University of Leicester MA Applied Linguistics and ...

ED0014

Tomomi Cope

The role of non-native high school teachers in Japan in teaching English as a foreign language

University of Leicester MA Applied Linguistics and TESOL

2016

Dissertation

The role of non-native high school teachers in Japan in teaching English as a foreign language: Can they help to improve English proficiency levels in Japan?

Tomomi Cope

Word Count: 20,000

i

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Abstract The objective of this research is to develop a picture of the distinctive features of high school English language courses implemented by Japanese teachers of English (JTEs), to clarify contemporary teaching issues, and to explore the future

directions of TESOL in secondary education by JTEs

as non-native English speaking teachers (NNESTs). Thus, this paper seeks to answer whether NNESTs ‘can help improve English proficiency levels in Japan’. Until Péter Medg yes first explored the superiorities of non-native teachers of English over native teachers (Medgyes, 1992, 1999), the superiorities of being a native speaker of English were often extolled and therefore pursued as the ideal outcome of English mastery: an assumption that is also common in Japan. Kachru stated that this native-speakerism (Houghton and Rivers, 2013) can be readily observed throughout a growing group of non-native English speaking countries referred to as ‘the expanding circle’ (Kachru, 1981; Llurda, 2009). In this respect, discovering the significance of non-native teachers of English in Japan also contributes in exploring what NNESTs’ contribution could be to the language class in the 21 s t century. This study explores the historical and potential incorporation of various forms of English language education techniques in the EFL classroom into Japanese high schools in the past, present, and future. It provides insights that resolve dilemmas amongst JTEs, as well as providing ii

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


explanations as to potential causes of the poor English proficiency of Japanese students (Tsuda and Nakata, 2013; ETS, 2013). Thus, the research approach adopted in this dissertation utilises triangulation by combining quantitative, qualitative, and naturalistic observation techniques. The primary quantitative survey consists of closed question surveys, while follow-up qualitative research consists of interviews conducted by e-mail. Additionally, a single classroom observation session occurred.

iii

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all those people who helped me with my research. Without their kindness and generosity, I would not have been able to complete this dissertation. I would also like to convey my appreciation to Geoff Jordan for his clear and concise advice. Finally, love and thanks to my family, for their patience, support, and encouragement for all my endeavours.

iv

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Table of Contents

Abstract

ii

Acknowledgements

iv

Table of Contents

v

Chapter 1: 1.1

Introduction

1

Background

1

1.1.1 Importation of cultural components

1

1.1.2 English for communicative purposes

2

1.1.3 Controversies on the MEXT’s 2013 announcement

3

1.2

Purpose of the study

5

1.3

Limitations

7

1.4

Definition of terms

8

Chapter 2:

Literature Review

12

2.1

Introduction

12

2.2

The climate of English Language Teaching in high school in Japan

12

2.2.1 The academic climate

13

2.2.2 The political climate

18

2.2.3 Influenced by cultural stigma

20

2.2.4 The roles of a high school teacher of English in Japan

27

2.2.4.1

Non-Native English Speaking Teacher in high school in Japan

27

2.2.4.2

Native English Speaking Teacher in high school in Japan

29

2.2.5 Uchimuki nature of students in high school in Japan

30 v

ED0014

Tomomi Cope

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6


Non-Native English Speaking Teachers

35

2.3.1 The general argument about NNESTs compared with NESTs in the world

35

2.3.1.1

NEST vs NNEST as ‘two different species’

35

2.3.1.2

Advantages of NNESTs

38

2.3.1.3

NNESTs decoded in SLA theory

39

2.3.2 The general argument about NNESTs in Japan

41

Bilingual instructions in Second Language Acquisition

44

2.4.1 Bilingual instruction versus monolingual instruction

44

2.4.2 Bilingual instruction in terms of socio-cultural awareness

44

2.4.3 Bilingual instruction in Japan

46

2.4.3.1

Bilingual instruction in Yakudoku practice

49

2.4.3.2

Bilingual instruction in post-Yakudoku practice

51

Classroom language

54

2.5.1 Garrulous JTEs

54

2.5.2 Other issues: Time and evaluation

56

Researches of learning effectiveness of L1-involved teaching instruction

57

2.6.1 Does L1-involved-instruction contradict CLT?

57

2.6.2 Does the Translation in Language Teaching (TILT) promote English proficiency?

57

Chapter 3:

Research Methods

59

3.1

Introduction

59

3.2

Research strategy

59

3.3

Participants

61

3.4

Ethical considerations

62

3.5

Questionnaire design

62 vi

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


3.6

Follow-up interviews

64

3.7

Classroom observation

64

3.8

Limitations

65

Chapter 4:

Results

67

4.1

Organisation

67

4.2

JTEs: persistent L1-users vs newly-adopted L2-users

67

4.2.1 Persistent L1-user group

68

4.2.2 Supportive group of L2-based instruction

68

4.2.3 Learner experience

69

4.2.4 Current teaching methods

70

4.2.5 Future teaching methods

71

4.3 JTE’s beliefs and concerns 4.3.1 JTEs’ perceptions of English-only instruction

71 71

4.3.1.1 Resemblance of the features of NESTs

71

4.3.1.2 Concerning towards students’ reactions

72

4.3.2 Juken and English-instruction

73

4.3.2.1 Denial group

74

4.3.2.2 Affirmative group

74

4.3.2.3 Cross-reference with the current teaching styles

75

4.4

When to use L1

76

4.5

The degree of L1 usage

76

4.6

Cooperative Learning: a solution to conduct English-centred sessions in the large-sized classrooms

77

4.7

Classroom observation: reports and analysis

79 vii

ED0014


Tomomi Cope

4.7.1 Amount of L2 usage

79

4.7.2 Teacher’s L1 and L2 usage

80

4.7.3 L2 quality of the teacher

81

4.7.4 Engagement with students

82

4.7.5 JTE as NNESTs dilemmas discovered

82

by classroom observation Chapter 5: Discussion

83

5.1

JTEs’ dilemma

83

5.2

The future direction of the classroom language

86

5.3

Beyond the Juken curse

87

5.4

The expert field of JTEs

88

5.5

Tables are turned: from lecturer to facilitator

88

5.6

Proud of being JTEs as NNESTs

89

Chapter 6:

Conclusion

91

References

92

Appendices

117

Appendix A: A sample page of a MEXT’s textbook closed-end activities

117

Appendix B:

118

Participant information and consent form

Appendix C: 1-7:

Questionnaires (English)

119

Appendix C: 8-14: Questionnaire (original: Japanese)

126

Appendix D: Follow-up interview consent form

133

Appendix E:

Hiragana and Katakana development

134

Appendix F:

A sample of Yakudoku

135 viii

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix G: Questions and a summary report

136

Appendix H: The follow-up interviews

148

Appendix I:

The textbook pages used for the Kou’s classroom observation

153

Appendix J:

Transcription conversion system

154

Appendix K (1):

Transcript

Appendix K (2):

Audio-recording [See MP3 file attached separately]

Appendix L:

[See Excel file attached separately]

Kou’s response of the questionnaire [See PDF file attached separately]

ix

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1.1.1 Importation of cultural components Japan has traditionally preserved its unique cultural identity. Despite its peripheral position in ancient Chinese and modern Western civilisations, Japan − a nation of islands − was historically able to adopt components of foreign culture without losing its identity (Ogawa, 1998). Linguistically, mainstream Japanese people have perceived and presented Japan as a monolingu al, ethnically homogeneous country (Yamamoto, 2001). Ogawa (1998, 142) exp lained that the ‘exposure [of Japanese people] to foreign culture is by importing components’. This stance enables people to import new ideas from abroad while retaining their linguistic value. It is exemplified by the invention of ひらがな hiragana and カタカナ katakana, which are Japanese phonetic alphabets (Samimy, 1994). They were created by breaking down 漢字 kanji − Chinese characters − to describe Japan’s own sound system (Takanashi, 2007; see Appendix E:1), or by the invention of

訓点送り仮名 kunten-okurigana symbols that make Chinese sentences possible

to read in Japanese (Hino, 1988; Ogawa, 1998; Appendix E:2). However, ancient Japanese people did not intend to learn Chinese grammar or pronunciation directly; instead, they preferred to use their translation technique to read the information in Chinese documents in Japanese (Ogawa, 1998; Hino, 1998). Cook (2007) also mentions that gaining the educational values of an L2 for the learner − such as an entrée to another culture or the promotion of international understanding and peace − can occur without actually learning the new language. 1

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


In 1808, the Japanese people encountered the English language for the first time in their history when the British frigate Phaeton arrived (Koike, 2013; Wilson, 2010). The Japanese traditional word-to-word translation method of 訳読 Yakudoku that renders Chinese scripts comprehensible (Hino, 1988) was repurposed to understand English; gaining a dominant position in teaching English at school (Hino, 1988; Suzuki, 2014). Yakudoku is another form of the ‘importation of components’ process because it requires students to focus more on Japanese texts than on the original English texts (Gorsuch, 1998). During classroom activities utilising the Yakudoku method, students have few chances to vocalise English except when they practice reading by repeating after the teacher (Nishino and Watanabe, 2008). 1.1.2 English for communicative purposes Since 1970, the Japanese government has released a series of teaching guidelines for English curricula, i.e., Course of Study (CoS), or 指導要領 (Shido-Yo-Ryo) in Japanese, with emphasis on the importance of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). As time has passed, these guidelines do not appear to have been successful. The latest Japanese ‘Computer-based Test of English as a Foreign Language’ (TOEFL iBT) scores prove that proficiency in the English Language is very low as compared with that of other countries ( ETS, 2014). The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) recently announced that ‘English classrooms will be conducted in English in

principle

(MEXT,

2013)’,

which was

based

on

their

judgement

that

English-centred classrooms are key to improving the low-proficiency problem. The 2

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


ministry assume that students, as well as teachers, only use Japanese in English language subjects, and that teachers only give students the technique s to understand the information written in English. Nevertheless, MEXT’s statement in 2013 was the most ambitious one ever published by the Japanese government, which desires to promote the English language as a means of communication. The government stated that revised English education programmes be implemented to ensure that established and coherent learning achievement targets nurture English communication skills throughout elementary and secondary school education (MEXT, 2013). The government also provided descriptions of high-level linguistic activities, such as presentations, debates, and negotiations during upper secondary school education in the statement (MEXT, 2013). As the ministry titled the new announcement the ‘English Education Reform Plan corresponding to Globalization’ (2013), the government must assume that recognising English as a means of active communication leads to Japanese who become members of the globalised world. 1.1.3 Controversies on the MEXT’s 2013 announcement However, MEXT’s announcement in 2013 commencing ‘English classrooms will be conducted in English in principle’ (MEXT, 2013) is a controversial agenda among local educators and scholars in Japan (Otsu et al., 2013; Sato, 2014; Erikawa and Kubota, 2014). Consequently, there are two irreconcilable views among them; one is a view that is inclined to scepticism on any pedagogic significance of the announcement, while the other is a view that reacts favourably to the announcement.

3

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


On the one hand, the scepticism by some scholars arises from the feeling that the ministry’s suggestion is very simplistic, as if English-based, mono-linguistic application was the quickest way for students to attain high proficiency in English (Erikawa and Kubota, 2014). They also argue the government has instilled in the subconscious mind of Japanese students an absolute terror of being ‘selected ones’ or becoming dropouts by linking linguistic success irrevocably with thoughts of elitism. Thus, the objective set by the government is unrealistic and too high for many Japanese students (King, 2013; Erikawa, et al., 2014). Another criticism stems from the doubt that MEXT’s announcement is too well-versed in the theory of TESOL (Kanatani, 2013; Erikawa and Kubota, 2014). On the other hand, some teachers generally welcomed MEXT’s announcement as they interpreted it as a government’s intentional challenge to established teachers’ traditional teaching customs, such as Yakudoku translation practices or persisting old-fashioned teaching practices that focus on non-communicative competence (Akahoshi, 2014). Traditionally, the dominant classroom language spoken by both teachers and students is Japanese (Akahoshi, 2014; Kanatani, 2013; MEXT, 2014a). Sato (2014) assumes that without a strong suggestion from the authority, such as MEXT’s 2013 announcement, teaching techniques like Yakudoku-based sessions would never cease and JTEs might not recognise the necessity of exploring more updated teaching practices (Sato, 2014). The central argument is that old-fashioned teaching practices result in reduced opportunities for students to improve their English.

4

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


However, resolving this criticism is a difficult task as opposition groups include older generations that fervently support traditional Japanese teaching customs. These teachers strongly oppose the exclusive use of English in the English classroom due to the belief that the entire elimination of the mother tongue in foreign language study may diminish the students’ recognition of the importance of their mother tongue; a notion often informed by patriotism (Narita, 2013). According to their perspective, English-dominancy is a form of imperialism in the English classrooms (ibid.). Regardless of the legitimacy of their concerns, they fail to propose any alternatives that would resolve issues related to traditional teaching models that have generally produced poorly performing English speakers. 1.2 Purpose of the study This paper explores five core issues as informed by the results from quantitative and qualitative research:  JTEs’ perceptions and transitions of classroom practices in reaction to MEXT’s 2013 English-only-instruction notice  The pedagogic feasibilities of teaching practices conducted by JTEs  Evaluations of JTEs who adopted English -based instructions by the latest TESOL researches  Details of JTEs’ concerns regarding English-based instruction and attempts to resolve concerns  Possible pitfalls and future challenges of English-based instruction as conducted by JTEs and considerations based on TESOL theories regarding improvements of students’ English proficiency

5

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


In this study, a triangulation approach is employed , whereby quantitative and qualitative methods are utilised to grasp the general phenomena of the target samples. Dörnyei (2007) emphasises the significance of executing an initial quantitative survey to get specific information. The quantitative survey consists of 13 questions with multiple choices and some narrative queries followed by some interviews. Additionally, an observation of an English classroom that an applicant teacher voluntarily offered was also conducted to deepen the understanding those queries. This paper is set out as follows. Chapter 2 covers explanations of the theoretical background, with references to ongoing discussions regarding ideal English language education concepts at pre-tertiary level between academics and politicians. The Chapter also contextualises Japanese education, such as the aspects of cultural stigma that leads to the Japanese students’ uniquely introverted classroom attitudes. It also argues previous research into aspects of JTEs’ strengths and weaknesses, as well as those of NNESTs and NESTs as their native counterparts and theoretical

arguments

surrounding

bilingual

instruction

in

second

language

acquisition. The subsequent chapter discusses the research methodology adopted in this article, including participant profiles, ethical considerations, research questions, follow-up interviews, classroom observation, and limitations. Chapter 4 presents the findings of this study, followed by a discussion of the findings in Chapter 5. Finally, Chapter 6 outlines the implications and limitations.

6

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


1.3 Limitations This study is limited in that it focuses on teachers’ perceptions and their instructions. That means that it may not sufficiently consider students ’ perceptions and attitudes toward learning, although it quotes some data about students’ opinions about the English language programmes in the discussion. However, the core of this research pertains to teachers’ perceptions about teaching styles, as well as exploring various aspects of different classroom monitoring. Due to the nature of the approach, there is a possible gap between teachers’ perceiving concepts of teaching and their actual teaching behaviours, including their approach to the students in the classroom, as this research does not clarify the relationships between them. This study may not apply globally because this paper addresses a specific subject in a particular group of members of particular institutions in a particular country — Japanese teachers of English in high schools in Japan.

7

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


1.4 Definition of ter ms In this paper, each term has the following meaning: Assistant Language Teacher (ALT). ALT means ‘Assistant Language Teacher’, whose job title is devised by the MEXT. An ALT works in a local primary or secondary school in Japan to ‘assist’ a Japanese Teacher of English (JTE) in the classroom (CLAIR, 2014a). ALTs must be native English speakers or eligible speakers who meet the criteria set by MEXT (ibid.).

Bilingual Instruction. Bilingual instruction means dual-language instruction. The main language for students is the Language One (L1), and the targeting foreign language (TL) for students is the Language Two (L2) in this paper. Teachers use both as the languages of classroom instruction. In this paper, bilingual instruction means teachers use both Japanese and English as classroom instruction language s.

Course of Study (指導要領 Shido-Yo-Ryo ). ‘Course of Study’, or 指導要領 Shido-Yo-Ryo in Japanese, is the name of guidelines set by the MEXT for pre-tertiary school education. Regarded as the blueprint for MEXT’s educational approach, the course of study reviewed and updated occasionally (MEXT, 2014a).

The First Language (L1). L1 means the main language used in daily life. For the purposes of this research, L1 is defined as the Japanese language for Japanese people who live in a mono-linguistic community in Japan.

8

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Japanese People. In this paper, Japanese people are defined as those who speak Japanese as a first language or speak Japanese at the level of a native speaker, and live in Japan as members of a mono-linguistic community.

Japanese Teacher of English (JTE). JTE is defined as a teacher who speaks Japanese at a native level; a holder of a Japanese National Teaching Licence of English Subject (英語科教員免許 Eigo-ka Kyoin Menkyo), and works mainly as a teacher of the subject of English in a secondary school in Japan.

Juken 受験 . 受 Ju(take)- 験 ken(exam) is a Japanese word. The literal meaning is ‘to take a university entrance exam’. Some popular terms are associated with Juken, such as 受験対策 Juken-Taisaku (Juken-exam strategies), 受験勉強

Juken-Benkyo

(Juken-study), and 受験英語 Juken-Eigo (English for Juken). In Japan, to get a high score on a university entrance exam is essential to enter a university (Blumenthal, 1992). Each university prepares a set of English exams; the quality and the type of the exams vary among the universities (Yasukouchi, 2014). Juken is a crucial issue in high school in Japan.

Monolingual Instruction. Monolingual instruction is single-language instruction, which specifically means that the singular targeting language is the instruction language of the language teacher in classrooms. In this paper, teaching English in English is monolingual instruction.

9

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Native English Speaking Teachers (NESTs). They are teachers who teach English as a subject in schools and English is their native language. In this paper, NEST often means the monolingual teachers who are able to speak only English.

Non-Native English Speaking Teachers (NNESTs). They are teachers who teach English as a subject in schools, but English is not their native language. They have another language as a main language in their daily lives. They are often considered counterparts to NESTs. In this paper, NNESTs particularly mean Japanese teachers of English (JTEs).

