I e Lts Research Partner Paper Allen 2017

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/319182656
Investigating Japanese undergraduates' English language proﬁciency with

IELTS: Predicting factors and washback
Article · June 2017
CITATIONS READS
10 1,920
1 author:
David Allen
Ochanomizu University
43 PUBLICATIONS 741 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by David Allen on 19 August 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 2515-1703
2017/2
IELTS Partnership
Research Papers
Investigating Japanese undergraduates' English language proficiency
with IELTS: Predicting factors and washback
David Allen
Investigating Japanese undergraduates'
English language proficiency with IELTS:
Predicting factors and washback
This study investigates Japanese undergraduates’ English
language proficiency in their first and second years of study.
It looks at the factors that influence proficiency development
in the four skills and considers the influence of IELTS on
language learning in the Japanese context.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the following people:
• my research team, Sayaka Meguro, Masaaki Ogura, Shoko Tanaka,

Kimie Yamamura, for assisting in data collection
• Dr Akiko Katayama for providing training to the research assistants
• Professor Yoshinori Watanabe for helpful discussion
• Dr Koji Miwa for suggesting the use of regression trees
• Dr Yuko Itatsu and Emeritus Professor Yasunari Takada for initialising the project
• Professor Barry O’Sullivan, Mina Patel and Chie Yasuda at the British Council for
kindly helping with various aspects of the project.
Funding
This research was funded by the IELTS Partners: British Council, Cambridge English
Language Assessment and IDP: IELTS Australia. Grant awarded 2013.
Publishing details
Published by the IELTS Partners: British Council, Cambridge English Language
Assessment and IDP: IELTS Australia © 2017.
This publication is copyright. No commercial re-use. The research and opinions

expressed are of individual researchers and do not represent the views of IELTS.
The publishers do not accept responsibility for any of the claims made in the research.
How to cite this article

Allen, D. 2017. Investigating Japanese undergraduates' English language proficiency with
IELTS: Predicting factors and washback. IELTS Partnership Research Papers 2. IELTS
Partners: British Council, Cambridge English Language Assessment and IDP: IELTS
Australia. Available at https://www.ielts.org/teaching-and-research/research-reports
www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 2

Introduction
I am pleased to introduce this paper which is the latest

addition to a new strand of publishing by the IELTS Partners.
For more than 20 years, the IELTS Partners have funded
research projects related to IELTS, based on an annual call
for proposals – the IELTS joint-funded research program.
These funded projects are selected and managed by the
partners’ Joint Research Committee (JRC), and many of the
papers that have been written have appeared in the published
IELTS Research Reports, now available online to download.
This new strand is somewhat different in that JRC members commission the research to
be carried out, and in some cases, take a proactive part in it. In this case, the research
was commissioned in 2013 as a result of an initial proposal from David Allen and
colleagues in Japan, and it was carried out with the help of British Council staff on various
aspects of the project.
The JRC was keen to support Allen’s work as it fits well within the priorities set for IELTS
research dating back to the IELTS 1995 revision program. A notable outcome of that
program was the agenda for ongoing research and validation. This was the first agenda
of its kind for IELTS and it contained a number of innovative aspects. One of these
was the commitment to investigate the impact of IELTS as a major part of the research
program going forward.
At the time of the 1995 revision, impact had yet to emerge as a well-defined concept in
language assessment, although several important papers had already been published on
washback. In this respect, IELTS took on a leading role in the field and, in the past
two decades, an impressive range of research has been carried out on impact, making a
significant contribution to knowledge.
Importantly, the IELTS-related research has contributed to a better understanding of the

relationship between washback and the wider concept of impact, and also of the roles
of construct and context in designing impact studies. This is evident in the IELTS impact
studies coordinated by Cambridge from 1996 onwards and summarised by Hawkey
(2006). He found that out of 44 impact-related studies:
…15 were mainly concerned with the IELTS skill modules (reading, listening, writing,
speaking), 12 with IELTS stakeholders (including candidates, examiners, receiving
institutions), and 11 with IELTS preparation courses and candidates’ future target
language-related needs.
An important summary of the IELTS impact studies conducted in the decade after the
1995 revision is also provided by Taylor (2008) in her introduction to IELTS Research
Reports, Volume 8. More recently, Saville (2009) used IELTS as one of his case studies
in developing an extended model of test impact in which he seeks to link macro and micro
contexts of education into a more systemic approach – one that can be designed to foster
positive impact by design.

This paper by Allen makes an important new contribution with particular relevance to the
Japanese context by picking up a number of central concerns about the nature of test
impact set against a backdrop of the macro educational context in Japan, and specifically
focusing on one micro context of English language learning and assessment in the
University of Tokyo.
The research team address a number of research questions related to learning gains and
proficiency in the language: they seek to find out whether IELTS exerts a positive impact
on learning with reference to the productive language skills, study habits and motivation.
The report provides a thorough but concise review of the relevant literature and highlights
some key points from the macro context, especially the use of English language testing
for access to Japanese higher education. Traditional approaches in Japan have been
criticised for putting too much emphasis on rote learning and not enough on skills
development, with speaking being neglected. Therefore, one of the report’s most
important washback hypotheses concerned the productive skills, and whether using
IELTS for higher education in Japan might foster better learning of speaking and writing,
including greater spoken fluency and more effective interactive communication.
In the research design, about 200 undergraduate students were recruited to take IELTS
as the measure of language proficiency, and the test was administered on two occasions
to investigate learning gains. In addition, a mixed-methods approach was employed
consisting of a survey and interviews; these were conducted to collect relevant contextual
information, including test-takers’ experiences and perceptions.
Based on the rich data collected in the study, very thorough analyses were carried out,
including use of an innovative approach to multivariate analysis known as conditional
inference trees. For example, the regression tree analysis revealed several interesting References:
findings regarding the prediction of higher scores on IELTS, with interesting variations Hawkey, R. (2006).
depending on the skill in question. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, previous experience of Impact theory and
living or studying in an English-speaking environment was highly predictive for all scores. practice: Studies of
the IELTS test and
In summary, the report sheds light on the potential benefits of using IELTS – a four-skills Progetto Lingue
test with an emphasis on communication skills – in a Japanese educational context. 2000. Cambridge:
UCLES/Cambridge
It appears that the IELTS approach not only provides clear goals and motivations for
University Press.
Japanese learners of English, but also fosters good study habits without excessive
cramming or test preparation activities (i.e. an absence of negative washback). Taylor, L. (2008).
Introduction. IELTS
On the other hand, the report provides clear evidence that there is indeed positive Research Reports,
Vol 8. Ed J. Osborne,
washback of the kind originally suggested by the developers of IELTS. It demonstrates
IELTS Australia,
that IELTS encourages Japanese students to study the productive skills, and provides
Canberra.
some clear evidence that they do make measurable proficiency gains.
Saville, N. (2009).
Developing a model
On the basis of these outcomes, the author makes some specific recommendations on
for investigating the
the use of IELTS in Japanese higher education. These recommendations back up earlier
impact of language
studies which suggest that reforming the entrance examination system in favour of a assessment
four skills approach could provide positive washback to the educational system at the within educational
macro level, and thus help raise levels of proficiency of Japanese school children. contexts by a public
examination provider.
The reasoning behind these recommendations may be of particular interest to (Unpublished
PhD dissertation).
educationalists who can identify similarities between their own context and the Japanese
University of
one described in this report. In such cases, it would be interesting to determine whether Bedfordshire,
the findings would be similar if the study were to be replicated in those other contexts? Luton, UK.
Nick Saville
Cambridge, March 2017

Investigating Japanese undergraduates'
English language proficiency with
IELTS: Predicting factors and washback
Abstract
The present study investigated 190 first-year Japanese
undergraduates’ performance on the IELTS test and the
factors that influenced this performance. Participants took
two IELTS tests and completed a survey about their language
learning history during pre-tertiary and tertiary education and
about their preparation for the IELTS test. Nineteen students
also participated in follow-up interviews.
Test results showed that the participants excelled at reading, followed by listening, while
they were relatively much weaker in writing and speaking. Mean overall and speaking
scores significantly increased, with greater gain occurring at lower proficiency levels.
Regression tree analyses were performed on the score data with 70 variables selected
from the survey data as covariates. Key explanatory factors for the first and second test
scores and for the subset of participants whose score increased included experience
of living and/or studying abroad, motivation to study writing, amount of writing practice,
and the type of test preparation (i.e. spoken fluency, test techniques).
Survey and interview data revealed that pre-tertiary education in Japan is highly focused
on university entrance exam preparation, leading to a bias towards studying reading
and, to a lesser extent, listening and writing, while speaking in English is virtually
non-existent in the curriculum. These findings demonstrate a strong washback effect
from current university entrance exams and help to explain the imbalance of skills
identified using the IELTS test.
Regarding test-takers’ preparation for IELTS, they reported practicing speaking and
writing, being motivated to study these skills and, as a result, perceived the greatest
improvement in these skills. It is likely that this increase in practice of productive skills
led to the actual increase in speaking test performance observed over the period.
Recommendations for using IELTS in the Japanese tertiary context are presented in light
of the observed benefits, particularly regarding the potential for positive washback on
productive skills.

Author biodata
David Allen
David Allen gained his PhD from the University of Nottingham, UK. He is Associate
Professor at the Foreign Language Education Centre at Ochanomizu University, Tokyo,
where he teaches applied linguistics and English language courses. David has extensive
language teaching experience in the U.K. and Japan, and holds language teaching and
examining certifications.
His previous research has focused on Japanese-English bilingual lexical processing,

learner corpora, simplified materials, and peer feedback in second language writing.
His previous research has been published in journals such as PLOS One, Behaviour
Research Methods, The Mental Lexicon, Language Teaching Research, System and
Reading in a Foreign Language.
Principal researcher:
David Allen
In-house research team (in alphabetical order):

Sayaka Meguro, Masaaki Ogura, Shoko Tanaka, Kimie Yamamura

Table of contents
1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................9
2 Research questions...................................................................................................................................................9
3 Literature review ......................................................................................................................................................10

3.1 Language proficiency and learning gain ..........................................................................................................10
3.2 Washback ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
3.3 Overview of the exams ...................................................................................................................................12
3.4 Predicted washback on learning .....................................................................................................................14
3.5 Summary of research design ...........................................................................................................................14
4 Methods and procedure ..........................................................................................................................................15

4.1 Participants ......................................................................................................................................................15
4.2 Test preparation ...............................................................................................................................................15
4.3 Test administration ...........................................................................................................................................15
4.4 Survey design ..................................................................................................................................................15
4.5 Interviews.........................................................................................................................................................17
5 Results ....................................................................................................................................................................18
5.1 IELTS tests scores (RQ1) ................................................................................................................................18
5.1.1 Test 1 and Test 2 scores.......................................................................................................................18
5.1.2 Learning gain .......................................................................................................................................20
5.2 Test score and survey data (RQ2) ...................................................................................................................21
5.2.1 Response and predictor variables........................................................................................................21
5.2.2 Overview of analyses ..........................................................................................................................22
5.2.3 Regression tree analyses.....................................................................................................................23
5.2.3.1 Overall scores ................................................................................................................................ 23
5.2.3.2 Reading scores .............................................................................................................................. 24
5.2.3.3 Listening scores ............................................................................................................................. 24
5.2.3.4 Writing scores .................................................................................................................................. 25
5.2.3.5 Speaking scores .............................................................................................................................. 27
5.3 Survey responses (RQ3) .................................................................................................................................28
5.3.1 Language history..................................................................................................................................28
5.3.2 IELTS preparation ...............................................................................................................................28
5.3.3 University, cram school, high school ....................................................................................................32
5.4 Interview data (RQ3)........................................................................................................................................38
5.4.1 IELTS preparation ................................................................................................................................38
5.4.1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 38
5.4.1.2 IELTS Reading and Listening preparation ..................................................................................... 38
5.4.1.3 IELTS Writing and Speaking preparation ....................................................................................... 38
5.4.2 University, cram school, high school ...................................................................................................41
5.4.2.1 University ....................................................................................................................................... 41
5.4.2.2 Cram school ................................................................................................................................... 42
5.4.2.3 High School ................................................................................................................................... 42
6 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................44
6.1 Summary of findings and their implications .....................................................................................................44
6.1.1 RQ1: Test scores ....................................................................................................................................44
6.1.2 RQ2: Predicting factors ..........................................................................................................................44
6.1.3 RQ3: Washback and learning situations.................................................................................................45
6.2 Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................47
6.3 Recommendations ...........................................................................................................................................48

References ........................................................................................................................................................................49
Appendix 1: Survey questions ..........................................................................................................................................52
Appendix 2: Sample interview questions ...........................................................................................................................56
List of tables
Table 1: Comparison of NCUEE, UT entrance exam and IELTS proficiency test....................................................14
Table 2: Content of the survey ................................................................................................................................16
Table 3: Descriptive data for Test 1 and Test 2 scores ............................................................................................19
Table 4: IELTS mean test results for participants who took both tests (Test 1 and Test 2)......................................20
Table 5: Learning gain for test-takers at different initial band scores (Gain=T2-T1) ...............................................21
Table 6: Number of hours studied for each IELTS test ............................................................................................28
Table 7: Characteristics of English language study in different learning environments ...........................................37
List of figures
Figure 1: Initial IELTS band scores for four skills ....................................................................................................18
Figure 2: IELTS band scores for four skills on Test 2 ..............................................................................................19
Figure 3: Regression tree for overall scores on Test 1 ............................................................................................23
Figure 4: Regression tree for overall scores on Test 2 ............................................................................................24
Figure 5: Regression tree for listening scores on Test 1 .........................................................................................25
Figure 6: Regression tree for listening scores on Test 2 .........................................................................................25
Figure 7: Regression tree for writing scores on Test 1 ............................................................................................26
Figure 8: Regression tree for writing scores on Test 2 ............................................................................................26
Figure 9: Regression tree for speaking scores on Test 1 ........................................................................................27
Figure 10: Regression tree for speaking scores for test takers whose scores increased .......................................27
Figure 11: Responses to Items 33 and 39...............................................................................................................29
Figure 12: Responses to Items 35 and 41 ..............................................................................................................30
Figure 13: Responses to Items 36/42, 37/43 and 38/44 .........................................................................................30
Figure 16: Responses to Items 58, 79 and 98 ........................................................................................................32
Figure 17: Responses to Items 59, 80 and 99 ........................................................................................................32
Figure 18: Responses to Items 60/81/100, 61/82/101 and 62/83/102 ...................................................................33
Figure 19: Responses to Items 64, 85 and 104 ......................................................................................................33
Figure 21: Responses to Items 68/89/108, Items 67/88/107 and Items 70/91/110 .................................................34
Figure 23: Responses to Items 72, 93 and 112.......................................................................................................35
Figure 25: Responses to Items 74, 95 and 114.......................................................................................................36

1 Introduction
Language proficiency tests are routinely used in the Japanese university context for a
variety of purposes. The present study fits within this context as the University of Tokyo
(UT) offered funded IELTS (International English Language Testing System) Tests to
300 undergraduates for the purpose of promoting interest in study abroad programs
and in English learning, in general. Students were required to take the test twice, once
in the first year of study and once in the second year. This opportunity sample allowed
for investigation of a variety of questions concerning proficiency levels and proficiency
development during the first two years of study at UT.
We were particularly interested in looking at the factors that may influence learners’
initial language proficiency and its development. To understand the participants’ initial
proficiency in the four skills, it was necessary to consider a range of factors. Firstly,
because participants had recently entered a highly competitive university and, thus,
studied intensively for the challenging university English entrance exam, it was likely
that this exam influenced learners’ initial proficiency level. That is, a strong washback
effect from the university exam was expected. Other factors related to the participants’
learning context, such as study abroad experience and attendance of English-medium
schools, were also expected to contribute to the variation in learners’ proficiency. These
‘past learning experiences’ were thus researched to provide a basis for understanding the
learners’ proficiency, as well as to provide the background with which to understand any
changes in proficiency over the testing period.
Participants’ proficiency, and particularly its development, was also expected to be

influenced by ‘current English learning experiences’, such as university education and
IELTS test preparation, which occurred during the testing interval. Most importantly,
participants’ preparation for the IELTS test, including intensity and strategies employed,
was expected to influence development. In other words, washback from the IELTS test
on test-takers’ behaviour was expected to lead to positive changes in proficiency.
By considering the context and the test-takers’ prior learning experiences (i.e.
in preparation for the university entrance exams), it was possible to understand
how washback from the IELTS test was generated.
The following research questions were posed to address these aims. In research
question 3, learning situations refer to English language study at high school, cram school
and university.
2 Research questions
1. Research Question 1: Is proficiency equally distributed across the

four skills and does this proficiency develop over the period?
2. Research Question 2: Which factors related to learning experience and test

preparation predict proficiency and its development in the four skills?
3. Research Question 3: How does the IELTS test influence learners’

test preparation strategies, their perceived proficiency development and
their motivation to study? Similarly, how do the past and present learning
situations influence these aspects of language learning?

