critical review on a research journal entitled

7/31/2019 Critical Review on a Research Journal Entitled

1/7

Critical Review on a Research Journal entitled:

Japanese English Bilingual Children in Three

Different Educational Environments

by: Asako Hayashi

University of California, Los Angeles

2005

A. Introduction

Bilingualism, nowadays, becomes an interesting issue in education particularly

in language learning. Bilingualism in education itself is considered as a study of the

use of two languages in education environment. It deals with the usage of twolanguages that involves students and teachers to be as the addresses of the

languages.

Students attitudes on bilingualism are multiple diverse. Umbel (1992)

assumed that students who live in bilingual/multilingual societies might hardly believe

that people in other parts of the world have debated pros and cons of bilingualism

because, for them, bilingualism is the norm, and speaking only one language means

exclusion from a meaningful portion of their lives. People who are in monolingual

countries, but eager to learn another language, might be surprised if they knew some

people in the world want to be monolingual even when they have opportunities to be

exposed to more than one language. In this 25 pages journal, the researcher

presented the study of students attitude to bilingualism and their bilingual

proficiency which vary among Japanese students who live in Japan and USA. It is

interesting to review and give critical evaluation to the way of the researcher conduct

the study as well as the result of the study.

B. The Summary of the Journal

In the beginning of this journal, Hayashi described about the enthusiast of

Japanese in learning English although Japan is a monolingual country. Hayashi (2005)stated that Japan is considered a monolingual nation, and is geographically isolated

from the rest of the world. However, many of Japanese people have been overseas to

expand their perspectives and acquire foreign languages. During the last few

decades, the number of Japanese students studying abroad has significantly

increased. There were some evidences related to this, which were showed by Hayashi

according to the Chronicle of Higher Education (1996:66) and Japans Ministry of


2/7

Foreign Affairs (1997). These evidences demonstrated how enthusiastically Japanese

people learn English and/or with English.

Although Japanese schoolchildren in the United States and the popularity of

English education in Japan is huge, Hayashi found no empirical research has yet

investigated Japanese-English bilingual students bilingual proficiencies in twolanguages, attitudes toward bilingualism, and factors which influence their motivation

to develop bilingual abilities. It has not been established how and to what extent the

attitudes toward bilingualism and language proficiency of Japanese students in

bilingual education programs have been influenced by education programs, their

language backgrounds, and their experiences in different cultures. Moreover, she

stated that although a number of researchers have extensively investigated the

effectiveness of bilingual education, and the language acquisition of bilingual

individuals in North America and Europe, most studies in these fields have focused on

immigrant children and their bilingual acquisition of two European languages. The

results of those studies, in many cases, cannot be applied in the context of Japanese-

English bilingual individuals because of the linguistic dissimilarity between Japanese

and English and the status of Japanese people living outside Japan. Therefore,

Hayashi conducted this study which was an initial attempt to investigate and compare

the attitudes, language use, and language proficiency of Japanese students who are

in different types of bilingual education programs in the United States and in Japan.

Hayashi also provides some research questions on her study. The questions

are: (1) What are the students attitudes toward bilingualism and attitudes toward the

Japanese language? What differences exist among programs? (2) What are the

students current patterns of language use and their language learning backgrounds

in English and Japanese? What differences exist among programs? (3) What are the

students language proficiencies in English and in Japanese? How do they differ

among schools? (4) What relationships exist among language proficiency, language

attitudes and language use? Those questions are answered through the systematic

methodology and proper review of literature and analysis of data that are found in

this study.

In the journal, Hayashi reviewed some terms related to bilingual individuals

language proficiency, their language use, their attitudes toward bilingualism, and the

effectiveness of bilingual education programs with respect to support the bilingual

development of students. It is suggested that bilingual is not two monolinguals in one

person, but a unity different from a monolingual and, therefore, monolingualstandards are irrelevant points of comparison when assessing the language skills of

bilingual individuals. Beside that, it has been found that bilingual childrens language

networks; opportunities to use languages, and their attitudes toward bilingualism and

toward their bilingual abilities are crucial factors to develop and maintain bilingual

proficiency (Baker in Hayashi, 2005). Not only that, Hayashi explained the factors of

bilingual individuals language use and attitudes toward bilingualism are affected by

many factors. Those factors included the community, family, and school which may


3/7

affect the language use and the attitudes of bilinguals (Landry and Allard in Hayashi,

2005).

