Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
,第 3 号 (1998)
J. Higher Education (Hokkaido Univ.), No.3 (1998)
Joseph Tomei*
Institute of Language and Culture Studies, Hokkaido University
Abstract─For the general education course of Hokkaido University, the foreign lecturers have devel-
oped the Hokudai Oral Proficiency Test (HOPT) in order to assure minimum level of oral proficiency
in English among students. The test incorporates a number of interesting features that are designed to
target specific weakpoints of Japanese students as well as make the test logistically feasible. We are
currently testing all of the students who take the elective English speaking course (approximately
600+ students per term) and we hope that a test such as this could be instituted as a university wide
requirement for finishing the general education requirement. This report will give a general idea of the
test and the impact it has had on other parts of our own teaching.
-162-
高等教育ジャーナル(北大)
,第 3 号 (1998)
J. Higher Education (Hokkaido Univ.), No.3 (1998)
-163-
高等教育ジャーナル(北大)
,第 3 号 (1998)
J. Higher Education (Hokkaido Univ.), No.3 (1998)
exact ability of the students, both of these troublesome as- passing the test.
pects are avoided.
The aspect that is probably most different from other 3. CONCLUSIONS
interview instruments is the simultaneous interviewing of
three students. In face-to-face interviews or in paired inter- In this paper, I have given a brief description of the Hokudai
views, care must be taken to avoid rote memorization of Oral Proficiency Test and discussed some of the unique
exchanges or whole dialogues. This is a particular problem aspects of the test. I then described how the test has af-
among Japanese students because the often have highly fected not only student work but my own teaching in the
developed memorization skills. The randomized, three stu- classroom. Current efforts are to have the test instituted as
dent groups make it virtually impossible for students to use an exit requirement for the general education course. It is
memorized exchanges even given that the topics in known hoped that this would represent a step towards standardiz-
in advance. In addition, in this more dynamic situation, the ing the English language curriculum for the general educa-
teacher can sit back and evaluate students rather than being tion course in a way that complements the newly promul-
simultaneously a conversation partner and an evaluator. Fur- gated Monbusho guidelines for study. More importantly, it
thermore, the use of three students creates a more natural would give a measure of autonomy and responsibility to
setting where abilities to express ideas and handle social the student. These are ambitious goals, but the preliminary
demands can be not only more easily examined, but can be signs have been very promising.
presented in the classroom as having a direct and useful
application. This type of situation is probably more realis- REFERENCES
tic because students will more likely use English as a lin-
gua franca to speak to other non-native speakers rather than Anderson, F. E. (1993), “The Enigma of the College Class-
to native speakers. room: Nails that Don't Stick Up.” in Wadden, P. ed.,
The final advantage with the use of three student con- A Handbook for Teaching English at Japanese Col-
versation groups is that it allows for more students to be leges and Universities. Oxford: Oxford University
interviewed in a shorter period of time. To give an idea of Press
the number of students that can be handled by a test for- Bachman, L. and Savignon, S. J., (1986), “The evaluation
matted this way, the most recent administration of the HOPT, of communicative language proficiency: A critique
which consisted of 6 foreign lecturers and on person pro- of the ACTFL oral interview,” Modern Language
viding administrative support, processed about 600 students Journal 69, 129-142
in one eight hour day. Brown, C., Glick, C., Holst, M., Stapleton, P., and Tomei,
J. (1995), “Interview testing for oral proficiency: a
2.6 THE EFFECT OF THE HOPT ON THE pilot test for the Hokudai Oral Proficiency Test
CLASSROOM (HOPT),” The Journal of Language and Culture Stud-
While subjective, I feel that the HOPT has had several ben- ies 30(1), 219-238
eficial effects in the classroom. The first is that it has al- Brumfit, C. J. and Johnson, K. eds. (1979), “The Commu-
