
the April of 2006 are also reported. when giving a final grade, and 4) a listening course be
offered during the first term, and a writing course be
The EAP Program of Akita University offered during the second term, on the assumption that
the input practice would lead up to a production
The EAP (English for Academic Purposes) practice.
Program of Akita University was implemented in 2006, The effectiveness of the program was observed
as a result of long-term informal and formal particularly in the following areas.

−64−
Akita University

1）Cooperation among the staff was promoted during emphasis of the curriculum was placed on the
the process of selecting a common textbook. acquisition of language skills. However, recent
2）Cooperation among the staff was enhanced also research indicates that language learning is enhanced
during the process of constructing a common when it is learned with some specific contents. This
course-wide test by a group of a committee, which also appeals to our common sense that we can best
subsequently is going through an inspection among learn a language to use it for some purposes.
the whole staff. To improve the 1997 program, a new curriculum
3）By employing a common textbook, better was proposed in 2004 and implemented in the 2005
communication was achieved among the staff. academic year. The course is based on the following
Each individual teacher had a chance to talk to an principles. First, the materials should be the oncs which
other staff member whenever he or she had a will help students acquire knowledge of specific
problem in his or her teaching, when he or she had academic topics in English. Second, English should be
identified problems with the textbook. taught in combination with some academic skills such
4）The students’improvement in English ability was as note-taking, critical thinking, data gathering,
measured by a common sent of standars, so it synthesizing data, interviewing, presentation, writing a
become possible to assess the effectiveness of the short report, and so forth. Third, all the four skills (i.e.,
program (see Watanabe, 2004). reading, listening, writing, and speaking) should be
5）The final course grade was assigned on the basis of taught simultaneously. Fourth, each student should be
a common set of criteria, so a sense of unfairness placed in a course where he or she may receive the
had greatly been decreased among the students. most appropriate instruction that suits his or her level
of English proficiency.
Despite the effectiveness of the program,
however, it gradually became apparent that the Results of Round 1 Evaluation Study
program was not working as it had been expected to be
in various aspects. First, it was noticed that for the In this section, the effectiveness of the program is
students to transfer the knowledge and skills that they reported of the academic year 2005 based on the results
should have acquired in the first term to those which of the pre- and post-course tests. The placement tests
they would acquire in the second term, the topic and used were the A.C.E. test, a proficiency test developed
skills need to be connected in some way or other by an NPO association called ELPA (English language
between the two terms. In the absence of such a Proficiency Assessment). Three different versions of
connection between the two sets, two courses were the test were administered, but the degree of
taught as if they were independent courses, contrary to difficulties had been equated by the latent trait
the original intention. The second major reason for the measurement or the Item Response Theory (e.g.,
dissatisfaction of the course is that students were Henning, 1987).
remarkably different in the levels of English Notice that all the three tests were of the same
proficiency. A number of students are highly proficient type, but scoring procedures were different for the
in English, whereas other students are very low, so 2005 tests and the 2006 test for various practical
teachers would often complain that many students, reasons. Thus, it is not possible to compare the changes
particularly good students, suffer. And yet, even low in test scores over the two years, although it is hoped
students have to take the course, so the course should that as the test will be administered in the future, the
be so constructed that it may be rewarding to them in a present data will serve as a baseline data against which
way in which it helps them to be prepared to the future test scores will be plotted. For the sake of
accomplish major courses that they will take during the clarity, the results will be presented and discussed
subsequent years at university. Thirdly, the greatest separately for the 2005 and 2006 tests. Meanwhile, the

−65−
Akita University

2005 data will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of Listening, and in Reading. The results indicate that the
the course by comparing the two sets of scores that program was effective in helping students improve in
were obtained at the beqqininq of the caurse in April these areas. However, the scores of the Vocabulary
2005 and at the ehd of the course in February 2006. and Grammar component slightly decreased, although
difference was not statistically significant. This means
Basic statistics of the 2005-2006 first year students that the program did not sncceed in helping students to
improve in vocabulary and grammar. In order to
The 2005-2006 test results are presented and examine the result in somewhat greater detail, it may
discussed in comparative forms. Table 1 shows that be useful to break down the scores by departments. The
mean scores significantly increased in the total, in results are provided in Table 2.

