Extended discussions

At times, all participants felt it necessary to have an extended, face-to-face discussions about their writing. While certainly there was no exact line between the number of minutes spent on a “short” compared to “extended” discussion, the two types of interaction were qualitatively different. Extended discussions were almost always arranged beforehand face-to-face or through Line between two individuals. The one notable exception was a two-hour discussion among Yoko and her friends Kai and Shinichiro at the start of second semester which she arranged “on-the-fly” in the classroom at the end of the period. This important interaction will be discussed in detail later in this and the following chapter. Extended discussions also occasionally occurred as part of regular study sessions for the paper-based TOEFL examination. In this section, I will describe the extended discussions participants arranged to talk about their English academic writing.

The most common type of extended discussion was with one’s peer editor to discuss the feedback on their drafts. They met on campus, usually in the SALC or study rooms in the library and exchanged assignments already extensively annotated with feedback, then discussed the feedback predominantly in Japanese. The

participants’ purpose for arranging the meeting was usually practical, as Aiko

described, “We want to ask about pair’s (.) their own (.) peer’s essay. Because (.) only (.) only reading pair’s essay I couldn’t understand, so I want to ask” (interview, 13.12.16). Written feedback by itself was often insufficient. Face-to-face discussions were preferred for the “relaxed atmosphere” in comparison to discussing online (Tomomi, interview, 19.10.16). During these meetings, students would often

101

paraphrase a partner’s feedback to check their understanding, and Tomomi and Yoko recorded this part of the interaction.

Participants also discussed their writing with classmates who were not their peer editor, as in the example of Yoko meeting Kai and Shinichi. Critical teacher feedback or low scores also encourage participants to arrange these longer

discussions. For instance, Chihiro described how the low score she had received on her essay draft led her to arrange an extended discussion with her classmates: “Our essay’s score is low, so we have to change some parts. So in the self-access centre, we, four girls, talking what part” (Chihiro, interview, 27.06.16). In the discussion, they shared some sympathy about the common situation: “First, we shocked [laughter] about low score, we talked about the low score” (Chihiro, interview, 27.06.16) and then shared ideas for how to respond to their teachers’ comments. However, such interactions tended to be shorter, as students were concerned with taking up friends’ time. As Yoko explained, “They were trying hard, so I don’t want to use their time. If I ask some question, always I have some questions, so I use much time” (interview, 31.1.17). Thus, participants relied on shorter interactions and quick questions for support related to their academic writing.

Participants sometimes had extended discussions about academic English with people who were not members of their EAP class. For example, early in the semester, Tomomi arranged to meet friends, one from high school studying at a different university and another in a different department in the same university. However, she was not able to relate support she received in these interactions to academic English class. For instance, when one friend from outside the university advised her to “te wo nuku” [cut corners] in her homework assignments, she ignored the advice: “She doesn’t have homework, and maybe she couldn’t imagine my situation” (Tomomi, interview, 23.5.16). In interviews during the rest of the academic year, Tomomi reported she had not found time to meet these friends. Usami was the only participant who arranged an extended discussion with a person outside the EAP class. She met a senpai to get advice when revising final essay in response to Jim’s feedback; she felt this senpai was approachable as she worked as a teaching assistant in one of Usami’s seminars. Usami valued the “one and a half hour” her busy senpai spent “for me” (interview, 3.2.17) to advise her about her essay face-to-face.

102

Finally, participants in the Advanced class occasionally arranged to meet their teacher in his office to discuss feedback he had given on their assignment, usually to confirm the decisions they had made. Two participants also sought out Jim’s

recognition of their efforts in extended discussions, using his evaluation as a yardstick to judge their progress on the programme. Yoko described her meeting in Jim’s office: “I’m not good at mitomeru [assessing] my seika mitomeru no ha [assessing my

achievement] I’m not good at, but he said, like, ‘You are growing’, so nandarou nan no hanshi shita [what, what did we talk about?] so (1.0) I want to make effort more, and I want to get high score, I want to admit (.) I want to be (1.0) admitted by

someone” (Yoko, interview, 21.11.16). By “admit”, Yoko means being recognised as a high achiever with a “high score”. Similarly, Usami described her teachers’

evaluation of her efforts and potential during their discussion in his office: “He said, ‘You have, like ability, ability to write great essay, but you sometimes don’t your ability on your assignment, so please keep your efforts, every assignments’, like before he said to me when I asked about the business essay” (Usami, interview, 3.2.17).