3 Literature review
3.1 Language proficiency and learning gain

The first research question (RQ1) investigates whether participants have similar
proficiencies in each of the four skills, and whether there is any change in these abilities
across the period. Following previous research (e.g. Green, 2005; 2007a; 2007b),
development in language proficiency is referred to as learning gain, and is calculated
as Test 2 Score – Test 1 Score (e.g. 5.5 – 5.0 = 0.5 (half-band) increase; 5.5 – 6.5 = -1.0
(one band) decrease).
There are a number of important considerations regarding learning gain. Firstly, time is
required to improve language proficiency and, thus, to see progress through the band
scales. For example, in Green (2007b), only one in 10 test-takers improved their score
by a band or more on the IELTS Writing component following an IELTS preparation or
EAP course of study (course duration 8–9 weeks, 20 hours per week). Thus, following a
160–180 hour course and while living in an English-speaking environment, only a small
proportion of students made considerable learning gains on IELTS Writing. Secondly,
personal, environmental and test difficulty factors will lead to variation in scores (e.g. half
a band in the case of IELTS) on different versions of a test taken during a short period
(i.e. regression to the mean: Green, 2005). Scores may increase or decrease by half a
band, but this is not necessarily a true reflection of language proficiency change.
For example, a third of participants scored lower on the second test in Green (2007b)
and the mean learning gain of participants in Green (2005) was -0.4 (an overall decrease
in scores). Thirdly, test-takers’ initial proficiency is a strong predictor of learning gain
(Elder & O’Loughlin, 2003; Green, 2005: Humphreys et al., 2012). Green (2005) showed
that learners’ initial IELTS Writing test scores were a strong predictor of the second test
scores, with lower proficiency test-takers gaining more over the period than higher-level
test-takers. He concluded that a two-month intensive pre-sessional course is unlikely to
lead to increased proficiency scores for learners who achieved a Band 6 any higher on
the scale, though it may impact those who gained a Band 5 or lower.
Considering potential learning gain (RQ1) within the present study’s context, participants
who take two 90-minute classes per week over a 13–week semester and do two hours
of homework for each class will study English for 127 hours per semester, or 254
hours during the full academic year. Given that there will be considerable variation in
the courses taken, the amount of homework, as well as participation in extra-curricular
activities, amongst other factors, it is not certain that students will make significant gains
on the IELTS test over the period of one year. There is likely to be considerable individual
variation and there may be greater gain made by those learners who score lower on the
initial test (Elder & O’Loughlin, 2003; Green, 2005; Humphreys et al., 2012).

The second question (RQ2) investigates the factors that explain variance in proficiency
and learning gain amongst the test-takers in the study. These factors may be specific to
the present learning situation (i.e. while at university and preparing for the IELTS test) or
past learning experiences, such as study abroad and medium of instruction in schools
attended. Previous research (e.g., Green, 2007a; 2007b; Mickan & Motteram, 2009; Xie,
2013; Xie & Andrews, 2012) provided a starting point for determining which factors to
include in the investigation.
The purpose of the third question (RQ3) was to create a profile of test-takers’ preparation
for the IELTS tests and also their study at university, high school and cram school,
in terms of the amount and type of study done, motivation and perceived development.
Through analysis of these learning situations, it was possible to assess how much
learners’ behaviour and perceptions were shaped by the particular context and/or the
test that they were preparing for. Moreover, the impact of these learning experiences
upon language proficiency and proficiency development was investigated.
3.2 Washback
Washback is generally defined as the effect of a test upon teaching and learning. It fits
under the umbrella of test impact, which is more broadly concerned with the effect of
a test on individuals, policies and practices, inside and outside the classroom (Wall,
1996). The scope of washback is, therefore, narrower than that of test impact and deals
specifically with the effect that tests have on what (and how) teacher’s teach and what
(and how) students learn.
Within the socio-cognitive framework of test validation (O’Sullivan & Weir, 2011; Weir,
2005), washback is an aspect of the consequential validity of a test. In order to make
an argument for consequential validity, evidence must be provided about the washback
that a test generates. Such evidence supports the use of tests in particular contexts.
Moreover, seeking and providing such evidence is in line with an ethical approach to
language test development (O’Sullivan & Weir, 2011).
Since Alderson and Wall’s (1993) study, washback has received considerable attention
in the language testing literature, though studies have tended to investigate washback
on teaching, not learning (Cheng, 2014). This research has shown that teachers’
beliefs and experience are key to understanding whether and how washback occurs in
instructed contexts (Watanabe, 1996; 1997; 2004). However, learning is considered to
be the most important outcome and learners the central participants in the washback
process (Hughes, 2003). Consequently, a growing body of research has emerged that is
more directly concerned with washback to the learner and upon learning (e.g. Mickan &
Motteram, 2009; Shih, 2007; Xie, 2013; Xie & Andrews, 2012; Zhan & Andrews, 2014).
The present study is also primarily concerned with learning and thus seeks to contribute
to this literature. Moreover, in non-instructed test preparation contexts, such as that of the
present study, the influence of teaching is minimised, allowing for a direct investigation
into washback from the test upon learning.
In this study, washback upon learning was investigated primarily in terms of the test
preparation strategies that test-takers employed when preparing for the IELTS test.
These preparation strategies included the focus on particular activities, skills, and types
of knowledge. If the IELTS test stimulates the use of strategies that are beneficial for
language learning, it can be argued to generate positive washback in this context, while if
it leads to the use of strategies that are detrimental, it could be said to generate negative
washback.

In addition, the impact the test has upon students’ motivation to study particular skills
was assessed. Taking a language test provides a proximal sub-goal to the primary goal
of learning a language and, thus, ‘may have a powerful motivating function in that they
mark progress and provide immediate incentive and feedback’ (Dörnyei, 1998: 121).
Consequently, taking the IELTS test can raise awareness of ability and provide an
incentive to persist in studying language and particular language skills. Of course, this
test-derived motivation is part and parcel of a test-taker’s general language learning
motivation: if a learner is motivated, a test can serve as an additional boost to that
motivation; but if the learner is not motivated, a test is unlikely to influence the learner to
the same extent. Therefore, the effect of tests upon motivation to study must always be
understood within the context of the study and the individuals taking part.
It is also crucial in washback research to consider the perceived importance and difficulty
of the test. These two factors dictate the degree of washback on learning, or washback
intensity (Cheng, 1997). If the test is not perceived as important, or high stakes, then
it will not be prepared for intensely and washback will be minimal. Also, if the test is
not perceived to be difficult, test-takers will not prepare for it intensely, again limiting
washback. When a test is perceived to be important, while also being challenging but
achievable, the optimum degree of washback is expected (Green, 2005). Furthermore,
a variety of participant factors (Hughes, 2003) such as test-takers’ knowledge and
understanding of the test demands, their resources to meet these demands and their
acceptance of them, are all crucial for determining the effect that a test can have upon
learning (Green, 2005). In other words, how well the test-takers understand the tasks and
how to prepare for them, and whether they have the ability and are willing to prepare for
them, can all influence the washback process. Such participant factors are arguably most
suitably investigated through interviews with test-takers.
Finally, the context in which tests are introduced plays a significant role in determining
the washback process (e.g. Gosa, 2004; Shih, 2007). The present study context is a
prestigious university in Japan, which entailed a number of considerations in order to
evaluate the washback from the IELTS test. Most importantly, entrance to the university
requires applicants to first pass the National Center for University Entrance Examinations
(NCUEE) exam with a top score (somewhere between 80–100%) in order to qualify for
the highly competitive UT entrance exam. Applicants must, therefore, devote much of
their time, especially at high school, to serious study and preparation for these exams.
Given the extremely high-stakes nature of the UT exam, a strong washback effect is
expected upon test-takers’ knowledge of English, their ability to use English in the four
skills and their knowledge of how to study English (i.e. learning strategies and test
preparation strategies). It would have been inappropriate to simply assume that this
washback effect exists; therefore, it was crucial to investigate learners’ previous language
learning experiences, especially regarding the entrance exams. Only by doing so was it
possible to understand how the IELTS test generates washback in this context.
3.3 Overview of the exams

To formulate more detailed predictions about the potential washback on learning,
a brief overview of the two entrance exams is presented, followed by a comparison with
the IELTS test.
The NCUEE is a syllabus-based test based on the national course of study (e.g. MEXT,
2011). The exam focuses on vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation and receptive skills;
there are no writing or speaking tasks.

The reading and listening tests are separate. All responses are multiple-choice.
The reading test begins with pronunciation questions (e.g. odd-one-out for stress
placement), which are intended to be indirect tests of speaking ability, followed by
multiple-choice sentence completion for single items (i.e. vocabulary knowledge) and
sentences (i.e. phrasal vocabulary and discourse comprehension). Dialogues are
primarily used in the first half of the test, emphasising a communicative focus. Longer
texts feature in the second half of the exam, and include film reviews, quasi-academic/
news texts and advertisements. The listening test primarily contains numerous short
dialogues between two people, most of which are three to four turns in length, followed by
two longer monologues. Overall, the topics are general and the focus is comprehension
of ‘everyday English’ in written and dialogic form, emphasising a ‘practical’ focus
(Henrichsen, 1989, cited in Watanabe, 2004).
The 2013 UT exam (which participants in this study had taken) included reading and
grammar, listening, and writing sections. Estimated weightings were 60% for reading/
grammar, 25% for listening, and 15% for writing. The reading section included a variety
of tasks that tested general reading comprehension and grammatical knowledge,
including summarising a 500-word English text in Japanese (70–80 characters),
gap-filling exercises (complete a text with omitted sentence parts/clauses), ordering
words within a text (five jumbled words within a sentence in the text), translation
from English to Japanese (sentence/clause level), multiple-choice/selection of single
words (grammatical knowledge, e.g. articles/demonstrative pronouns) or sentences
(comprehension, choosing a sentence with the closest meaning to that in the text).
Reading comprehension was tested mainly by translation, followed by multiple-choice
items. Purely grammatical questions made up the smallest proportion of items in the
reading section. Texts were generally academic in nature. The listening comprehension
section included three texts across three sections. Items included multiple-choice and
sentence completion. The writing section consisted of two items (a free response and a
guided response item): writing a 50–60 word answer in response to a prompt (What is
the most important thing you have learned and why?) and writing a short 60–70 word
dialogue in response to a picture-prompt (In the picture, what are the two people talking
about?). This latter task presumably aims to be, at least partially, an indirect test of
speaking ability. Reading and listening are objectively scored and writing is rated using a
holistic scoring method. The reading and listening sections particularly reflect a ‘cultural’
focus of English study, i.e. that English ability is required to gain access to higher, cultural
knowledge (Henrichsen, 1989, cited in Watanabe, 2004).
Comparing the NCUEE, UT and IELTS tests, a number of key differences are apparent.
Firstly, while all tests are high-stakes, their purpose differs: the NCUEE assesses
learning of the high-school English curriculum; the UT test is a tool for candidate selection
based on test performance; and IELTS is used to ensure only applicants with sufficient
academic English proficiency can enter English-medium universities. Secondly, there is
a difference in the construct being assessed. For proficiency exams, such as IELTS, a
theoretical model of communicative language ability is defined and skills and sub-skills
from this model are assessed (e.g. Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Weir, 2005). The NCUEE
exam is based on the syllabus taught in high schools, and thus utilises a syllabus-based
construct. The UT exam aims to test higher-level abilities than those tested in the NCUEE
exam but no documentation is publicly available that reports either the test specifications
or the theoretical model of language ability. Thus, to determine the construct, one must
reverse engineer it from the test itself, which will naturally lead to different interpretations.
Ultimately, the UT test construct remains ambiguous. Thirdly, the skills tested and their
weightings differ markedly (Table 1). While there is some overlap in terms of receptive
skills and their formats, there is little such overlap in the productive skills. In terms of the
potential washback on language abilities, this is perhaps the most important difference
between the tests.

Table 1: Comparison of NCUEE, UT entrance exam and IELTS proficiency test
NCUEE UT Entrance Exam IELTS (Academic)

Weighting of skills Reading > Reading > listening > writing Reading = listening = writing =
tested directly listening speaking
Answer formats for Multiple Multiple choice, short answer, Multiple choice, short answer,
reading and listening choice English-to-Japanese translation information transfer
Writing task format N/A Write a short paragraph on Describe data and trends in tables
familiar, personal topic (50–60 and graphs (150 words): short
words): write a 4-turn conversation academic essay (250 words)
(50–60 words)
Speaking test format N/A N/A One-to-one, face-to-face interactive,
(semi-) structured interview
3.4 Predicted washback on learning

Washback effects were investigated by considering the types of learning and teaching
experienced during high school and cram school (preparation for NCUEE and UT exams),
and during preparation for the IELTS tests. Based on the above analysis, it was possible
to make some predictions regarding potential washback effects.
Washback was expected in terms of the focus on receptive and productive skills.
At high school (16–18 years), a greater focus on reading and listening skills, and also
vocabulary, grammar and, to a lesser extent, pronunciation was expected, in order to
prepare for the NCUEE examination. At cram school (Juku or Yobiko), a focus on reading,
and, to a lesser extent, listening and writing, was expected in preparation mainly for
the challenging UT entrance examinations. Very little focus was expected on speaking
during preparation for either the NCUEE or UT test, as this skill does not feature in
the tests at all. Test-taking techniques, especially at cram school, and a bias towards
grammar and vocabulary, and away from pronunciation and spoken fluency, were also
expected. Regarding classroom interaction patterns, how traditional or innovative they
are depends greatly on the teacher’s beliefs and training (Watanabe, 1996) but also may
also be influenced by the test tasks. In terms of perceived development and motivation
to study, these were expected to be in line with the requirements of the high-stakes test.
For instance, as reading is the primary skill tested on the UT test, it was assumed that
learners would be most motivated to study reading and they would perceive the greatest
development in this skill.
Washback from the IELTS test was expected to entail a greater focus on speaking,
particularly spoken fluency and interactive speaking skills, and writing, particularly
describing graphs and other visually presented data and writing argumentative
essays. Test-takers were expected to study test-taking techniques, e.g. familiarising
themselves with the question and answer formats featured in the tests, and study
aspects of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. Preparation for the IELTS tests was
undertaken in a non-instructed context and, thus, comparison of teaching environments
in other situations was not possible. In terms of perceived proficiency development and
motivation, it was expected that test-takers would be motivated to study productive
skills and, if they did so, would perceive the most improvement in those skills.
3.5 Summary of research design

To address RQ1, scores from the first and second IELTS tests and learning gain
across the period were summarised and compared. To address RQ2, the test data
were analysed with covariate factors derived from the survey data to investigate which
variables predicted test scores and learning gain. To address RQ3, survey and interview
data regarding the preparation done for the IELTS tests and within the three learning
environments (high school, cram school, and university) were analysed.