Table 1 : Basic Statistics for the 2005−2006 EAP Course Evaluation

Mean SD Min Max Gain t df
Listening 1 9.63 2.22 0 14
Listening 2 10.17 2.55 0 14 0.54 5.30 *** 763
Vocabulary & Grammar 1 19.12 4.72 1 30
Vocabulary & Grammar 2 19.09 4.85 0 30 0.03 0.40 763
Reading 1 11.65 2.81 0 16
Reading 2 12.42 2.97 0 16 0.77 7.33*** 763
Total 1 40.40 8.03 10 59
Total 2 41.68 8.51 3 60 1.28 5.19*** 772
Notes. n = 757. Max = Maximum score. Min = Minimum score. 1 = The first round test that was administered on the first
day of the course in April, 2005. 2 = The second round test that was carried out on the last day of the course in February,
2006. *** = p < .001 (two-tailed).

The scores were significantly different between Education & Human Studies and the Faculty of
three departments (Table 2), the scores of School of Engineering and Natural Resources followed in this
Medicine being on the top, and the Faculty of order.

Table 2 : Breakdown of Descriptive Statistics of the 2005− 2006 EAP course by Departments
Education and Human School of Medicine Engineering and Natural
Studies Resource Sciences
Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max F
Listening
2 10.54 2.07 4 14 11.21 2.75 0 14 9.44 2.48 0 14 35.14
1 9.95 2.13 0 14 10.71 2.19 4 14 8.90 2.02 2 14 48.85
Vocabulary and Grammar
2 20.12 3.71 9 28 22.72 4.24 9 30 16.67 4.35 0 28 138.79
1 19.95 3.79 10 30 22.57 4.39 1 30 16.90 4.13 6 28 122.52
Reading
2 13.01 2.46 3 16 13.92 2.55 5 16 11.32 3.01 0 16 61.11
1 11.75 2.47 4 16 13.55 2.37 4 16 10.62 2.68 0 16 81.60
Notes. 1. = The score of the test that was administered in April 2005. 2 = The score of the test that was administered in
February 2006. Max = Maximum score. Min = Minimum score. n of Education and Human Studies = 207. n of School of
Medicine = 185. n of Engineering and Natural Resource Sciences = 365. df = 756. p < .001.

It may be worth examining if the score increases it could be concluded that the program was not
were significant in each division. Because similar successful in the area of vocabulary and grammar.
tendencies were observed in all the three departments,

−66−
Akita University

Table 3: Paired Samples Statistics

Gain SD t df
Education and Human Studies
Listening 0.59 2.28 3.72*** 206
Vocabulary and grammar 0.16 3.28 0.72 206
Reading 1.26 2.39 7.56*** 206
Total 2.01 4.98 5.80*** 206
Engineering and Natural Resources
Listening 0.50 3.00 2.28** 184
Vocabulary and grammar 0.15 3.59 0.57 184
Reading 0.37 2.33 2.18** 184
Total 1.03 6.15 2.27** 184
School of Medicine
Listening 0.50 3.00 0.94 2.28
Vocabulary and grammar 0.15 3.59 0.67 0.57
Reading 0.37 2.33 0.71 2.18
Total 1.03 6.15 1.92 2.27
Note. * = p < .05. ** = p < .01. *** = p < .001. (two-tailed).

The Analysis of the 2006 April Test Scores descriptive. Note that as stated at the beginning of this
paper, the scores were marked by the computer, and
Because the data of the 2006 test were limited to the thus this time it was possible obtain reliability as well
one that was gained from its first administration in the as other basic statistics (Table 4).
April of 2006, the presentation of the data is inevitably

Table 4 : Descriptive Statistics for the 2006−2007 EAP Course Evaluation

Minimum Maximum Mean SD Reliability (α)
Listening 22 100 60.16 14.17 0.557
Vocabulary 10 50 33.39 8.04 0.609
Grammar 5 50 29.48 8.06 0.753
Reading 10 100 55.09 15.80 0.704
Total 93 300 178.13 38.00 0.876
Note. n = 897.

Basic statistics are provided by breaking down three departrnents. Post Hoc test (the Schefee test)
them by departments in Table 5, so the test scores of further indicates that the scores were higher in School
the future students may be compared with the present of Medicine, Faculty of Education and Human Studies,
data. Incidentally, the test scores again indicate that the and Faculty of Engineering and Natural Resource
proficiency levels were significantly different betweer Sciences in this order.