Moreover, Hayashi reviewed that the types of bilingual education programs indicating

that each bilingual education model has different goals and objectives. The purpose

of Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) is to shift children from a minority languageto the majority language. On the other hand, Maintenance Bilingual Education, such

as the Immersion Program and the Two-Way Program, aims at teaching children the

majority language while continuing to foster their first language, enhancing the

childrens cultural identities and affirming the cultural diversity of the nation. Hence,

it is important for researchers to investigate the goals and objectives of, and the

actual educational practices in, each bilingual education program in order to find out

how the program helps students foster their bilingual abilities. In the school context,

Hayashi found that the school atmosphere regarding bilingualism, peer pressure, and

the language of power at school and in the society at large affect the bilingual

individuals use of languages and attitudes toward bilingualism. Therefore, it is

necessary to explore the environments surrounding bilingual students when the

attitudes of bilingual students toward bilingualism and their language use are

examined. Additionally, Hayashi reviewed the factors that play important roles in

fostering the students positive attitudes toward bilingualism and their motivation to

learn two languages. Those factors are the clear goals and objectives the program,

information about every student involved in the program, qualified teachers, and a

supportive atmosphere for bilingual students. At the end of the review of literature,

Hayashi also included information regarding to the general attitudes of Japanese

people toward English and toward bilingualism.

After reviewing some related literatures, Hayashi came to the methodology of the

research. Firstly, Hayashi explored the internet to find bilingual education programs

which provide bilingual instruction for Japanese-speaking children in Japan and in the

United States. After selecting and considering many factors, her study finally was

conducted in three bilingual programs as the setting of the study namely: an English

Immersion Program in Japan (Ai School), a Japanese Bilingual Program in California

(Bay School), and a Transitional Bilingual Education Program in Massachusetts (Cook

School). Secondly, Hayashi selected the participants from those schools who

appropriate to be the subjects of her study. Hayashi considered the students of 4th

and 5th grade to be the subjects of her study due to certain reasons. They answered

questionnaires, completed self evaluation forms in both languages, wrote essays in

English and Japanese, and underwent individual interviews. Thirdly, Hayashi providedresearch instruments that were used in collecting data for her study. He used

questionnaires, interviews, observations, and writing assignments in both languages

that were implemented in order to answer the research questions. The questionnaire

was used to obtain data regarding the bilingual attitudes, the language background,

and self evaluation of language proficiency in both English and Japanese. Hayashi,


4/7

then, went observation on the record of bilingual language assessment and the

writing samples of the participants.

During the collecting data, Hayashi stayed the entire school day with students, and

she recorded their conversations in the classrooms, in gym, in the cafeteria, and on

the playground. Interactions with peers and teachers in different contexts werecarefully observed, and notes were taken. The assessment of oral language skills was

done in these natural settings. The oral proficiency of the students was assessed

based on the individual interviews in English and Japanese. The researcher gave each

student various tasks, requiring role playing, in the interviews. The writing samples

collected from the three programs were sent to three Japanese language teachers

and three ESL teachers, who scored them based on the Analytic Scoring Rubric for

Writing. The data obtained from the questionnaires, the scores of the Bilingual

Language Assessment Record (BLAR) and of the writing samples in English and

Japanese, and the scored of the self evaluation of language proficiency in each

language were analyzed statistically.

After the data had been collected, then Hayashi analyzed the data. The qualitative

data were analyzed to clarify the attitudes of the participants and of other people,

who were considered to have an effect on the participants perceptions. The attitudes

of the participants toward bilingualism and toward the Japanese language were

analyzed with five classifications derived from Bakers 1992 study included 1) the

importance of bilingual development; 2) instrumental attitudes; 3) the challenge of

being bilingual; 4) the importance of the Japanese language in Japan; and 5) the

importance of the Japanese language for themselves. The analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was used in order to compare the differences in attitudes among the three

groups of participants. The observation data about the language use of the

participants in and outside the school were codified into situations and language, and

the characteristics of usage depending on context in each language were analyzed.

The results of the bilingual language background survey, asking about the

participants everyday language use, were converted into a percentage measuring

the language use of Japanese and English, by summing up the scores and dividing by

the number of items. The ratio of the usage of languages was used as the scores of

language use in Japanese and in English. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used

to compare the groups. Writing samples were scored based on the writing scoring

rubrics by three evaluators in each language, and the total scores of the evaluators

served as the writing scores for each student. Six one-way analyses of variance were

used to compare school differences in each of three pairs of language proficiencymeasurements as follows: oral and written language skills in English and Japanese

constituted a total of four measures; and the students self evaluation of language

proficiency in each language served as the final two of the six language proficiency

measures.

In the finding, Hayashi showed the data analysis in briefly by showing the table of the

analysis of every point in the questionnaire and give brief information about it.


5/7

Furthermore, Hayashi stated that he data obtained from observation reveal that the

students in all three programs generally have positive attitudes toward bilingualism

and toward the Japanese language. Regarding to the students language background

and their current language use, the results showed that language environments in

and outside the school affect the language use of children to a great extent. The

students in Bay and Cook Schools, in the United States where English is the languageused in the society, use English much more frequently than do the students at Ai

School in Japan. However, although both the students in Bay and Cook Schools had

more opportunities to use English, the mean score of the students in Bay School was

much higher than that of the students in Cook School because most students in Cook

School were from Japanese monolingual families and, therefore they have rare

opportunities to use English at home. In the field of language proficiency, Hayashi

found that there were three factors that influence students language proficiency.

They were: frequency of the use of the language, self evaluation on the language

proficiency, and writing skill in the language. Finally, Hayashi concluded that there

was a tight relationship among language proficiency, language use, and language

attitudes where family, school, and community should cooperate with each other to

create conducive environments, which will then lead to the bilingual proficiency of the

students.