4 Methods and procedure
4.1 Participants
Three hundred first-year undergraduates were recruited on a first-come, first-served
basis. Of those, 255 took the first IELTS examinations and 45 failed to attend
(85% completion rate). Of the 255 students, 204 also took the second test
(80% completion rate).
4.2 Test preparation

The British Council provided two half-day test-preparation sessions before the first exam.
The purpose of these sessions was to introduce the IELTS test, especially the speaking
and writing components because these sections differ more markedly from other tests
that participants may have been familiar with. A total of 64 students attended the session
before the first test and 21 attended the session before the second test. The British
Council also provided limited-duration, free access to their IELTS preparation website
(http://www.britishcouncil.jp/exam/ielts/resources/free-practice) to which 173 students
signed up prior to the first test, and 23 students signed up prior to the second test.
4.3 Test administration

The first test was administered at four Eiken testing centre locations: Tokyo (n=73),
Yokohama (n=17), UT (n=160), Eiken head office (n=3). Participants took the test on
one of 17 different dates during the period from September 2013 to February 2014.
The second test was administered over six full-day sessions at UT (all components
administered on the same day) between September and December 2014.
4.4 Survey design

The purpose of the survey was to provide quantitative measures that could be used to
predict test performance and proficiency development (RQ2), and to provide data that
could be used to assess how previous education, current language education and
IELTS test-preparation impacted study habits, learner motivation and perceived
proficiency (RQ3).
The survey was designed by reference to previous surveys and commentaries as

found in Brown (2001) and Dörnyei and Taguchi (2009), and administered using
www.surveymonkey.com. Likert scale responses were used wherever possible to
facilitate comparison of responses across sections.
The survey items were created though discussion between the members of the research
team and external reviewers and were then translated into Japanese and verified. Two
focus groups were arranged with two to four student in each, who were paid 1000 yen
(5 GBP) for volunteering. Sessions were conducted in Japanese and used a reduced
version of the survey. They were video-recorded and an analysis of the comments led to
further refinement of the survey design and content, leading to a final version. The final
survey included 122 items, which took around 25 minutes to complete.
Table 2 shows the information collected from the surveys. Appendix 1 lists the questions
(in English) used in the surveys.

Table 2: Content of the survey
Participant variables
Age
Personal information
Gender
Language history Languages known and used
Age began learning

Experience of living and schooling abroad
English language learning Study abroad experience
history Extra-curricular English activities
English test-taking experience
Expectations to study abroad
Amount of preparation (hours)

IELTS preparation and results Motivation for taking IELTS
(All items repeated for Test 1 Spoken fluency focus*
and Test 2) Form (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation) focus*
Skills focus*
Activities focus*
Test-taking techniques focus *
*Items that are comparable to BC website use, preparation sessions, and
those in the following section additional tuition
Motivation*
Perceived proficiency development*
English courses taken

Classroom organisation
Teacher/student-centred instruction
Main language used by teacher / students
Amount / focus of homework
English study experience at Spoken fluency focus
- High school Form focus
- Cram school Skills focus
- University Activities focus
Test-taking techniques focus
Satisfaction
Motivation
Perceived proficiency development
Additional information
Participants completed the survey online within a week following the second test.
An incentive of a 500 yen (2.50 GBP) gift card was provided by EIKEN and these were
mailed to participants upon completion of the survey. Of the 204 students who completed
both IELTS tests, 190 completed the survey (93% completion rate).
All ethical procedures adhered to the general guidelines in line with those of UK higher
education institutions. All participants were required to complete informed consent forms
for surveys, focus groups and interviews.

4.5 Interviews
The purpose of the interviews was to complement the survey data and capture
more detailed information about individual perceptions, circumstances and learning
experiences (RQ3). The Interviews focused on three topic areas listed below.
1. Perceptions of language learning behaviour in preparation for the IELTS test

and in high school, cram school and university.
2. Perceptions of motivation for learning English and the relationship between

this and study behaviour .
3. Perceptions of own proficiency development and the factors that influenced

this (see Appendix 2).
The interviews were semi-structured and the question prompts were developed by
the principal researcher and interviewers, working first in English and then translating
prompts into Japanese.
The interviewers were recruited from the English department of UT and were
postgraduates currently engaged in language research. They were fully trained through
readings, workshops, practice interviews and feedback sessions. Interviewees were
recruited via the survey.
The sessions took place on campus in a quiet, comfortable location, and were conducted
in Japanese. Interviewers had access to interviewees’ survey responses and these were
referred to at times during the interviews. Participants appeared comfortable talking to the
interviewers in an informal and relaxed manner.
Following the interviews, the interviewers transcribed the discourse with minimal
annotation for hesitation (long pauses), surprise, emphasis, and emotion, where
appropriate. The transcripts were entered into a spreadsheet grid and organised
according to the focus of the questions. Transcripts were read and re-read iteratively by
the principal researcher and salient themes both within and across interview data were
identified. First, the individual interviews were read and notes were taken on the defining
characteristics of each interviewee’s discourse (e.g. particular focus of discussion,
repeated and emphasised thoughts and feelings regarding language education,
tests). Secondly, recurring themes and summary notes were made for the whole set of
interviews. Following this, the responses to particular questions were re-read to identify
recurring themes and information, and to identify similarities and differences across
participants. English translations were all checked for accuracy.

5 Results
5.1 IELTS tests scores (RQ1)

Although 255 participants took the first IELTS test, only 204 of these also took the second
test. In line with the aims of the present study, only the data of these 204 participants is
presented here (though it should be noted there is little difference between the Test 1
data with 255 and 204 participants).
5.1.1 Test 1 and Test 2 scores

The score distributions for Test 1 and Test 2 are shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively.
Based on the figures and the skewness and kurtosis values presented in Table 3, it was
determined that the data appear to be sufficiently normally distributed.
Figure 1: Initial IELTS band scores for four skills
IELTS test band scores for four skills: Test 1
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
Density
Density
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IELTS Reading score (n=204) IELTS Listening score (n=204)
0.4
0.6
0.3
Density
Density
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IELTS Writing score (n=204) IELTS Speaking score (n=204)

Figure 2: IELTS band scores for four skills on Test 2
IELTS test band scores for four skills: Test 2
0.5 0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
Density
Density
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IELTS Reading score (n=204) IELTS Listening score (n=204)
0.4
0.6
0.3
Density
Density
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IELTS Writing score (n=204) IELTS Speaking score (n=204)
Table 3: Descriptive data for Test 1 and Test 2 scores
Mean Standard Min. Max Skewness Kurtosis

Deviation
Test 1 (n=204)
Overall 6.2 0.8 4.5 8.5 0.34 - 0.33
Reading 7.2 0.9 5.0 9.0 0.04 - 0.79
Listening 6.6 1.1 4.5 9.0 0.58 - 0.42
Writing 5.5 0.6 3.5 7.5 0.19 0.62
Speaking 5.4 1.0 3.0 8.5 0.40 0.06
Test 2 (n=204)
Overall 6.4 0.8 4.5 8.0 0.20 - 0.63
Reading 7.3 0.9 5.0 9.0 - 0.12 - 0.69
Listening 6.7 1.1 3.5 9.0 0.30 - 0.60
Writing 5.6 0.6 3.0 7.5 - 0.40 1.20
Speaking 5.7 1.0 3.0 9.0 0.43 - 0.01

As the actual results show, there is a large discrepancy between productive and receptive
skills of the present sample. Participants scored, on average, highest on reading (Test 1
= 7.2 / Test 2 = 7.3), followed by listening (6.6/6.7), while writing (5.5/5.6) and speaking
(5.4/5.7) scores were considerably lower. Thus, there is a considerable difference evident
in the receptive versus productive language abilities of the present population sample.
One may ask whether there is typically a difference in the scores for receptive and
productive skills amongst IELTS test-takers in general. Considering the average scores
on IELTS tests taken worldwide in 2012 (Table 4), scores for reading, listening and
speaking were similar (between 5.9 and 6.0), while writing was lower at 5.5. Thus,
the average scores for the different skills vary more strikingly for the present sample
compared to the world averages. The higher than average scores for reading and
listening and the lower score for speaking all indicate a marked bias towards receptive
abilities.
Compared to the average IELTS scores of Japanese first language test-takers (Table
4), the participants scored 0.4/0.6 bands higher overall, and scored higher on all skills,
except for speaking (5.4/5.7 vs. 5.6), which was roughly equivalent. The most striking
difference, however, lies in the reading and listening scores (7.2/7.3 vs. 6.0 and 6.6/6.7
vs. 5.9, respectively), with the biggest difference between reading ability (1.2/1.3 bands).
There was less difference in performance on the writing component (5.5/5.6 vs. 5.3) and
no overall difference for speaking. Thus, compared to the national averages the present
sample is notably strong in receptive skills, especially reading, while they are slightly
better at writing, but no better at speaking.
Table 4: IELTS mean test results for participants who took both tests (Test 1 and Test 2)
Test 1 mean Test 2 mean Paired samples IELTS 2012 IELTS 2012
band score band score t-tests (df =203) Average* Japanese L1
(n=204) (n=204) Average*
Overall 6.2 6.4 t = -4.2, p <.001, D=0.29 5.9 5.8
Reading 7.2 7.3 t = -1.5, p = 0.131, D=0.11 6.0 5.9
Listening 6.6 6.7 t = -1.9, p = 0.056, D=0.13 6.0 6.0
Writing 5.5 5.6 t = -1.9, p = 0.053, D=0.14 5.5 5.3
Speaking 5.4 5.7 t = -4.9, p <.001, D=0.34 5.9 5.6
*Average of female and male candidates data taken from:

http://www.ielts.org/researchers/analysis-of-test-data/test-taker-performance-2012.aspx
5.1.2 Learning gain

The proportion of overall band scores that increased (by half a band or more) over the
period was 34%, that of those which did not change was 51%, and that of those which
decreased was 15%. Comparing the mean scores from Test 1 and Test 2 (Table 4),
they all increased slightly, with the greatest increase in the overall and speaking
scores (0.2 and 0.3 bands, respectively). Paired samples t-tests were used to compare
differences in test scores for the repeated tests (Table 4). The differences across tests for
the overall and speaking scores were highly significant (p<.001), while other differences
were not statistically significant (p>.05). However, both listening and writing score
differences were close to significance (p=0.06). According to the benchmarks for Cohen’s
D effect sizes, where small = 0.2 and medium = 0.5, the differences for overall and
speaking scores both fall between the range of small and medium effect size.
We investigated whether learning gain was greater for participants with lower initial
proficiency. As shown in Table 5, test-takers whose initial proficiency was either 4.5 or 5.0
gained the most overall. Conversely, learning gain was smaller for high proficiency test-
takers (i.e. 7.5–8.5).

Table 5: Learning gain for test-takers at different initial band scores (gain=T2 - T1)
Overall proficiency 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 Mean
band (Test 1) / (n=2) (n=10) (n=43) (n=45) (n=42) (n=28) (n=14) (n=5) (n=1) (n=190)
Learning Gain
Overall Gain 0.25 0.55 0.20 0.10 0.11 0.11 -0.04 -0.20 -0.50 0.13
Reading Gain 0.00 0.40 0.24 0.1 0.04 -0.02 -0.14 0.10 -1.0 0.09
Listening Gain 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.11 0.23 0.18 0.04 -0.05 -0.05 0.12
Writing Gain -0.75 0.45 0.16 -0.01 0.06 0.04 0.18 -0.4 -0.5 0.07
Speaking Gain 1.00 0.60 0.31 0.33 0.25 0.25 0.00 -0.40 0.50 0.28
Note: The highest two mean scores for each row are shown in bold: the lowest two scores are shown in italics.
5.2 Test score and survey data (RQ2)

5.2.1 Response and predictor variables
The purpose of the analysis was to investigate which factors predicted higher/lower IELTS
scores. Data from the 190 participants were used in the analyses. Response (dependent)
measures included the scores (overall, reading, listening, writing and speaking) for the
first and second tests, giving a total of 10 individual measures. In addition, a learning
gain analysis was performed to see which factors predicted improved scores. To do this,
test scores (overall, reading, listening, writing and speaking) of the subset of participants
whose scores improved over the duration were used as dependent measures. It was
not possible to use learning gain as a dependent measure because gain was almost
exclusively restricted to either 0.5 or 1.0 bands. In other words, positive learning gain was
not varied enough to enable investigation of factors that predict the amount of gain.
Seventy predictor variables comprising of categorical, ordinal, and continuous data

were selected from the survey data and are indicated in Appendix 1. Variables were
selected from the following sections: English language learning history (e.g. study abroad
experience), IELTS preparation and results, and English study at university. Other items
were omitted for technical reasons and high school and cram school data were omitted
because the responses were very similar across participants. For Test 1, all predictors
except for ‘motivation to study reading/listening/writing/speaking following Test 1’ were
included (i.e. 66 variables), while Test 2 included these as well (i.e. 70 variables).
Due to logistics of administering the tests, dates and locations varied for participants and
for both the first and second tests, and so it was necessary to control for these factors
statistically. Three control variables (test location, date, duration between tests) were
included in Test 1 analyses, though ‘duration’ was only included for Test 2 analyses.
Green (2005) showed that the scores on an initial IELTS test were strong predictors
of scores on a subsequent test taken reasonably soon thereafter (his study had a
two-month gap). Preliminary analyses showed that this was indeed true for the present
data set, however, as previous test scores are highly correlated with new test scores and
because this essentially does not reveal anything interesting about the present sample’s
language history or test preparation, initial test score was excluded from the following
analyses.

5.2.2 Overview of analyses
To investigate which factors predicted the IELTS test scores, it was necessary to select an
appropriate statistical procedure that can reduce the large number of predictor variables/
covariates down to those that are most explanatory. Green (2007) notes that researchers
exploring the factors influencing learning gain have used a variety of techniques, such as
structural equation modelling, cluster analysis and neural networks (p. 80). All of these
methods can deal with large numbers of variables that are used to predict test scores
and/or learning gain. In the present study, however, a novel approach was adopted in
which a series of regression tree analyses, specifically referred to as conditional inference
trees (Hothorn et al., 2006) were performed.
Conditional inference trees are calculated using an algorithm that recursively partitions
the observations using univariate (two-way) splits for covariates. They utilise permutation
tests developed by Strasser and Weber (1999). First, the algorithm estimates a
regression relationship for the response and each covariate and selects the covariate that
is most explanatory, indicated by the lowest Bonferroni-corrected p-value. This statistical
approach to variable selection means that conditional inference trees are ‘unbiased’ as
they do not preference selection of covariates based on the type of data (e.g. continuous,
nominal or binary) or whether they have missing values. Next, the optimal split point in
the observations is estimated, which divides them into two groups. A significance criterion
(p < 0.05) is generated from a two-sample non-parametric permutation test, to ascertain
whether the groups resulting from the split represent different populations. This procedure
avoids the problem of over-fitting the model to the data. If the test is significant, the split is
made and a constant regression model is fitted in each cell of the resulting partition. If the
test is not significant, the covariate is excluded. This recursive selection and partitioning
procedure continues for all covariates, and for each new leaf (or ‘node’) in the regression
tree. To illustrate with an example, using a dependent measure ‘overall test score’ (Bands
0–9) and the variable ‘motivation to study’ (on a Likert 1–6 scale), the algorithm first
determines whether the covariate is significantly associated (to our criterion of Bonferroni-
corrected p-value) with the response, and let’s say it is. Next, the algorithm estimates the
optimal split point at which two different groups can be formed (e.g. motivation to study
≤2 and >2) and for which the observations form two distinct proficiency groups (e.g. ≤5.5,
>5.5). If the permutation test for the resulting partitioned groups is significant (p<0.05), the
split is made. The algorithm then repeats this process for the next covariate using both
groups/leaves of the tree that resulted from the previous split. In other words, the process
proceeds independently from each new leaf in the tree, until all covariates have been
assessed.
Regression trees are relatively simple tools that combine variable reduction and
regression model fitting procedures, while providing intuitive visualisation of the structural
relationships between the predictors and the observations (see Hothorn & Everitt,
2014). The recursive two-way splitting procedure is, however, a somewhat blunt method
of dealing with the potential complexity of the inter-relationships between variables
and the observations, especially when dealing with continuous covariates. Moreover,
different algorithms may represent the structure of the regression relationship in different
ways through the criteria employed (Hothorn et al, 2006: 18). It is accepted, as with
comparisons of other statistical procedures, that the final representations are not the only
way of viewing the structure of the data. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the present
report, the method’s primary advantage, visualising an estimated regression relationship
in an intuitive way, makes it a suitable choice.
Analyses were conducted using R open source software version 3.0.2 (R Development
Core Team, 2013). The function ctree was used for calculating and plotting the conditional
inference trees in the package ‘party’ (Hothorn et al, 2015; see also Hothorn et al, 2006).