Table 5 : Basic statistics of the 2006 Placement Test with ANOVA results
Education and Human School of Medicine Engineering and Natural
Studies Resource Sciences
Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max F
Listening 62.33 14.13 29 100 69.61 14.71 40 100 55.12 11.40 22 100 93.07
Vocabulary 34.02 6.98 21 50 41.54 6.52 26 50 29.63 6.26 10 50 237.62
Grammar 30.00 6.40 15 50 37.88 7.98 5 50 25.66 5.68 11 45 255.19
Reading 57.24 12.56 21 100 70.73 16.32 34 100 47.42 11.01 10 79 239.45
Total 183.58 29.64 120 274 219.76 35.56 146 300 157.82 25.03 93 239 330.32
Notes. n of total = 897. n of Education and Human Studies = 224. n of School of Medicine = 201. n of Engineering and
Natural Resource Sciences = 472. p < .001.

−67−
Akita University

It may be also worth noting here that in 2006 one so it may show how the scores of the advanced groups
advanced course was prepared for the groups of of students were different from those of regular classes.
students from Faculty of Education and Human Studies Note that a total of twenty-one classes are taught by
and from School of Medicine (Nursing), and two different teachers, though there were cases where one
advanced courses were prepared for the students of teacher was teaching two classes.
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Resource Sciences. The scores of the advanced groups of students
The basic statistics are presented in Tables 6, 7, and8, were obviously higher than those of the other groups of

Table 6 : Basic Statistics for All Classes (Total)

Total (n = 897) Listening Vocabulary Grammar Reading Total
Mean 60.16 33.39 29.48 55.09 178.13
SD 14.17 8.04 8.06 15.80 38.00
Median 59.00 34.00 29.00 53.00 172.00
Grouped Median 58.45 32.70 28.42 52.85 172.26
Minimum 22.00 10.00 5.00 10.00 93.00
Maximum 100.00 50.00 50.00 100.00 300.00
Range 78.00 40.00 45.00 90.00 207.00
Kurtosis 0.46 -0.41 0.22 0.69 0.33

Table 7 : Basic Statistics for All EAP Classes (Faculty of Education and Human Studies and School of Medicine)
Education and Human Studies (Regular) Medicine (Nursing) Advanced Medicine
Class ID A B C D E F G J H I
n 35 40 37 47 37 47 48 40 48 46
Listening Mean 51.89 53.10 53.62 65.51 63.35 69.00 63.29 81.08 84.10 66.20
SD 8.59 9.68 6.95 12.66 9.63 13.60 9.75 11.59 12.48 9.56
Median 54.00 54.00 54.00 64.00 64.00 70.00 64.00 78.00 89.00 64.00
Min 29.00 29.00 40.00 35.00 50.00 45.00 45.00 59.00 54.00 40.00
Max 70.00 78.00 70.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 89.00 100.00 100.00 89.00
Range 41.00 49.00 30.00 65.00 50.00 55.00 44.00 41.00 46.00 49.00
Kurtosis 0.73 0.83 0.82 0.60 4.71 -0.33 -0.25 -0.83 -0.57 0.24
Vocab. Mean 30.09 28.63 31.19 36.43 37.43 36.04 37.94 42.83 46.96 44.30
SD 4.40 4.42 5.23 6.22 5.80 5.31 5.70 5.33 3.98 4.74
Median 31.00 28.00 31.00 37.00 37.00 37.00 37.00 45.00 50.00 45.00
Min 21.00 21.00 21.00 24.00 26.00 24.00 26.00 31.00 37.00 28.00
Max 40.00 37.00 45.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Range 19.00 16.00 24.00 26.00 24.00 26.00 24.00 19.00 13.00 22.00
Kurtosis -0.02 -0.60 0.18 -0.08 0.25 0.96 0.21 -0.67 0.07 1.74
Grammar Mean 25.86 25.75 26.76 32.47 31.30 32.53 34.27 39.35 45.56 38.91
SD 3.99 4.42 4.63 5.55 5.68 4.59 5.61 6.07 4.55 7.91
Median 27.00 25.00 27.00 31.00 31.00 31.00 34.00 40.00 45.00 38.00
Min 15.00 18.00 15.00 18.00 18.00 23.00 25.00 25.00 34.00 5.00
Max 34.00 36.00 34.00 50.00 45.00 45.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Range 19.00 18.00 19.00 32.00 27.00 22.00 25.00 25.00 16.00 45.00
Kurtosis 0.61 -0.70 0.28 1.93 0.61 0.17 0.03 -0.56 -0.04 6.19
Reading Mean 51.83 46.85 48.08 61.43 61.27 59.23 62.94 79.88 88.90 68.46
SD 8.21 8.44 8.82 8.56 8.40 11.41 6.78 11.24 10.89 12.09
Median 53.00 46.00 50.00 61.00 61.00 61.00 61.00 79.00 90.00 72.00
Min 28.00 28.00 21.00 42.00 46.00 34.00 53.00 61.00 66.00 34.00
Max 66.00 61.00 66.00 79.00 79.00 90.00 79.00 100.00 100.00 90.00
Range 38.00 33.00 45.00 37.00 33.00 56.00 26.00 39.00 34.00 56.00
Kurtosis 0.73 -0.58 1.23 -0.17 -0.53 1.05 0.18 -0.93 -0.48 0.43
Total Mean 159.66 154.33 159.65 195.83 193.35 196.81 198.44 243.13 265.52 217.87
SD 11.80 12.32 12.57 14.12 13.29 14.35 12.77 14.22 17.05 20.13
Median 161.00 157.00 161.00 194.00 192.00 194.00 198.00 239.50 259.50 222.00
Min 124.00 120.00 120.00 175.00 175.00 174.00 174.00 226.00 244.00 160.00
Max 174.00 172.00 174.00 224.00 221.00 225.00 226.00 290.00 300.00 243.00
Range 50.00 52.00 54.00 49.00 46.00 51.00 52.00 64.00 56.00 83.00
Kurtosis 1.53 0.60 0.98 -0.79 -0.85 -1.07 -0.63 2.82 -0.97 0.82