The Second Language (L2). L2 means the language learnt in addition to L1. In this paper, L2 is English language for Japanese people who use Japanese as L1.

Secondary Schools in Japan These schools are categorised as a pre-tertiary level of schools of the next stage of the primary school education in Japan, from the periods of Year 7 to Year 12 (age group: 12 – 18 olds). They include general three-year junior high schools ( 中学校 Cyu-gakko) and three-year senior high schools (高等学校 Ko-to-gakko), six-year secondary schools (六年制中高 Rokunen-sei Cyu-ko), and five-year technical schools (高等専門学校 Kotou-senmon -gakko or 高専 Ko-sen). In this paper, the word ‘high school’ is used to mean senior high schools or any relevant schools that covers the periods from Year 10 to 12 (age group: 15 – 18 olds), which is called ‘Ko-to Ka 高等科 (high-school course)’.

10

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


The Target Language (TL) The target language is the language taught in language classrooms, e.g. English for an English language course.

11

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


2. Literature Review 2.1 Introduction The previous chapter outlines the history of English teaching in Japan. This chapter analyses the current climate of English language teaching in Japan, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of JTEs and ALTs in terms of NNEST and NEST points of view. After that, the topic moves to the theoretical assessment of classroom instructions conducted by JTEs, including general theories of current bilingual versus monolingual teaching, and critical argument of

L1-based

instructions in light of developing students’ communicative competence. 2.2 The climate of English Language Teaching in high school in Japan Japanese teachers of English (JTEs), who have responsibility for the senior high schools’ English language classrooms, face various types of pressure s. Recently Akahoshi (2014) who is a long-serving JTE made a presentation on difficulties in conducting communicative-based classrooms at senior high schools. She stated JTEs face four ‘brick walls’, which are 1. University entrance exams, Juken which Akahoshi states is ‘too big to resist’ 2. MEXT’s approved textbooks whose contents are expected to be followed strictly 3. Disregarded or sceptical reactions from other JTE colleagues who rather support traditional, non-communicative teaching 4. An existing evaluation system designed as only knowledge-based activities’ friendly (Akahoshi, 2014) 12

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Without understanding the various socio -cultural situations surrounding Japanese high school ELT, the reinforcement of communicative competence will not be possible to accomplish. In this section, the climate of the se nior high schools’ English programmes in Japan is investigated from various aspects. 2.2.1. The academic climate

Juken contents and school education The English language in Japan as an academic pursuit had been learnt mainly for reading written texts rather than a means of communication (Butler and Iino, 2005). Additionally, English as a subject was widely adopted as a screening process for elite education, so mastering Juken Eigo (English for the university entrance exams) has become the main goal for pre-tertiary school students (ibid. 2005). Juken Eigo focuses on memorisation of grammar and vocabulary knowledge, reading comprehension skills and often Japanese - English translation skills (Butler and Iino, 2005). Butler and Iino (2005) and Yasukouchi (2014) state that university entrance examinations which are not necessarily constrained by high school English curricula tend to heavily emphasise reading and the grammatical aspects of English (Iino, 2005; Yasukouchi, 2014). Ushioda (2013) stresses that at high school the English that is studied is grammar-focused ‘English for exams’ (Juken Eigo) with minimal attention paid to the development of communication skills (Ushioda, 2013, 5) . Ushioda’s statements match the following Yasukouchi ’s data about the analysis of juken exams. Yasukouchi (2014) statistically displays the score-based ratios of four skills of English, which are Listening, Reading, Speaking and Writing in all of the Japanese university entrance exams executed in 2013 (see Figure 1), pointing out that more 13

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


than 80% of English tests consist of reading comprehension, translation into Japanese, grammar quiz and vocabulary tests; less than 2% are

listening

comprehension tests; however, strikingly, no speaking test was given (Figure 1, Yasukouchi, 2014). Thus, there is no proportional balance among four skills (ibid.). However, Yasukouchi demonstrates that TOEFL iBT evaluates four skills equally (Yasukouchi, 2014).

Fig 1 (Yasukouchi, 2014)

Furthermore, Butler and Iino (2005) discern that this heavy emphasis on reading comprehension and grammar skills comes from the logistical difficulties of testing oral components of English as well as from skepticism towards practical English, such as English conversation, among many academics in Japan (Butler and Iino, 2005).

14

ED0014


Tomomi Cope

Universities’ intention for juken Figure 2 displays statistical data from compiled from multiple surveys in regards to what universities test for in entrance exams. The survey measures 1,927 samples

of

various

departments

of

universities

in

Japan.

It

complements

Yasukouchi’s data (Figure 1); Figure 2 indicates that universities’ academics are interested in evaluating subject knowledge as the core factor of the exams; the ability of expressing oneself in speaking is not a major criterion for admission (Figure 2).

Fig 2 ‘What university in Japan from entrance examination grasp?’ (Adapted from Benesse, 2014 )

Success in Juken is the key to entering a particular university. Entering a particular department in a particular university matters to many Japanese students, as they sense an intrinsic connection between the names of universities, employment opportunities, and stable maintain societal positions (Kobayashi, 2002; Samimy and Kobayashi, 2004). 15

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Blumenthal (1992) stated that Japan is known as gakureki shakai, a society where great importance is attached to a person’s educational history. The university where students finish their studies is more important than their actual achievements during the study period. Large companies often recruit their workers from a few top universities before they graduate, which means that enrollment in a prestigious university secures employment in a large company (Blumenthal, 1992, 456). The need to secure good, future employment weights on many students’ minds and it causes enormous stress on Juken applicants as well as high school teachers (Akahoshi, 2014). Consequently, the washback effect by the heavily knowledge-focused features of Juken exams is extraordinary; it often distorts pre-tertiary English language programmes despite more institutions offering

applicants

the

choice

of

AO- 入試 Nyushi

(Admission-on-

recommendation system) which do not involve regular Juken exams than before (Zhang and McCornac, 2013). Students’ perceptions about English as a subject The existence of Juken also overshadows the students’ perception about English study. This reinforces the results of the ministry’s latest survey in 2013 (see Table 1), which indicates that 52.0% of senior high school students’ desire for high scores on the Juken English exams is the main reason why they feel that studying English is important to them (MEXT, 2014a; Table 1). Table 1 also demonstrates that the entrance exam issue concerns the upper -intermediate group most, at 60.6%, of the test takers of the four graded groups. Interestingly, the top-graded group and the bottom-graded students prefer option 5: ‘I want to communicate with people overseas’ over option 7: ‘studying English is for Juken purpose ’ in Table 1.

A 16

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


common feature shared by both groups is that many of them are not required to take Juken exams. The top-group students are often offered to opt out and take AO-Nyushi system as an alternative. Conversely, the bottom-group students likely will not go to universities; they may either enter vocational colleges that do not require English tests scores or start working instead.

Table 1: Answers from high school students in Japan (adapted from MEXT, 2014a, 131)

As Table 1 shows, attaining good Juken exam scores is the goal for many senior high students and the contents of Juken affect the actual English programmes (Kavanagh, 2012). Table 1 also indicates the existence of Juken possibly distorts students’ many other genuine idea about the purposes of learning English. They wish to gain practical language skills, such as becoming communicatively competent to befriend with people in the world (answer option 5), utilising English for their future employment (see answer option 1 and 2), or just because they have become aware of English as a lingua franca (Seidlhofer, 2005) in globalisation (see answer option 8; Seargeant, 2012). This concordant perception of English for juken among universities 17

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


affects the contents of the classroom activities (see Figure 4), and hinders the promotion of active communicative activities in classrooms, as students confess that some English programmes do not offer any open -discussion sessions; this concordance does not resonate with the governments’ demanding announcement about improvement of communicative competence (MEXT, 2013) either. 2.2.2 The political climate The government recognises English as an essential tool for the 21 s t century (Aspinall, 2013), thus they need Japanese citizens to gain English proficiency in order to benefit Japan in light of business expansion and economic growth (Seargeant, 2012), as well as making their cultural assets more popular around the world (Shimomura, 2014). Aspinall (2013) stated that: The Ministry of Education has stated that the main purpose of Japan’s international education policy is to help it ‘make an active international contribution in keeping with its international status’. In order to achieve this, it has set out detailed policies that aim to improve the foreign language abilities of all Japanese people, and increase the amount of student exchange between Japan and the outside world (Aspinall, 2013, 179). The idea that ‘[making] an active international contribution in keeping with its international status’ is deeply associated with their concerns regarding globalisation, which comes from a fear of Japanese survival due to the aging, shrinking-society (MEXT, 2006). Unlike Canada (Derwing and Munro, 2005), socially and demographically there are no explicit local community expectations about the demands of speaking English in Japan; there is no exposure to any form of local varieties of English in communities, as they do not exist (Ishida, 2006). This

18

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


situation may discourage students’ motivation to speak English. Furthermore, the situation provides no opportunity to gain familiarity with English sounds. However, Seargeant (2012a) points out that Japan now views English as an essential skill for the modern citizen, despite the fact that English has no offici al status in Japan, and shows an example of glob alisation by quoting the Japanese government’s suggestion as: The advance of globalization and the information-technology revolution call for a world-class level of excellence. Achieving world-class excellence demands that, in addition to mastering information technolog y, all Japanese acquire a working knowledge of English- not as simply a foreign language but as the internation al lingua franca. English in this sense is a prerequisite for obtaining global information, expressing intentions, and sharing values (CLGTC as cited in Seargeant, 2012a , 29). The scope of the Japanese government’s initial concern regarding English proficiency is about communicative competence. Shimomura (2014), the minister of MEXT, also states, “Many Japanese people cannot speak English, despite receiving six years of English language education in middle and high school. The reason is the problem with Japanese school education (Shimomura, 2014). Additionally, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe affirmed on teaching English in English, stating in his policy speech his belief that the English-instructed classroom is the way to develop communicative competence: ‘With 2020 as our goal, we will reinforce English education by such means as conducting classes in English at junior high schools. Our aim will be to have students acquire practic al English that enables them to communicate. We will launch this on a trial basis from FY2014. […] We reinforce English education, such as start conducting English classroom in junior-high schools in English until 2020. The target is to acquire the ‘useful English’ that enables people to have a communication (Cabinet Public Relations Office, 2014)’. 19

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


The Japanese politicians’ optimism about English-based instruction as panacea producing students who are communicative in English is rather simplistic, and their actions are questionable, such as simply hiring more ALTs. This issue may enable us to judge after reading this study. 2.2.3 Influenced by cultural stigma There are also local and sociocultural issues that hinder communicative activities in classrooms in Japan. Carroll (2013) points out the differences between images of countries such as France and the USA as valuing spoken language and discussion, and as being advanced in these areas, and Japan as being weak in those areas (Carroll, 2013). Moreover, Carroll argues that ‘communication skills are not regarded as language-specific, but rather as a set of skills that can be developed and applied to languages rather than one ’s mother tongue. It is a pragmatic approach, in which communication problems are attributed to the way that people use language, not to the Japanese language itself being in herently vague, illogical, or inadequate in some way (Carroll, 2013, 154)’. Regarding attributions to the way that Japanese people use language, King’s (2013) book called ‘Silence in the Second Language Classroom’, analyses the various psychological aspects behind the attitudes of silent students in Japan, and addresses the obstacles that stop students being communicative (King, 2013). The following paragraphs discuss the three sociocultural elements that are most likely to become obstacles to conduct communicative activities in classroom.

20

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Wa : Harmony in a group The first element is Wa. Japanese people see value in Wa due to inherent beauty in the Wa concept that represents the state of flawlessness. Wa means harmony 和 or circle 輪 in Japanese. More precisely, Wa refers to the harmonised, tranquil situation in a group (Moore, 2009), like case A of figure 3 shown below. Brannigan (1999) explains Wa as a vital feature in Japanese society. Each member of the group is expected to have an attitude resonant to the other members of the group, forming the Wa atmosphere. However, standing up for something different from the rest of the group results in broken harmony, meaning creating a disrupted situation or the failing to form a Wa situation. It is not favourable when Wa is being broken in a group (see B in Figure 3).

Wa is consistently maintained.

peaceful

(A): harmonised situation

Wa is broken/disrupted.

disturbed

(B): non-harmonised situation

Fig 3: har monised situation and non -har monised situation

A distinctive Japanese attitude to avoid confrontation results unique consensus that Brannighan (1999) states as ‘agree to a particular position even though one may not personally accept it (1999, 290).’ In the school context, this consensus constantly 21

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


hinders the Japanese students’ mind in classrooms when giving a personal opinion and participating in group discussions or debates, causing understand and undigested situations. Discussions and debates are concepts that Japanese were not originally familiar with, hence why it is a very challenging action for Japanese people to undertake in regular situations, let alone during English classes: it is a cultural difference. Moore (2009) explains that in Japanese culture, not speaking one’s mind can function to preserve group cohesion and prevent ostracism (2009, 136). Japanese children are often taught the importance of keeping this harmonised situation in a group (Rothbaum, et al., 2000) by their mothers, pre-school teachers, and so on, which is interpreted and understood as ‘remain silent without any complaint’ by children (Peak, 1991). In language classrooms, Wa concepts therefore drive Japanese students towards awkward sessions of discussions or debates, since such activities are normally regarded as against the Japanese group consensus. There is a risk that Wa consensus often becomes a stopper, stifling the explicit utterance of their opinions in the first place, resulting in silent pause in classrooms. King (2013) considers the silence in classrooms as ‘a silence-inducing hyper-sensitivity to others’, explaining that ‘training in empathy (omoiyari) does help to develop a sensitivity to the needs of others […], but it also teaches children to fear the criticism and disapproval of those around them too (2013, 49).’ This hypersensitiveness stifles communicative activities in foreign language classrooms as it causes students to hold their tongues. Their teachers need to facilitate classroom discussions or debates to promote understanding of this cultural stigma. This is especially true of JTEs, who also grew up with this cultural 22

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


stigma; they should be aware of the feature, and need to supervise classroom discussions as they often overlook as they usually have not assessed the situation from a third-party point of view.

Shi : Teacher-student relationship The second element is the concept of Shi 師 . Shi means a teacher in Japanese, but the traditional concept contains more than just a teacher. Shi means a great, respectable predecessor who has authority, a master, or an expert (Ishida, et al., 2011). There is an old Japanese proverb saying Sampo-sagatte Shino-kageo Fumazu 三歩下がって師の影を踏まず meaning ‘You should walk three-steps behind your teacher avoid treading on his shadow’. This concept implies the students’ entire trust in − even surrender and obedience – their teachers’ actions. The Shi notion explains why teacher-dominated lectures have been popular among JTEs’ classrooms for so many years (Maftoon and Ziafar, 2013). Ishida et al. (2011) note that the Sampo-sagatte (three-step behind) proverb comes from a Confucian idea, which still runs underneath school education in Japan (2011). It also means that this concept causes students to fear communicative activities as they may be concerned about ‘treading on their teacher’s shadow accidentally’ by being communicative, as the student’s talking-back (kuchi-gotae o suru 口答えをする in Japanese) to the teacher is traditionally recognised as bad manners in Japan (Nakamura, 2004). Additionally, Sueda and Wiseman (1992) states that ‘[Japanese people] avoid asking direct questions in public, because they are afraid that the questions may cause their superiors or colleagues to lose face (1992, 163) ’. This socio-culturally associated

23

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


psychological principle may become an obstacle for Japanese students when participating in communicative activities in English classrooms. The concept of

Shi also overshadows perceptions about classroom

management among Japanese teachers. Yoneyama (1999) reports that: The extremely autocratic mode of education of Japan has trained [Japanese students] to be receivers of the knowledge given by teachers, not to ask questions, not to contradict or criticise teachers, and ultimately not to think but just to listen and sw allow what they are told. […] [The] student–teacher relationship in Japan represents a crude form of ‘banking e ducation’, where teachers do all the talking and students do all the listening (Yoneyama, 1999, 86). The Shi concept accorded with the teacher-initiated, autocratic mode that Yoneyama (1999)

asserts

above,

which

is

entirely

different

from

a

concept

of

teacher-as-facilitator (Le, 2014). The teachers’ transformation into being a facilitator promotes a more democratic status of teacher-students relationships. Japanese teachers may struggle to get out of this Shi perception, enabling their authoritative behaviours to cause a decline of students’ self-esteem and autonomous utterance (Nakamura, 2004).

Haji : ‘Shame’ and perfectionism affecting classroom behaviour The

third

sociocultural

element

preventing

Japanese

students

from

conversing in the English classroom is the fusion of Haji 恥 concept and perfectionism in Japanese culture. Haji means ‘shame’ in Japanese, but more precisely defined, Haji is associated with a student’s personal feeling of being ashamed or embarrassed when she compares her psychological status with the rest of the members of the group when she is in their presence (Mesquita and Karasawa, 24

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


2004). Sueda and Wiseman (1992) explain that Japanese culture stresses ‘We’ in communication, contrasted with North American’s society value of

‘I’ in

communication, and states that ‘Japanese are likely to feel embarrassment more keenly than North Americans because Japanese are more concerned about how they are viewed by others (Sueda and Wiseman, 1992, 162)’. For example, speaking in a foreign language in the classroom means a great deal for many Japanese students, because they worry that their pronunciation is not ‘good enough’ to their peers, and their peers may mock them because of that (Armand and Tanaka, 2001). Furthermore, some Japanese students tend to avoid standing out from a crowd as an individual and prefer remaining silent, regardless if they know the right answer or not (Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, 1990). Walking-on-the-thin-ice In addition to the Haji element, the nature of perfectionism among Japanese people (Saito and Ebsworth, 2004) paired with the evaluation system of English as a subject in Japanese schools compounds the issue. Making a great effort to achieve the highest standard is a virtue in Japanese society, and Japanese children are impressed with the importance of this virtue (White, 1988). A popular excuse given by Japanese students who remain silent in the English classroom is that they are not confident enough to speak English with proper grammar and pronunci ation (Harumi, 2011). Many students are embarrassed with their imperfectness in English, and give up speaking. This reaction comes from perfectionism rather than modesty or humbleness, considered a virtue among Japanese students.