Reading the tree diagrams is straightforward: significant predictor variables are
represented in ovals (see Figures 3 to 10), alongside the significance value from the
permutation test resulting in the univariate split. Each branch of the tree shows the level
of the factor that has been split: for a categorical variable this may be ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and
for a continuous/ordinal variable (e.g. Likert scale) the split will indicate the ‘less than or
equal to’ point and the ‘greater than’ point. The number of participants in each Node is
shown above the box and whisker plots (n). The box and whisker plots for each group/
node provide the following information: the y (vertical) axis shows the band score, the
median score is illustrated by the thick black line in the box, the box itself represents the
upper and lower quartiles, and the whiskers show the minimum and maximum scores.
5.2.3 Regression tree analyses

5.2.3.1 Overall scores
Figures 3 and 4 show regression trees for the overall scores for Test 1 and Test 2.
Figure 3 shows that experience living in an English-speaking country is an important
factor determining highest overall proficiency, followed by experience studying abroad.
Ten test-takers who had not lived or studied abroad but reported studying test techniques
extensively for the first test (>4) also gained high scores. The remaining participants who
had not lived or studied abroad, or studied test techniques much before the first test, were
subsequently divided by general motivation to study writing while at university, with those
rating their motivation between 4–6 on the Likert scale being significantly higher scorers.
Figure 3: Regression tree for overall scores on Test 1
Overall IELTS score Test1
1
E_Live
p < 0.001
Yes No
3
SA
p < 0.001
Yes No
5
Tech_T1
p = 0.012
≤4 >4
6
Mot_KB
p = 0.021
≤3 >3
Node 2 (n = 39) Node 4 (n = 32) Node 7 (n = 53) Node 8 (n = 56) Node 9 (n = 10)
8 8 8 8 8
7 7 7 7 7
6 6 6 6 6
5 5 5 5 5
Figure 4 shows that living abroad is the primary variable distinguishing the highest overall
scorers on the second test. Of those high scorers, whether or not they used the website
further distinguishes them into two groups. Those who did not use the website (n=22)
scored the highest. This finding indicates that those who opted to use the website were
lower in English proficiency. Another factor was ‘motivation to study writing after Test 1’,
where those who had very high motivation (i.e. they rated ‘6’ on the 6–point scale) scored
higher (n=21). Thus, being highly motivated to improve writing was related to higher
overall scores.

Figure 4: Regression tree for overall scores on Test 2
Overall IELTS score Test 2
1
E_Live
p < 0.001
Yes No
2 5
Website W_Mo_T1
p = 0.033 p = 0.01
No Yes ≤5 >5
Node 3 (n = 22) Node 4 (n = 17) Node 6 (n = 130) Node 7 (n = 21)

8 8 8 8
7 7 7 7
6 6 6 6
5 5 5 5
Only one variable, ‘motivation to study writing after Test 1’, significantly explained the
variance in the group of test-takers who increased their overall scores across tests, such
that those with higher motivation (>3, n=35) scored higher (median band score=6.5).
Thus, writing motivation appeared to be an important factor predicting overall IELTS score
increases.
5.2.3.2 Reading scores

Living abroad significantly predicted higher reading scores (n=39, median band score=8)
on Test 1, while no other variables were significant in explaining variance in the reading
scores. The result was almost identical for Test 2 (statistic: 17.661, p=0.002) with
partitioned groups being identical. There were no significant predictors for the subset
of participants who increased their score (n=45). The lack of explanatory variables for
reading scores suggests a ceiling effect, where variables are less predictive due to the
mean scores being uniformly very high. The test-takers were all highly skilled at reading
and doing reading tests, as the test scores suggested, and thus there is less variation to
separate out with the predictor variables.
5.2.3.3 Listening scores

Figures 5 and 6 show regression trees for the listening scores for Test 1 and Test 2.
Figure 5 shows that living and studying abroad are key factors explaining variance in
the listening scores on the first test. Figure 6 shows that the amount of spoken fluency
practice that test-takers did prior to Test 2 was also a significant predictor (p<.01),
such that those who practiced fluency more, got higher scores in the listening test.
This finding may reflect the fact that practicing fluency, which was defined as ‘responding
spontaneously to question prompts during speaking practice’ can also involve listening
to an interlocutor, or perhaps speaking aloud, required test-takers to concentrate on their
own output, i.e. monitoring their own speech, which concurrently led to increased listening
ability. This is an interesting finding, pointing to the overlap across skills. For the group of
test-takers whose listening scores increased, only living abroad distinguished amongst
the scores: a small group who had lived abroad (n=16) outperformed those who had not.

Figure 5: Regression tree for listening scores on Test 1
IELTS Listening score Test 1
1
E_Live
p < 0.001
Yes No
3
SA
p < 0.001
Yes No
Node 2 (n = 39) Node 4 (n = 32) Node 5 (n = 119)

9 9 9
8 8 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
5 5 5
Figure 6: Regression tree for listening scores on Test 2

IELTS Listening score Test 2
1
E_Live
p < 0.001
Yes No
3
SA
p < 0.001
Yes No
5
Flu_T2
p = 0.006
≤2 >2

9 9 9 9
8 8 8 8
7 7 7 7
6 6 6 6
5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3
5.2.3.4 Writing scores

Figures 7 and 8 show regression trees for the writing scores for Test 1 and Test 2. Figure
7 shows that studying abroad and studying test techniques were predictive of writing
performance on the first test. As observed for the overall scores on Test 1, test techniques
were an important factor and this may partly derive from the fact that studying techniques
for writing was related to higher overall scores. In addition, general motivation to learn
English further divided the participants into groups, with more motivated learners scoring
higher on the test.

Figure 7: Regression tree for writing scores on Test 1
IELTS Writing score Test 1
1
SA
p = 0.02
Yes No
3
Tech_T1
p = 0.004
≤4 >4
4
Mot_KB
p = 0.003
≤3 >3
7 7 7 7
6 6 6 6
5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4
Figure 8 shows that experience of attending English-medium school was a significant

predictor of writing performance on Test 2, as well as the amount of practice of writing
done prior to the test. While studying test techniques was important for Test 1, indicating
that test-takers spent time studying the format of the writing test, actual writing practice
impacted scores for Test 2. This highlights the finding that test-takers prepared more for
the second test, that is, over and above simply reading through the test format. It is not
clear why study abroad was predictive for Test 1 writing but English-medium schooling
was predictive for Test 2 writing, though the scores and number of participants in both
groups are similar, suggesting some overlap. ‘Motivation to study writing after Test 1’
was the only significantly explanatory predictor of test scores for those whose scores
increased. When considering the group whose scores increased on both the overall and
the writing tests, this factor identifies the higher scorers in both data sets, making it an
important factor predicting high scores and improvement on the IELTS test.
Figure 8: Regression tree for writing scores on Test 2

IELTS Writing score Test 2
1
E_Sch
p = 0.009
Yes No
3
W_T2
p = 0.013
≤2 >2
Node 2 (n = 41) Node 4 (n = 83) Node 5 (n = 66)
7 7 7
6 6 6
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3

5.2.3.5 Speaking scores
Figures 9 and 10 show regression trees for the speaking scores for Test 1 and for the
subset whose scores increased. Figure 9 shows that living and studying abroad were
important factors predicting Test 1 scores. In addition, those who practiced spoken
fluency also had higher scores than those who did not (5.5 vs. 4.5, respectively). Living
abroad was the only significant factor explaining variance in speaking scores on Test 2
(n=39, median band score=6.5).
Figure 9: Regression tree for speaking scores on Test 1
IELTS Speaking score Test 1
1
E_Live
p < 0.001
Yes No
3
SA
p = 0.013
Yes No
5
Flu_T1
p = 0.017
≤3 >3

9 9 9 9
8 8 8 8
7 7 7 7
6 6 6 6
5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3
Figure 10 shows that for those who improved their speaking score over the period, high
writing motivation after Test 1, English-medium schooling and spoken fluency practice
all explained variance in the speaking scores. Interestingly, 13 respondents who rated 6
(the highest possible rating) for the agreement statement ‘I was highly motivated to study
writing after the first test’, improved their speaking score. Motivation to study writing, thus,
predicts higher overall and writing scores on Test 2, and also higher speaking scores for
those that improved in speaking. It is unclear why English-medium schooling is predictive
of Test 2 scores for writing and speaking (of those who improved); perhaps those who
had received at least some schooling in English had a stronger underlying ability in
productive skills which only became apparent in the second test. For these participants,
it was easier to gain higher scores in the productive skills due to their experience of using
English in the past.
Figure 10: Regression tree for speaking scores for test-takers whose scores increased
IELTS Speaking score Test 2: Positive development only
1
W_Mo_T1
p = 0.01
≤5 >5
2
E_Sch
p = 0.016
Yes No
4
Flu_T2
p = 0.048
≤3 >3
8 8 8 8
7 7 7 7
6 6 6 6
5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4

5.3 Survey responses (RQ3)
5.3.1 Language history
The same 190 participants’ survey responses were analysed. The mean age of the
participants (127 male, 62 female, 1 no response) was 20.2 years (SD=2.3 years).
Information on languages known and used is omitted here and from the analyses
due to problems in the survey question formats.
Of the respondents, 167 had always lived in Japan, received schooling solely in Japanese
and only used Japanese at home, while 23 participants had not. Of the 23 respondents,
five were considered to be international students based on the age range in which they
began learning Japanese, length of stay and schooling in Japan, their own self-perceived
Japanese language proficiency (<7 on scale of 0–9 with 9 being native speaker level),
and additional information provided by these respondents. These respondents made up
a very small proportion (3%) of the data. The remaining 18 respondents (9.5% of data)
were considered to be ‘returnees’ based on the same criteria; that is, they had lived in
Japan and abroad, but had Japanese as a first language.
The proportion of those who had lived in an English-speaking country was 21% (mean
length of stay was 2.9 years) and 28% of participants had studied abroad prior to
university; while a further 23% had done so while at university (mode duration in both
cases = <1 month).
In response to the question 'Would you like to study abroad in the future?', 50% of
participants responded ‘yes’, 36% ‘maybe’ and 14% ‘no’. The main reasons selected
were to improve speaking ability (68%), to study an academic subject in English (58%),
to learn culture (42%), to improve English in general (37%), and to study discipline-
specific English (27%). All of these findings suggest that the sample was in general quite
motivated to study English, as a quarter of them had either studied or lived in an English-
speaking country, and half were keen to study abroad in the future.
Only a few participants were engaged in English club activities while at high school
and university (7% each), while almost a quarter of participants had attended English
conversation school while at high school (24%), and fewer while at university (8%).
The popularity of conversation schools perhaps underscores students’ desires to practice
speaking English, which was not being fulfilled at high schools.
5.3.2 IELTS preparation

Responses for the Items 34/40 'How many hours did you study for the first/second test?'
(Table 6) indicated that around a quarter of participants did not study at all, and a total
of 88% studied less than 20 hours for the first test, and 79% studied less than 20 hours
for Test 2. From this, it is clear that overall, although test-takers studied more for Test 2,
the majority did not study much for either. This is important as often 50% or more of the
responses for the following Likert scale items indicate ‘strongly disagree’, which reflects
the fact that around this proportion of test-takers prepared very little for the IELTS tests.
Table 6: Number of hours studied for each IELTS test
0 hours 20 hours or 20 to 40 40 to 60 60 to 80 More than

less hours hours hours 80 hours
Test 1 23% 65% 9% 2% 1% 0%
Test 2 25% 54% 15% 4% 3% 0%

Only 19 participants (10%) had taken IELTS in the past, meaning that most were taking
the test for the first time. The reasons selected for taking the IELTS tests were because
it was free (93% selected this response), for study abroad (50%), for the qualification
(48%), for work (9%), and for other reasons (<2%). Thus, one reason why test-takers did
not prepare much for the exams is probably the lack of financial incentive (i.e. the test
was free) and also the lack of plans to study abroad (for 50%), even though in a previous
question, 36% thought they may like to study abroad and only 14% said they did not want
to study abroad.
In preparation for the IELTS tests, some participants attended the British Council
workshops (28%), used the British Council website (36%), attended conversation
school (2%), or sought help from English-speaking acquaintances (3%). Again, this
may indicate less than strong motivation to prepare for the test.
Figure 11 below shows agreement responses for Item 33/39: 'In preparation for the first/
second test I studied mainly for reading/listening/writing/speaking'. While the majority of
responses indicated minimal preparation for all skills on both tests, test-takers prepared
more for writing and speaking, and less for reading and listening, prior to the second test.
Figure 11: Responses to Items 33 and 39
Preparation
Preparationfor
forIELTS
IELTStests:
tests:Skills
Skills
Listening
Listening 190
Reading
Reading 190
Test_1
Writing
Writing 190
Row Count Totals

Speaking
Speaking 190
Listening
Listening 190
Reading
Reading 190
Test_2
Writing
Writing 190
Speaking
Speaking 190
80 60 40 20 0 20
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Strongly_Disagree Disagree
Disagree Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat_Disagree Somewhat Agree
Somewhat_Agree Agree
Agree Strongly Agree
Strongly_Agree
Figure 12 shows agreement responses for Items 35/41: 'In preparation for the first/second
test I spent a lot of time on (tasks)'. Similar to the above, test-takers focused more on
writing and speaking, and less on reading and listening, when preparing for the second
test.

Preparation for IELTS
Preparation tests:tests:
for IELTS Activities
Activities
Writing essays
Writing_essays 190
Writing about visual information
Writing_about_visual_information 190
Reading tasks
Reading_tasks 190
Listening tasks (2 speakers)
Test_1
Listening_tasks_(2_speakers) 190
ListeningListening_tasks_(3+_speakers)
tasks (3+ speakers) 190
Speaking everyday topics

Speaking_everyday_topics 190
Row Count Totals

Speaking abstract topics
Speaking_abstract_topics 190
Writing essays
Writing_essays 190

Reading tasks
Reading_tasks 190
Test_2

ListeningListening_tasks_(3+_speakers)
Speaking everyday topics


80 60 40 20 0 20
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Strongly_Agree
Figure 13 shows agreement responses for three items: Items 37/43: 'My preparation
activities focused on grammar/vocabulary/pronunciation', Items 36/42: 'I practiced
speaking immediately with little or no preparation time' (i.e., unprepared spoken
fluency activities), and Items 38/44: 'I studied test-taking techniques a lot'. While most
respondents disagreed, around 20% of respondents agreed for vocabulary, test-taking
techniques and fluency. The least agreement was found for pronunciation. There were
few differences across tests, though participants focused slightly more on fluency, and
slightly less on grammar, in preparation for Test 2.
Figure 13: Responses to Items 36/42, 37/43 and 38/44
Preparation
Preparationfor
forIELTS
IELTS tests: Knowledge andskills
Knowledge and skills
Vocabulary
Vocabulary 190
Test Test_techniques
techniques 190
Test_1
Fluency 190
Fluency
Grammar 190
Grammar
Row Count Totals
Pronunciation 190
Pronunciation
Vocabulary
Vocabulary 190
Test Test_techniques
techniques 190
Fluency
Test_2
Fluency 190
Grammar
Grammar 190
Pronunciation
Pronunciation 190
100 80 60 40 20 0 20
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Strongly_Agree

Figure 14 shows agreement responses for Items 50/52: 'After the first/second test, I think
my proficiency increased a lot in (skill)'. Test-takers felt that they improved the most in
speaking, and then writing, particularly after the second test. There were slight drops in
perceived improvements for the receptive skills following Test 2.