lowed me to be less concerned about making a determina- nicative Approach to Language Teaching.” Oxford:
tion of pass or fail based on classroom performance while Oxford University Press
allowing me to devote more attention to the determination Buck, K., Byrnes, H., and Thompson, I. eds. (1989), “The
of passing grades, making those grades more meaningful ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview Tester Training
to the students. Furthermore, the dichotomy between teacher Manual.” Yonkers, N. Y.: ACTFL
and evaluator is eliminated, allowing me to concentrate on Gould, R., Madeley, C., and Carter, N. (1993a), “The New
my role in the classroom as teacher and take on the objec- Monbusho Guidelines,” The Language Teacher 17(6),
tive role of evaluator for the test. 3-5
A second beneficial aspect is that it has allowed me to Gould, R., Madeley, C., and Carter, N. (1993b), “The New
concentrate on classroom materials and methodology that Monbusho Guidelines, Part Two,” The Language
directly support the acquisition of conversational ability. Teacher 17(11), 3-7, 39
By sharpening my materials and methodology, I feel that I Gould, R., Madeley, C., and Carter, N. (1994), “The New
have become a better teacher. Monbusho Guidelines, Part Three,” The Language
The most important beneficial effect is that the test has Teacher 18(1), 4-7
dramatically improved student participation in class. Be- Morrow, K. (1986), “The evaluation of tests of communi-
cause the test can be passed by acquiring a relatively easily cative performance,” in Portal, M. ed., Innovations
defined set of conversation skills, in class practice becomes in Language Testing. Windsor: NFER-Nelson
much more meaningful, with students seeing the direct re- Nishihori, Y., and Stapleton, P. (1995), “Communicative
lationship between acquisition of conversational ability and study materials for the proposed course revision in
-164-
高等教育ジャーナル(北大)
,第 3 号 (1998)
J. Higher Education (Hokkaido Univ.), No.3 (1998)
1997: A rationale,” The Journal of Language and Omaggio Hadley, A. (1993), Teaching Language in Con-
Culture Studies 28(1), 181-209 text. Boston: Heinle and Heinle
Nozaki, K. N. (1993), “The Japanese Student and the For- Savignon, S. J. (1985), “Evaluation of communicative com-
eign Teacher,” in Wadden, P. ed., A Handbook for petence: The ACTFL provisional proficiency guide-
Teaching English at Japanese Colleges and Universi- lines,” Modern Language Journal 69, 129-142
ties. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Appendix 1
Naijin Travel
Vacation 1 Vacation 2
to: to:
nights and days nights and days
breakfast lunch dinner breakfast lunch dinner
price price
Highlights
notes
Vacation 3 Vacation 4
to: to:
nights and days nights and days
breakfast lunch dinner breakfast lunch dinner
price price
Highlights
notes
-165-
高等教育ジャーナル(北大)
,第 3 号 (1998)
J. Higher Education (Hokkaido Univ.), No.3 (1998)
Appendix 2
Information Communication
Grade Information Given Discussion Skills
received/requested Skills
Responds in an Participates actively
Gives the information
Asks for information appropriate way to in the discussion and
requested and always
that keeps the the conversation. easily puts across
adds more
Honors conversation going Helps others when his/her own view, as
information that
and acts on previous they have difficulties well as responding to
keeps the
information. by restating or the others'
conversation.
rephrasing. viewpoints.
Participates in
conversation, but Presents viewpoint,
Gives information Asks for information
does not lead. Does but only gives very
that is asked and but doesn't always
Pass not always help basic explanations.
sometimes gives ask for follow up
partners when Does not challenge
more information. information.
communication others' viewpoint.
breaks down.
Often only listens to
Requests little or no
Gives only what is conversation, making Hardly participates in
information.
asked for and no no attempt to enter. the discussion at all.
Questions are only
more. Answers are If communication Only gives opinions
Fail single questions with
very short or not breaks down, does when asked and does
no follow up
understandable by the not do anything to not explain them.
question for more
interviewer. restart the
information.
conversation.
-166-