25

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


There is another perfectionism hindering the students’ communicative activities in Japan. Asking for precision work is a norm in the Japanese school system, and English as a subject is not an exception. The students have an idea of the evaluation system for English. The tests are in detail: they usually consist of closed-ended completion questions (Ur, 2012), requiring the ability to detect predetermined-answers (Matsuura, et al., 2001). Filling answers on an answering sheet is like walking on the thin ice of a lake; choosing the appropriate words and selecting the most suitable answer with the perfect usage of the punctuations are the main tasks for students; accuracy is the most important element to the evaluation system for English as a subject in Japan (Kamiya, 2014). Japanese students feel the constant pressure that they lose points every time they make a subtle mistake such as missing a period mark at the end of a sentence, or not writing letters neatly enough. With an over emphasis on reading and writing tasks, such a negative evaluation system is a norm in the EFL environment of Japanese secondary education. In fact, there are rare opportunities to express the students’ opinions on the exam sheets, while daily classrooms experience are full of precision focused work. It is also an intricate task for JTEs to mark, as they should not miss any subtle fault in students’ answers (Hughes, 1999). Consequently, although JTEs may not always monitor students’ work in classroom activities, the students typically end up fearing mistakes in classrooms (Nakayama, et al., 2012). In sum, the scoring system does not help to relieve the students’ fear but may add more fear of making mistakes instead and the students will avoid making tries and errors (Sato, 2014). 26

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


When JTEs consider high school English language programmes and adopt English-language-based Japanese-language

based

classrooms,

not

classroom,

JTEs

traditional should

translation-based

understand

that

these

psychological paradigms run underneath the actual English classrooms and consider conducting a more effective English classroom in which students’ individual activities are not hindered by these kinds of psychological elements. These paradigms should not hinder English-based classrooms as any utterance in English, as opposed to the atmosphere within which students live in the monolingual community, may challenge local traditional values, exemplified as Wa, Haji and Shi in Japan. 2.2.4 The roles of a high school teacher of English in Japan There are two types of English teachers in secondary schools in Japan: JTEs as NNESTs are responsible for the entire English courses and NESTs hired as ALTs for the classrooms conducted by NNESTs (Also see 1.1.3). Generally, one JTE (NNEST) conducts one English class; some classrooms operated by both JTE (NNEST) and NEST (ALT) are called team-teaching (T/T) classrooms. This creates an awkward relationship, resulting in differences and controversies of surrounding the roles of NNESTs and NESTs in Japanese secondary schools. 2.2.4.1 Non-native English Speaking Teacher in high school in Japan Empathetic nature values than being teaching expertise In Japanese secondary education, NNESTs equates to JTEs. Ishida, et al. (2011) states that as a unique feature of JTEs, teaching is only a part of their entire job, which contrasts with the idea that teaching is the central job for European and 27

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


American schoolteachers (Ishida, et al., 2011). The job duties of JTEs cover various things such as being the general homeroom teacher, clerical work and after-school club supervisor as well as management of their specific subjects’ teaching classrooms (2011). Cummings (1980) notes that ‘[traditionally], the ideal teacher was a selfless person who stayed at school long after classroom duties were finished to play with children, provide extra lessons, attend teacher meetings, and so on ( Cummings, 1980, 56)’. Traditional Japanese see this as the prime virtue in being schoolteachers. Japanese teachers work an average of 53.9 hours per week, the highest figure among the OECD’s 34 member countries (Jiji, 2015). In the most serious cases, they lack of enough time to deepen their specialty knowledge and to prepare for their own teaching subject because of too many other job duties (Mainichi, 2014). Ishida et al. (2011) explains that during the teacher training period, the mental and humanity elements, which are rather ambiguous and difficult to be measured, are regarded as very important elements as an eligible teacher, in addition to teaching skills which are more transparent, scientific elements (Ishida et al., 2011). In other words, the education authority considers that having a good personality, being empathetic to students, feeling a strong responsibility for their jobs, having common sense, and being sociable are very important elements to being qualified as a professional teacher in Japan (2011). Those features may give some ideas of the nature of being a schoolteacher in Japan; thus, the most vital element of being a professional teacher in Japan is not being a teaching expert (Nabe, 2013).

28

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


This concept is the reversal of the idea that the aim of the school education in Japan is to ‘mould students into a prescribed pattern (Yoneyama, 1999, 73)’ to produce sensible, moral citizens who are able to harmonise with others in their society. This education pattern is defined as ‘the autocratic and authoritarian mode of education (ibid.)’. Accordingly, the local board of education expects the schoolteachers to guide students to become desirable, and they emphasise teaching skills as the secondary element. This common recognition of job duty among Japanese schoolteachers may lead to the disregard of professional teaching knowledge and quality. 2.2.4.2 Native English Speaking Teacher in high school in Japan The Japanese educational authority hires NESTs on the annual contract basis for improving students’ English proficiency in schools in Japan. However, as King’s book (2013) titled “In Japan: Native Speaker English Teacher as Missed Opportunity”, the situation of the current NESTs within the Japanese school systems has issues. Firstly, about 4,000 NESTs are hired as Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs) each year (CLAIR, 2014a), but very few ALTs hold formal qualifications in language teaching (McConnell, cited in King, 2013); their eligibility does not require any TESOL or linguistics related qualifications (CLAIR, 2014b). This hiring condition contradicts the conclusion of a study by Barrat and Kontra (2000) that NESTs should not be hired by the sake of being native speakers, but rather that they should have teaching qualifications, as most of them are not language teachers and lack professional teaching experience (Barrat and Kontra, 2000).

29

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Secondly, the actual job descriptions of ALTs are often vague in classrooms (Cotter, 2011). It is unclear how much ALTs contribute to improve the communicative competence of

students. Besides the fact that many lack

professional teacher qualifications, or even lack previous teaching experiences, there are many restrictions to conducting classroom activities to them. ALTs often have to follow the scripts of MEXT-authorised textbooks written by Japanese scholars (Benoit and Haugh, 2001),

or do

juken

preparation,

rather

than

giving

communicative-based activities. Furthermore, some lower-grade schools use ALTs as mere game-machines or tape recorders (Araki-Metcalfe, 2011; Joseph, 2013). The authority states that ‘ALTs assist with classes taught by Japanese teachers of English (JTE) (CLAIR, 2014a)’, however, the styles of assistance vary in actual classrooms. Some ALTs do not collaborate with the JTEs well due to failing to establish relationships with JTEs or students (Hayashi, 2014). 2.2.5 Uchimuki nature of students in high school in Japan The increase of uchimuki, or inward-looking, students in Japan has been noted as a modern problem of hindering internationalisation in Japanese education since around 2010 (Imoto, 2013; Burgess, 2014). The uchimuki youths do not want to go overseas to study or to work as the ir predecessors did (Burgess, 2014). Imoto (2013) describes the uchimuki students as a “generation of ‘grass-eating’ youth who are deemed passive and lacking motivation to seek the wider world (2013, 128)”. He further notes that the uchimuki crisis is a “‘problem’ of insular youth− [symbolizing] the ‘problem’ of Japan’s struggles in the increasingly competitive glob al era, where neighbouring East Asian countries are making their presence felt (2013, 128) ”. 30

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


The government also admits the seriousness of students’ uchimuki discourse and are concerned about the decline of the number of students who go overseas to study (Shimomura, 2014). Table 1 also shows that senior high school students are the least interested in ‘speaking out about Japan to the world’ as only four-point-four percent of 43, 130 students indicated. This uchimuki attitude is affecting the degree to which students willing to communicate in English. However, an explanation of these phenomena is not that simple. There is some doubt that the youths are not interested in overseas excursions, but rather they are not willing to express their interest voluntarily (See Table 1). Saito (2014) assumes that many of them must be happy with cocooning themselves within their ‘safe’ zone, Japan, watching over the trend of the world available on the internet; that virtual convenience makes them think that going overseas for studying or working is a risky, hassle-ridden factor to them (Saito, 2014). What makes the situation worse is that the English classroom practice that the high school students receive does not actively improve the uchimuki discourse.

31

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Types and frequencies of English language classroom activitives

68.7

Textbook pronunciation practice and recitation 56.0

Textbook Quiz in English

6.9

Speech / presentation activities Activities based on authentic printed materials…

1.7

0%

10%

27.0

29.2

38.8

24.0

12.2

50.4

25.8

20%

30%

9.6

15.0

27.9

22.8 12.2

2.1

15.8

25.1

32.4

3.8 2.5

23.4

44.3

1.8

13.3

18.7

42.1

12.9

Writing activities (essays)

17.8

46.5

17.5

Textbook dictation practice

7.4 12.0

35.4

23.9

Textbook translation practice [Japanese=>English]

3.8 4.9 1.8

52.4

31.9

Textbook translation practice [English=>Japanese]

7.6

43.3

33.1

Textbook pattern practice

4.01.0

44.5

47.2

Textbook grammar explanation

Using audio-visual media / films

32.0

48.3

Textbook listening comprehension

Debate / discussion activities

26.0

51.8

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

very frequently frequently occasionally rarely never* (* the programme does not involve this activity) no answer (less than 0.4 %)

Fig 4: Types and frequencies of English language classroom activities answered by JTEs (adapted from MEXT, 2014d)

Figure 4 is made upon the collections of the responses from 1,862 JTEs who works at 215 high schools in 44 prefectures about how often a certain classroom activity is conducted (MEXT, 2014d). Figure 4 indicates that JTEs place great importance on making sure that their students understand the course b ooks thoroughly (Nishino, 2008). T he figure shows ver y frequent and frequent tasks of which more than 60% are all textbook-based activities that are likely to nurture passive learning attitude to students. The activities that rely on students’ willingness 32

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


to express themselves, such as writing activities, speech and presentation activities, and debate and discussion activities are less frequent practices in the classrooms (Figure 4). Textbook-based activities are pre-determined ones; JTEs, who ought to run the classrooms faithfully based on the textbooks (Akahoshi, 2014), initially give the closed-ended cues that ‘have one right answer (Ur, 2012, 278)’ from the fixed contents written in the textbooks, as seen in Appendix A. The purposes of the tasks are to find pre-determined answers. JTEs give less chances to offer open-ended practice which is ‘to produce or hear a response that is not pre-determined or predictable (Ur, 2012, 54)’. This passive-mode practice may be uchimuki students’ friendly, as they do not have to ‘create’ any new, voluntary expressions under these tasks. As Figure 4 indicates, speech, debate, and discussion activities seem to be the least important ones, due to their being less frequent activities in classrooms. In sum, the JTEs offer the predetermined, or predictable, textbook-focused, controlled, and closed-ended exercises under the current school curricula. Students do not have enough opportunities to train in expressing themselves or to have a debate in classrooms in English (Figure 4); students ought to train numerous receptive skills, and their training does not help in changing uchimuki discourse. This fact coheres with Kikuchi and Browne’s (2009) observation that the university-examination oriented nature of classes causes teachers to focus on receptive skills or translation skills, and this situation obstructs any MEXT reforms (2009). Moreover, the JTEs rarely provide opportunities to read other materials apart from the textbooks to students (Kikuchi and Browne, 2009); JTEs give Japanese 33

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


scholars’ edited MEXT authorised textbook to read. Consequently, lacking familiarity with the latest authentic materials does not encourage students to acknowledge the outside world via English as a means of accessible language. Breaden and Goodman (2014) blame the absence of students’ preparation for experience beyond Japan, as the failure of the Japanese schooling system, and its absence as a cause of this uchimuki, introspective mind-set (2014).

Fig 5: the sur vey results by Japanese senior high school students regarding the degree of understanding about each task in English classrooms (adapted from MEXT, 2014e)

Figure 5 shows the data from 46,616 senior high school students across 215 schools in 44 prefectures in Japan, in response to their personal opinion of the degree of understanding of tasks which were taught in English classrooms. The results indicated in Figure 5 show the items included in Figure 5. As displayed on Figure 5, the elements that the students feel they are not good at, which are the 34

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


practices of voluntarily expressions, such as making small talk, having discussions or debates are exactly the same activities that the JTEs do not give as frequent tasks in the classrooms as indicated in Figure 5. This situation does not help improve students’ uchimuki attitudes either. 2.3 Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 2.3.1 The general argument about NNESTs compared with NESTs in the world 2.3.1.1 NEST vs NNEST as ‘two different species’ In the ELT world, especially in Kachru’s definition of ‘the expanding circle’, the countries where that English is EFL contexts (Kachru, 1981, 1992) express a strong belief that NESTs are ideal teachers (Llurda, 2009), or, holders of the TL language expertise (Haynes, 2009) regardless of whether they possess relevant knowledge about being professional language teachers or not. Holliday called this established ideolog y Native-speakerism, defining native speaker teachers as representing a ‘Western culture’ from which spring the ideas both of the English language and of English language teaching methodolog y (Holliday, 2005). In some parts of the world, non-native English language teachers have been often recognised alternatives to unavailable monolingual native English teachers (Llurda, 2009). Based upon such a belief of native-as-ideal-model, many of the most influential twentieth century theories of language teaching strongly advocated exclusively monolingual teaching models, such as the direct method (Cook, 2010). Moreover, since communicative approaches have gained huge popularity in ELT 35

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


from the mid-twentieth century, “an implicit rule was that native speakers were ide al for promoting natural and spontaneous communication, and therefore when available they should naturally be preferred over non-natives (Llurda, 2009, 41)”. However, in the 1990s, applied linguistics researchers started looking at non-native speakers in their own right, rather than with negative implications (Llurda, 2009). Péter Medg yes (1992) is one of the pioneers who started fresh evaluations of non-native speakers (Medgyes, 1992, 1999). Medgyes (1999) noted the existence of difference between NNESTs and NESTs in terms of their teaching behaviour (1999) and the importance of recognition of the natures of NESTs and NESTs as ‘two different species (1999 27)’, which also stressed that they can be good teachers on their own terms (1999). In the same vein, Arva and Medg yes (2000) distinguished the features of the non-native speaker teachers from the native counterparts as follows:

36

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Fig 6: Perceived differences in teaching behaviour between NESTs and non-NESTs (Ar va and Medg yes, 2000, 357)

In the column of non-NESTs (NNESTs) on Figure 6, although we see some rigid or negatively nuanced words such as ‘strict’ and ‘poorer’, Arva and Medgyes (2000) attempted to evaluate each group’s features fairly, clearly stating that being different does not imply better or worse (2000). This notion descend from Arva and Medgyes’s idea that “[teachers] should be hired solely on the basis of their professional virtue, regardless of their language background ( Arva and Medgyes, 2000, 358)”

37

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


2.3.1.2 Advantages of NNESTs NNESTs as successful learner models As time goes by, more scholars agree with the concepts expressed by Alva and Medgyes (2000), regarding the viewpoint of NNESTs as representing more practical, attainable learning goals of the people who learn English as an additional language (Medgyes, 2012; Song and Castillo, 2015). This is a great paradigm shift from the view that NESTs used to occupy in their prominent position as the ideal model (Cook, 1999; Radford, 2009). This shift also emphasises the NNESTs’ empathetic nature (Norton and Tang, 1997) as well as NNESTs as attainable figures contributing to learners’ motivation. Visualisation of the goal is an important element for the learners (Dörnyei and Chan, 2013), and the presence of NNESTs must be contributing to this fact. Developing rapport with students Because a NNEST took a route from a beginner to a successful L2 user, NNESTs can be good helpers for solving learners ’ educational problems. NNESTs have an advantageous position compared with NESTs, since NNESTs know and share L2 learners’ culture and mother tongue, and make previous learning experience of the TL useful in teaching (Majlesifard, 2012). Mullock (2010) describes that NNESTs pinpoint learners’ problems; providing good definitions of difficult words, explanations of grammar, and lower levelled students gain benefit s from NNESTs’ bilingual skills (Mullock, 2010). In cases where L2 speakers’ unique errors come from influences by the linguistic features of their L1, in other words, affected by negative L1 transfer, the 38

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


errors that were lead to unclear articulation in the TL are often very difficult to correct via teachers’ implicit ways, as it takes time for the learners to understand the concept itself that any given similar concept does not exist in L1 (Shirahata, 2015), the NNESTs’ L1 knowledge may be very useful to pinpoint these kinds of errors . For example, Japanese learners possess unique learning difficulties in English because of their L1 structures (Shirahata, 2015). Some items can be corrected by giving explicit guidance, such as clarification requests, repetition of errors, elicitation and metalinguistic clues (Lyster, 1998), but they are not effective if the learners are not able to scrutinize their expressions, notice the errors and do the self-corrections. NESTs may be limited in their ability to correct and give fundamental advice to such kinds of non-native learners’ errors. 2.3.1.3 NNESTs decoded in SLA theory Multi-competence: bilingual is not deficient monolingual A supportive background mechanism of NNESTs and NESTs as ‘different species’ from a Second Language Acquisition (SLA) point of view is exhibited by Vivian Cook (2008) who freshly coined a new concept of the mind regarding second language (L2) learners, or L2 users, with the term ‘multi-competence’ meaning ‘the knowledge of two or more languages in one mind’ (Cook, 2008, 2010). This framework changes the angle from which tradition al second language acquisition is viewed (Cook, 2012a). Cook (2012a) explains multi-competence constitutes a bilingual ‘wholistic’ interpretation of bilingualism as opposed to a monolingual ‘fractional’ interpretation of bilingualism (2012a).

39

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Fig 7: Multi-competence (Adopted from Cook, 2008, 2010, and 2012a)

In the multi-competence framework, ‘two languages in the same mind’ does not mean L1-L2 relationship. Cook states ‘interlanguage’ (Selinker, 1972) as the second element of ‘multi-competence’ in addition to L1 as the first element; L2 is ‘in the mind of somebody else (Cook, 2012a)’, which is outside of multi-competence circle, as shown on figure 7. To make the concept of ‘multi-competence’ clear, Cook introduces Selinker’s term ‘interlanguage’ (Selinker, 1972). Cook’s definition of ‘interlanguage’ is the learner’s independent language with grammars having their own properties; the grammars are created by the learners’ own internal process in response to L2 data they receive; interlanguage is independent from both L1 and L2; interlanguage is a part of the internal mental process of the learner’s mind (Cook, 2008).

