指導教官の先生からメールが来ました。”Research Problems”という題名で。

ショックだったので内容をコピペ（名前はイニシャルだけにしてあります）

  I am sorry this research project has had so many problems. I don’t know if you have heard anything yet from S or from J, but it is difficult to force others to participate in your research. I am sorry that I am not a linguistic expert for you. Perhaps it would be better if D takes over for me as your thesis advisor this term since he may be more of a linguistic grammar expert. I should have advised you not to do this project as it is because there were so many other people you needed to depend on for their classes, their students, the students allowing you access and so forth. I thought I had gently pointed that out to you, but you were convinced it could work and I hesitated to dampen your enthusiasm. My mistake. Also, the course was not properly set up when it was handed to me and therefore it was difficult to find out who else could be assisting you with this. D did not set up any kind of system for other faculty members who could be counted on to help you with your projecty. You and I met almost weekly for many weeks, but I guess that was not sufficient for you nor apparently was it helpful in any way. I am sorry and will speak to D about perhaps taking over from this point on so you can get more of a linguistic expert to advise you and guide you. I am very knowledgeable about doing research and working on research, but since linguistics is not my speciality nor was it my focus, then once the topic of your research was presented to me, I should have handed it over to someone else. I’m sorry I was such a disappointment to you. I could tell from the angry and frustrated tone of some of your more recent email messages, that it was not a good “fit” for me to advise you. I will speak to D and then you may find more satisfaction with him as your advisor.

 

訳そうかと思ったんですがちょっとそんな元気もなくてすいません。お腹痛いので少し休んで18時からサッカーあるようなのでそこで気持ちをリフレッシュできたらなと思っております。

では。

アメリカ New Hampshireより。

つらい。

04/24/13　追記：僕のこのメールに対する返信の内容も以下にコピペしておきます

Hello, R,

To be honest, I am really upset about what you said. I don’t think my research has problem and it forced many people to get involved. If you say so, I would  like you to tell me how classroom oriented language teaching research could possibly be done. The problem derived from two things: one is the course itself and two is the fact that D, who proposed this thesis option, is away.
I have never done language teaching research and never even written thesis. I knew that I really needed somebody who is experienced in research in second language acquisition, language teaching and learning, applied linguistics or whatever it is called.  But, there was no choice. At first I heard that thesis option would be available, I was really excited that I would be able to do what I had wanted to do. Although I was worried about trying a new thing which even you did not know well, and I realized that no professor in TEFL program could supervise me since I never met professors who research, I thought it would not matter if I worked hard, and I still do think so. The only reason why I have been wanting to do the research as it is is that you said it would be wonderful and encouraged me. Besides, the guideline or syllabus of EFL 580 obviously requires the students taking the course to do empirical study, and I thought SNHU would be a good place to do empirical research, since many ESL students study here. That’s why I decided to extend my staying in the US, paying $4000 for only doing thesis, which is not easy to pay.
Nevertheless,  I have wondered why I needed to pay that huge amount of money just for having a meeting with you once a week. I have questioned myself: “Is this worthwhile paying $4000?”
You did help me a lot. I would not be here without your help. I agree that the thesis option has to be revised or it may be impossible to be done since all professors, both full-time and part-time, are professional language teachers but not researchers. Being able to teach English well does not necessarily mean that the person can teach graduate course or supervise research stuff, and the fact that the program puts emphasis on practice rather than theory and training language teacher instead of researcher cannot be an excuse. I sincerely believe that the program, at least thesis program, must be changed. I understand that you tried to do your best in order to do  what was expected of you even though you might realize thesis options had so many problems. I wish I could ask for refund if the research is impossible. I am a victim.
Anyway, I am not disappointed with you and I am not going to blame on you since I did not expect too much on you. The only thing I need now is getting the experiment done. That’s it. If the experiment is completed, I could finish writing up thesis as quickly as possible. If classroom study is impossible, I will change my research design and ask my friends to participate in my study. I really need to talk to D. How can I reach him? I sent him an email but got a reply automatically saying that he is now in sabbatical.

Sincerely yours,

Yu Tamura

 

04/25/2013 追記：上記の僕のメールに対する指導教官の先生の返信も追記しておきます。一応やりとりに関してはこのあと僕が色々言いすぎてすいませんでしたって言ってとりあえず今後どうするかっていう話になりました。

Yu,
Thank you for your message. First of all, I completely understand your frustration, but you are not correct to say you had never met a professor here in our program who is experienced in research. There are a few of us, me included who is experienced in research in language learning and language learning acquisition so I don’t know where you are getting your information. That is not true. I am not just a professional language teacher. I have a doctorate; I did years of research for my dissertation. No, it was not in applied linguistics. No, I was not familair with Foto’s study. That does not mean I have never done any research and no one else has. I could be offended by your statements, but I understand you are very upset.
Secondly, your research study is not impossible. I did not say that nor did I imply that and I am not suggesting you give up. I’m sorry if that is what you thought. Of course not. It is just very frustrating to continue to have to nudge the instructors to get back to you, respond to you, and so forth. That is not your fault. Please do not abandon your research. I will reach out again to S and to J so you can do the study. Yes, I was very excited for you and for your research. I said it and I will say it again. No, I was not familiar with Foto’s study. Just because I was not familiar with your study does not mean I had never done research or don’t know about anything but teaching. You can be angry with me and disappointed with me, but you need not make false statements against me. I understand, you’re angry. I am frustrated as well that this course was put into place without considering many factors, but that does not mean it is a waste of tiem and money.
Let us deal with the here and now. I will arrange for you to have the GLS students be in the study. I will insist that the GLS teachers get involved and get you the students you need. I am not giving up on you even though you seem to have decided I don’t know anything and cannot help you. That is not true. We will continue for now. As for D, I cannot understand how he will not respond to your email message. I can only guess what you wrote and what negative things you said about me and the course, but I cannot do anything about that. We must go from here. I will help you get the study going and then turn you over to D if that is what you wish. I will get back to you later today with which GLS class you can do the study with. Again, I apologize for not being the expert you would have wanted for this research.