−68−
Akita University

Table 8 : Basic Statistics for All EAP Classes− continued (Faculty of Engineering and Natural Resource Sciences)
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Resource Sciences Advanced
Class ID K L M N O P Q R S T U
n 38 40 40 41 45 48 47 47 45 38 43
Listening Mean 46.42 45.65 46.13 45.49 55.93 57.83 57.79 56.74 55.47 67.03 69.67
SD 9.43 7.92 8.59 8.23 7.04 7.48 9.65 7.60 5.52 10.22 9.83
Median 45.00 45.00 50.00 45.00 54.00 59.00 59.00 59.00 54.00 67.00 70.00
Min 29.00 29.00 22.00 29.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 50.00
Max 70.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 70.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 64.00 89.00 100.00
Range 41.00 35.00 42.00 35.00 30.00 38.00 38.00 38.00 24.00 49.00 50.00
Kurtosis 0.09 0.04 0.69 -0.22 0.21 0.30 -0.59 0.25 0.23 0.99 1.45
Vocab. Mean 25.95 26.30 25.20 25.00 31.20 30.38 29.06 29.47 30.53 36.71 35.60
SD 4.72 4.43 4.97 5.34 5.93 5.99 5.05 4.73 4.34 5.42 5.28
Median 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 31.00 29.50 28.00 28.00 31.00 37.00 37.00
Min 16.00 19.00 10.00 13.00 19.00 19.00 16.00 19.00 19.00 26.00 21.00
Max 34.00 34.00 37.00 34.00 45.00 45.00 37.00 40.00 40.00 50.00 50.00
Range 18.00 15.00 27.00 21.00 26.00 26.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 24.00 29.00
Kurtosis -0.42 -1.02 1.91 -0.67 -0.37 0.52 0.48 -0.01 1.12 0.16 1.45
Grammar Mean 21.37 20.95 21.88 22.05 26.44 27.46 25.91 25.68 26.91 32.84 29.98
SD 5.18 4.14 3.99 4.32 4.37 4.51 4.42 3.96 4.75 5.77 4.34
Median 23.00 21.50 20.00 23.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 25.00 27.00 32.50 29.00
Min 11.00 11.00 15.00 11.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 23.00 23.00
Max 34.00 27.00 31.00 29.00 34.00 40.00 36.00 34.00 36.00 45.00 40.00
Range 23.00 16.00 16.00 18.00 16.00 22.00 18.00 16.00 18.00 22.00 17.00
Kurtosis 0.00 -0.14 0.04 -0.25 -0.86 1.44 -0.44 -0.40 -0.54 -0.23 -0.33
Reading Mean 38.18 36.88 38.05 39.80 50.40 47.92 48.19 49.47 50.31 61.63 58.98
SD 7.69 9.59 8.00 9.58 6.32 7.65 7.38 6.87 7.08 9.22 7.91
Median 38.00 38.00 38.00 42.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 61.00 57.00
Min 21.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 34.00 34.00 28.00 34.00 38.00 46.00 46.00
Max 50.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 66.00 66.00 61.00 61.00 66.00 79.00 79.00
Range 29.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 32.00 32.00 33.00 27.00 28.00 33.00 33.00
Kurtosis 0.15 1.60 2.99 0.88 0.75 -0.30 0.19 -0.37 -0.33 -0.70 0.30
Total Mean 131.92 129.78 131.25 132.34 163.98 163.58 160.96 161.36 163.22 198.21 194.23
SD 12.54 14.49 11.84 13.36 7.99 9.27 8.83 8.89 9.02 14.78 12.22
Median 135.50 133.00 135.00 137.00 163.00 164.00 158.00 162.00 162.00 195.50 191.00
Min 93.00 96.00 101.00 98.00 149.00 148.00 148.00 148.00 148.00 180.00 180.00
Max 147.00 147.00 145.00 146.00 178.00 179.00 178.00 179.00 178.00 239.00 229.00
Range 54.00 51.00 44.00 48.00 29.00 31.00 30.00 31.00 30.00 59.00 49.00
Kurtosis 2.32 -0.48 0.04 0.07 -0.87 -1.16 -1.14 -1.26 -1.19 1.85 0.56