40

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Cook’s multi-competent perception (Cook, 2008) ensures the emancipation of non-native learners from the traditional biased views as subordinate L2 learners based on the incomparable mono-linguistic native speakers (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991; Cook, 2012a). It has also opened a new phase in exploring the significance of NNESTs as multi-competent L2 users to other NNES students (Cook, 2012a). This concept diverges from the traditional teaching target of imitating L1 speakers by to aiming at an attainable and practical standard to produce successful L2 users, which aligns with movement towards a Lingua Franca (Seidlhofer, 2005; Canagarajah, 2006) as, a contact language used among people who do not share a first language (Jenkins, et al., 2011). This movement is also diminishing the traditional recognition of superiorities in being native once considered as an ideal language model in respect of ELF learning. The Lingua Franca movement also suggests criticism of the goal of the traditional Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) concept in attaining native speaker communicative competence (Cook, 2012a). 2.3.2 The general argument about NNESTs in Japan JTEs’ English proficiency levels and their negative impacts on classrooms In Japanese secondary schools, JTEs are the core teachers for English language programmes. The levels of English proficiency often come under popular criticism especially since the MEXT’s proposal of the principle use of English language in the EFL classrooms (MEXT, 2014c). MEXT’s recent specification of the minimum requirement is that “all English subject teachers must prove English capabilities by passing Grade pre-1 in the Test in Practical English Proficiency

41

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


(EIKEN, 2014), scoring over 80 in TOEFL iBT, or achieving equivalent scores (MEXT, 2014c)”. 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0%

52.7%

50.0% 39.9%

40.0% 30.0%

Eiken Pre-1, equivalent levels & above

28.8%

20.0% 10.0% 0.0% junior high senior high high school (n=31057) (n=27368) overall (n=58425) Fig 8: JTEs’ Eiken Pre-1 and/or equivalent and above holders in 2013 (adapted from MEXT, 2014, 2014c, 2014f, and 2015)

However, a recent survey shows the result that only 52.7% of 27,368 in-service senior-high school teachers hold Eiken Grade Pre-1 (EIKEN, 2014) or equivalent levels which is equivalent of 550 of TOEFL (or 80 of iBT) or above (MEXT, 2014). Moreover, the situation is worse in junior-high schools: only 28.8% of 31,057 JTEs working in junior-high schools hold Eiken Grade Pre-1 or above levels (MEXT, 2015). This means that only 39.9% of 58,425 JTEs meet the minimum criteria of teachers’ English levels which MEXT display (Fig 8).

42

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


The following view of Hiramatsu (2012) explains the backgrounds of the low percentage that [traditionally], JTEs have had a tendency to speak Japanese in English classes, because the grammar-translation method does not require extensive oral/aural practice, and thus, high levels of oral proficiency were not an important criterion for the JTEs in the past (Hiramatsu, 2012, 115). It also becomes clear that there are discrepancies between major groups’ of JTEs’ English levels and MEXT’s expected levels implied by their ambition that they want JTEs to mainly conduct English classrooms in English to produce active English users (MEXT, 2013). That does not always involve JTEs and native counterparts ’ team-teaching − JTEs often conduct English classroom teaching on their own. As seen in Fig 8, one in two high school JTEs possessing limited English expressions and low English proficiency possibly have only limited teaching skills as professionals (Otsu, 2014). Miyazato (2009) and Luxton et al. (2014) assert that JTEs’

English

language

deficiency

in

communication

skills

causes

them

embarrassment and results in a lack of confidence. Humphries (2014) indicates that their deficiencies may also become the reason for reverting to old habits that do not involve any communicative display to avoid tarnishing their authority and risk causing classroom disruption by their students. Kikuchi (2013) summarises that many previous research indicates the JTEs in high school contexts reports grammar-translation based classrooms as well as teachers’ usage of poor English cause students to become demotivated to study English, since some students can only translate reading passages well, but also because others want to use English as a tool of communication. 43

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


2.4 Bilingual instructions in Second Language Acquisition In recent studies, there are worldwide trends showing that bilingual instruction, or, using other language especially learners’ L1 to learn L2 (English in this study) are more beneficial to the learners for its acquisition rather than monolingual instruction in which only English is used to learn English. 2.4.1 Bilingual instruction versus monolingual instruction This paper specifies bilingual instruction (See definition of terms) as utilising one more languages, especially the use of L1 in addition to the TL, as the counterpart of monolingual instruction. The direct method replaced the grammar translation method in the late nineteenth century (Spada, 2007), and stresses the exclusive use of TL, which means the elimination of the learners’ L1 (Howatt, 1984). However, bilingual instruction has been re-evaluated and has been gaining popularity in recent years, in accordance with the development of neuro-linguistic technology, and the raise of the socio-cultural, global awareness of diversity (Spada, 2007; Cummins, 2009; García, 2009). 2.4.2 Bilingual instruction in terms of socio-cultural awareness The residents living in the expanding circle (Kachru, 1981, 1992) have strong preference of employing monolingual Anglophone speakers as English language teachers (Braine, 2010; Mahboob, 2010). Despite the fact that NNESTs outnumbered NESTs globally (Crystal, 2003), Asia is the primary area recognising native speakers as the EFL industry’s ideal model (Walkinshaw and Oanh, 2014). However, the current popularity of bilingual instruction in the TESOL field around the world welcomes NNESTs as more competent TESOL teachers than 44

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


NESTs from the viewpoint of emancipation from the traditional imperialism, namely called native-sperkerism (Holliday, 2006). This movement is a liberation from a strong belief in the superiority that native Anglophone users possess, recognising that bilingual instruction raises awareness of the existence of World Englishes that are non-native varieties. In this respect, NNESTs who are able to conduct bilingual instructions get advantages to prime the awareness as they display an example of varieties of World Englishes, as the World Englishes’ speakers model themselves. Recognising different World Englishes varieties is one of the ways of recognising socio-cultural awareness. In this respect, a recent policy change for JET programmes that enables hiring people not coming from Kachru’s Inner Circle countries (Kachru, 1981), such as Filipinos as ALTs is a good movement. Baker (2011) suggests, “[bilingual] education ideally develops a broader enculturation, a more sensitive view of different creeds and cult ures. Bilingual education will usually deepen an engagement with the cultures associated with the languages, fostering a sympathetic understanding of differences (Baker, 2011, 249) .”

In this respect,

raising intercultural awareness should be incorporated with future teacher training accordingly (Dogancay-Aktuna, 2005).

45

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


2.4.3 Bilingual instruction in Japan As opposed to the traditional norm of the exclusive use of L2 in direct method in other countries (Spada, 2007), too much use of L1 is the typical problem in Japan. Under the dominance of Yakudoku, excessive use of L1 occurs due to the detailed explanations of textbook sentences by a classroom teacher, and due to intensive English – Japanese translation by students. Too much focus on L1 has been a typical norm (Hino, 1988). English output tends to be limited to repetitive practice (Humphries, 2014, 254), which results only reading through pre -printed textbook sentences. Based on the Japanese government’s published announcements, politicians assume that forceful application of English-immersion gives good results to make students competent English users (Chuo University, 2013; Cabinet Public Relations Office, 2014). Nevertheless, politicians’ statements have no academic theoretical support by TESOL theories; they simplistically express their personal desires for English. It exemplifies the comment that ‘[what we do is] a shock remedy (Chuo University, 2013) ’ stated by Endo Toshiaki, the Chairman of Headquarters for the Revitalization of Education stating their consideration of the introduction of TOEFL as a replacement of the current University Entrance exam. As it appears in Endo’s talk (ibid.), the politicians’ irresponsible opinions indicate their distrust of local teachers and schools, and their opinions resulting in an order of forceful application of English-immersion without any consideration of other factors (Narita, 2013). Besides, there are Japanese scholars who oppose the recent promotion of Japanese government-led English-immersion (See MEXT, 2013) arguing that 46

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


suppressing the use of Japanese in classrooms hinders comprehension of the contents among students (Erikawa, et al., 2014). They question the effectiveness of nearly English-exclusive instruction, because the majority of the secondary school students’ English proficiency levels are very low (ibid.). They also argue that the elimination of Japanese use in school education seems to contradict the movement of latest popular ELT education in which L1 is utilised within the frame of the TL learning (ibid.). MEXT (2015) checked the CEFR levels of approximately 70,000 high school students (Age 17 – 18 years old; the 3 rd grade of Senior High that is equivalent to Year 12) in four skills (Reading, Listening, Writing, and Speaking tests), and discovered that in the average of the overall skills, 80.5% are on A1 level of the CEFR (See Fig 8). Therefore, in Reading and Writing skills, MEXT reports that the most of all students fall on between the upper A1 and the lower A2 level in the CEFR. However, not all of the participants completed the writing and speaking tasks. Only 70% had scored in the Writing task (the unanswered group is 29.2%), and 85% had scored in Speaking skills (the unanswered group is 13.3%), which indicates that Writing and Speaking tasks are very challenging to the target population (MEXT, 2015, 4). These are very shocking results, as this level check test was executed after 6 years’ of compulsory English language programmes.

47

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Fig 9: CEFR levels of Japanese high school students (age 17-18) (adapted from MEXT, 2015)

The question arises as to how the new government policy of English-centred instruction is able to contribute to the improvement of the state of the students possessing a basic level of English. This becomes more problematic if the contents of the MEXT’s authorised textbooks are still designed for the sake of precise reading, and the editors expect the students to develop high cognitive skills to understand the contents based upon the request of the government (MEXT, 2013). The government asks JTEs for many teaching targets, and then JTEs maintain their teaching to be complied with the level of the authorised books, to make students understand the contents, and moreover, to make students more communicative (MEXT, 2013) on top of the pressure of teaching Juken entrance exam strategies. Therefore, JTEs need to identify the foc al point of teaching targets: what is the aim of the programme; discover where to focus on. This is a very challenging topic.

48

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


2.4.3.1 Bilingual instruction in Yakudoku practice Historically, Japanese people have regarded Yakudoku as the quickest way to gain foreign information in detail, perfectly, without spending many hours of learning L2. Yakudoku exactly matches with the Japanese culture of importation of the contents (Humphries, 2014). Therefore, people start using Yakudoku to tackle English books in the first place. People can use the Yakudoku method from the beginning, as they do not need to gain listening or speaking abilities. Moreover, studying English is as good as learning some alien language from afar; encountering English language speakers is not a daily norm in Japan. Yakudoku has been the most dominant teaching method used in Japan by many JTEs in English language classrooms for secondary education (Koike, 2013). Yakudoku is a precise grammar-translation technique, which needs excellent command of L1 (Japanese). There are three degrees of Yakudoku (See Appendix F): 逐語訳 Chikugo-yaku, a word-by-word translation of the English text; 直訳 Choku-Yaku, a direct translation, where the translation is rearranged to match Japanese syntax; and 意訳 I-Yaku, meaning-transferred translation where the translated word recoded more finely into Japanese syntax (Gorsuch, 1998) . Chikugo-yaku is the translation method retaining the original English word order. Choku-yaku is a simple direct translation. I-Yaku is a complete, natural, flawless translation in Japanese. JTEs are the master of Yakudoku as they were also once students of other Japanese teachers who taught Yakudoku to them. In Yakudoku-classrooms, students read English, and then state the translation upon the teacher’s request, and then her 49

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


schoolteacher corrects their translation, together with writing down complete English sentence on the blackboard and explaining the grammar analysis in Japanese (Hahn, 2014). No utterance of L2 in classroom Via Yakudoku, teachers explain the contents very accurately and precisely as well as knowledgably, of the typical pattern of English sentences, but throughout the classroom, normally L2 utterances do not occur apart from only reading sentence of the textbooks just once. Rather, students have to manipulate high-level of Japanese, as if this is a training of constructing Japanese sentences.

Yakudoku fits Japanese culture There are many possible reasons why the Yakudoku method has gained popularity among JTEs in Japan. Yakudoku fits the Japanese cultural 師 Shi (teacher) image. It is teacher-autocratic, lecture-style as a teacher is just listening to a nominated student’s answer, and then gives an explanation in front of the group, together with writing it onto the blackboard. Another thing is the easiness of teaching, as teachers do not require any English proficiency (Hino, 1988), as well as completely teaching contents can be set as pre-determined items; there is no improvisations, or no further lecture needed that is beyond the contents of the textbook. In sum, Yakudoku is one of a number of varieties of bilingual instructions, but it relies heavily on the learners’ L1 abilities, and L2 practices are limited to the pre-determined, stale ones; it heavily emphases the non-verbal skills: reading and writing practices. Therefore, Yakudoku may enhance the decoding ability from 50

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


English to Japanese, but that does not mean it contributes to enhancement of English proficiencies, as there are no voluntarily productions by students or any interactions in English. 2.4.3.2 Bilingual instruction of post- Yakudoku practice A rise of CLIL in secondary education in Japan One of the post-Yakudoku instruction methods, CLIL-styled classrooms are becoming popular as a part of English language programmes in secondary education in Japan (Sasajima, 2011; Ikeda, 2013). CLIL, or Content Language Integrated Learning, was used originally to teach any academic subject by using a foreign language as means of an instruction language (Coyle, 2008), yet under Japanese secondary education, CLIL-based teaching usually operates within the framework of English language teaching as so-called ‘soft-CLIL’ (Ikeda, 2013). CLIL and L1 In the CLIL classrooms, the principle use of L2 (English) is encouraged, such as teacher instructions and students’ presentations in English, and abundance of English usage consequently discourages the use of L1 in the classrooms. However, that does not mean entirely banning L1 from the classroom (García, 2014). For example, some students may use L1 as well as L2 when they have a brainstorming session in a group as a preparation of a group presentation in L2. Guy Cook (2010) asserts that ‘Learners will always relate the new language to their own, even if only in their own minds, and if forbidden, will continue to do so as a means of resistance (Cook, 2010, 49).’

51

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


This is also an opportunity for NNESTs to build rapport with the students, as the students will want to know the appropriate expressions in L2, as they cannot find the right words in L2. In CLIL practice, the teachers need to support the students’ English expressions constantly, to enable the students to establish the mutual discussion among other students (Yamazaki, 2011). As a norm, JTEs still have to teach grammar and vocabulary knowledge as the academic learning targets set by MEXT as ‘Course of Study’ (MEXT, 2012). JTEs often adopt Focus-on-form practice integrated with CLIL classrooms t o integrate with the current English programme for secondary education (Izumi, 2009, Yamazaki, 2011). This adoption also challenges the traditional segregated teaching practice of conversational practices and grammar practices by the local teachers (Izumi, 2009). There are many benefits of introducing CLIL method within secondary education in Japan. CLIL activities require higher cognitive skills than Yakudoku. Yakudoku practice only requires the lower stages of recognition of Bloom’s taxonomy (see Fig 10) i.e. remembering and understanding , and then very limited practice of applying (Cook, 2012a). CLIL asks for the systematic practices from the lower-order-thinking skills to the higher-order-thinking skills of Bloom’s taxonomy (Coyle, 2008) by asking critical evaluations of the contents to students.

52

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Fig 10: Bloom’s revised Taxonomy (Brewster, 2009)

Yakudoku is very static and it does not involve any students’ thoughts or free expressions. CLIL is content-driven (Cenoz, et al., 2014), and it makes each action meaningful to students, and therefore making students more motivated to convey their expressions in English. CLIL methods also transit JTEs’ traditional cognitions of autocratic demonstrations (Yoneyama, 1999) to let students play central roles in English classrooms. CLIL targets wider levels of learners, and it does not expect students in the programmes to attain native-like proficiency, but rather advanced levels of functional proficiency (ibid.). There are cases of CLIL introduced into the Japanese high school that involves Focus-on-form practices. Because JTEs still have to maintain the learning grammar and vocabulary knowledge as the academic learning targets set by MEXT as ‘Course of Study’, they often take Focus-on-form practice integrated with CLIL classrooms. Drawing attentions to the form itself to enable students to utilise actu al English sentences is a new norm replacing Yakudoku practice.

53

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


2.5 Classroom language As observed in previous studies, there are various issues with classroom language in English subject classrooms in Japanese high schools: 1.

What is the initial classroom language?

2.

Who uses L1/L2 in the classroom?

3.

How much L1/L2 is used in the classroom ?

4.

What kind of teaching method is adopted for the classroom?

The following paragraphs discuss these aspects based on the above queries. 2.5.1 Garrulous JTEs In Japan, considering MEXT’s teaching English-in-English policy (MEXT, 2013), one potential pitfall for JTEs’ is being too talkative in classrooms (Erikawa and Kubota, 2014). In circumstances of

commonly large-sized classrooms

consisting of typically 40 students, JTEs tend to conduct lecture -style classrooms, consequently suppressing students’ participation in classrooms (Levine, 2014), and students remain silent most of the time. Although MEXT indirectly expects JTEs to improve their communicative competence as well, it may result in depriving students of opportunities to attend to more voluntary participation in the classroom. Ushiro (2013) warns that we do not need English-spoken-chatterbox JTEs as the replacement for Yakudoku L1-based-chatterbox JTEs (Ushiro, 2013). JTEs have to be aware of this pitfall; they need to start exploring alternative approaches beyond authoritative ones. JTEs have to consider various factors before they simply apply inputs in English in classrooms. Izumi (2009) expects JTEs to ensure plenty 54

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


of exposure of understandable i+1 input component in the classroom, as in Krashen’s hypothesis (Krashen, 1989; Dunn and Lantolf, 1998); however, he also affirms that success in acquiring language proficiency not only comes from ample input in classrooms. The fact is that Japanese students fundamentally lack abundant exposure of English in their daily life, so being familiarised with English is the first step to making any proficiency improvement. Yamada and Hristoskova (2011) stated that ‘being a proficient speaker does not necessarily mean that the speaker can modify their language so that students can understand them (2011, 7)’. Scaffolding as a technique is the key to have more student participation, as well as a more engaged classroom (Kayi-Aydar, 2013). When JTEs speak, the pitch, speed, pronunciation, choice of expression, and means of transmission such as speaking with a visu al display and code choice (L2 or L1) should be all considered as a scaffolding technique. However, regarding the amounts of L1 or L2 in the language classroom, Levine (2014) reports that he found an interesting pattern: teachers used the L2 more than students over all, students used the L2 more when talking to the teacher or to the whole class, less when talking with each other for classroom activities (which I call ‘scripted’ contexts), and still less when talking with each other in unscripted contexts (Levine, 2014, 335). If this imbalanced usage between teachers and students is inevitable, and if high school students lack sufficient opportunities to produce outputs as a result, what MEXT’s expect (MEXT, 2013) as well as Prime Minister Abe decrees (Cabinet Public Relations Office, 2014), cannot make communicatively competent students instantly appear. 55

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


In particular, if JTEs carry on traditional lecture-style sessions in L2 and students are not allowed to speak any L1, they may choose not to speak L2 unless a direct request by the JTEs is made. If the students’ Haji and perfectionism are amplified, in other words, if typical sensitive teenagers hesitate to utter any sound of a foreign language in front of peers, the worst-case scenario is a chatterbox JTE standing alone in front of silent class a norm. 2.5.2 Other issues: Time and evaluation One of the new issues of L2-centred teaching by JTEs is the time constraints due to switching to the English-led classrooms. Macaro (2010) states ‘Time for most language teachers is probably their worst enemy (Macaro, 2010, 287).’ There are many grammar items on the syllabus for Japanese high school curriculum. JTEs start feeling pressured in how to handle the same amount of teaching items that they used to teach in L1. L2-based instruction potentially causes a dichotomy between the students who understand English well and the ones who do not. Another issue is about ways of evaluation. JTEs in high school possess their own established evaluation system to check students’ receptive skills such as reading and writing via mainly term exams. Sakui (2004) noted that ‘[…] teachers have difficulty in integrating CLT and form-based instruction, although documented instructional goals imply a smooth integration of the two. Teachers also report that implementation of CLT is not simple because of various situational constraints (Sakui, 2004, 155). JTEs face difficulties in introducing new scales of evaluation to the English-led classrooms. JTEs’ typical evaluation is deductive, negative evaluation via a written form, which is not measurable for oral skills. In some cases, 56

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


JTEs face difficulties in evaluating some students possessing a large gap between oral competence and literacy skills at the same time.’ 2.6 Researches of learning effectiveness of L1-involved teaching instruction 2.6.1 Does L1-involved-instruction contradict CLT? Traditionally, CLT contradicts L1-instruction, as it exemplifies Berlitz’ principles (Cook, 2011). As explained in Krashen’s input hypothesis, new language acquisition requires maximum exposure to L2 (Krashen, 1989), banning L1 from the classrooms was a CLT methods’ norm. However, the more recent CLT applications accept the usage of L1. Since then, many scholars have started evaluating L1 as a functioning of rapport with L2, and raising awareness of metalinguistic knowledge, which is very useful in learning L2. However, at the same time, justifications for the use of L1 are apparent: when and how much L1 is appropriate, and by whom (teachers or students) Japan’s traditional L1 usage in the classroom was indulgence of L1 use by JTEs and students. 2.6.2 Does the Translation in Language Teaching (TILT) promote English proficiency? The grammar translation method is criticised as a bad practice: ‘the label is often used nowadays as an umbrella term to refer to any teaching practice that does not have any communicative aspirations ( Dörnyei, 2009, 273).’