Perceived
Perceiveddevelopment
Development following
following IELTS tests
IELTS tests
Speaking
Speaking 190
Writing
Writing 190
Test_1
Reading
Reading 190
Row Count Totals

Listening 190
Listening
Speaking
Speaking 190
Writing
Writing 190
Test_2
Reading
Reading 190
Listening
Listening 190
80 60 40 20 0 20
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Strongly_Agree
Figure 15 shows agreement responses for Items 49/51: 'After the first/second test, I was
motivated to study more (skill)'. Of all the IELTS-related items, this is the only one to elicit
greater than 50% agreement. Following Test 1, over half of participants were motivated
to study speaking and writing, while less than half were motivated to study reading and
listening. Following Test 2, these proportions increased for all skills. After both tests, fewer
than 40% were motivated to study reading, which is probably due to the fact that test-
takers had studied this skill the most until now, and had scored the highest on this skill in
both tests.
Figure 15: Responses to Items 49 and 51 Motivation to study following IELTS tests
Motivation to study following IELTS tests
Speaking
Speaking 190
Writing
Writing 190
Test_1
Listening
Listening 190
Row Count Totals
Reading
Reading 190
Speaking 190
Speaking
Writing 190
Writing
Test_2
Listening 190
Listening
Reading 190
Reading
50 0 50
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Strongly_Agree

5.3.3 University, cram school, high school
Responses regarding university, high school and cram school learning experiences are
compared. Figure 16 shows agreement responses for Items 58/79/98: 'I spent a lot of
time working in ___'. Both pre-tertiary environments involved almost exclusively individual
work, with cram school being particularly devoid of pair and group work. University
classrooms were still primarily organised in terms of individual work, but group work was
more prevalent. Pair work, which is perhaps the most effective way to maximise student
talk time in class, featured very little in all environments.
Figure 16: Responses to Items 58, 79 and 98

Classroom organisation
Classroom organization
Individual
Individual 133
Cram_School
Group
Group 133
Pair
Pair 133
Row Count Totals

Individual 190
Individual
High_School
Group
Group 190
Pair
Pair 190
Individual 190
Individual
University
Group
Group 190
Pair
Pair 190
100 50 0 50
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Strongly_Agree
Figure 17 shows agreement responses for Items 59/80/99: 'Overall my teachers talked for
most of the class'. For both pre-tertiary situations there was strong agreement, suggesting
primarily teacher-centred language classrooms and supporting the observation of
classes involving mainly individual work. At university, responses were equally balanced
suggesting much variation in the classes available. Given that large universities
have many classes and teachers, who have varied teaching styles, experience and
backgrounds, the participants are likely to have been exposed to very different classroom
teaching methods.

Did you just listen to the teacher in class?
Did you just listen to the teacher in class?
Cram school
Cram_School 133
Row Count Totals
HighHigh_School
school 190
1
University 190
University
40 20 0 20 40 60
Percent
Strongly Disagree
UniversityStrongly_Disagree Disagree
Strongly_Agree

Figure 18 shows agreement responses for three statements: Items 60/81/100: 'My
teacher spoke mainly in English during the class'; Items 61/82/101: 'I mainly used English
when speaking to the teacher in class', and Items 62/83/102: 'I used English most of
the time when speaking to other students in the class'. The results show that English is
rarely used in pre-tertiary situations, especially by students when talking to one another
or the teacher. The teacher uses English the most in pre-tertiary situations, particularly
in high school, which supports the previous indication that classrooms are teacher-
centred. At university, teachers were more likely to use English in the classroom and
students appeared to often speak to the teacher in English. This finding may reflect the
fact that there are more native-speaker/highly proficient English-speaking teachers in UT
compared with high schools (and cram school). Even still, students apparently did not
often interact with their peers in English.
Figure 18: Responses to Items 60/81/100, 61/82/101 and 62/83/102

Speaking
Speaking in class:
in class: English
English andand Japanese
Japanese
Teacher to student
Teacher_to_Student 133
Cram_School
Student to teacher
Student_to_Teacher 133
Student to student
Student_to_Student 133
Row Count Totals

Teacher to student
High_School
Student to teacher
Student to student
Teacher to student
University
Student to teacher
Student to student
100 50 0 50
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Strongly_Agree
Figure 19 shows agreement responses for Items 64/85/104: 'My homework often involved
(skill)'. A similar pattern is revealed in all learning environments: Speaking homework is
extremely rare, while reading homework is the most common, followed by writing. The
amount of homework appears to be overall greatest at cram school.
Figure 19: Responses to Items 64, 85 and 104 Amount of

Amount of homework
homework done
done
Reading
Reading 133
Writing
Cram_School
Writing 133
Listening
Listening 133
Speaking
Speaking 133
Reading
Row Count Totals
Reading 190
Writing
High_School
Writing 190
Listening
Listening 190
Speaking 190
Speaking
Reading 190
Reading
Writing 190
University
Writing
Listening 190
Listening
Speaking
Speaking 190
100 50 0 50
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Strongly_Agree

Figure 20 shows agreement responses for Items 65/86/105: 'Overall, class activities
focused on (skill)'. Reading is by far the most practiced skill in all environments, while
speaking, is by far the least, especially at the pre-tertiary level. The need to prepare for
entrance examinations most likely dictates the skills focus, though it is less clear why this
trend is maintained at university.

Skills focus in class
Skills focus in class
Reading
Reading 133
Listening
Cram_School
Listening 133
Writing
Writing 133
Speaking
Speaking 133
Row Count Totals

Reading
Reading 190
High_School
Listening
Listening 190
Writing
Writing 190
Speaking
Speaking 190
Reading
Reading 190
Listening
Listening 190
University
Writing
Writing 190
Speaking
Speaking 190
50 0 50
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Strongly_Agree
Figure 21 shows agreement responses for three items: Items 68/89/108: 'My preparation
activities focused on grammar/vocabulary/pronunciation'; Items 67/88/107: 'I practiced
speaking immediately with little or no preparation time' (i.e., unprepared spoken fluency
activities); and Items 70/91/110: 'I studied test-taking techniques a lot'. In pre-tertiary
contexts, the focus appears to have been on vocabulary, grammar and test-taking
techniques, and these are studied particularly intensively at cram school. There was
some focus on pronunciation but very little on spoken fluency, especially at cram school.
The minor focus on pronunciation may reflect the fact that the NCUEE and university
entrance examinations include indirect tests of pronunciation (word stress placement).
At university, there was little focus on any of the aspects, though vocabulary, fluency and
grammar received at least some attention. Fluency was focused on more at university,
though still minimally. Because there was no exam to prepare for, test-taking techniques
received little attention. Pronunciation received even less attention at university than in
pre-tertiary situations.
Figure 21: Responses to Items 68/89/108, Items 67/88/107 and Items 70/91/110
Knowledge and skill focus

Knowledge and skills focus
Vocabulary
Vocabulary 133
GrammarGrammar 133
Cram_School
Fluency
Fluency 133
Test techniques
Test_techniques 133
Pronunciation
Pronunciation 133
Vocabulary
Vocabulary 190
Row Count Totals
GrammarGrammar 190
High_School
Fluency
Fluency 190
Test techniques
Test_techniques 190
Pronunciation
Pronunciation 190
Vocabulary
Vocabulary 190
GrammarGrammar 190
University
Fluency
Fluency 190
Test techniques
Test_techniques 190
Pronunciation
Pronunciation 190
100 50 0 50
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat
Somewhat_Disagree Agree
Strongly_Agree

Figure 22 shows agreement responses for Items 69/90/109: 'I spent a lot of time on
(tasks)'. Reading tasks were the most common in all cases, and markedly so at cram
school. Writing essays was the next most common activity, though it is unclear how
respondents interpreted the meaning of ‘essay’. Also, ‘writing about visual information’
was likely interpreted to include describing a picture, which is a common task found on
entrance exams and in practicing grammatical form during sentence composition; these
activities are somewhat different from the IELTS Writing Task 1, from which the activity
was derived. Listening activities were quite common in pre-tertiary environments, though
not at university, and speaking tasks were very limited in all environments.
In-class
In-class activities
activities
Reading tasks
Reading_tasks 133
Writing essays
Writing_essays 133
Listening Listening_tasks_(3+_speakers)
tasks (3+ speakers)
Cram_School
133
Listening Listening_tasks_(2_speakers)
tasks (2 speakers) 133
SpeakingSpeaking_everyday_topics
everyday topics 133
Reading tasks
Reading_tasks 190
Row Count Totals

Writing essays
Writing_essays 190
Listening Listening_tasks_(3+_speakers)
High_School
Listening Listening_tasks_(2_speakers)
tasks (2 speakers) 190

SpeakingSpeaking_everyday_topics
everyday topics 190

Reading_tasks 190
Reading tasks
Writing_essays 190
Writing essays
Listening_tasks_(3+_speakers) 190
Listening tasks (3+ speakers)
University
SpeakingSpeaking_abstract_topics
everyday topics 133
100 50 0 50
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Strongly_Agree
Figure 23 shows agreement responses for Items 72/93/112: 'I was satisfied with
my classes at ____'. Responses revealed marked differences in satisfaction, with
approximately 70% agreement for cram school, roughly equally divided agreement at
high school, and approximately 70% disagreement at university. Satisfaction is perhaps
evaluated in terms of the students’ goals in each case: at cram school, the goal was to
pass the entrance exam, which all of the current participants were successful in doing,
and thus satisfaction was generally quite high. In contrast, university English education
apparently failed to meet the expectations of the students; this point is taken up in the
analysis of interview data.

I was satisfied with my English education
I was satisfied with my English education
Cram
Cram_School 133
school
Row Count Totals
High
High_School 190
1
school
University
University 190
50 0 50
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Strongly_Agree

Figure 24 shows agreement responses for Items 66/87/106: 'Overall, I think my
proficiency improved in (skill)'. The greatest perceived improvement was at cram school
for reading, but also writing and listening. At high school, participants also felt that they
improved at reading, as well as writing and listening. At university, there was much less
agreement overall, though the order of perceived improvement is the same. Importantly,
in all environments, participants generally felt that their English-speaking ability did not
improve.

Perceived development
Perceived development
Reading
Reading 133
Writing
Cram_School
Writing 133
Listening
Listening 133
Speaking
Speaking 133
Row Count Totals

Reading
Reading 190
Writing
High_School
Writing 190
Listening
Listening 190
Speaking
Speaking 190
Reading
Reading 190
Writing
Writing 190
University
Listening
Listening 190
Speaking
Speaking 190
50 0 50
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat
Somewhat_Disagree Agree
Strongly_Agree
Figure 25 shows agreement responses for Items 74/95/114: 'I was motivated to study
English'. Motivation was greatest at cram school, especially for reading, followed by
writing and listening, with markedly little motivation to study speaking. A similar pattern
was observed at high school, though with overall less agreement. At university, students
were most motivated to study speaking and writing, followed by listening and reading. It
should be noted, however, that 60% of respondents at university (and around 50% at high
school) were generally not motivated to study. Students were most motivated at cram
school, when they were studying for the university entrance exams.

Motivation
Motivation to study
to study eacheach
skillskill
Writing
Writing 133
Listening
Cram_School
Listening 133
Reading
Reading 133
Speaking
Speaking 133
Writing
Row Count Totals
Writing 190
Listening
High_School
Listening 190
Reading
Reading 190
Speaking
Speaking 190
Writing
Writing 190
Listening
Listening 190
University
Reading
Reading 190
Speaking 190
Speaking
50 0 50
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Strongly_Agree

A summary of the results of the survey is presented in Table 7.
Table 7: Characteristics of English language study in different learning environments
Test NCUEE and UT (None) IELTS

Learning situation High school Cram school University Self-study only
Classroom Individual (90%) Pair Individual (90%) Individual (70%) > N/A
organisation > Group > Group > Pair Group > Pair
Teacher/student- Teacher (65%) Teacher (70%) Both teacher and N/A
centred instruction student-centred
classes (50–50%)
Language used by Almost no English in Almost no English with teacher N/A
teacher/students any interactions English in any (50–60%), English
interactions between students
(50–50%)
Skills focus in class/ Reading > Listening Reading > Reading > Listening > Reading = Listening >
test preparation = Writing > Writing > Writing > Speaking Writing > Speaking (Test 1)
Speaking Listening > Writing > Speaking >
Speaking Listening > Reading (Test 2)
Skills focus of Reading > Writing Reading > Reading > Writing > N/A
homework > Listening > Writing > Listening > Speaking
Speaking Listening >
Speaking
Focus on spoken Very little Very little Little Little
fluency (Test 1, 20%, Test 2, 25%)
Focus on form, Grammar = Grammar > Vocabulary > Vocabulary > Test
fluency and test Vocabulary > Vocabulary > Fluency > Grammar techniques = Fluency >
techniques Test techniques > Test techniques > Test techniques > Grammar > Pronunciation
Pronunciation > > Pronunciation Pronunciation (Test 1)
Fluency > Fluency Fluency > Vocabulary > Test
techniques > Grammar >
Pronunciation (Test 2)
Focus on types Reading > Writing Reading > Reading > Writing Reading > Writing essays
of activities essays > Listening Writing essays essays > Listening = > Writing about visual
> Writing about > Listening > Speaking general > information > Listening
visual information > Writing about Writing about visual > Speaking general >
Speaking abstract > visual information information > Speaking Speaking abstract (Test 1)
Speaking general > Speaking abstract Writing about visual
abstract > information > Writing
Speaking essays > Speaking general
general > Reading > Speaking
abstract > Listening (Test 2)
Focus on test-taking
Yes Yes No Yes (20%, both tests)
techniques
Satisfaction 45% somewhat or 70% somewhat 30% somewhat or N/A
more satisfied or more satisfied more satisfied
Perceived Reading > Writing Reading > Reading > Writing > Speaking > Writing =
development > Listening > Writing > Listening > Speaking Reading = Listening (Test 1)
Speaking Listening > Speaking > Writing >
Speaking Reading > Listening
(Test 2)
Motivation to study Reading > Listening Reading > Speaking > Writing > Speaking > Writing >
each of four skills = Writing > Writing > Listening > Reading Listening > Reading
Speaking Listening > (Both tests)
Speaking

5.4 Interview data (RQ3)
5.4.1 IELTS preparation
5.4.1.1 Overview
Fifteen interviewees reported that they did very little or no study in preparation for the first
IELTS test. This was primarily due to the lack of time available due to other study, social
and part-time work commitments. However, 10 students appeared to prepare more for the
second test than for the first test. Moreover, 11 test-takers appeared motivated to study
further following the second test. Two noted that their scores increased, which led to
greater confidence and a desire to maintain their English ability and particularly an ability
to improve speaking ability (P8).
P8: After being allowed to take the IELTS test twice I felt like I’d really improved, and
that made me feel like trying even harder.
5.4.1.2 IELTS Reading and Listening preparation

Seven interviewees mentioned strategic reasons for focusing on receptive skills on the
first test, such as they are easier to improve, and five said that it is easier to study them
by themselves. Moreover, a theme emerged that, while test-takers realised that they were
stronger at receptive skills, they thought that, given the limited amount of time available,
if they focused on these they could gain a reasonable overall score (e.g. P9).
P9: For now, I thought, in terms of efficiency it’s better to study listening and reading,
to get used to the format.
However, three reported that they did not prepare much for the reading section as they
studied reading intensively when preparing for the entrance exams (e.g. P5).
P5: While I was preparing for the entrance exams I was made to do reading and
listening almost exclusively, so I thought I’d done enough...so I didn’t study for them.
In terms of materials and methods used when preparing for the tests (all skills),
test-takers adopted a range of approaches. Overall, IELTS preparation materials and
past papers were the most common for both tests. Authentic materials such as Time
magazine, the NY Times, the Telegraph, non-fiction books, TED video clips, and CNN
News, were also used by five respondents. Participants mentioned that such activities
were not direct preparation for the test, but instead part of their normal study routine.
In addition, two test-takers actually used TOEFL and entrance exam materials to practice
listening.
5.4.1.3 IELTS Writing and Speaking preparation

Six interviewees mentioned explicitly that they needed to improve their writing ability
following the first test. The IELTS test thus appeared to raise test-takers’ awareness of
their own writing ability. Three noted how the writing tasks were much more difficult than
the writing tests they had experienced previously, particularly in entrance exams (e.g. P7
and P15) and other timed writing tasks.
P7: The length is very different, and the content, we’re asked to state an opinion on
something, how much we agree with something. We have to do that kind of really
detailed writing, so like ‘I agree and the reasons I think so are…’. The format isn’t
fixed, and so rather than just fitting words in a pre-formulated structure, we have to
pay attention to detail when writing.
P15: In IELTS you look at the graph and write what you think about it…interpreting the
graph and writing about it, in that point IELTS writing is really difficult I thought.

