The slides from my presentation yesterday at the ETJ Tokyo EXPO. My goals with the presentation were to make more people aware of this contest so that it may be emulated elsewhere in Japan. I also wanted to discuss what possible improvements could be made to the tournament.

1. The Interactive
English Forum
An introduction

2. History of the tournament
• Established in 1998 by Kazuo
Watanabe.
• First contest in 1999.
• Focus on communicative language use.
• Break from the (active since 1982).
contest format
traditional speech

3. Contest comparison
Interactive English Traditional Speech
Forum Contest
Conversation between 3
Monologic
or 4 people
Judged on fluency Judged on accuracy
Focus on communicative
Focus on memorisation
skills

4. Benefits of interaction
Swain and Lapkin’s (1995) Output Hypothesis
Learner output is equally as important as any input
they receive.
Long’s (1996) Interaction Hypothesis
Comprehensible input is derived from modified
interactions with interlocutors.
Schmidt’s (2001) Noticing Hypothesis
SLA is driven by what learners notice in
target language input.

5. Tournament structure
Prefectural
Final
Southern Western Northern
Mito Ibaraki Rokko Ibaraki Ibaraki
City City City City City City City City City City
City City City City City City City City City City

6. Tournament simulation
Winners
School A
6 9
School B
School C
School D Final
1 6 15 9
Semi final 1 Semi final 2
1 14 6 3 10 8 9 15
Quarter final 1 Quarter final 2 Quarter final 3 Quarter final 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

7. Round structure
• 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.

8. Additional considerations
Students are
separated into grade
levels.

9. Judging the contest
• Local ALTs judge the contest based on the
following:
• Ability to express oneself.
• Attitude and manner.
• Naturalness of communication.

15. The Interactive
English Forum
Analysis and critique

16. Research Aims

17. Research Aims
• Discover what kind of student enters the
competition.
• Collect participant and teacher perspectives.
• Recognize areas where the competition could be
improved.

18. Participants
12 JHS second grade students.
From Moriya, Ibaraki.
Represents all participants from 3 of 4
schools.
Six teachers involved with the competition.
One homeroom teacher.
Five ALT judges.

19. Student questionnaire
13 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

20. Student questionnaire
Additionally, the questionnaire featured:
Questions to discover
more about their ethnic
background.
Questions to gain their
perspectives of the
competition.

21. Teacher questionnaire
Comprised of 11 open-ended questions to discover teacher
perspectives on various topics such as:
The motivational Teachers’ roles in
characteristics of training the
participants. participants.
Positive and negative
The judging criteria. elements of the
competition.

22. Results
Participant perspectives

23. Student motivational characteristics
5
3.75
2.5
1.25
0
Extrinsic Intrinsic International Friends International vocation

24. Student motivational characteristics
Reasons for entering the tournament
My teacher
I wanted to Ienter enter enter
I wanted to enter to
wanted
I wanted toto enter
I wanted to enter teacher teacher
My
Mynominated me
I wanted
I wanted to enter nominated me
I wanted to enter nominated me
My parents wanted
My parents wanted
me to enter
me to enter
My friends wanted To improve my
me to enter English

25. Student exposure to English
Time spent overseas
Holiday
Holiday
5 years Holiday Holiday
Holiday
Holiday
1 year
None
None
None None

26. Student exposure to English
Extracurricular study habits
English Conversation
English Conversation
EnglishSchool
English School
Conversation
Conversation Cram School
EnglishSchool
Conversation
School
School
Over the Internet
(Skype)
With friends
With family
members

27. Student perceptions of the contest
It was a good opportunity to to
It was a good opportunity
It was a good opportunity to
interact with students from The best thing was being
interact with students from The bestcommunicate with
interact with students from
other schools. able to thing was being
other schools. able to communicate with
other schools. the native teachers.
the native teachers.
I enjoyed conversing
in English.
It really helped with my
English studies. Speaking in English to students from
other schools has made me want to
continue studying English.

28. Results
Teacher perspectives

29. 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.

30. Teacher’s Perspectives
Participant selection
•What influenced the teachers’
decision to select a participant?
• Was the students’ performance a
measure of teacher’s skill?
Factors for selection:
•More a measure of student
skill and motivation than
• Volunteers teaching ability.
• Better study habits
• Greater ability to express •Teachers chose
themselves in English unenthusiastic, yet skilled
students due to their
• Strong social skills competitive ego.

31. Teacher’s Perspectives
Student background
•Did the student’s English bilingual students were
ethnolinguistic background affect present at both observed
the teachers selection decision? locations.
•Mixed-descent students had an
• A lot of pressure to put such uphill battle for acceptance.
students forward. •Some declined offers to
•No guarantee that a student's participate.
English will be any better. •Participation may emphasize
the fact they are different.
•Didn’t feel bilinguals would •Some teachers force their
benefit from the contest. non-Japanese students to
participate due to their
competitive ego.

32. Teacher’s Perspectives
Positive Aspects
What were the best aspects of
the competition from a language
education point of view?
•Real chance for the students to
•Raised confidence. use English.
•Increased enthusiasm towards •Saw progression and
English study. enthusiasm for English.
•Instilled a sense of importance •Promotes English as a living
regarding communicative means of communication, not
language skills. just another school subject like
math or history.

33. Teacher’s Perspectives
Suggested improvements
What aspects of the competition
did the teachers feel were in
need of improvement?
In general problems included: Harsher penalties for:
•Judging system •Monopolizing the conversation
•Participation criteria •Shutting other students out by
•Unnatural conversation not letting them participate
circumstances •Lack of participation
More leniency towards:
• Talking time limitations, in order to
prevent unnatural conversation volleying

34. Discussion

35. Discussion
Participant 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

36. Discussion
Participant background
Students who have lived abroad
There were a lot of halfs and
for more than one year may not gaijin… There were just so many
participate. gaijin faces there, I thought I was
in the wrong place! Of course
Rules state nothing regarding: they dominated all the awards.
• Amount of extra-curricular
English instruction
• English bilingual children The Interactive English Forum is
for native speakers of Japanese
Diverse participants and as such feel that it is
disproportionately represented? inappropriate to have returnee
students or students who use
Clear resentment towards English everyday to participate.
diverse participants.

37. Discussion
Positive aspects
Highlights the importance of
communicative competence in
L2 learning.
Encourages less anxiety
towards using English with
native speakers.
The pre-competition training
increases opportunities to
practice their communicative
language skills.
Brings attention to foreign
language education in the
community.

38. Discussion
Suggested improvements
Conversation environment
Another option?
•Stress of speaking and being •Use task-based activities, with
judged in front of an audience of
closed goals and pre-determined
peers and strangers may raise
outcomes.
affective filter.
•Discourages student •Promote intragroup
cooperation rather than
participation due to fear of
individual competition.
failure or intimidation.

39. Discussion
Suggested 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.

40. Thanks
for listening
Any questions or comments?