However, in recent

years, as a part of a new re-evaluation of L1 usage in the CLT method, grammar translation is drawing new attention and being re-evaluated as an effective way to learn an L2. Guy Cook introduced a new concept of translation c alled ‘Translation in Language Teaching’, or TILT, as a pedagogic use of translation (Cook, 2010). 57

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Nevertheless, Macaro (2010) questions Cooks’ tentative answer to the gradual shift of the L1-L2 ratio in the TILT practices depending on the levels of the learners: Beginners should be allowed to use the L1 as a point of reference in their L2 learning, otherwise they will not understand what is going on. Advanced learners should be able to learn almost exclusively in the target language with only the occasional excursion into translation, the better to understand the subtleties of the relationship between the L1 and the L2. Intermediate learners are on a sort of cusp between inter-linguistic learning and intralinguistic learning, and will need a balanced mixture of both languages. This all makes perfectly good sense; however, it may well ignore the effect of habit formation (Macaro, 2010, 287). What Macaro (2010) argues is very crucial. The gradual shift from the reliance of the learners on the L1 to entire freedom from the L1 to utilise the L2 would be very precarious. In this respect, teachers’ classroom management is very challenging. If the L1 use works as mere indulgence to the students, TILT would not be a viable approach to contribute to English proficiency.

58

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Chapter 3: Research Methods 3.1 Introduction Previous chapters explored many issues surrounding classroom language instruction in light of global situations as well as local situations in Japan. This paper adopts mixed research: a questionnaire survey as quantitative research, and follow-up interviews as qualitative research, plus one classroom observation. This research collects data from 127 eligible participants. The participating number meets the criterion that Dörnyei indicates as a rule of thumb, “a minimum of 100 participants (Dörnyei, 2007, 99)”, which is used to validate the collection of the data for generalisation (ibid.). 3.2 Research strategy Dörnyei (2007) characterises benefits of such combination research as questionnaire surveys with follow-up interviews. The combination of quantitative and qualitative research can bring out the best of both paradigms ( ibid.). A quantitative survey is a good gateway as it formulates a more casual format for participants than personal, narrative formats from the first stage, especially in case some sensitive topics are the project targets, such as researching teachers’ perceptions, as this study explores (Dörnyei, 2015). However, a quantitative survey suffers from an inherent weakness: the respondents’ engagement is rather shallow or some responses are unexpected ones, and therefore quantitative survey restrict exploration to complex meaning directly with this technique (Dörnyei, 2007). The general quantitative survey collects numeric data, but the questions can only scratch the superficial phenomena, hence further 59

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


investigation is required. The follow-up interviews by several people voluntarily joined reveal the further information of the primary survey choices, which are often very important as we get personal reactions against a particular question. In this research, the questionnaire contains closed-ended items, and some open-ended ones as optional remarks (see Appendix C) of closed-ended responses. Closed-ended items require participants to choose from predetermined responses, such as the degrees in Likert-scales, or to select one item or multiple items from the multiple-choice formats. Some questions also bear the form at the end of the predetermined choices to allow participants to fill in open-ended remarks. The remarks’ forms offer space for the open-texted commentaries in case the participants wish to make extra remarks, or to write their own ideas when they cannot find their favourable choice from the prewritten items. Closed-ended items enable a straightforward analysis of data (Ng and Brown, 2012); yet, open-ended items enable the researcher to discover the specific contexts of the respondents concerning a particular query. Dörnyei admits the merits of open-format items as “[by] permitting greater freedom of expression, open-format items can provide a far greater richness than fully quantitative data (Dörnyei, 2007, 107)’. The whole survey questionnaire format is presented in the target participants’ mother tongue, Japanese, to enable an easy access to the participants. The initial survey formats in formal written style in Japanese (see B-2 in Appendix C-8), complied with cultural and contextual factors valued in Japan (Takanashi, 2004), which is important to the participants that take the formal survey.

60

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


3.3 Participants Participants’ profiles The target participants are current in-service JTEs who work in high schools in Japan (See ‘Secondary School in Japan’ in 1.1.3 for the detailed definition). To sample the accurate representation of the target population, contact with eligible candidates was established either via academic networks or directly at various local teacher conferences throughout Japan. Questionnaires were distributed in one of three ways: a one-to-one direct e-mail to an each eligible participant; a direct handout as a written-form to each participant; or survey questionnaire invitation e-mails to a head of English department of a local school throughout Japan. One hundred and twenty-seven JTEs participated in the questionnaire. Fig 11 shows that the teaching experience periods spread to the various years. The average experienced period is 17.2 years.

[N=127] Fig 11: Teacher experience period (years).

Appendix G-12-10 indicates that the major participant group. Seventy-eight point seven percent of respondents work in public senior-high school, followed by 10.2% in private 6-year high schools. 61

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


3.4 Ethical considerations Participant Information and Consent Form (see Appendix B) was provided to ensure that participants understood the purpose of the research and assured the confidentiality and anonymity of the provided data. The contents of the survey questionnaire were checked and received ethics approval by the University of Leicester (University of Leicester, 2015) proving that each survey item meets their ethical criteria. Each respondent also received an offer to use a nickname of their own choosing for the survey, and to indicate participation of voluntar y follow-up interviews by supplying their e-mails at the end of the questionnaire. 3.5 Questionnaire design In this study, the survey consists of 13 questions. The questionnaire mainly consists of single or multiple-choice and Likert-scale questions. The design of the survey questionnaire starts from broader, general queries and moves to more specific ones. As Dörnyei (2007) stresses, this method is not to force the respondents to take a fundamental decision at an early stage to avoid affecting all the subsequent answers (Dörnyei, 2007). It also ser ves to avoid the respondents giving any specific, biased views before they start answering questions by asking narrow topics from the first stage. What was most cautiously considered for designing the questionnaire in this research was ease accessibility when participants answer sensitive queries. Considering local cultural conventions, JTEs, mostly hired as civil servants, are generally likely to avoid expressing personal objections explicitly against authorities. Takashi (pseudonym), a JTE who works for a public high school, and having 12 62

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


years-teaching experience, clearly commented that ‘we just do what they say; we don’t ask them why we should do so’. What this survey explores is JTEs’ own personal opinions and actual teaching tactics in their own classrooms as a post-reaction to the educational authority, MEXT, attempting to reconstruct the current English language programme by their announcement. Therefore, the survey questionnaires initially ask JTEs about how they changed their teaching practices or not, and what kind of impressions JTEs received by observing their students’ reactions. By investigating their answers to generally multiple-choice questionnaires, their perceptions, beliefs, exploration, doubts, concerns, worries or, even their own pride and expectations can be detected. Designing psychologically acceptable survey formats is vital (Dörnyei, 2007). There are specific sentences inserted when the primary survey is constructed from this point of view. Some JTEs are not aware of the current worldwide E LT trend of re-evaluation of the effectiveness of L1 use in classrooms, and therefore, many of them have some guilt in the use of L1; moreover, at this time the survey asks their opinions on their authority, MEXT, that have ordered JTEs to conduct English-only instruction. Therefore, they may hesitate to confess their true feelings on the survey. An insertion of a sentence ‘many studies show that using the L1 can help students’ in the query of Question 4 aims to ease JTEs by giving some extra information. Some personal questions, such as learning experiences from teaching methods experienced as learners in the past , type of school as the current workplace, and teaching experience periods were constructed as general multiple choice 63

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


questions. Based upon Dörnyei’s advice (2015), the personal queries were placed towards the end of the survey, which has an effect to del iver participants’ responses smoothly. 3.6 Follow-up interviews Twenty-six participants in the initial questionnaire took follow-up interviews via e-mails. Dörnyei (2007) suggests that a subsequent qualitative component to the study can remedy the weakness of the quantitative questionnaire da ta, as there are limits to deepen interpretation of the respondents’ data. ‘We can ask the respondents to explain or illustrate the obtained patterns, thereby adding fresh to the bones (Dörnyei, 2007, 171)’. In this study, the questionnaire discovers the initial trend, and the follow-up interviews give actual implications reported by local teachers. 3.7 Classroom observation In this study, one classroom observation was conducted. The purpose is to give different aspects on the preceding survey questionnaire. That is, firstly, to detect the possible discrepancies between the teachers ’ statements and what is actually happening in the classrooms. Secondarily, to discover any extra English-centred classrooms’ facts not detected within the survey responses reported by the teachers, from the third point of view. This classroom observation came from a voluntary offer by a male teacher named Kou (pseudonym), having 9 years of teaching experience, who took the initial survey and underwent a subsequent interview. Kou initially insists that his teaching style is not special to anyone. Despite this, he gives a positive evaluation to 64

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


his current classroom in the first survey: he states that he is conducting an English-centered classroom, and that he is proud of his students having a good engagement with him (See Appendix L). The school, located in a rural area in Japan, is a higher-level 3-year public high school with a deviation score of about 60 偏差値 Hensachi (Newfields, 2006). Kou’s classroom course is ordinary; it is a typical course that MEXT has set; their English programme is called English Communication II, which used to be recognised as reading course titled English II had been that widely conducted in Yakudoku in most high schools in Japan for many years. Kou’s class also uses MEXT’s authorised textbooks (See Appendix I). His classroom numbers 40, which is also a typical class-size in a senior high school. The classroom’s audio was recorded digitally in July, 2015. The audio files (Appendix K: 2) were edited for this paper to retain the anonymity of student names. 3.8 Limitations Firstly, we have to note that this research only explores one side of the facts based on JTEs’ personal reports through the questionnaires and the follow-up interviews. This research did not collect any data from the JTEs’ counterpart students. That means that possible discrepancies exist between JTEs’ perceptions and their students’ ones. Secondly, due to the nature of self-report style in an initial survey, respondents may overestimate or underestimate some facts in the questionnaire; some respondents may give more plausible answer than their actual deeds in classroom (Dörnyei, 2007). 65

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Thirdly, there is a potential loss of opportunity of further exploration of queries due to reliance on voluntary disclosure of participants ’ identification. Keeping the information anonymous allows participants ease in delivering honest reports without taking risks of indicating personal recognition to the researcher, third parties or authorities related to their workplace, especially when they need to answer sensitive questions. However, that also means that further opportunities may be lost unless further voluntary means of contact is given to the researcher.

66

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Chapter 4: Results 4.1 Organisation Appendix G provides a statistical profile of the participating JTEs, displaying years of teaching experience and types of current teaching styles, teachers’ impressions of their classrooms, future preferences, and types of teaching methods experienced in the past as English language students. Section 4.2 to 4.5 examines teacher perceptions on English-centred classrooms: the evaluations of JTEs themselves and their evaluations of the students. It includes the JTEs’ perceptions of what English-centred language is, what appears to be the best implementation method to them beyond Yakudoku, and their concern about English-centred classrooms influence on the students and classroom. In 4.6, we discuss one of the solutions JTEs talk about to conduct an English-centred class in a large classroom: cooperative learning. Especially by the collection of follow-up interviews, this section also include further observations on the significance of JTEs’ teaching technique knowledge, and JTEs’ evaluation on English-centred teaching and the relevance between their teaching and Juken preparation. Section 4.7 reports on a classroom observation and analysis, and explores the new aspects t hat are not detectable from the questionnaire and follow-up interviews. 4.2 JTEs: persistent L1-users vs newly-adopted L2-users There has been a major impact on JTE’s perception of teaching as a reaction to the MEXT’s announcement to counsel JTEs to conduct English-only instruction, but some JTEs giving continuous Japanese-instruction also exist. According to the results of Question 1, 63.0% of JTEs stated that MEXT’s announcement made their 67

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


teaching practices change (Appendix G-1). Moreover, 18.9% of JTEs stated that they always teach English in English regardless of MEXT’s announcement. However, 18.1% of JTEs stated that they continue to give Japanese-based instruction. 4.2.1 Persistent L1-user group The remarks of Q1 display the various reasons why they retain L1-based classrooms (See Appendix G-1 and G-2). The JTEs mention: 1. 2.

JTE’s personal unfitness to conduct English-based classrooms (Aska: a-3) A doubt of the pedagogical effectiveness of English-based sessions (Zaki: a-1, Yoko: a-4) 3. The low-level students’ unfitness of English-based sessions (Momo: a-2, Rin: a-5) 4.2.2 Supportive group of L2-based instruction The follow-up interview shows that JTEs who support L2-based instruction give an opposite evaluation to what the L1 -supporting group do, to some extent. The L2 supportive group obviously evaluates the L2-based classroom sessions as highly effective to develop the students’ English proficiency. As seen in Appendix H-2 (interviewee 4), its group’s opinion exemplifies Kei’s statement. Kei explains various reasons to support L2-based instruction (See Appendix H-2 for details). She stresses that L1-involved instruction hinders English acquisition, giving the reasons that the L1-involved instruction: 1. 2. 3.

is time consuming due to Japanese (L1) - use as medium of L2-communication involves Japanese(L1)-related distinctive concepts that do not exist in English (L2) hinders students’ inspirational practice and the development of prompt responses in L2

68

ED0014

Tomomi Cope

4.

5.


relies heavily on the students’ Japanese(L1) proficiency in Yakudoku sessions which are developing entirely different skills from those of English proficiency focuses only on the main textbooks and tends to have no spare time left for further L2-involved activities

An English-based classroom means more active and voluntarily participation by the students (e.g. Interviewee 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Appendix H-1 and H-2). That means their classroom style changes to a new style by shifting away from the traditional one-way lecture-style teaching typically observed in Japan. 4.2.3 Learner experience Further data indicates one additional reason why some groups’ support Japanese-instruction. The lack of learner experience and familiarity of a teaching method conceivably affect the methodological insights when they become teachers in later years (Cook, 2012).

Fig 12: Results on Q11: ‘Which methods have you experienced in the past, as an English language student yourself ?’

The previous leaning experience is perchance overshadowing the JTEs’ current teaching practices. In this respect, as shown on Fig 12, Yakudoku is the almost exclusive method to JTEs as learners themselves. Furthermore, Table 2 indicates 69

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


that the popularity of Yakudoku methods is not teaching-experience-related. Novice teachers have not necessarily received more varieties of teaching methods than mature ones. Yakudoku is still the most familiar method even for novices.

Table 2: the cross-reference between the teacher experience period and familiarity of lear ning experience (Also see Appendix G)

Table 2 indicates that regardless of year groups, most JTEs have not been familiarised with any other learning method apart from Yakudoku. Only 12% of JTEs have learning episodes in CLT (Fig 12). That means that their challenge to achieve more modern teaching methods is almost at an experimental level. 4.2.4 Current teaching methods The following Table 3 displays the cross-references of the current teaching methods and teacher experienced periods; the table shows that teaching methods do not reflect teaching period. We see some mature JTEs also use different methods from Yakudoku. Actually, CLT is the most popular method for all ages apart from the 5-9 year group in this survey (Table 3). However, some teachers use other methods as well as Yakudoku, as this query allows the multiple choices. Only 3% of JTEs chose Immersion. That explains that total exclusion of L1 does not occur in many of their classrooms.

70

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Table 3: Cross-comparison with teaching experience periods and current teac hing methods

4.2.5 Future teaching methods Appendix G -11-9 indicates that, as a whole, the respondents wish to explore different methods in the future. Unlike current teaching methods (Appendix G: 11-8), they show the greatest interest in CLIL (31%), and Yakudoku is the least option (3%), by contrast. CLT (25%) stays as a popular method. They wish to utilise the Can-do lists (28%) and the CEFR or CEFR-J (24%). They also show great interest in immersion (17%) compared to the current ratio (2%). 4.3 JTEs’ beliefs and concerns 4.3.1 JTEs’ perceptions of English-only instruction 4.3.1.1 Resemblance of the features of NESTs The results of Q2 imply JTEs’ perceptions about ‘what should English-based instruction be like’. There are two distinctive features indicated (Appendix G-2-2). One feature is that JTEs seem to understand that English-centred instruction means ‘more English use by JTEs’, such as in selection a), 77% of all influenced JTEs state ‘I talk more English in the classroom sessions’ and the related selections c), e), f), g), and j) are also popular choices.

