順天堂グローバル教養論集_第二巻_2017年3月(ISSN2424-0001)
103/156

101Extensive Reading Onboardingciding whether it is worth their while to invest effort into a learning system with which they are unaccus-tomed. Also, during these early sessions, it is impor-tant to raise interest, and stress the achievability of requirements and the importance of expected out-comes (Hulleman et al., 2008) in accordance with value-expectancy theory, which stresses that learn-ers make decisions to engage in or adjust behaviors based on their estimation of the chance of success and the importance of the potential outcome to themselves. At the beginning of the program, stu-dents have reasonable questions about the amount of benefit they will get for the amount of effort they will need to expend. This apprehension is natural, and must be addressed. Students bring with them various expectations and constraints, and helping them to have a realistic understanding of how much effort they will need to give to a program and what they can expect from their effort is essential. In ad-dition to this, it is beneficial to position the program as an important part of the educational system of the institution, valued by the school, the teachers, and the students who have already taken part in it. Insti-tutional legitimacy helps learners accept ER as part of the educational package of an institution. It is crucial that students see that especially their teach-ers believe in its power to improve proficiency. This greatly helps to validate programs, but also in a Jap-anese context, learners tend to demonstrate greater autonomous dependency (Yashima, 2014). That is, they tend to be willing to follow to a greater degree the directives of trusted experts, especially the ones who are closest to them―namely, their instructors. Therefore, it is important to present ER as an insti-tutionalized program with the full support of the teachers and the administration behind it. Aligning the goals of the ER program with the goals of the learners themselves will help students to build a clearer vision of themselves as L2 users and learners (Dornyei, 2009), at a time when they are unlikely to have more than a fuzzy idea of their future L2 selves. 2.3. Accountability and mandatory ER In 2015, students received scores for the Writing, Presentation, and Counselling parts of the English course. In 2016, ER was made a separate category and assessed as a requirement along with counsel-ling. As such, it represented 15% of a student’s final grade, a considerable amount. A rubric was created and given to teachers and students at the beginning of term. Students would receive the full 15 points if they read at least 100,000 words. They would re-ceive 10 points if they read between 70,000 words and 99,999 words, and 7 points if they read 20,000 to 69,999 words. If they read less than 20,000 words, they would not receive any points. This point scheme reflected the importance of reading large quantities of text, something necessary to see de-monstrable improvement. The point allocation was designed to nudge students to read more, a choice architecture feature (Thaler and Sunstein, 2009). Students were required to record all of the books they read, including word counts and a checkbox comment on their enjoyment of the book and its level of difficulty. Total word counts were also re-quired, so that at any time in the course, the learner would know how much she has read to date and how she is doing in relation to the term goal. These sheets were kept in the student’s portfolio. The decision for making ER mandatory was in-formed by self-determination theory and the idea that since reading improvement and language profi-ciency improvement were important goals for both the students and the program, exerting some extrin-sic motivation, at least in the initial stages, would be useful in getting students actually reading, and mov-ing along the continuum of motivation to a point where intrinsic motivation can become more pre-

元のページ 

10秒後に元のページに移動します

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer10.2以上が必要です