There was also a positive effect on their motivation to study writing in English. Four
reported studying writing intensively for the second test (e.g. P12), often focusing on
writing fluency (e.g. P18).
P12: Writing, well, there wasn’t really anyone to show it to, so I just wrote something
and looked at it, as well as the model answer, and thought ‘right, if I changed it like
this then it’d be better’, and I just kept thinking over and over about things like that.
P18: For writing, basically speed is really important I thought so, everyday, well not
everyday actually, I practiced writing 200–250 words...in the IELTS workbook there
are lots of questions, and I wrote answers for them, a little each day. So, using the
workbook and past papers book, there are real IELTS questions so I prepared using
those…I practiced most for it, finishing within the allocated time, and I also tried to
write a well-organised answer, I think.
Not all test-takers practiced actual writing, however, in preparation for the second test.
One test-taker simply read about the writing tasks and another looked at model answers
and made notes on phrases (P14).
P14: Yes, so for writing, I’d bought a few books, and so I looked through those seeing
what kind of questions come up in the exam, checking them really quickly, and rather
than writing myself, I really just looked at the sample answers and made notes of any
expressions that I thought I could use in the real exam.
While these study behaviours are not unhelpful for developing writing ability, they are
limited by the fact that they do not actually involve actually writing in English. While this
strategy may simply reflect limitations of time available for study, it may also show a lack
of understanding about how to practice productive skills. In relation to this, interviewees
complained that no one was available to check their writing, and consequently they could
not study writing (e.g. P9), and another pointed to the importance of native speakers
checking his writing (e.g. P2).
P9: For the second test, I read through most of the speaking and writing sections
in the study guide. I didn’t practice writing by myself though, but I checked the
techniques and read through them…
P2: Regarding writing, I thought it was no good unless a teacher, a native speaker,
could properly correct it for me.
In sum, positive washback was apparent in terms of motivation and writing strategies,
particularly those related to writing fluency. The writing tasks were considered to be
more difficult than previously experienced tests/tasks, and this helped raised test-takers’
awareness of their own writing ability. A theme also emerged that studying writing cannot
be done alone and that teachers were necessary in order to improve.
Regarding speaking, after the first test, 13 out of 19 interviewees stated that they wanted
to improve their speaking ability. Thus, the IELTS test appeared to positively influence
test-takers’ motivation to study speaking. For two test-takers, the speaking component
provided them with a clear realisation of their own lack of ability to express themselves in
English (e.g. P15). For one, this and the fact that he was going to study abroad motivated
him to study speaking; another became more aware of her lack of spoken fluency through
the test.
P15: I couldn’t speak at all. I couldn't say what I wanted to say. Although I couldn’t
speak, the examiner was really friendly. At the beginning there is small talk, and that
made me relaxed I thought, but saying everything what I thought in English was just
impossible.

Four interviewees suggested that the focus on entrance exams resulted in a lack of
practice speaking in pre-tertiary education (e.g. P15).
P15: At high school, there was absolutely no need to speak English, if you could read,
listen and write, you could pass the entrance exam, and the exam was the priority,
so because there was no speaking on the exam, I didn’t do any at all.
The IELTS Speaking Test was considered to be more difficult than other tests
interviewees had encountered. One reasoned this was because there was a real
interviewer present. Two test-takers mentioned the necessity to really think about the
content of what you are saying, whereas the EIKEN Test (level 2) ‘is more like a quiz’.
Another referred to the EIKEN level 3, which apparently has a very clear ‘pattern’ that
could be learned easily. Other issues related to the difficulty of the speaking test included
topic difficulty (2), and listening ability, which influenced the test-taker’s ability to respond
during the oral interview. This is an interesting example as it ties in with the finding that
practicing spoken fluency explained some of the variance in listening scores.
Due to the perceived difficulty of the speaking test, three test-takers avoided practicing
speaking altogether and thought that by studying receptive skills they would gain a higher
overall score. Another reason why test-takers did not study is that they did not know how
to study speaking (e.g. P1).
P1: Speaking was the only skill that I didn’t know how to improve…I’ve really got to
think about how to do it.
Five participants read about the speaking component of the test without actually
practicing speaking (e.g. P7). In one case, this was specifically mentioned to be due
to time constraints.
P7: For speaking as well, I just read the techniques...There are these categories
with vocabulary written in them, and well I just read them, I didn’t actually practice
saying them.
Test-takers regularly mentioned the lack of opportunity to practice speaking (6), and
noted how it is difficult to practice speaking by oneself (6). Thus, speaking was, like
writing, perceived by a number of test-takers to be a skill that must be practiced with an
interlocutor (e.g. P15).
P15: I thought that I must concentrate on speaking really, but in the end, I didn’t really
do anything. In my ‘English Only’ class I spoke sometimes, but that was about the only
opportunity I could find.
Four test-takers did practice speaking in response to IELTS task questions by themselves
(e.g. P2), or with a parent or teacher. Another (P11) practiced more for the second test,
especially for Part 2 of the speaking test. He also reflected on the result of the second
test and was motivated to study more.
P2: I didn’t speak (with anyone) at all. Normally there’s absolutely no opportunity to
speak so I tried speaking aloud, personal introductions, greetings. But really only a
little, you couldn’t really say I studied it.
P11: It’s a long question, not something you can answer with ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so you need
to think about it by yourself, and in the last test I kind of got stuck, so I thought
I definitely need to be able to respond and so I practiced that part.
…My speaking didn’t improve as much as I’d thought, so if I can, well, if it’s possible,
I’d like to find a partner to talk to and prepare more that way.

In sum, test-takers became more aware of their speaking ability through the test, and
many became motivated to study speaking as a result. The test was perceived to be
difficult, for many reasons, and this highlights the fact that test-takers had little previous
experience of practicing speaking. Many did not actually practice speaking, which
indicates a lack of positive washback, and this was due, in some cases, to a lack of
opportunities to practice and/or understanding about how to study speaking. Positive
washback was, however, apparent for a number of interviewees in the form of actual
speaking practice prior to the test.
5.4.2 University, cram school, high school

5.4.2.1 University
Eleven interviewees considered reading to be the primary skill focused on at university.
Ten reported little focus on speaking, while listening and writing were mentioned in regard
to particular classes that focused on these skills. Eleven test-takers mentioned that they
wanted more opportunities to learn and practice speaking. One (P12) criticised the focus
on reading and grammar at the expense of developing students’ spoken fluency, primarily
because the former can be done alone while the latter needs others
to interact with.
P12: I think we should strive more to learn speaking at university. I know it’s important
to be able to read specialist texts in the future but, that’s something I can do by
myself, isn’t it? And so, honestly, I don’t really know what the university expects from
teaching us something we can do by ourselves if we try. My impression is that it’d
definitely be better to put more effort into speaking and writing.
Another noted that the speaking activities were very different from those found in the
IELTS test. Discussion activities were widely criticised (9), notably because students end
up speaking in Japanese (4). The topic was considered too difficult in the discussions,
which led to them using Japanese. Speeches and presentations were also criticised.
One interviewee wanted more opportunities to speak with peers in English (P11), another
wanted more pronunciation practice and another suggested that spontaneous speaking
tasks were not done in class (P1).
P11: I wanted more time to speak English, I think. In most cases, the teacher gives
some topic and we write a response, give a presentation. More than that I think it’d
be better to try talking with peers, and the teacher, and get used to English
expressions that way.
P1: I feel like I haven’t spoken at all in any of the classes that I’ve taken...there’s
nothing like IELTS where someone says something and then we have to respond
spontaneously.
Sixteen expressed some dissatisfaction and eight specifically criticised the lack of
speaking activities. Four compared university education to high school and entrance
exam preparation classes, saying that they were similar in focusing on reading and
grammar (e.g. P17).
P17: And simply reading, everyone’s like, they already know the grammar and
vocabulary, it’s just like at high school, read the text quickly from the top, listen
to the teacher translate a difficult part. Those kind of classes, are not really that
interesting....I was a little disappointed with that.
Another criticised the length of writing tasks in a compulsory class, which were far shorter
than IELTS-type tasks (e.g. P12).

P12: Teachers rarely give writing homework, and when they do, it’s almost always
to write around 50 words, usually a summary. There’s hardly ever anything that feels
free, like IELTS, such as ‘what do you think’ and write 200 or 300 words, and that’s the
problem with writing.
However, four were generally more positive about English at university. One interviewee
explains how she maintained her reading ability, which she was happy about (P17).
P17: Since becoming a second-year student, I have to read lots of reports for
my other classes, and also, English novels, there’s a lot of that, so all in all, there’s
probably more reading than in the first year. And I’ve been doing it routinely so in
winter of the first year, I felt that my ability, particularly reading, dropped, but I felt
I’ve maintained my level, so as a second year, I’m quite satisfied.
5.4.2.2 Cram school

Of the 19 interviewees, 15 went to cram school to study for the entrance exam. Three of
these stated that they had attended courses that focus specifically on the UT entrance
exam. Cram school was described consistently in many regards. Essentially, students
do ‘huge’ amounts of reading (7) at home and in class. Grammar was also stated as the
primary focus of study (6, e.g. P12).
P12: Reading, was like, the instructor brought university entrance exam questions,
we’d answer them, analyse the answers, do more, analyse them, like that. And, in
terms of putting in effort, grammar was a priority.
The UT entrance exam, and to a lesser extent other universities’ past papers or similar
material, was the main focus and source of material (11) and students worked on these
every week. The skills/knowledge focus was directly related to the weightings of these
on the exam: reading and grammar were priorities as they make the up the largest
proportion of the exam.
Speaking was completely absent (8) because it does not feature in the entrance exam
(e.g. P7). Likewise, pronunciation was only studied to the extent that it appeared on
entrance exams (e.g. P4).
P7: You don’t hear of speaking on the entrance exams, so cram schools don’t focus
on it…
P4: Pronunciation questions come up on the Center (NCUEE) Exam, so we studied

them, just so we didn’t lose the points in the test.
Listening featured much less in classes (4) as it is a smaller part of the exam (2) but
past paper questions were set for homework (1). Writing was often done and focused
mainly on the 50–60 word tasks that feature in the entrance exam (5). Techniques were
mentioned regarding the writing tasks, especially regarding translation tasks that are
common on the UT exam.
5.4.2.3 High School

Impressions of high school English education were much more varied than those of cram
schools, most probably because of the variety of schools attended. However, seven
interviewees considered high school education to be focused on the entrance exams, too
much so in some cases (4), when other aspects of English would have
been appreciated (e.g. P11):
P11: High school was really busy all the time, not just for English but, strongly
speaking, I’d have like to have tried to learn other aspects of English, not just exam
preparation, such as conversation, or something related to culture. In retrospect,
that’s what I’d have liked to have tried.

Reading was the primary skill focused on (9), too much so (2). One stated that reading
was initially taught through translation, then reading in English just for the main points.
Grammar and vocabulary study were main foci (3), one interviewee complains there was
too much grammar (P12), and in what one interviewee referred to as his orthodox style
classes, these were taught mainly before skills work.
P12: Honestly speaking, I’d have liked half of our study to be of actually useful
English, as long as we could get through the entrance exams. I wonder whether we
really need that much grammar…
A typical style of classes appeared to be that students read a text for homework, and then
in class, the teacher reads through it, picking up important phrases and grammar (4).
Translation was common (6, e.g. P5). Listening was common in classes but seemed to
vary a lot from a little (5) to a lot (2).
P5: The teacher didn’t really conduct the class in English, in other words, it was done
in Japanese. He says ‘ok, let’s work through from this page to that page’,
we’d all answer the questions, then check them together. For reading as well,
we’d read, translate, read, translate, in that kind of style, which in my impression,
wasn’t enough for me.
Writing was limited to exam tasks (3) or only set for homework (1). There was not
much speaking in general, sometimes none at all (2). One interviewee noted that this
was because of the focus on exams. One noted that shadowing was the main form of
speaking practice. Some students had ‘oral communication’ classes (7), but respondents
did not appear satisfied with them for a number of reasons: one class actually just
focused on grammar, another had too many students, and another had an Assistant
Language Teacher (ALT) who mainly just talked with the teacher, not the students.
A number were unsatisfied as there was not enough speaking and listening in classes,
and too much reading, grammar and exam-related work (5). One interviewee thought he
would have tried harder at speaking if it had been a required skill (P14).
P14: The Japanese entrance exam system is really heavily focused on reading, and so,
even if there are speaking classes, I don’t know if I really took them seriously. In regard
to this, I think it was good that we focused a lot on reading (at high school), but I’d have
liked to have done more listening, but listening really doesn’t come up much in the tests.
It really was all reading, so the UT entrance exam listening was tough for me.
IV: Right, I see, so in terms of exam preparation, you’re satisfied with the classes?
P14: Well, I’d have liked to have done more listening.
IV: Right, I understand. So, I’d like to just confirm what you said, even if your school had
speaking classes, you don’t think they’re necessary for the entrance exam, really.
P14: Yeah, even if my school had speaking classes, it would be a merely formality and
the class would not be meaningful, I think.
IV: Right, so you’re motivated to do what you need soon…
P14: Yeah, because high school study really becomes all about entrance exams, yeah.
IV: Right, so if there was a speaking exam…?
P14: Yeah, right, in that case, I think I’d have tried my best.