71

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


The other feature is that they state that they promote more student-centred activities in the classrooms than before (Appendix G:-1-2: b, d, i and k). This is also the most popular choice of Q3 (Appendix G-3-1). Interestingly, these details resemble the NESTs’ features that Arva and Medgyes (2000) analysed (see fig 5) which exemplified ‘favour group-work/pair-work’, ‘more casual’ since JTEs start interacting with students in English. Additionally, as the result of eventual sophistication, more English-talk by JTEs is likely to lead to the features ‘teachers use English more confidently’ and ‘teachers speak better English’ that Arva and Medgyes (2000) explained as feathers of NESTs (Appendix G-3-1). 4.3.1.2 Concerning towards students’ reactions In Appendix G-3-1, despite some of the respondents reporting some positive students’ reactions, such as students making more effort to participate in English (Appendix G-3-1: c, e, and g), and concentrating on the classroom sessions more than before (Appendix G-3-1: i), some respondents report negative observations:  A dichotomy of students exists; some students understand English well and some do not (f: 38%).  I see there are two types of students in my classroom: one has a positive attitude to the English classroom, the other has a negative one (h: 30%).  Some students want me to use more Japanese in the English classroom (k: 20%). Considering their typical classroom formation is 40 students - 1 NNES teacher, and most of the survey participants work in the mixed-level EFL classes in the public high schools (Appendix G-12-10), different comprehension levels are more prone to occur among the students. Furthermore, their students’ negative reactions that JTEs observed possibly originate from the quality of JTEs’ English itself, or their 72

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


teaching tactics in English. Medgyes (1999) notes the fundamental weakness of NNESTs in vocabulary and speaking lies in their difficulties of selecting the appropriate contextual and colloquial varieties instantly and coherently, and results in a tendency to be redundant and an inappropriate rate of speaking, even one that is too fast (Medg yes, 1999). 4.3.2 Juken and English-instruction However, not all of the features resemble the NESTs’ features as Arva and Medg yes (2000) mentioned. Neither emancipating from course textbooks completely nor abolishing term exams in reading and writing happen. They are pre-determined norms in their workplace – schools. Moreover, JTEs constantly feel the pressure that their English courses should be compatible with Juken preparation. Fig 13 shows that only 2% of respondents ‘strongly agree’ that ‘English-only instruction should be used for Juken’ which contrasts with 30% of them who ‘strongly disagree’.

Fig 13: Responses to “Q7: English-only instr uction should be used in the preparation of the university entrance exam ”.

73

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


4.3.2.1 Denial group The follow-up interviews explore the denial group of

English-only

instruction (Appendix G-7-B). There are two groups supporting the disagreement. The first group disagrees with the use of English-instruction exclusively due to the contents of Juken (Appendix G: 5-7); it states that  Juken exams require Japanese-involved tasks. Therefore, they need Japanese as Juken strategies (Miu: a-3, Ryo: a-5, and Seika: a-6).  Juken contents require very complicated English grammar and high-level comprehension skills, which are difficult for students to master via English-only instruction (Hitoshi: a-7). The second group holds a general doubt regarding the effectiveness of English-only instruction (Appendix G: 7 and 8) reflecting a concern that:  Some students do not understand the content instructed in English-only (Suguru: b-1 and Ichiro: b-6).  Wrong application of English-instruction creates perplexed students (Emi: b-3 and Aki: b-5)  L1-based-instruction is more effective in learning English grammar and reading comprehension than English-only instruction (Riku: b-2 and Yuka: b-4). 4.3.2.2 Affirmative group The

follow-up

interviews

also

explore

the

affirmative

group

of

English-instructed classrooms (Appendix G-8-C). There are two types of opinions; one is about the practical necessities of English-instruction towards the future due to the Juken strateg y, especially to prepare for the new tendencies of exams that do not ask L1-involved questions (Appendix G-8, Takuto: c-1), the other one is about the positive assumptions about English-based instruction itself (Appendix G-9, Kai: c-2).

74

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


In addition, this query collected other interesting remarks. One response questions this query itself, by stating that what matters is the quality of each teacher, not the teaching methods that they use (Appendix G-9-D, Haruka: d-1). Another one is about the significance of offering an English-only environment to students; she also had concerns that L1-use may demotivate students who expect an English environment in the classroom (Appendix G-9-D: Yumi: d-2). 4.3.2.3 Cross-reference with the current teaching styles The following table 4 indicates the relationships between the current teaching style and respondents’ beliefs about how far English-only instruction contributes to Juken.

Table 4: Cross-comparison of Q7 and Q8

Table 4 presents JTEs’ mixed-feelings about this query, and apart from the Yakudoku group in which strong-disagreement is the major choice, - understandable as Yakudoku heavily involves L1 - the relationships of the teaching methods and the degree of agreement are not transparent. The CLT-group supports two opposite opinions; 29 people each choose the affirmative or the negative choice. As a whole, the CLIL group positively evaluates the effectiveness of English-only instructions, yet, some express uncertainly. Peculiarly, some immersion members show strong disagreement of this query. 75

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


4.4 When to use L1 Appendix G-3-2 shows the participants’ opinions of classroom tasks to use L1 scaffolding to learn English. The results show the various practices of highlighting L2-L1 differences, mainly from grammatical and vocabulary points, and on the point of view of pronunciation. Seventy-one percent state that the practices of highlighting grammatical difference, followed by identifying the individu al words’ meanings (b), and the translation into L1 in maintaining the origin al English-order (d) are useful. They also consider that highlighting pronunciation difference s between Japanese loanwords and English (c), and general phonological practice (f) are useful. Appendix G-3-5 also indicates the popularity of teaching English in L1 (72.7%), and 54.6% highlights the difference between English structures and L1 structures. 14.9% states that they mainly teach English grammar in English and use L1 minimally. Only 2.5% teach English grammar in English without any use of L1. 4.5 The degree of L1 usage Appendix G-4-6 displays the degree of L1 usage. Sixty-four percent of respondents think that how much L1 used depends on the students’ English level. Fifty percent think that they should not supress the students ’ L1 use entirely even if the classroom is conducted in English, which contrasts to choice q) that mentions the entire elimination of L1, which was selected by only 2% of the respondents. Despite that, many JTEs consider ‘more L1 use for lower level students’ helpful, some JTEs stress the importance of the ample L2 exposure to students in the classroom. Physically, due to the limited duration of available class time, more use of L1 results in less use of L2. Tsuyoshi (pseudonym), who has taught for more 76

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


than 30 years and conducts CLIL-based classrooms, is one of the people who support an English-centred classroom for all levels. Although he does not think that entirely banning L1 in the classroom is an option, he states that ‘I think using English is like playing the piano. No teacher explains how to play the piano all the time without giving any chance to let the students play the piano. Students need to touch and play the instrument, and familiarise with it. So, I don’t think more usage of L1 is the answer to teach low level students.’ Other opinions heard included that ‘we should offer English-centred classroom if students want to take regardless their English proficiency (Appendix G-9-D and G-10-D: d-2 and d-3).’ However, there are opinions that strongly deny the English -centred classroom especially by the JTEs who work for low-level schools. They concern the students’ lack of interest and motivation, tendency to forget the linguistic information, and general attitude problems, and they conclude to maintain the discipline and to raise students’ interest towards English, they do not think English centred classrooms are the answer (See Appendix G-7-B and G-8-B: Suguru, Emi, and Ichiro). 4.6 Cooperative Learning: a solution to conduct English-centred sessions in the large-sized classrooms The large-sized classroom, such as “forty-odd students to just one teacher style”, is a big issue for JTEs in conducting English teaching in English in Japanese high schools, since L2-only classrooms are prone to create a low-proficiency student group that falls behind greatly from the rest of the members of the classroom. Under such common classroom circumstances, some JTEs attempt to solve this 77

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


problem by introducing the following method. The survey interviews discovered that there are JTEs introducing Cooperative Learning (CL) to manage the large-sized classrooms, particularly when they teach English in English (See Appendix H: 4 and 5). Slavin (2015) states that “Cooperative leaning refers to teaching methods in which students work together in small group s to help each other learn academic content (Slavin, 2015, 5)”. JTEs consider that the peer-to-peer teaching mechanism helps to rescue some students who do not understand the content very well within the framework of the English-centred classroom (See Appendix H: 4-2-1). The teachers ask students to make a group and to teach each other to compensate for the shortage of teacher resource as well as promoting mutual understanding among students. The benefit to introducing CL is to encourage the introvert students to participate in the classroom activities via sessions with classmates. In respect to the sociocultural framework described in 2.2.3, these try-outs are very meaningful in Japanese high school classrooms. T he peer-to-peer mutual teaching and learning relieve the suppressed feelings against a teacher as 師 Shi – concepts, as well as avoid causing 恥 Haji embarrassing feelings that typically the students suffer due to standing out from the rest of the group. Moreover, an interviewee JTE, Tsuyoshi, stresses the benefit of CL in respect of forcing the students to exchange fresh information amongst themselves all the time (See Appendix H-5-5). His opinion corresponds to the Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996). It claims that language learning occurs by having meaningful communication via comprehensive input, which is a supporting theory of successful CL. 78

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


4.7 Classroom observation: reports and analysis Possible discrepancies between Ideal-self appeared in the survey and actual phenomena in classrooms 4.7.1 Amount of L2 usage Fig 14 displays the ratio of

the usage of

L1 and L2 among a

classroom-observed teacher named Kou (pseudonym) and his students in a 50-minute classroom session.

Fig 14 Total usage and ratio of L1 and L2 among teacher Kou and his students

Fig 14 indicates that, the teacher uses three times more L1 than L2 for himself, but his students use almost L2 exclusively. The ratio of teacher-students’ overall utterance is nearly even. Twenty-eight students were individually nominated by Kou and responded in the observed session. The entire classroom consists of forty students. A transcript was made according to Barnard and McLellan (2014)’s conversion system (Appendix J). Total recording time was 50 minutes. This paper has 8.42 minutes of excerpt formatted on mp3 audio file and an Excel file for a corresponded transcript in Appendix K. Regarding the data of the primary questionnaire, Kou is confident about conducting English-based teaching (Also see Appendix H-(1)-3). Yet, the 79

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


observation reveals that their classroom was highly controlled by the teacher. The students remained silent except when the teacher asked them to answer a query, to read textbook sentences altogether, or give occasional permission to discuss a topic as pair-work (Appendix K). Despite Kou’s insistence that the students are very enthusiastic to participate in his class, it was very difficult to observe that all of the students were fully engaged in his classroom. Moreover, it is also very difficult to assess to what extent each student understands the classroom content, and how satisfied they are with the classes, as the classroom looked somewhat static and many students remained silent in spite of the teacher encouraging them to make statements (Appendix K: Turn Number 14, 20, 25, 27 and 29) . This class remains in the traditional Japanese lecture-style, but with new-style attempts: the students feel they ought to speak English only (cf. Appendix H-2-3). 4.7.2 Teacher’s L1 and L2 usage There is a fact to note, though Kou’s English programme is currently called ‘Communication II’, which is a mandatory English programme set by MEXT, the programme used to be called ‘Eigo II (English II)’, an intensive reading programme. Therefore, the feature remains even after being renamed (Taisyukan Editorial Board, 2012). That is to say, the renamed course is an attempt to emphasise ‘communication’ but the main structure of the textbooks retain the previous formats. In Kou’s session, the students tackled queries about a picture called The Problem We All Live With painted by Norman Rockwell (see Appendix I for the main texts and queries). The students have to understand the painter’s message hidden in 80

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


the painting through the reading. In the 50-minute session, Kou initially attempted to use L2 for the first 15 minutes, and then, he started using L1 mainly towards the end of the session. The teaching procedure strongly indicates Kou ’s intention that he obviously wants the students to understand the contents as thoroughly as in the previous Eigo II reading course. 4.7.3 L2 quality of the teacher However, Kou’s L2 usage reminds us of some features of NNESTs in the Arva and Medgyes’ table (Arva and Medgyes, 2000, 357; Fig 5). Kou’s English speaking quality and expressions require linguistic sophistication if they are to be recognised as a role model. Kou speaks English too fast, and has a distinctive accent (Appendix K: 2). Kou’s English is not always concise: some articulated sentences are often incomplete and carry opaque expressions (Appendix K: 11a - 11d, 15b 15d, and 26a - 26b). Based on this observation, it seems challenging to Kou to select proper English phrases and words that are plain and clear enough for the students to understand the complicated background stories of the contents from 11b to 28a. After his attempts, he gives up explaining in English and states the same content in Japanese (Appendix K: 28b - 33b). There are three possible reasons in English-based instruction when students remain silent after the teachers’ question (Appendix K: 14, 20, 25, 27, and 29). The first reason is that students do not fully understand the teachers’ English; the second reason is that students cannot find the right answer to the query despite that; they fully understand the teachers’ English. The third reason is they do not

81

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


know how to express their answers in English even if they have an idea of the answer and are able to explain it in Japanese. Since the students remained silent and failed to answ er the question even when Kou started explaining the query in Japanese (Appendix K: 75 and 79), this mutism can come from the second or the third reason. Another phenomenon shown is the insufficient transmissions by the students (Appendix K: 65, 67 and 69). In these cases, if they had been able to answer in L1, they may have successfully transmitted precise expressions to the teacher. 4.7.4 Engagement with students However, we see the Kou’s students recognised Kou as an empathic teacher, as the classroom has a warm atmosphere. The students reacts to Kou’s talk by laughing in a positive sense (Appendix K: 23), but no student makes unnecessary noise to disrupt the classroom. The transcript reveals Kou’s concern about how well his students understand his instructions and the q uery, as he repeats the students’ utterings (Appendix K: 47, 49, 55a and 65). 4.7.5. JTE as NNESTs dilemmas discovered by classroom observation Textbook and time pressures The classroom observation reveals a distinctive feature of a Japanese high school classroom. Kou thoroughly explains the questions that he has asked the students to solve, and we see he feels pressure to make the students understand the whole contents of the textbook. At first he constantly attempts to explain in English (11b to 26b), but eventually he gives up and switches his language to Japanese (28b to 33b) 82

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Kou talks to students in Japanese very fast during the classroom session, which implies that he wants to save time as much as he can. Kou keeps asking similar but not-identical questions, when he finds that the students fail to deliver active responses. Kou must feel stressed as the students fail to deliver the correct answer, even as he attempts to give various hints in English (Appendix K: 32, 35, and 36). The numbers of classroom sessions are limited and they cannot really spend too much time attaining perfection in everything, just like in the Yakudoku translation era. Chapter 5: Discussion 5.1 JTEs’ dilemma The initial questionnaire, follow-up interviews and a classroom observation highlight the JTEs’ dilemma in trying to conduct an English-based classroom. The data indicate that JTEs are interested in discovering to find the most effective teaching style in order to utilise their L1/L2 usage, yet, as reported in 4.5, JTEs’ opinions do not have unity and this uncertainty overshadows their teaching. We see Kou’s efforts to make the students understand the contents of the topic. In his class, the students had to achieve two major targets. One was to understand the hidden message of the painter from the main textbooks and Kou ’s explanation. The other was to be able to respond with exact answers in the L2, as the classroom refrains from using L1 (Appendix H: 1-1-3). To achieve the first target, they have to understand Kou’s English and the main textbook contents. To achieve the second target, they should achieve the first target, and then they should know the answer, but they also have to know how to transmit the answer in the L2. 83

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


The hurdle of input and output is higher than the traditional L1-centred classroom, and it certainly puts more strain on the both JTEs and the students, which correlates to Yuka’s statement (Appendix G-7: b-4).