どうもみなさんこんにちは。なんだかあれれ？と思うことがあったのでメモしておきます。

題名の通りなんですが、Focus on Form (FonF)とnoticingはなにが違うのかって言うこととあとじゃあそれとConsciousness Raisingはなにが違うんだろうっていうことです。

FonFっていうのはまあ以前にも関連した記事を書いたんですが、

overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication (Long, 2001, p.184)

とあって（これがあのTwitterでつぶやいてた1991論文の再録のやつです。元のページは他の論文で見てるから知ってるんですが一応2001の方で）、まあやっぱり意味理解中心の中で、あるいはコミュニケーション中、つまり学習者の意識が意味理解に向いているときに言語形式に注意を向けることなんですよね。

で、noticingっていうのも、それが言語習得の枠組みの中で使われる場合は、そのnoticeするものっていうのは基本的にはmorpho-syntactic featuresですよねというか僕は音声系のnoticing研究は知らないんですけどでも研究の材料としては形態素や文法構造に対して、意識が向いているかっていうのが多いと思います。それで、これはnoticingの曖昧さでもあるのかもしれませんが、このnoticingっていうのはFonFがいうような意味理解中心の中でのnoticingなのか、あるいはそれはあまり関係ないのかっていうのが気になってるんですね。僕が参考にしている先行研究を見ている限り、noticingをオンライン(underliningやnote-takingなど）で測る場合、例えばFotos(1993)ではリスニングとcomprehension questionのあと、あるいはディクテーションさせたあとにテキストを渡して読ませて下線引かせてるんですね。でこれってそうやることで意味への注意を減らして形式に注意が向きやすいように仕向けてると思うんですね。でもこの論文のタイトルは超絶すごくて、”Consciousness Raising and Noticing through Focus on Form”なんですよ。この記事のタイトルが3つ全て詰まっているわけなんです。アウトプットがnoticingにどう影響するかというのを調べたUggen (2012)でも、形式の違い（仮定法現在と仮定法過去）で形式への気づきの量に差が出ていて（後者の方がターゲット項目含め形式への気づきが多かった）、でも全体的には統語的要素よりも語彙に多く下線が引かれているという結果になっています。でまあ読ませる中で同時に線を引かせるってなると、意味と形式に同時に意識が向くわけですしそうなってくると形式への注意を喚起しないがきりは意味へ向かってしまうよなと思います。まあ形式への注意を見たいのだからできるだけそれを阻害する可能性のある要素（ここでは意味理解）をなるべく排除して観察するっていうのはそうじゃなきゃわからんじゃんということになってしまうんですがそうなるとこのnoticingってのは意味理解とは関係なしに（あるいはそれが主目的ではない）インプットを受けている中で形式へ気づきが起こればいいのか？ってことになってそれどうなんだろうってなってたんですね。

そんで、VanPatten (1990)では、形式への注意が意味理解を妨げるということが述べられていて（ここで注意が必要なのはこの実験における「形式」は意味理解への比重の少ない”meaningless” formであったということ）、それでFonFなんてちっと現実的じゃないんじゃないんみたいなことが書いてあったりするんですけどその文脈でSchmidtのnoticingの批判とかがちらっとあるんですね。おやそうするってーとこれはFonFもnoticingも意味理解中の形式への注意っていうことになるんか？とかなってしまってまあ大変。もしもそういうことであったとしたら、noticingを測る際に最初に意味理解を済ませてから取り組むとそれはFonFがいうところの形式への注意ということではなくなるし、でも意味理解のないところで形式に注意したところでそれがどうやって習得につながっていくかっていうところはありますよね。まあもちろんFonFというのは指導する側が、学習者の注意を～という文脈であって、noticingというのは学習者の認知プロセスの話ですから土俵がちょっと違うわけなんですけど、これに加えてRutherford & Smith (1985)のCR

“the deliberate attempt to draw the learner’s attention specifically to the formal properties of the target language” (p.274).

とかが入るとじゃあこれはFonFとはどういうふうに違うんだろうなあとか思っちゃうんですよ。先述のFotos先生の論文だと、FonFとCRっていうのがなんかどうも重なっているように見えてしまうというか。というわけで難しいです。

ではまた。

アメリカ New Hampshireより。

おしまい。

参考文献

Fotos, S. S. (1993). Consciousness Raising and Noticing through Focus on Form: Grammar Task Performance versus Formal Instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14(4), 385-407.

Long, M. H. (2001). Focus on Form: A Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodology. In C. Candlin, N. Mercer (Eds.) , English Language Teaching in Its Social Context (pp. 180-190). London, England: Routledge, with Macquarie University and Open University.

Rutherford, W. E., & Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-Raising and Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 274-282.

VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to Form and Content in the Input: An Experiment in Consciousness. Studies In Second Language Acquisition,12(3), 287-301.