6 Conclusions
6.1 Summary of findings and their implications

6.1.1 RQ1: Test scores
The findings show that the medium size sample of test-takers from UT was markedly
more proficient in reading, and to a lesser extent listening, than writing and speaking.
This stark difference between receptive and productive skills was revealed through the
use of IELTS. For teachers in Japan or those familiar the context, this finding may not be
particularly surprising, though the extent of the difference is noteworthy.
The second key finding was that the Japanese test-takers’ IELTS Speaking scores
significantly increased over the period. This finding is similar to that of Humphreys et al.
(2012) who also observed a significant increase in speaking scores over one semester in
an ESL context. One reason for the increase was that the average speaking score was
low and learning gain on IELTS is greater over short periods for those at lower levels of
proficiency (Elder & O’Loughlin, 2003; Green, 2005; Humphreys et al., 2012). However,
score gain was greatest for speaking compared to other skills, not only for those at
the lowest bands, but also for those at the upper-middle-range bands (5.5–7.0). The
implication of this is that test-takers at a wide range of initial speaking proficiency levels
can increase their speaking scores over relatively short periods and in an EFL context,
though still greater gains can be expected at lower bands.
Test-takers did not improve their writing abilities over the period to a similar extent as
speaking, even though initial proficiency in writing was similar to that of speaking.
One reason may be that writing is potentially the most difficult of the test components,
as indicated by slightly lower scores worldwide for the writing component. Other research
has also found that increases in IELTS Writing were smaller than most other skills
(Craven, 2012; Humphreys et al., 2012). This suggests that gains in IELTS Writing may
require more time and effort to achieve than gains in Speaking, even at lower levels of
initial proficiency.
6.1.2 RQ2: Predicting factors

It was found that experiential factors such as living and studying abroad and being
schooled in English, were predictive of higher scores. It is well known that immersion
environments afford greater opportunities for both authentic input and output, which are
most likely to lead to improved receptive and productive abilities. However, an interesting
point is that experience of attending an English-medium school predicted higher scores in
speaking and writing, but not reading or listening. This indicates that such environments
allow learners to develop their productive abilities, as measured by IELTS, whereas
Japanese school environments primarily afford the opportunity to develop receptive
abilities. This finding is consistent with other findings in this study.
Interestingly, reading scores were not explained by any of the variables considered, most
probably because of a ceiling effect. In other words, participants were almost uniformly
highly skilled at reading, gaining high scores on the test and thus leaving
little variance to be explained by other factors. The fact that test-takers were so
skilled at reading is undoubtedly due to their extensive preparation for the university
entrance exam.

Motivation to study writing following the first test predicted higher overall, writing and
speaking scores on the second test. Thus, experiencing IELTS apparently raised test-
takers’ awareness of their writing ability, which led to a greater motivation to study
writing, and this appeared to be a driving force behind higher scores on the second test.
High scorers within the group of test-takers whose writing scores increased also had
high motivation to study writing following Test 2. This provides a further indication that
the initial IELTS test helped to generate motivation, which subsequently led to higher
scores. A relationship was also found between writing and speaking: a group of 13
test-takers who scored highest on the speaking among those whose scores increased,
reported being highly motivated to study writing. Thus, it seems that test-takers who were
motivated to produce English in written form also improved at producing English
in spoken form.
Spoken fluency practice was shown to be a key predictor of higher scores on speaking
tests: when test-takers actually practiced speaking spontaneously, they improved their
ability to speak and, thus, achieve higher scores on the IELTS test. This is a key finding
that relates to the relatively low speaking ability of the sample: test-takers had had little
opportunity to practice speaking, and so their level was low, but once they actually
practiced speaking, they improved measurably. Importantly, the IELTS test provided an
incentive to practice speaking, which led to this improvement. Another finding was that
those who practiced spoken fluency also improved their listening scores, which may be
explained by the fact that speaking spontaneously may often be done with an interlocutor,
which requires the ability to listen. Again, it is interesting to observe these relationships
across skills.
Studying test techniques was only important for predicting Test 1 scores (overall and
writing). In other words, studying the format of the test helped test-takers to achieve
higher scores on the first test, but this strategy did not influence higher scores on Test 2.
For Test 2, the amount of preparation for writing predicted higher writing scores, indicating
that those who studied writing extensively for the second test got higher scores. This is
also most likely tied to the fact that written fluency had not been adequately developed
during pre-tertiary education, at least when it comes to tasks such as those on the IELTS
test. Taken together, it is suggested that the IELTS test can create positive washback by
leading test-takers towards study habits that promote writing ability (i.e. actually practicing
writing).
6.1.3 RQ3: Washback and learning situations

Important findings were made from survey and interview data regarding washback from
the IELTS test and the university entrance exams, and about university English education.
Pre-tertiary education in Japan is heavily focused on exam preparation. The test-
takers that attended cram school did so to study for the UT exam. At high school, exam
preparation varied and was primarily for the NCUEE exam, though some interviewees
reported that they used past papers for UT and other university exams. In line with the
skills focus of the NCUEE and UT exams, test-takers reported that their pre-tertiary
education was primarily focused on reading, writing and listening. Classes focused on
grammar, vocabulary and translation, and at cram school particularly, test techniques.
High school had minimal focus on speaking, pronunciation and spoken fluency, and these
were near non-existent in cram schools. Classes tended to be teacher-centred with little
communication in English by teachers and students and largely individual work. Students
were motivated to study receptive skills and writing, but not speaking, and perceived
development followed this pattern, too.

All of these findings, taken together, suggest washback from the NCUEE and UT
entrance exams, particularly at cram school where the alignment of class content and
test content is unparalleled. The implication of the findings is that washback is engineered
through the NCUEE and UT entrance exam, and influences, to some considerable extent,
the type of activities, study focus, motivation and perceived development that learners will
experience. This washback effect coincides with the IELTS test results and explains why
students were so much better at reading and listening than writing and speaking.
University education was not test-focused and was reported to involve more speaking
opportunities than pre-tertiary education, perhaps due to the greater number of English-
speaking faculty at the university. There was a greater amount of group work, less
teacher-centredness, and more communication between students and teachers in
English. However, reading was still considered to be the primary focus and in-class
speaking activities were widely criticised as not being useful for developing learners’
spoken fluency. Test-takers were the least satisfied with their English education at
university, compared to high school and cram school. It seemed that this reflected a
discord between learners’ wants (speaking- and writing-focused classes, less academic)
and the present courses offered (reading-focused classes, unsatisfactory speaking and
writing tasks, too academic). It is interesting that some interviewees mentioned how class
activities did not lead to development of fluency in productive skills as required for the
IELTS test.
This observation highlights the connection between tests and teaching: good tests should
be ones that can be used as materials in class, because the tasks in them foster positive
language learner behaviour and development. Messick (1996), for instance, suggests that
“for optimal positive washback there should be little, if any, difference between activities
involved in learning the language and activities involved in preparing for the test” (pp.
241–242). The IELTS test could thus serve as a useful tool with which English education
faculty can evaluate their in-class activities and assignments as to whether the tasks
students do in class are developing the same skills necessary to improve on a measure
of academic spoken English proficiency.
The IELTS test had observable effects on students’ study habits, motivation and
perceived development. A number of test-takers prepared for the first test by studying
mainly receptive skills, for strategic reasons. However, following the first test, they
became aware of their abilities and focused more on productive skills. Students almost
invariably stated that they wanted to improve their productive skills, particularly speaking,
following the first test. In line with this, test-takers practiced speaking spontaneously
(alone or with others) and practiced writing more, while also practicing test techniques
and grammar less, for the second test. All of these findings indicate washback effects on
study habits while preparing for the second IELTS test. This washback can also be seen
in terms of motivation to study productive skills, which increased after both the first test
and second tests. In line with the increased focus on, and motivation to study, productive
skills, was an increase in perceived development in these skills. In other words, the
findings reveal positive washback on test preparation, motivation and perceived
development of productive skills. In addition, following the second test, test-takers were
more motivated to study receptive skills as well, indicating increases in motivation to
study all skills following experience of the tests.
Importantly, even though some test-takers reported practicing skills more and many
reported being motivated to study, the majority of test-takers did not study extensively
for either of the two IELTS tests. This was because the tests were provided free of
charge, only half of test-takers were definitely planning to study abroad and because they
were busy with their other university study. Thus, the positive washback effects on test
preparation were limited to those who actually studied.

In contrast, the effects on motivation to study were more broadly observable. What this
means is that, if the test-takers had more incentive to study for the tests, for example,
if the test was perceived to be as important as a university entrance exam, the positive
washback effects would without doubt apply to a much greater proportion of test-takers.
The interviews also highlighted a number of salient points regarding test-takers’ beliefs
about how to study English language. Test-takers were generally confident in the
receptive skill components of the tests, having studied them intensively for the entrance
exams. Thus, in terms of knowing how to study such skills, they were confident; they
were also successful as indicated by the test scores. When it came to productive skills,
however, a different picture emerged. Many test-takers did not study for the exams by
actually practicing speaking or writing: instead, they read about the tests using study
guides. They also tended to believe that studying productive skills was not possible
without a partner (i.e. someone to correct their writing or act as an interlocutor).
They thought that it was difficult to study productive skills and, in some cases, said that
they did not know how to study them. Test-takers also observed differences in the IELTS
Speaking and Writing components and other tests, such as EIKEN, which led them to
believe IELTS was more challenging and more difficult to prepare for.
The implication of these findings is clear: because of a lack of experience in studying

and practicing productive skills, more test-takers were unsure about how to prepare
for the test. They lacked experience and, thus, autonomy in learning productive skills
as a consequence of pre-tertiary education that focuses on developing receptive
abilities. A similar lack of personal agency and strategic action was noted by Mickan
and Motteram (2009) in their survey of IELTS test-takers in Australia. The resonance
between these two studies is important because, in both cases, the participants were
not enrolled in preparation courses of the IELTS test and were preparing independently.
In such contexts, it appears that guidance in how to study productive skills is particularly
important.
6.2 Limitations
Washback is a complex phenomenon that is mediated by many factors, and this study,
like all washback studies, has a number of limitations. Firstly, it is important to clarify
the generalisability of the findings. It is a common belief among some educators in
Japan that students at UT are special as it is the most prestigious university in Japan.
While UT students are undoubtedly academic high-achievers, it was shown that there
is considerable variation in their English experience, abilities and motivation. Moreover,
it is interesting that most of the results presented here could intuitively be applied to
other many university populations in Japan, especially those that require higher levels of
English ability for admission. For example, it is likely that the imbalance in receptive and
productive skills exists, though test washback may vary depending on the difficulty of the
entrance exams and the level of the students’ English.
Secondly, as Alderson and Wall (1993) have argued, classroom observations are
essential to offer empirical support to survey and interview data about classroom
practices and any potential washback effects. Others have similarly indicated that teacher
factors should be central to any model of washback (Burrows, 2004), not least because
studies have shown that, while tests can influence content of language courses, they are
less influential on teachers’ beliefs and the methodologies they employ (e.g. Watanabe,
1996, 2004). In the present study, classroom observations and teacher interviews were
not conducted, and thus washback effects could only be examined on the basis of test-
takers’ scores, survey and interview responses. However, the overlap between the survey
and interview data, along with the test data, provides strong support for washback effects
from the IELTS test, as well as the university entrance exams. Moreover, given that
preparation for IELTS was done independently, such observations would seem infeasible
in any case.

Thirdly, the retrospective nature of the survey and interview questions may affect
the accuracy of the data. It is certainly possible that respondents’ recall of previous
educational environments, over the past four years, is partial and at times inaccurate.
However, the agreement statements were almost always general and impressionistic
(e.g. ‘I studied a lot of speaking’) and such impressions are likely to be retained longer in
memory than highly specific information. Moreover, interviewees were largely confident in
their ability to recall general information about their past educational experiences, which
lends support to the reliability of the data.
Finally, test-takers did not take identical versions of the IELTS test during each testing
period. Therefore, variance associated with individual tests could not be accounted for.
In previous work, such as Green (2007a, 2007b), the entry and exit tests were linked,
meaning that the actual tests (identifiable by test number) could be identified and any
variance associated with the tests themselves could be accounted for. However, this was
not possible in the present study due to logistical factors.
6.3 Recommendations
As a four skills test of English language proficiency, IELTS has the potential to raise
awareness of differences in receptive and productive abilities. It also can serve as a
motivational tool to push test-takers to better develop the skills that they are currently
weaker in. As the speaking and writing components require test-takers to use accurate,
fluent and complex language in order to gain high scores, the tasks are extremely
challenging for Japanese students who tend to focus much less on these skills, and
particularly spoken and written fluency. In other words, the test has significant potential to
create positive washback on learning in the Japanese tertiary context.
It is possible to recommend IELTS as a useful tool for Japanese universities for a number
of reasons.
1. It raises awareness of language abilities in the four skills, particularly in

productive skills, and particularly regarding spoken and written fluency.
2. It can highlight discrepancies between speaking activities in university

classes and the type of abilities required in the Target Language Use domain
(i.e. abilities required for success on IELTS Speaking tasks).
3. It leads to positive washback on writing and speaking skills.
4. It leads to increased motivation to study productive skills, and to study

English in general.
5. It provides a means to attend English-medium institutions, to study abroad,

and to fulfil visa requirements.

References
Alderson, JC, and Wall, D, 1993, ‘Does washback exist?’ Applied Linguistics,
vol 14 (2), pp. 115–29.
Bachman, LF, and Palmer, AS, 1996, Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Brown, JD, 2001, Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Burrows, C, 2004, ‘Washback in Classroom-Based Assessment: A Study of the

Washback Effect in the Australian Adult Migrant English Program’. In Eds, L Cheng, and
Y Watanabe, and A Curtis, Context and method in washback research: the influence of
language testing on teaching and learning, pp. 113–128. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence.
Erlbaum, Cheng, L, 1997, ‘How does washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong
Kong’, Language and Education, vol 11, pp. 38–54.
Cheng, L, 2014, ‘Consequences, Impact and Washback’. In Ed AJ Kunnan,

The companion to language assessment: Evaluation, methodology and interdisciplinary
themes, pp. 1130–1145. Singapore, Wiley Blackwell.
Craven, E, 2012, ‘The quest for IELTS Band 7.0: Investigating English language
proficiency development of international students at an Australian university’,
IELTS Research Report Series, vol 13. IDP: IELTS Australia and British Council.
Dörnyei, Z, 1998, ‘Motivation in second and foreign language learning’, Language

Teaching, vol 31 (3), pp. 117–135.
Dörnyei, Z, and Taguchi, T, 2009, Questionnaires in Second Language Research:

Construction, Administration, and Processing, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Elder, C, and O’Loughlin, K, 2003, ‘Investigating the relationship between intensive

English language study and band score gain on IELTS’. In Ed R Tulloh, IELTS Research
Reports, vol 4, pp. 207–254. Canberra, Australia: IELTS Australia Pty Limited.
Gosa, CMC, 2004, Investigating Washback: A Case Study Using Student Diaries,
Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Linguistics and Modern English Language,
Lancaster University. Lancaster: England.
Green, A, 2005, ‘EAP study recommendations and score gains on the IELTS Academic
Writing test’, Assessing Writing, vol 10, pp. 44–60.
Green, A, 2007a, 'IELTS washback in context: preparation for academic writing in higher
education'. Studies in Language Testing 25. Cambridge: Cambridge ESOL/ Cambridge
University Press.
Green, A, 2007b, ‘Washback to learning outcomes: a comparative study of IELTS

preparation and university pre-sessional language courses’. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, vol 14 (1), pp. 75–97.
Henrichsen, LE, 1989, Diffusion of innovations in English language teaching: The ELEC
effort in Japan, 1956–1968. New York: Greenwood Press.