Fig 15: L1 and L2 using ratio among JTEs and the high school s tudents

To make the situation clearer, Fig 15 considers the ratio of L1 and L2. Each triangle indicates general expressive degree; for example, the green triangle is the students ’ expressive degree. Generally, the more L2 they use, the harder they feel it is to express in the L2; and the expressive degree naturally reduces, which displays as the peak of the triangle. In the same vein, the red triangle indicates the JTEs’ expressive degree. 84

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Looking at fig 15, zone D is the traditional Yakudoku style of English classroom teaching in Japan: both JTEs and the students use the minimum amount of L2. Zone C indicates the state of the failure of English -based classrooms: JTEs always talk in L2 and the students are left behind remaining as the major user of L1 in the classrooms. Immersion is the state of the maximum use of L2 by both JTEs and the students. The CLIL classrooms in high schools in Japan do not entirely eliminate L1 use; i.e. they allow the pre-stage of the group-oriented presentation. Judging from MEXT’s announcement in 2013 stating ‘English classes should be conducted in English’ mentions only the volume of JTEs’ L2, what MEXT recognised as their ideal situation would range within the area of the red arrows in Fig 15, since their students’ L1/L2 volume is unknown. There is some probability for MEXT to recognise the state of immersion is an ideal style, but in the aftermath of the execution, their statement may have fallen on zone C: failure because of talkative JTEs in L2 and muted, inactive students left in the L1-mode. An interesting discovery might emerge from the examination of Kou’s classroom: there is a gap between the JTE’s feelings and the actual volume of L1/L2 use. Kou uses more L1 than he thinks. Kou states he conducts the class in English (see zone A in figure 14), but actually Kou only used English 27% of the time; that means Kou used L1 73% of the time (fig 14). Although Kou’s students use L2 almost exclusively (as 95% of the time), the students utter the minimum response in L2 and there was no casual talk by them. Like Kou’s case, many JTEs may use L1 more than they feel; therefore, possible gaps may exist between the JTEs’ opinions as recorded in the questionnaire 85

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


and the actual volumes of L1/L2 use in other cases. Moreover, Kou’s teaching procedures still maintain the traditional lecture-style patterns, and it remains questionable that this style contributes to the improvement of the students ’ English proficiency. Understanding the English structures is the same as the process of importing the information components as explained in chapter 1, and that is a different dimension from the learners becoming active and proficient users. If most Japanese continue to take a similar step for importing components as before, it will not be sufficient to create the expressive students as they lack fundamental outputs . The textbooks are crammed with phrases unfamiliar to the students. The textbook contents are satisfactory to the Japanese educators, but are at too high a level for the Japanese students to digest. Under these circumstances, the students must present their opinions without direction in the tactics of outputs, and with insufficient output practice. 5.2 The future direction of the classroom language Sixty-four percent of the JTEs think ‘how much Japanese we use depends on the students’ English level’ (Appendix G-4: 6). A tangible case is provided by Kou’s classroom observation: e.g. the teachers may end up taking extra time to give explanations in L1 on top of the those in L2. The vector of the target style of classroom languages starts from Zone D; that is the traditional state, and moves towards Zone A, in which the students use the L2 actively, and JTEs use the L2 mainly, but probably use L1 as an aid to understand the L2. Like Kou’s classroom, the state falls into Zone B if JTEs mostly use L1 and the students only use L2; in this case, still, too much explanation in L1 by JTEs may 86

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


be problematic, as we cannot observe the students’ positive linguistic activities during JTE’s explanations either in L1 or in L2. JTEs ’ active use of either language does not always contribute to the improvement of students ’ English proficiency, and in this respect, JTEs have to give careful thought to their application. 5.3 Beyond the Juken curse As explained in 2.2.1, Juken is an almost inevitable element within high school education in Japan. As reported in 4.2, opposing groups do exist in the evaluation of English-based classrooms with respect to the Juken strategy. With regard to the JTEs’ confessions about Juken and English-instruction dilemmas, some JTEs appear to aim at the win-win position of producing successful Juken candidates as well as producing English proficient students by conducting English-centred instruction. However, from a practical aspect, in addition to the English proficiency levels of the students, the JTEs’ professional teaching skills, including high English proficiency, are also required to lead successful classrooms. In this respect, having insufficient proficiency in English as well as lacking possession of the latest TESOL ideas do not make any good contributions toward conducting more up-to-date classrooms, despite that these elements are not prioritised in the school systems in Japan (also se 2.3.2 and 2.2.4.1). It is exemplified by some JTEs comments, in which they confessed that they could not recognise some TES OL methods in questions 8 and 9. As Takuto stated (Appendix G-8: c-1), the English-centred classroom will be emplaced as an important norm eventually when Jukens content is shifted to four-skills-integrated entrance exams as a major current. The emancipation from

87

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


knowledge-based Juken strategies may promote active content in English subjects in the future (EIKEN, 2014a). 5.4 The expert field of JTEs JTEs’ field of expertise has been held up, as a good learner’s model, with grammar and writing knowledge in a strict and formal way, like Arva and Medgyes examined as a typical NNEST feature in 2.3.1.1. However, as the data shows in figure 5, to JTEs, the speaking skills and more improvised outputting skills should be reinforced to accommodate more updated ways of teaching. In accordance with this requirement, JTEs’ professional quality is now more strictly evaluated than before. In modelling good learner traits, they can no longer make any excuse for poor English skills as shown in Figure 7 anymore. 5.5 Tables are turned: from lecturer to facilitator Aside from questioning the pedagogical validity of the educational authority, MEXT’s announcement of teaching English in English policy, or Prime Minister Abe’s statement (see 2.2.2), in this survey, JTEs seem to take the authority’s announcement as a warning that they should not continue with the traditional teaching method (Appendix G:1-1). However, despite the government wanting JTEs to produce new, more linguistically competent generations of English users (MEXT, 2013), the OECD reports Japan as having the least government budget for education of 32 comparable OECD-participating countries (Jiji, 2015). Whilst the education system faces harsh circumstances, JTEs have never suffered from the pressure of conducting more English-centred classrooms before. As explained in the previous chapter 4.6, more JTEs have decided to transform their 88

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


traditional, one-way lecture style to the more autonomous, student -centred classroom style. The introduction of Cooperative Learning (CL) exemplifies JTEs’ new form, taking on a new role as facilitators, from the traditional figure, lecturers, under restricted conditions i.e. the large -sized classrooms and short teaching staff numbers. JTEs promote more group-work and co-operative work to their students. Some JTEs believe that this is the best solution to compensate for the shortage of teachers, to stop producing students who largely fall behind the rest of the class, and to raise the awareness of participation within the classes by the largely introverted and obedient, uchimuki students. Moreover, the movement helps liberate JTEs and their students from their cultural stigma (see 2.2.3). Group-oriented psycholog y especially always works among classroom members (Stapleton, 2000; Hayashi and Cherry, 2004), and it works as a negative factor when JTEs conduct the traditional lecture -styled classrooms. Yet, by introducing the cooperative sessions, the JTEs can transform the typically obedient and quiet Japanese students to more active ones by removing the pressures of expressing themselves (Tsuneyoshi, 2013). Transforming from lecturers to facilitators is challenging, and being professional facilitators is an unfamiliar field to JTEs. Therefore, it will be a tough situation for them. 5.6 Proud of being JTEs as NNESTs There is another important factor for JTEs to realise to conduct English-centred classrooms. JTEs should be more aware of the advantages of being NNESTs and should attempt to utilise the benefits of being NNESTs. This survey shows many JTEs even feel guilty in conducting classes that utilise the benefits of 89

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


being NNESTs, simply because they do not acknowledge recent TESOL theory re-evaluating the significance of being NNESTs. Indeed, when I took th e initial survey, some JTEs beg ged me not to disclose their ideas to the local authority using their real names. They are obviously afraid to disclose that they oppose conducting English-only classrooms suppressing the L1 entirely. An unfortunate thing for some JTEs in Japan is that they seem to understand better than the education authority MEXT, or than the politicians, the benefits of utilising and being, NNESTs. It will be very questionable, simplistic and superficial if the government simply asks JTEs to become identical to NESTs by ordering teaching English in English. This research also concludes that there is no straightforward formula to conduct successful English-centred classrooms due to the varieties of student levels, the learning targets, and the various JTEs’ English proficiency levels. However, many JTEs seem to be aware of the benefits of being NNESTs, as the ones who share the same language and the culture with the students, regardless of whether they are acknowledged with the latest TESOL study that re-discovers the merits of being NNESTs or not. The important thing is how far each JTE can provide sophisticated teaching by utilising the latest ideas to facilitate successful English classrooms, regardless of external demands placed on them . Each JTE’s effort and high quality of teaching will contribute to helping students to improve English proficiency levels in Japan .

90

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Chapter 6: Conclusion Bilingual instruction and beyond This paper explored the validity of English-centred instruction from the view point of NESTs and NNESTs. The worldwide history of TESOL instruction was described alongside the JTEs’ situations at high schools across Japan. JTEs spend decades indulging themselves by conducting the Yakudoku method under their self-justification that Yakudoku is necessary to be successful with Juken. Its purpose clearly differs from producing proficient English -users. However, they should begin to utilise new teaching methods. Although MEXT’s English-only instruction order in 2013 to JTEs is questionable from pedagogical aspects, the summary report of the questionnaire of this study reveals that their announcement certainly influenced JTEs. The subsequent interviews revealed JTEs’ beliefs and their ways of teaching to make the students more expressive than ever. Since the classroom observation displays the JTEs’ challenge of

its quality and its new teaching, more

English-centred classrooms, it also raises the issues to which could be used to improve the quality of teaching. This research has only scratched the surface of the transition of teaching styles of JTEs in high schools. Further research is required in the future.

91

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


References

Akahoshi, H. (2014). 英語授業を作るタスクの発想 [The idea of tasks to form English classrooms]. [Presentation of the 44 t h Conference of the Chubu English Language Education Society (CELES)]. Yamanashi University, Kofu, Yamanashi campus, on June 21, 2014.

Araki-Metcalfe, N. (2011). The whole world communicates in English, do you?—Educational Drama as an Alternative Approach to Teaching English Language in Japan. In, Chan, W. M., Chin, K. N., and Suthiwa, T. (eds.) Foreign Language Teaching in Asia and Beyond: Current Perspectives and Future Directions . Boston: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 271-288. Armand, S., Tanaka, Y. (2001). Japanese Learners' Attitudes toward English Pronunciation. Niigata Seiryo University Kiyo, 1, 99-111. Arva V., and Medgyes, P. (2000). Native or non-native: who’s worth more? System, 28, 355-372. Aspinall, R.W. (2013). International Education Policy in Japan in an Age of Glob alisation and Risk. Leiden: Global Oriental.

Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. 5th edition, Bristol: Multilingual matters. Barnard, R. and McLellan, J. (2014) Transcription Conventions in Data Extracts. In Barnard, R. and McLellan, J. (eds.) (2014) Codeswitching in University English-Medium Classes: Asian Perspectives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, xv. 92

ED0014


Tomomi Cope

Codeswitching

in

University

English-Medium

Classes:

Asian

Perspectives.

Bristol:

Multilingual Matters. Barratt, L. and Kontra, E.H. (2000). Native-English-speaking teachers in cultures other than their own. TESOL Journal, 9/3, 19-23.

Benoit, R. and Haugh, B. (2001). Team teaching tips for foreign language teachers. The Internet TESOL Journal, 7/10. Blumenthal, T. (1992). Japan's Juken Industry. Asian Survey, 32/5, 448-460. Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative Speaker English Teachers: Research, Pedagogy, and Profession al Growth. New York: Routledge. Brannigan, M. C. (1999). Relationality and consensus in Japan: implications for bioethics policy. Health Care Analysis. 7/3, 289-296. Breaden, J. and Goodman, R. (2014). The dog that didn’t bark. In, Breaden, J., Steele, S., Stevens, C.S. (eds.), Internationalising Japan: Discourse and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge, 13-31. Brewster, J. (2009). Thinking skills for CLIL. One Stop English [web article]. Macmillan

Publishers

Ltd.

Accessed

on

September

2,

2015

from

http://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/methodology/study -skills-for-clil/thinkingskills-for-clil/501197.article. Burgess, C. (2014). To globalise or not to globalise? ‘Inward-looking youth’ as scapegoats for Japan's failure to secure and cultivate ‘global human resources’. Globalisation, Societies and Education, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2014.966805,

published online: October 17, 2014. 93

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Butler, Y. G., and Iino, M. (2005). Current Japanese reforms in English language education: the 2003 “action plan”. Language Policy, 4/1, 25-45.

Cabinet Public Relations Office (2014). Policy Speech by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to the 186th Session of the Diet on January 24, 2014, from ‘Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet’(Provisional Translation) [web archives]. Accessed on September 14, 2014 from http://japan.kantei.go.jp/96_abe/statement/201401/24siseihousin_e.html .

Canagarajah, A.S. (2006). Negotiating the Local in English as a Lingua Franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 197-218. Carroll, T. (2013). Language Planning and Language Change in Japan. Abingdon: Routledge. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. and Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35/3, 243-262.

Chuo University (2013). 自由民主党教育再生実行本部長遠藤利明衆議院議員 and 若林茂則中央大学副学長 [The interview with Toshiaki Endo, MP (Member of Parliament), Chairman of Headquarters for the Revitalization of Education of Liberal Democratic Party, and Shigenori Wakabayashi, Vice President of Chuo University]. [web article]. Accessed on September 1, 2015 from http://globalization.chuo-u.ac.jp/global_person/special/taidan1/

Cook, G. (2010). Translation in Language Teaching: An Argument for Reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 94

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Cook, M. (2012). Communicative, Audio-lingual, and Grammar Translation (Yakudoku) Activities: Beliefs, Practices, and Rationales. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, Vol. 14/2 79-98. Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 185-209.

Cook, V. (2007). The Goals of ELT: Reproducing Native-speakers or Promoting Multicompetence among Second Language Users? In Cummins, J., and Davidson, C. (eds.), International Handbook of English Language Teaching. New York: Springer Science + Business Medial.L.C., 237-248.

Cook, V. (2008). Multi-competence: Black hole or wormhole for second language acquisition research. In Han, Z. (ed.) Understanding second language process, Clevedon: Multilingual matters, 16-26.

Cook, V. (2010). Multicompetence and SLA: A brief outline of the concept of multi-competence

in

second

language

acquisition.

[YouTube

video.]

Itsallinaword’s channel: uploaded on 13 Jan, 2010. Accessed on July 28, 2015 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF7zmsqtIUQ.

Cook, V. (2011). Developing links between second language acquisition research and language teaching. In Knapp, K., Seidlhofer, B. , and Widdowson, H., (eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning , Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co., 139-161.

Cook, V. (2012a). Multi-competence. [web article.] Accessed on July 30, 2015 from 95

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/Writings/Papers/MCentry.htm .

Cotter, P. (2011). An examination into the extent that cultural factors cause role confusion between ALTs and JTEs in the Japanese English classroom [doctoral dissertation, University of Ulster]. The Council of Local Authorities for International Relation (CLAIR) (2014a). Welcome to the JET programme [official website]. Tokyo: CLAIR. Accessed on December 15, 2014 from http://www.jetprogramme.org/e/introduction/index.html .

The Council of Local Authorities for International Relation (CLAIR) (2014b). Eligibility Criteria, JET Programme [official website]. Tokyo: CLAIR. Accessed on December 15, 2014 from http://www.jetprogramme.org/e/aspiring/eligibility.html Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL — A Pedagogical Approach from the European Perspective. In Van Deusen-Scholl, N. and Hornberger, N.H. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, Volume 4:Second and Foreign Language Education , New York: Springer Science +

Business MedialLC.,97-112.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2 n d ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Express.

Cummings, W. K. (1980). Education and Equality in Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

96

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Cummins, J. (2009). Multilingualism in the English ‐ language Classroom: Pedagogical Considerations. TESOL quarterly, 43/2, 317-321. Derwing, T.M. and Munro, M.J. (2005). Pragmatic perspectives on the preparation of teachers of English as a second language: Putti ng the NS/NNS debate in context. In Llurda, E. (ed.) Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession. New York: Springer, 179-192. Dogancay-Aktuna, S. (2005). Intercultural communication in English language teacher education. ELT journal, 59 (2), 99-107. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z., and Chan, L. (2013). Motivation and vision: An analysis of future L2 self images, sensory styles, and imagery capacity across two target languages. Language Learning, 63(3), 437-462. Dörnyei, Z. (2015). Language Learning Motivation and Its Assessment. [lecture]. On April 4, 2015 at Temple University Japan, Tokyo Center. Dunn, W. E., and Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Vygotsky's zone of proxim al development and Krashen's i+ 1: Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning, 48(3), 411-442. Educational Testing Service (ETS) (2014). Test and Score Data Summary for TOEFL iBT Tests: January 2013 - December 2013 Test Data. Accessed on October 2, 2014 from https://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/94227_unlweb.pdf . 97

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


EIKEN Foundation Japan (2014). About Eiken Grade Pre-1. [official website]. Accessed on August 8, 2015 from http://www.eiken.or.jp/eiken/en/grades/grade_p1/ .

EIKEN foundation Japan (2014a). 大学入学者選抜において、４技能を測定すべきだと思いますか。[Do you think you should measure 4 skills for the unive rsity entrance exams?] (Press release). In 全国の主要国公私立大学の入試関係者 100名に、大学入試についての緊急調査をおこないました。 [We conducted an urgent survey about university entrance exams to 100 exam administrators of initial public/private universities in Japan], Tokyo: Eiken Foundation Japan. Published on June 30, 2014. page 3. Accessed on August 2, 2015 from http://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/shingi/toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfil e/2014/08/20/1351000_05.pdf Erikawa, H. and Kubota R. (2014). 学校指導要領の「授業は英語で」は何が問題か [What is the problem of ‘teaching English classrooms in English’ specified in MEXT’s Course of Study?] Eigo Kyoiku: The English Teacher’s Magazine, September, 2014, Tokyo: Taisyukan, 70-72. Erikawa, H., Saito, Y., Torikai, K., Otsu Y. (2014) . 学校教育は何のため . [Why Teach English at School?] Tokyo: Hitsuji Syobo. Fukuyasu, Y. (2014). The History of Russian-to-Japanese Translators from the Edo Period Onwards. UCLA: Applied Linguistics, 0074. Accessed on August 20, 2015 from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8df3t1zk.

98

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


García, M.C.M. (2014). A Case Study on Teachers ’ Insights into Their Students’ Language and Cognition Development Through the And alusian CLIL Programme. PORTALINGUARUM, Vol.22, 23-39. García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Gorsuch, G. J. (1998). Yakudoku EFL instruction in two Japanese high school classrooms: An exploratory study. JALT Journal, 20/1, 6-32. Hadley, J. and Akashi, M. (2015). Translation and celebrity: The translation strategies of Haruki Murakami and their implications for the visibility paradigm. Perspectives, 23/3, 458-474. Hahn, B. (2014). Developing Automaticity in Reading: A Study of University Students in Japan. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 7(6), 391.

Harumi, S. (2010). Classroom silence: voices from Japanese EFL learners. ELT Journal, 65/3, 260-269.

Hawrysh, B. M. and Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1990). Cultural approaches to negotiations: understanding the Japanese. International Marketing Review, 7/2. Hayashi, Y. (2014). A Book Review of P. Seargeant (ed.) (2011). English in Japan in the Era of Globalization. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 224 pp. ISBN 978-0-230-23766-7 [Book Review]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 14/1, 135-139. Hayashi, M. and Cherry, D. (2004). Japanese students’ learning style preferences in the EFL classroom. Bulletin of Hokuriku University, 28, 83-93. 99

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Haynes, D. (2009). Non-native English-speaking teachers, context and English language teaching. System, 37, 1-11. Hiep, P. H. (2005). “Imported” communicative language teaching: Impl ications for local teachers. English Teaching Forum, 43/4, 2-9. Hino, N. (1988). Yakudoku: Japan’s dominant tradition in foreign language learning. JALT Journal, 10/1, 45-55. Hiramatsu, S. (2012). Contexts and Policy Reform: A Case Study of EFL Teaching in a High School in Japan. In Tedick, D. J. (ed.) Second Language Teacher Education: International Perspectives. Abington: Routledge, 113-134.

Holliday, A. (2005). The Strug gle to Teach English as an Internation al Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT journal, 60(4), 385-387. Houghton, S. A. and Rivers, D. J. (2013) Redefining Native-Speakerism. In Houghton, S.A. and Rivers, D.J. (eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 1-14.

Howatt, A.P.R. (1984). A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hughes, H. J. (1999). Cultivating the walled garden: English in Japan. English Studies, 80/6, 556-568.

