86reaffirmed.In the lecture category, listening to the instructor’s explanation of specialized content in English （Q16） or audio and video materials （Q23） was reported as highly frequent and difficult. In particular, the mean scores for the frequency and difficulty of the task in Q16 were both above 3.0, indicating that students frequently experienced the lecture listening task and found it difficult during EMI. Thus, in our depart-ment’s EMI, students often receive new knowledge of specialized content in English and find it difficult, suggesting that receptive English skills （e.g., listening and reading） are necessary. In addition, answering discussion questions from the instructor （Q21）, a newly added task by Moriya and Matsumura （2022）, was found to be highly frequent and difficult. In other words, a question for discussion is classified as an open question （e.g., asking someone to state their opinion）; thus, this task requires logical speaking skills. Although the task has been initially extracted from online EMI, this result suggests that it is a frequent and difficult task in face-to-face EMI.For the discussion category, tasks that involved pair or group discussions in English on the content of specialized textbooks （Q27） or given questions （Q28） and the task of explaining specialized content during discussions （Q29） were found to be high-frequency and high-difficulty tasks. Notably, these three tasks scored the highest among all tasks regarding difficulty. Although less frequent, class discussions （Q34） were also classified as difficult, indicating that discussions were challenging in this department’s EMI. This result aligns with a prior needs analysis conducted by Suzuki et al. （2018）, which shows that most students find it difficult to engage in group discussions in EMI classes. Tahara et al. （2021） also report that these discussion tasks are highly frequent and difficult in EMI, and our results support these findings. However, we found that the standard deviations of discussion task frequency （e.g., Q27: SD = 1.4; Q28: SD = 1.3; Q29: SD = 1.5） tended to be higher than those of reading task frequency （e.g., Q5: SD = 0.6; Q6: SD = 0.7; Q7: SD = 0.7）, suggesting that the frequency of discussion tasks varied depending on the class, with some classes implementing them frequently and others not. Therefore, in this department’s EMI, discussion skills may be essential in classes with many interactive tasks but less required in lecture-style or knowledge-transfer EMI.Tasks that were both frequent and difficult in the presentation category were summary presentations （Q36）, group presentations （Q37）, and group discussions of the presenter’s questions （Q41）. These three tasks have scores above the overall mean scores in both frequency and difficulty and are classified as high-frequency and high-difficulty tasks. This result indicates that speaking tasks during presentations tend to be challenging for the students in our department. According to Suzuki et al. （2017）, impromptu speech production is frustrating for students taking EMI. These findings may explain students’ difficulties with presentation or group discussion tasks during presentations because they require speaking without preparation. However, it should also be noted that the standard deviation in the frequency of these tasks was relatively large compared to the standard deviation in the frequency of the reading tasks seen in the first section. While the course syllabus for this department also stated that some classes had student-presentation tasks besides lectures, whether each task was conducted according to the syllabus was unclear.
元のページ ../index.html#92