C. The Critical Review of the Journal

This journal is very important to the reviewer as a student of post graduate.

This journal inspired the reviewer to do the research in the same field. It will be

interesting to know the students attitudes to the bilingualism as a reflection on the

bilingual system that has been implemented in some schools in the reviewers area.Beside that, to know about the students language background and their learning

environment (family, school, and community) as factors that lead the students to the

bilingual proficiency becomes sufficient information in solving some problems that

have faced by some students who do not feel satisfied and comfortable learning in

bilingual schools in the reviewers area. Thus, identical research is needed to be

conducted.

Besides for the reviewer as the post graduated student, this journal will be benefit for

the school, government, and community. The school that serves bilingual programs in

their school curriculum may get advantage from the result of the study that can be

the reference for the school to know students attitude towards bilingual program. It

is good for the betterment of bilingual program in each school in the researchers

area. Beside that, through knowing and recognizing the language background and the

language use of the students, the school, as one of the environment which may

encourage the bilingual proficiency of the students, should make any settlement to

create a sophisticated atmosphere in supporting the learning environment to be more

comfortable and give more opportunity for the students to use the bilingual


6/7

languages properly. For the government, the result of this study may be used as

reference to a betterment of bilingual education policies. Furthermore, for the

community, the result of the study will make the people consider that bilingual

education that happen both in Japan and USA, which can be important reference for

them who want to experience the language learning at the place where the language

is spoken. Finally, the result of the study gives plenty advantages, not only forindividual but also for community as well as government.

Hayashi can therefore be criticized here in term of their journals structure. The

reviewer found some disharmonies in Hayashis way of presenting her journal.

Further, the reviewer will describe as follow.

Hayashi begun the journal by the title and ended with the conclusion. However, there

is no abstract provided in her journal. According Bem (2003), the existence of

abstract in a journal is important. The abstract of an article or journal permit potential

readers to get a quick overview of the study and to decide if they wish to read the

article itself. For this reason they should accurately reflect the content of the articleand include key words that will ensure their retrieval from a database. A researcher

should compose the abstract after he/she has completed the article and have a firm

view of its structure and content. Moreover, as cited in www.abacus.bates.edu , an

abstract of an empirical article should be kept to about 200-300 words maximum (a

typical standard length for journals.) It should contain the problem under

investigation (in one sentence if possible); the participants, specifying pertinent

characteristics, such as number, type, age, sex, and species; the experimental

method, including the apparatus, data-gathering procedures, and complete test

names; the findings, including statistical significance levels; and the conclusion and

the implications or applications. An abstract must be compact, and this requirement

leads many inexperienced writers to make it unintelligible. Removing unnecessary

words and eliminating less important details of method and results are wise actions in

writing an abstract. It is suggested to make the problem under investigation clear to a

casually browsing reader. Thus, the reviewer thinks that Hayashi should make an

abstract of her study to make the readers get quick information related to her study

before they decided to read more.

Basically, the methodology that is used by Hayashi in this study is good enough but

need to be clarified. It is said that the researcher used four instruments to answer the

research questions. However, the reviewer sees that there are only two instruments

that described in her journal. Those two instruments (questionnaire and observation)are described clearly in the journal. Hayashi explained what problems that were going

to be solved through implementing those two instruments and how those two

instruments were used in her study. The explanations about it were covered in

different two sub-parts of methodology. Meanwhile, the other instruments (interview

and writing assignments) were not explained as clearly as the questionnaire and

observation. The use interview and writing assignments instruments were explained

implicitly in the explanation on the use of observation as instrument of the study.


7/7

Thus, make such a blurred understanding of the reader/readers when reading her

methodology.

During the explanation of the findings and discussion of the study, Hayashi made

some repetitions and redundancies. For example, Hayashi had mentioned the way of

collecting the data related to language use and its analysis in the methodology of thestudy. However, it was repeated when she presented the findings related to the

language use. Beside that, the identical sentences also repeated in the discussion

related to the same topic. This condition will make the readers feel confuse and think

that the words are ineffective. It also makes the readers take more time to finish

reading and uneasily understand the content of her journal. The reviewer thinks that

it is enough to describe deeply the way of collecting the data and analyzing the data

in the methodology without re-mention it in other chapters.

In general, Hayashis result of study is really significant for some elements of

community, such as family, schools, governments, and others researchers.

Meanwhile, she has some disharmonies on the way she presented her work. But itdoes not significantly reduce the advantages that offered by this study.

References:

Bem, Daril J. 2003. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Cornell University.

Umbel, V. M., Pearson, B.Z., Fernandez, M.C. & Oller, D.K. (1992). Measuring bilingual

Childrens Receptive Vocabularies. Child Development, 63, (4), 1012-1111.

------. 2002. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific

Paper."http://abacus.bates.edu"http://abacus.bates.edu. Retrieved on December,

20th, 2011.

critical review on a research journal entitled

Documents