The Interactive English Forum

An introduction

History of the tournament

• Established in 1998 by Kazuo Watanabe.

• First contest in 1999.

• Focus on communicative language use.

• Break from the traditional speech contest format (active since 1982).

Contest comparison

Conversation between 3 or 4 people Monologic

Judged on fluency Judged on accuracy

Focus on communicative skills Focus on memorisation

Interactive English Forum

Traditional Speech Contest

Benefits of interactionSwain and Lapkin’s (1995) Output HypothesisLearner output is equally as important as any input

they receive.

Long’s (1996) Interaction HypothesisComprehensible input is derived from modified

interactions with interlocutors.

Schmidt’s (2001) Noticing HypothesisSLA is driven by what learners notice in

target language input.

Tournament structure

City City City City City City City City

CityCity City City City City City City

City City

City City

Mito Southern Ibaraki Rokko Western

IbarakiNorthern

Ibaraki

Prefectural Final

School A

School B

School C

School D

Quarter final 1

1 2 3 4

Quarter final 2

5 6 7 8

Quarter final 3

9 10 11 12

Quarter final 4

13 14 15 16

Semi final 1

1 3614

Semi final 2

8 910 15

Final61 15 9

Winners

6 9

Tournament simulation

• Round topic is chosen.

• Students each give a 30 second self-introduction.

• Students converse in the main round for 5:00.

• After the main conversation, judges’ scores are collated.

• The two highest rated students proceed to the next round.

Round structure

Additional considerations

Students are separated into grade

levels.

Judging the contest

• Local ALTs judge the contest based on the following:

• Ability to express oneself.

• Attitude and manner.

• Naturalness of communication.

The Interactive English Forum

Analysis and critique

Research Aims

Research Aims

• Discover what kind of student enters the competition.

• Collect participant and teacher perspectives.

• Recognize areas where the competition could be improved.

Participants12 JHS second grade students.

From Moriya, Ibaraki.

Represents all participants from 3 of 4 schools.

Six teachers involved with the competition.

Five ALT judges.One homeroom teacher.

Student questionnaire13 closed questions based on Yashima’s (2002) motivational

tendencies questionnaire to measure:

Extrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivation

Interest in international vocation or activities

International friendship orientation

Student questionnaireAdditionally, the questionnaire featured:

Questions to discover more about their ethnic

background.

Questions to gain their perspectives of the

competition.

Teacher questionnaireComprised of 11 open-ended questions to discover teacher

perspectives on various topics such as:

The motivational characteristics of

participants.

Teachers’ roles in training the participants.

The judging criteria.Positive and negative

elements of the competition.

ResultsParticipant perspectives

Student motivational characteristics

0

1.25

2.5

3.75

5

Extrinsic Intrinsic International Friends International vocation

Student motivational characteristicsReasons for entering the tournament

I wanted to enterI wanted to enterI wanted to enter

I wanted to enterI wanted to enter

I wanted to enterI wanted to enter

My teacher nominated meMy teacher

nominated meMy teacher

nominated me

My parents wanted me to enter

My parents wanted me to enter

My friends wanted me to enter

To improve my English

I wanted to enter

Student exposure to English

5 years

1 year

Holiday

Time spent overseas

Holiday

HolidayHoliday

HolidayHoliday

NoneNoneNone None

Student exposure to English

English Conversation School

Cram School

Extracurricular study habits

With friends

English Conversation School

English Conversation SchoolEnglish Conversation SchoolEnglish Conversation

School

Over the Internet (Skype)

With family members

Student perceptions of the contest

It was a good opportunity to interact with students from

other schools.

The best thing was being able to communicate with

the native teachers.

It really helped with my English studies.

I enjoyed conversing in English.

Speaking in English to students from other schools has made me want to

continue studying English.

It was a good opportunity to interact with students from

other schools.

It was a good opportunity to interact with students from

other schools.The best thing was being able to communicate with

the native teachers.

ResultsTeacher perspectives

Data obtained via anonymous online questionnaire sent to Jr.

High English staff.

Contained 11 open ended questions on four themes.

Five responses from native English speaker ALTs and one from a non-native Japanese

English teacher.

Participant selection

•What influenced the teachers’ decision to select a participant? • Was the students’ performance a measure of teacher’s skill?

•More a measure of student skill and motivation than teaching ability.•Teachers chose unenthusiastic, yet skilled students due to their competitive ego.

Factors for selection:• Volunteers• Better study habits• Greater ability to express themselves in English• Strong social skills

Teacher’s Perspectives

Student background

•Did the student’s ethnolinguistic background affect the teachers selection decision?

English bilingual students were present at both observed locations.

• A lot of pressure to put such students forward.•No guarantee that a student's English will be any better.

•Mixed-descent students had an uphill battle for acceptance. •Some declined offers to participate. •Participation may emphasize the fact they are different.•Some teachers force their non-Japanese students to participate due to their competitive ego.

•Didn’t feel bilinguals would benefit from the contest.

Teacher’s Perspectives

Positive Aspects

What were the best aspects of the competition from a language education point of view?

•Raised confidence.•Increased enthusiasm towards English study.•Instilled a sense of importance regarding communicative language skills.

•Real chance for the students to use English.•Saw progression and enthusiasm for English.•Promotes English as a living means of communication, not just another school subject like math or history.

Teacher’s Perspectives

Suggested improvements

What aspects of the competition did the teachers feel were in need of improvement?

In general problems included:•Judging system•Participation criteria•Unnatural conversation circumstances

Harsher penalties for:•Monopolizing the conversation•Shutting other students out by not letting them participate•Lack of participation

More leniency towards:• Talking time limitations, in order to prevent unnatural conversation volleying

Teacher’s Perspectives

Discussion

DiscussionParticipant profile

•More attractive to intrinsically motivated students who value the learning experience over the competitive nature of the event.

•Less attractive to extrinsically motivated students who:✴Avoid tasks which seem too difficult✴Concerned with receiving positive judgment ✴Desire to appear intelligent ✴Desire to outperform others

DiscussionParticipant background

Students who have lived abroad for more than one year may not participate.

Rules state nothing regarding:• Amount of extra-curricular English instruction• English bilingual children

Diverse participants disproportionately represented?

Clear resentment towards diverse participants.

There were a lot of halfs and gaijin… There were just so many gaijin faces there, I thought I was in the wrong place! Of course they dominated all the awards.

The Interactive English Forum is for native speakers of Japanese and as such feel that it is inappropriate to have returnee students or students who use English everyday to participate.

DiscussionPositive aspects

Highlights the importance of communicative competence in L2 learning.

The pre-competition training increases opportunities to practice their communicative language skills.

Encourages less anxiety towards using English with native speakers.

Brings attention to foreign language education in the community.

DiscussionSuggested improvements

•Stress of speaking and being judged in front of an audience of peers and strangers may raise affective filter.•Discourages student participation due to fear of failure or intimidation.

•Use task-based activities, with closed goals and pre-determined outcomes.•Promote intragroup cooperation rather than individual competition.

Conversation environmentAnother option?

DiscussionSuggested improvements

Take greater care in student selection:• Priority for students who express interest in competing. • Consider diverse students’ sensitivities. Improve the rule set in order to

promote equality and fair competition:•Create tiers separated by English skill or experience level.•Create a special version of the competition for returnees/bilinguals.

Thanks for listening

Any questions or comments?