Hothorn, T, and Everitt, BS, 2014, A Handbook of Statistical Analyses using R, 3rd ed.
Boca Raton, Florida: USA, CRC Press.
Hothorn, T, Hornik, K, Strobl, C, and Zeileis, A, February 2015, Package ‘party’:

A Laboratory for Recursive Partytioning Version 1.0-20, Available from:
http://party.R-forge.R-project.org
Hothorn, T, Hornik, K, and Zeileis, A, 2006, ‘Unbiased Recursive Partitioning:

A Conditional Inference Framework’. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics,
vol 15 (3), pp. 651–674.
Hughes, A, 2003, Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
Humphreys, P, Haugh, M, Fenton-Smith, M, Lobo, A, Michael, R, and Walkinshaw, I,

2012, ‘Tracking international students’ English proficiency over the first semester of
undergraduate study’. IELTS Research Reports Online Series, no. 1. IDP: IELTS Australia
and British Council.
Messick, S, 1996, ‘Validity and washback in language testing’. Language Testing, vol 13,
pp. 241–256.
MEXT, 2011, Koutou gakkou gakushu shidou kouryou eiyakuban [High school course of
study; Section 13: English], retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/, last accessed
15 July 2015
Mickan, P, and Motteram, J, 2009, ‘The preparation practices of IELTS candidates:

Case studies’. In Ed, J Osborne, IELTS Research Reports, vol 10. IDP: IELTS Australia
and British Council, pp. 223–262.
O’Sullivan, B, and Weir, CJ, 2011, ‘Test development and validation’. In Ed, B O’Sullivan,
Language Testing: Theories and Practices, pp 13–32. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
R Development Core Team, 2013, ‘R: A Language and environment for statistical
computing, version 3.0.2.’, Vienna, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, retrieved
November, 2014, from http:// www.R-project.org
Shih, CM, 2007, ‘A new washback model of students’ learning’. Canadian Modern
Language Review vol 64(1), pp. 135–162.
Strasser, H, and Weber, C, 1999, ‘On the asymptotic theory of permutation statistics’.
Mathematical Methods of Statistics, vol 8, pp. 220–250.
Wall, D, 1996, ‘Introducing new tests into traditional systems: Insights from general
education and from innovation theory’. Language Testing, vol 13, pp. 334–354.
Watanabe, Y, 1996, ‘Does grammar translation come from the entrance examination?
Preliminary findings from classroom-based research’. Language Testing, vol 13,
pp. 318–333.
Watanabe, Y, 1997, Nyushi kara eigo o hazusu to jugyo wa kawaru ka [Will elimination
of English from the entrance examination change classroom instruction?] Eigo kyoiku
[English teachers magazine], September, special issue. Tokyo: Taihukan shoten.
pp. 30–35.

Watanabe, Y, 2004, ‘Teacher factors mediating washback’. In eds, L Cheng, Y Watanabe,
and A Curtis, Context and method in washback research: the influence of language
testing on teaching and learning, Hilsdale, pp.129–146. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Weir, C J, 2005, Language Testing And Validation: An Evidence-based Approach,

London, Palgrave Macmillan.
Xie, Q, 2013, ‘Does Test Preparation Work? Implications for Score Validity’. Language
Assessment Quarterly, vol 10 (2), pp 196–218.
Xie, Q, and Andrews, S, 2012, ‘Do test design and uses influence test preparation?
Testing a model of washback with structural equation modeling’. Language Testing,
vol 30 (1), pp 49–70.
Zhan, Y, and Andrews, S, 2014, ‘Washback effects from a high-stakes examination

on out-of-class English learning: insights from possible self theories’. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, vol 21(1), pp 71–89.

Appendix 1: Survey questions
Used
Item for Question Subcategories Answer choices
RQ2
Informed consent agreement
1 Informed consent agreement questions I understand the purpose: I understand Yes/No
that I'm expected to complete this
survey as I received two university/
government-funded proficiency exams:
I understand no personal information
will be distributed to any third party
Japanese language history (this and following Qs only if ‘No’ to previous Q)
2 Confirm: I am a Japanese native N/A Yes/No (If YES,
speaker, spoke to my family in jump to Bilingual
Japanese and had all of my education Status section)
until now in Japanese
3 Self-rated Japanese proficiency N/A 0-8 (0=no
proficiency,
8=native speaker)
4 Select age range when you started N/A 0-2, 3-5, 7-12, 13-
learning Japanese 16, 16+
5 Number of years schooled in N/A None, <1, 1-2,
Japanese 3-4, 4-5, 5-6, 6+
6 Number of years living in Japan N/A None, <1, 1-2,
3-4, 4-5, 5-6, 6+
7 Additional comments about Japanese N/A Free response
language learning history (optional)
Language history
8 Which languages do you use regularly Select language 1: 1. Yes, (write
and what proportion of your daily life Select language 2: the name of
do you currently use these languages? Select language 3 language)/No:
2. Add up each
language % to
100%
9 Have you studied any other N/A Yes / No
language(s) but do not use them
regularly?
10 If yes, to (9), indicate the language Select language 1: Select proficiency
and your proficiency in that language. Select language 2: level: Advanced,
Select language 3 Upper
Intermediate,
Lower
Intermediate,
Elementary
English language learning history
11 Age started learning English, N/A 0-2, 3-5, 7-12, 12-
16, 16+
12 Yes Have you lived in an English-speaking N/A Yes, No
country?
13 Yes If yes (12), how long did you live N/A Months (1-12),
abroad? Years (1-21+)
14 Yes As a child did you live with a relative, N/A Yes, No
guardian or other close relation who
could have a conversation in English?
15 Yes If yes (14), how long? N/A Months (1-12),
Years (1-21+)
16 Yes Have you been taught in a school N/A Yes, No
where the main language of instruction
was English (either in Japan or
abroad)?
17 Yes If yes (16), how long? N/A Months (1-12),
Years (1-21+)

18 Yes Have you ever been taught other N/A Yes/No + name/
subject classes (e.g. math, science) in type of class
English?
19 Yes If yes (18), was this before or after Before university, after university Yes, No
university?
20 Yes Did you participate in any of the Conversation school, English club, other No, Yes <1yr,
following extra-curricular English 1-2yr, 2+yrs
learning before coming to Komaba?
21 Yes Did you participate in any of the Conversation school, English club, other No, Yes <1yr,
following extra-curricular English 1-2yr, 2+yrs
learning while at Komaba?
22 Have you ever taken TOEIC, TOEFL, N/A Yes / No + Free
EIKEN? What was your score? response
23 Additional comments about your N/A Free response
English language history (optional)
24 Yes Did you study English abroad before N/A Yes / No
coming to Komaba?
25 Yes If yes (23), how long and what % of N/A <1mth, 1-6mths,
time did you spend speaking English? 7mths-12mths,
1-2yrs, 2+yrs:
6-scale answer:
All, most, over
half, less than half,
not at all, don't
remember
26 Yes Did you study English abroad while at N/A Yes / No
Komaba?
27 Yes If yes (23), how long and what % of N/A <1mth, 1-6mths,
time did you spend speaking English? 7mths-12mths,
1-2yrs, 2+yrs:
6-scale answer:
All, most, over
half, less than half,
not at all, don't
remember
28 Yes Do you want to study abroad while at N/A Yes, maybe, no
university?
29 Why do you want to study abroad? Learn EAP/specialist English, improve Select all that
speaking skills, learn about culture, apply
learn general English, study my subject
in English
IELTS preparation and results (Test 1, Test 2) (* Items repeated for Test 2)
30 Did you take IELTS in the past, prior to N/A Yes / No
the first test at Komaba?
31 If yes (29), what was your score? N/A Free response
32 Why did you decide to take the IELTS Wanted to know about IELTS / Because Select all that
test? it was free / Want to study abroad / Want apply
certificate for work/other / Other
33/39 Yes *In preparation for the first/second test S/R/W/L Strongly agree-
I studied mainly ________ . Strongly disagree
34/40 Yes *How many hours did you study for the N/A 0, <20, 20-40, 40-
test? 60, 60-80, 80-100,
100+

35/41 Yes *In preparation for the first/second test Reading texts then answering questions, Strongly agree-
I spent a lot of time __________. Listening to monologues/conversations Strongly disagree
between two people then answering
questions, Listening to conversations
between more than two people
then answering questions, Asking/
answering questions about familiar
topics with a partner, Presenting ideas
on a familiar topic to a partner/group,
Discussing abstract ideas and topics
in pairs/groups, Writing a paragraph
to summarize information from a chart
or table, Writing an essay: other (free
answer)
36/42 Yes *I practiced speaking immediately with N/A Strongly agree-
little or no preparation time. Strongly disagree
37/43 Yes *My preparation activities focused a lot Pronunciation, Grammar, Lexis Strongly agree-
on ___________. Strongly disagree
38/44 Yes *Overall, I studied test-taking N/A Strongly agree-
techniques a lot. Strongly disagree
45 Yes Did you attend (one or more of) the N/A Yes / No
British council (IELTS) preparation
courses?
46 Yes Did you use the British Council N/A Yes / No
website?
47 Yes Did you receive additional tuition for N/A Yes / No
your tests?
48 Yes If yes (40), where? Cram school, conversation school, Select all that
personal contact, other apply
49/51 Yes After the first/second test I was Reading, listening, writing, speaking Strongly agree-
(Only motivated to practice more Strongly disagree
T2) ______________.
50/52 Overall, after the first/second test, S/R/W/L Strongly agree-
I think my proficiency increased a lot in Strongly disagree
_____________.
English study at university *Item repeated for cram school and high school
53 What is your major/route at University Sci1, 2, 3: Hums 1, 2, 3
of Tokyo?
54 Which courses did you take during KyouyouEigo, Aless/a, Eng2R, IC Select all that
semester 1? apply
55 Which courses did you take during KyouyouEigo, Aless/a, Eng2R, IC, S1 Select all that
semester 2? apply
56 Which courses did you take during Eng2C, IC Select all that
semester 3? apply
57 Which courses did you take during IC Select all that
semester 4? apply
58/79/98 *Overall, I spent a lot of time working in Pairs, groups, individually Select one
___________.
59/80/99 *Overall, my teachers talked for almost N/A Strongly agree-
all of the class. Strongly disagree
60/81/100 *My teacher(s) spoke mainly in English. N/A Strongly agree-
Strongly disagree
61/82/101 *I used English most of the time when N/A Strongly agree-
speaking to the teacher. Strongly disagree
62/83/102 *I used English most of the time when N/A Strongly agree-
speaking to other students during Strongly disagree
classes.
63/84/103 *How much homework did you do 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 10+ Select one
per week?
64/85/104 Yes *My homework often involved Reading, listening, writing, speaking Strongly agree-
___________. Strongly disagree
65/86/105 Yes *Overall, class activities often focused Reading, listening, writing, speaking Strongly agree-
on ___________. Strongly disagree

66/87/106 Yes *Overall, I think my proficiency Reading, listening, writing, speaking Strongly agree-
increased a lot in _________. Strongly disagree
67/88/107 Yes *In class speaking activities I was often N/A Strongly agree-
expected to speak immediately with Strongly disagree
little or no preparation time.
68/89/108 Yes *The class activities often focused on Pronunciation, Grammar, Lexis Strongly agree-
_____________. Strongly disagree
69/90/109 Yes *At ________ I spent a lot of time Reading texts then answering questions, Strongly agree-
studying ___________. Listening to monologues/conversations Strongly disagree
between two people then answering + Plus optional
questions, Listening to conversations typed response
between more than two people
then answering questions, Asking/
Answering questions about familiar
topics with a partner, Presenting ideas
on a familiar topic to a partner/group,
Discussing abstract ideas and topics
in pairs/groups, Writing a paragraph to
summarize information from a chart or
table, Writing an essay
70/91/110 Yes *Overall, I studied test-taking N/A Strongly agree-
techniques a lot. Strongly disagree
71/92/111 *As a result of classes at ________, Reading, listening, writing, speaking Strongly agree-
I spent a lot of time studying speaking. Strongly disagree
72/93/112 *I was satisfied with the courses at N/A Strongly agree-
________. Strongly disagree
73/94/113 Yes *I am/have been motivated to study N/A Strongly agree-
English while at ________. Strongly disagree
74/95/114 *I am motivated to study English as a Reading, listening, writing, speaking Strongly agree-
result of courses taken at ________. Strongly disagree
75 Why are you studying English at the Work, education, make friends, Select all that
moment? postgraduate study, travel abroad, other apply
76 Please add any further information N/A Free response
about what you expect from English
courses at Komaba.
English study at cram school (Juku and/or Yobiko)
77 Did you study at cram school? N/A Yes / No
78 How long did you study at cram N/A <6mth, 6-12mth,
school? Which cram school did you 12-24mth,
attend? 24mth+: Typed
response
English study at high school
96 Which HS did you attend? N/A Free response
97 What kind of HS was it? Private super-science, super-English Select one
language, other: State super-science,
super English language, other
115 Any further information about course at N/A Free response
high school?
116 Any further information about English N/A Free response
education/learning experiences before
high school?
Personal information
117 Complete your name (in N/A Free response
Japanese)*Note on anonymity here.
118 What is your Student ID? N/A
119 Yes How old are you? N/A Free response
120 Yes Select your gender N/A M / F/
No response
121 Input your address if you wish to N/A Free response
receive a free 500 yen gift card
122 Would you like to participate in a N/A Yes / No
follow-up interview?

Appendix 2: Sample interview questions
Language study experience

• Tell me about your English study experience at high school / cram school / university.
• Which of the four skills did you focus on at high school / cram school / university?
• What types of activities did you do a lot of at high school / cram school / university?
• Did you do anything to learn English outside of school? How about now?
• Tell me about the English related events inside or outside of class that left a
strong impression on you.
IELTS preparation
• Did you study hard for IELTS? Did you prepare enough?
• What did you do? Which skill did you focus on?
• How did you choose what to focus on?
• How did you feel after you took the IELTS test?
• Did you find any differences between IELTS tests and other tests you have taken?
• If you took another IELTS test, which skill would you want to focus on? Why?
Language study goals, motivations and expectations

• What is your motivation to study English?
• What are your goals in learning English?
• Do you want to study abroad in the future? If so, where and why?
• Are you satisfied with your English learning experience so far?
• What would you have liked to have done more of at high school / cram school /
university?

View publication stats

I e Lts Research Partner Paper Allen 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I e Lts Research Partner Paper Allen 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

I e Lts Research Partner Paper Allen 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Investigating Japanese undergraduates' English language proﬁciency with

Article · June 2017

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

• my research team, Sayaka Meguro, Masaaki Ogura, Shoko Tanaka,

This publication is copyright. No commercial re-use. The research and opinions

How to cite this article

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 2

I am pleased to introduce this paper which is the latest

Importantly, the IELTS-related research has contributed to a better understanding of the

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 3

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 4

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 5

His previous research has focused on Japanese-English bilingual lexical processing,

In-house research team (in alphabetical order):

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 6

3 Literature review ......................................................................................................................................................10

4 Methods and procedure ..........................................................................................................................................15

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 7

Appendix 1: Survey questions ..........................................................................................................................................52

Appendix 2: Sample interview questions ...........................................................................................................................56

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 8

Participants’ proficiency, and particularly its development, was also expected to be

1. Research Question 1: Is proficiency equally distributed across the

2. Research Question 2: Which factors related to learning experience and test

3. Research Question 3: How does the IELTS test influence learners’

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 9

3.1 Language proficiency and learning gain

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 10

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 11

3.3 Overview of the exams

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 12

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 13

NCUEE UT Entrance Exam IELTS (Academic)

3.4 Predicted washback on learning

3.5 Summary of research design

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 14

4.2 Test preparation

4.3 Test administration

4.4 Survey design

The survey was designed by reference to previous surveys and commentaries as

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 15

Language history Languages known and used

Age began learning

Amount of preparation (hours)

English courses taken

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 16

1. Perceptions of language learning behaviour in preparation for the IELTS test

2. Perceptions of motivation for learning English and the relationship between

3. Perceptions of own proficiency development and the factors that influenced

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 17

5.1 IELTS tests scores (RQ1)

5.1.1 Test 1 and Test 2 scores

Figure 1: Initial IELTS band scores for four skills

IELTS test band scores for four skills: Test 1

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 18

Table 3: Descriptive data for Test 1 and Test 2 scores

Mean Standard Min. Max Skewness Kurtosis

www.ielts.org IELTS Partnership Research Report 2 19