students. Incidentally, the scores of H and I Classes an even greater extent in advanced classes than in
(School of Medicine) were even higher. The data regular classes.
confirmed the widespread perception shared by the
non-English teaching staff on campus that the students However, this result is somewhat ironical, because
of School of Medicine are relatively proficient in the advanced classes were prepared so they might help
English. students who are proficient in English improve their
One other thing that should be noticed is that the English ability even more by creating a relatively
range or the degree of difference between the homogeneous group of students. However, this turned
maximum and the minimum scores tended to be higher out to be too idealistic a goal to achieve. There is not
in the advanced classes. This means that there was a any quick solution to this problem, but it is ore thing
large difference between the students of the lowest that the teaching staff needs to keep in mind when
scores and those with the highest scores in the class, dividing students into classes of different proficiency
although standard deviations, another indicator of levels. In an attempt to place students into appropriate
dispersion, did not so greatly differ. This indicates in classes, it is important to take into account other factors
turn that the teachers of the advanced groups need to than test scores, such as overseas experiences, results
take account of individual differences of the students to of entrance ex aminations, and so forth, with the

−69−
Akita University

understanding that the scores of one-shot examination These skills could not be tested, so some sort of
are not sufficient to place students into appropriate measurement device needs to be developed which
levels. It is also advisable that students be given a provides information that will be useful for assessing
chance to move to a more appropriate class once it is these skills.
found that they have been placed in an inappropriate Despite several limitations, however, the present
class. study made several important findings. Amongst a
variety of those, the most important is that the program
Conclusion seems to have been successful in helping students
improve English ability especially in listening and
This paper presented and discussed the results of reading. However, it should also be noted that the
analyzing the scores of the three tests that were carriculum seems to have been not as successful as it
administered during the period of 2005 and 2006 might have been expected in the area of vocabulary
academic years. The major purpose of the tests was to and grammar. This may be because that the program
obtain the information, on the basis of which to place does not involve independent components that are
students into appropriate levels of classes for the aimed at these skills. It may be necessary then to teach
English for Academic Purposes Program at Akita vocabulary and grammar explicitly as separate
University. However, the data were also used to activities in the classroom.
evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Finally, it should be noticed that test scores reveal
To gain more useful results, it may be necessary only a limited aspect of the effectiveness of the
to do the following in the future more fruitful research. program. In order to examine all the details of the
First, it is important to gather data at the beginning and influence of the program on the students, it is advisable
of the end of the course by using equivalent tests. to incorporate observations, interviews, and other
Unless it is possible to do so, or in addition to this, it is qualitative and or ethnographic approaches.
desirable to continue to gather data by administering
equivalent tests over the years. By so doing, it becomes References
possible to plot changes in the structure and content of Henning, G. (1987). Guide to Language Testing.
the English ability of the students who enter Akita Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
University each year. Third, the purpose of the EAP Watanabe, Y. (2004). Does English Ability Really
program involves improving not only English skills per Matter? - Validating the Final Grades of
se, but also general academic skills, such as University EFL Courses. 『秋田大学教養基礎
presentation, note-taking, critical reading, and so forth. 教育研究年報』、第６号, pp. 19-28.

−70−