100

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Humphries, S. (2014). Factors Influencing Japanese Teachers’ Adoption of Communication-oriented Textbooks, in Garton, S., and Graves K., International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 253-268. Ikeda, M. (2013). Does CLIL work for Japanese secondary school students? Potenti al for the “weak” version of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 2/1, 31-43 . Imoto, Y. (2013). Japan: Internationalisation in Education and the Problem of Introspective Youth. In, P.J. Hsieh (ed.), Education in East Asialondon: Bloomsbury Academic, 127-152. Ishida, T. (2006). Language grid: An infrastructure for intercultur al collaboration. In Applications and the Internet, 2006. SAINT 2006. International Symposium on IEEE, 5-100. Ishida, M., Jimbo, N., Hisamura, K., and Sakai, S. (eds.) (2011) . 英語教師の成長、求められる専門性 [The development and required specialities of English teachers]. Tokyo: Taisyukan. Izumi, S. (2009). 「フォーカス・オン・フォーム」を取り入れた新しい英語教育 . [The New English Education adopted ‘Focus on Form’]. Tokyo: Taisyukan. The Japan Times (2014). Japanese teachers work longest hours among OECD members [news article]. Published on June 26, 2014. Accessed on January 4, 2015 from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/06/26/national/japanese-teachers-wo rk-longest-hours-among-oecd-members/.

101

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., and Dewey, M. (2011). Review of Developments in Research into English as a lingua Franca. Language Teaching, 44/3, 281-315. Jiji (2015). Japan Stays Bottom in Public Spending on Education for 6th Yr: OECD. [news article]. Published on November 24, 2015. Accessed on November 25, 2015 from http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2015112500219 . Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. (2014). Cooperative learning in 21st century. anales de psicología, 30(3), 841-851. Joseph, A. (2013). An examination of the perspectives of five Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs) regarding their dual roles as English language teachers and purveyors of internationalization in Japan (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University). Kachru, B. B. (1981). The pragmatics of non-native varieties of English, in L. E. Smith (ed.), English for Cross-cultural Communication. London: Macmillan, 15 – 39. Kachru, B. B. (1992). Teaching World Englishes. In Kachru, B.B. (ed.) The other tongue: English across cultures, 2nd edition, Champaign: The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 355-366. Kamiya, N. (2014). 研究と実践、理想と現実を見据えた英語指導を目指して [Aiming for the English teaching which is based on research, application, ide al styles and current status]. The English Teachers Magazine, 63/4, 28-30. Kanatani, K. (2013). なぜ整理が必要なのか？

[Why reorganisation is

necessary?] In Kanatani, K., Sumida, A., Ota, E., Usukura, M., 学校英語教育を整理する [Reorganising English education for schools]. Tokyo: ALC.

102

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Kavanagh, B. (2012). The Theory and Practice of Communicative Language Teaching in Japan. Academic Research International, 2/2. Accessed on November 30, 2014 from http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./VoL2(2)/2012(2.2-80).pdf. Kayi-Aydar, H. (2013). Scaffolding language learning in an academic ESL classroom. ELT journal, 67/3, 324-335. Kikuchi, K. and Browne, C. (2009). English Educational Policy for High Schools in Japan: Ideals vs. Reality. RELC Journal, 40/2, 172-191. Kikuchi, K. (2013). Demotivators in the Japanese EFL Context. In Apple, M.T., Da Silva, D. and Fellner, T. (eds.). Language learning Motivation in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 206-224. King, J. (2013). Silence in the Second Language Classroom. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kobayashi, Y. (2002). The Role of Gender in Foreign Language Learning Attitudes: Japanese female students' attitudes towards English learning. Gender and Education, 14/ 2. Koike, I. (2013). 日本の英語教育（１）近代からグローバル化への形成過程 [English education in Japan (1): a forming process from modernisation to globalisation]. In Koike, I., Kurazumi, O., Shimura, S., Sato R., Daigo M., and Hiraide S. (eds.) 提言日本の英語教育：ガラパゴスからの脱出 [Proposals for English education in Japan: getting out of “Galapagos” status]. Tokyo: Mitsumura Tosyo Syuppan, 8-47.

103

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Addition al evidence for the input hypothesis. The modern language journal, 73/4, 440-464. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. Harlow: Longman . Le, Ha P. (2014). The politics of naming: critiquing “learner -centred” and “teacher as facilitator” in English language and humanities classrooms. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42/4, 392-405. Levine, G. S. (2014). Principles for code choice in the foreign language classroom: A focus on grammaring. Language Teaching, 47/03, 332-348. Llurda, E. (2009). The Decline and Fall of the Native speaker. In Cook, V., and Wei, L. (eds.), Contemporary Applied Linguistics Volume 1, Volume One Language Teaching and Learning. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 37-53. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 413-468. Luxton, R., Fennelly, M., and Fukuda, S. (2014). A Survey of ALTs and JTEs. Shikoku University Kiyo (A) 42, 45 - 54. Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language learning, 48/2, 183-21.

104

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Macaro, E. (2010). Translation in Language Teaching: An Argument for Reassessment–By Guy Cook. [Book review]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 283-287. Maftoon, P. and M. Ziafar (2013). Effective Factors in Interactions within Japanese EFL Classrooms. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. Vol. 86/2, 74-79. Mahboob, A. (2010). The NNEST Lens. In Mahboob, A. (ed.), The NNEST Lens: Non Native English Speakers in TESOL, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 1-17. Mainichi, Japan (2014). Editorial: Education reform must give overworked teachers more time with our kids [news article]. Published on June 26, 2014. Accessed on January 12, 2015 from http://mainichi.jp/english/english/perspectives/news/20140626p2a00m0na01 8000c.html. Majlesifard, H. A. (2012). Pedagogically, there is no room for a native speaker. Sino-US English Teaching, 9/7, 1277-1287. Matsuura, H., Chiba R., and P. Hilderbrandt (2001). Beliefs about learning and teaching communicative English in Japan. Japan Association for Language Teaching 23, 69-90. Medg yes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: who's worth more?. ELT journal, 46/4, 340-349. Medg yes, P. (1999). The Non-Native Teacher. Ismaning: Max Hueber Verlag.

105

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Medgyes, P. (2012). The NNEST Lens: Non -native English speakers in TESOL. ELT Journal, 66(1), 122-124. Mesquita, B. and Karasawa, M. (2004). Self-conscious emotions as dynamic cultural processes. Psychological Inquiry, 161-166. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2006). 1.1.1 Current Status and Predictions for an Aging Society with Fewer Children , in White Paper on Science and Technolog y 2006. Accessed on January 2, 2015 from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/whitepaper/1302597.htm . Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2012). Course of Study: Section 13: English (provision al translation). [高等学校学習指導要領英訳版 ( 仮訳 )]

Accessed

on

September

3,

2015

from

http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/youryou/eiyaku/__icsFiles/afie ldfile/2012/10/24/1298353_3.pdf Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2013). English Education Reform Plan corresponding to Glob alization. (pdf article). Retrieved on September 19, 2014 from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/01/23/1343 591_1.pdf Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienc e and Technology (MEXT) (2014). 平成２５年度外部検定試験を活用した英語によるコミュニケーション能力、論理的思考の検証に関する調査報告書 [Heisei 25 academic year (AY2013): A Survey Report regarding the Evaluation of Communicative Competence and Logical Thinking in English by utilizing External Tests] (Web 106

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


report published online in August, 2014.). Retrieved September 18, 2014 from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1351125.htm . Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2014a). 高等学校：外国語科担当教員質問紙とスコアのクロス集計結果詳細 [High schools: details of cross-collected results of the survey questions and its scores by high school teachers of foreign language] In, 平成２５年度外部検定試験を活用した英語によるコミュニケーション能力 [Heisei 25 academic year (AY2013): Communicative abilities in English by utilising extern al graded exams], 87-146. (Web report published online on 19 August, 14). Accessed on September 18, 2014 from http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afiel dfile/2014/08/19/1351122_07.pdf. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technolog y (MEXT) (2014b). Improvement of Academic Abilities (Courses of Study). Accessed on October 25, 2014 from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/elsec/1303755.htm. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technolog y (MEXT) (2014c). English Education Reform Plan Corresponding to Globalization. (Web document published on January 23, 2014). Accessed on August 2, 2015 from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/01/23/1343 591_1.pdf. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technolog y (MEXT) (2014d). II. Questionnaires to teachers of foreign language subject. 1) senior high -school. In, MEXT 2014 A survey about the development of the communication ability 107

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


and logical thinking ability via English by the use of external English examinations in 2013, 111-119. (Web document published on August 19, 2014). Accessed on January 2, 2014 from http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/ 2014/08/19/1351122_07.pdf Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2014e). I-1. Questionnaires to senior high school students. In, MEXT 2014 A survey about the development of the communication ability and logic al thinking ability via English by the use of external English examinations in 2013, 95-102. (Web document published on August 19, 2014). Accessed on February 2, 2014 from http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfi le/2014/08/19/1351122_07.pdf Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2014f). 英語担当教員の英語力・指導力に関すること [Report on JTEs' English proficiency and teaching capabilities]. In 平成 25年度公立中学校における英語教育実施調査 [A survey of English language education in public high schools in Heisei 25 academic year (AY2013)]. page 8. Accessed on August 8, 2015 from http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afieldf ile/2014/09/03/1351570_06.pdf. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2015). 平成 26年度

英語教育改善のための英語力調査事業報告 [In FY2014: A

survey report of Japanese students' English levels

for improvements of 108

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


English language Education in Japan. Accessed on December 15, 2015 from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1358258.htm?86940 Miyazato, K. (2009). Power-sharing between NS and NNS teachers: Linguistic ally powerful AETs vs. culturally powerful JTEs. JALT Journal, 31/1, 35-62. Moore, M. (2009). Cultures of dishonesty: from hidden cancers and conce aled selves to politics and poker. In Akhtar, S., and Parens, H. (eds.), Lying, Cheating, and Carrying On: Developmental, Clinical, and Sociocultural Aspects of Dishonesty and Deceit. Plymouth: The Rowan & Littlefield Publishing Group Inc. , 129-140. Mullock, B. (2010). Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker? In Mahboob, A. (ed.), The NNEST Lens: Non Native English Speakers in TESOL , Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 87 -113. Nabe (2013). テストの点がいい人がいい先生になるとは限らない [The person who mark good scores may not always become a good teacher].[blog]. Fukuoka: Watanabe gakusyu-juku (cram school). Accessed on January 6, 2015 from http://nabejuku.net/nabeblo/archives/10407. Nakamura, K. (2004). 子供の自尊感情の変容と教師との関連性 . [The relationship between decline of pupils’ self-esteem and teachers’ classroom management]. Gendai Syakai Bunka Kenkyu, 29. Nakayama, A., Heffernan, N., Matsumoto, H., and Hiromori, T., (2012) . The Influence of Goal Orientation, Past Language Studies, Overseas Experiences, and Gender Differences on Japanese EFL Learners' Beliefs, Anxiety, and Behaviors. Journal of Applied Language Studies, 6/2, 19-39.

109

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Narita, H. (2013). 日本人にふさわしい英語教育 [English education which is suitable for Japanese]. Tokyo: Sho-haku Sya. Newfields, T. (2006). Assessment Literacy Self-Study Quiz #1. Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter. 10/2, December 2006, 25-32. Ng, J. and Brown, J.D. (2012). Questionnaires. In Barnard, R., and Burns, A. (eds.), Researching Language Teacher Cognition and Practice: International Case Studies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 30-47. Nishino, T. (2008). Japanese secondary school teachers' beliefs and practices regarding communicative language teaching: An exploratory survey. JALT Journal, 30/1, 27-50. Nishino, T. and Watanabe, M. (2008). Communication-Oriented Policies versus Classroom Realities in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 133–138. Norton, B., and Tang, C. (1997). The identity of the nonnative ESL teacher on the power and status of nonnative ESL teachers. Tesol Quarterly, 31/3, 577-580. Ogawa, M. (1998). A Cultural istory of Science Education in Japan: an Epic Description. In Cobern, W.W. (ed.) Socio-Cultural Perspectives on Science Education: An International Dialogue (Contemporar y Trends and Issues in Science Education). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 139 -162. Okada, N. (2003) 英語の構文１５０ [English structures 150] Kyoto: Biseisya. Otsu, Y. (2014) 日本における英語教育の現状と課題 [the current conditions and issues of English language education in Japan]. Presentation at Dokkyo University, Tokyo on June 29, 2014.

110

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Otsu, Y., Erikawa, H., Saito, M., and Torikai, K. (2013) 英語教育、せまりくる破綻 [Forthcoming catastrophe of English education in Japan]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Peak, L. (1991) Learning to Go to School in Japan: The Transition from Home to Preschool Life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Radford, R. (2009) Grammar : A First Course. (International Student Edition.) Singapore: Cambridge University Press. Rothbaum, F., Pott, M., Azuma, H., Miyake, K., & Weisz, J. (2000) The development of close relationships in Japan and the United States: Paths of symbiotic harmony and generative tension. Child development, 71(5), 1121-1142. Saito, A. (2014) グローバル化の今、若者をどう育てるか [How to nurture youths in the current global era]. 英語の力 [The power of English](Blog). Tokyo: Obunsya and Kandagaigo Group.

Accessed on January 15, 2015 from

http://teachers.eigonochikara.com/guidance/global01/index.html. Saito, H. and Ebsworth, M. E. (2004) Seeing English language teaching and learning through the eyes of Japanese EFL and ESL students. Foreign Language Annals, 37/1, 11-124 Sakui, K. (2004). Wearing two pairs of shoes: Language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 58/2, 155-163. Samimy, K. K. (1994) Teaching Japanese: Consideration of learners’ affective variables. Theor y into Practice, 33/1, 29-33.

111

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Samimy, K. K. and Kobayashi, C. (2004). Toward the development of intercultur al communicative competence: Theoretical and pedagogical implications for Japanese English teachers. JALT Journal, 26/2, 245-261. Sasajima, Shigeru. (2011) CLIL: New Ideas for Classes [CLIL 新しい発想の授業 ] Tokyo: Sanshusha. Sato, R. (2014).「授業は英語で」は時代おくれか ? [Is teaching English in English’ outdated?] Tokyo: Eigo Kyo-iku: The English Teacher’s Magazine, 63/3. Seargeant, P. (2012). Reading A: English and linguistic globalisation, in Seargeant, P., and Swann, J. (eds.), English in the World: Histor y, Diversity, Challenge. Milton Keynes: The Open University, 178-187. Seargeant, P. (2012a). English in the world today. In Seargeant, P., and Swann, J. (eds.), English in the World: Histor y, Diversity, Challenge. Milton Keynes: The Open University, 5-35. Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELF Journal , 59/4, 339-340. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10, 209-232. Shimomura, H. (2014). Statement by Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technolog y of Japan on the October 12 Internation al New York Times article "Japan's Divided Education Strategy" . [press release] Tokyo: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) [official website]. Accessed on January 2, 2015 from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/1353287.htm .

112

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Shimozaki, M., Imoto, Y., Iwasa, Y., Kuroiwa, Y., Kouno, T., Tsujimoto, C., Matsubara, K., Mochizuki, N., Yui, R., Watanabe, Y., Deaux, G., Sla ter, and A., Kitagawa, T., (eds.) (2013). CROWN English Communication I. Tokyo: Sanseido. Shirahara, T. (2015). 英語指導における効果的な誤り訂正第二言語習得研究の見地から [The effective corrections of errors in English teaching: from the perspectives of SLA research.] Tokyo: Taisyukan. Slavin, R. E. (2015). Cooperative learning in elementary schools. Education, 43/1, 5-14. Song, K. H. and Del Castillo, A. G. (2015). NNESTs’ Profession al Identity in the Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Classrooms. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 4/1, 54-83. Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching. In Cummins, J. and Davison, C. (eds.), International handbook of English language teaching, 15, 271 - 288. New York: Springer Science + Business MedialLC. Stapleton, P. (2000). Culture's role in TEFL: An attitude survey in Japan. Language Culture and Curriculum, 13(3), 291-305. Steger, M. B. (2009). Globalization. New York: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc. Sueda, K. and Wiseman R. L (1992). Embarrassment Remediation in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 159-173. Suzuki, A. (2014). International Education Policy in Japan in an Age of Globalisation and Risk. ELT Journal, 68/4, 482-486.

113

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Taisyukan Editorial Board (2012).

高等学校・英語の学習指導要領はこう変わ

ります (MEXT's 'Course of Study (COS) for Senior High Schools' will be changed like this). G .C.D. 英語通信 (Eigo Tsushin), No.50, 2-3. Accessed on November 8, 2015 from http://www.taishukan.co.jp/gcdroom/gcd_tsuushin/pdf 50/p2-3.pdf. Takanashi, Y. (2004). TEFL and communication styles in Japanese culture. Language Culture and Curriculum, 17/1, 1-14. Takanashi, H. (2007). Orthographic puns: The case of Japanese kyoka. Humor : International Journal of Humor Research. 20/3, 235-259. Tanabe, M., Ishida, K., Ito, Y., Ono, M., Kawahata, H., Kirimura, Y., Tachibana, S., Nakayama, N., Fukushima,Y., Fukushima,T., Yanagawa, K., Yamaguchi, K., Juppe, R., Reedy, D., and Tokyo Shoseki Co. Ltd. Editor team (eds.) (2013). Prominence Communication English II. Tokyo: Tokyo Shoseki Co., Ltd. Tsuda, A. and Nakata, Y. (2013). Exploring self-regulation in language learning: a study of Japanese high school EFL students, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7/1, 72-88. Tsuneyoshi, R. (2013). Japanese Model of Schooling: Comparisons with the US. New York: Routledge. University of Leicester (2015). Apply for research ethics approval [web page]. Accessed on September 30, 2015 from http://www2.le.ac.uk/institution/ethics/approv al Ur, P. (2012). A Course in English Language Teaching. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 114

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Ushioda, E. (2013). Foreign Language Motivation Research in Japan: An 'Insider' Perspective from Outside Japan. In Apple, M.T., Da Silva, D., Fellner, T. Language Learning Motivation in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 1-14. Ushiro, Y. (2013).英語で進める英語を読まない授業 [English-based classrooms without reading English]. Goken Journal, Gogaku Kyoiku Kenkyujo, 12, 65-70. Walkinshaw, I. and Oanh, D. H. (2014). Native and Non-Native English Language Teachers. SAGE Open, 4/2, 2Bake158244014534451. White, M. (1988). The Japanese educational challenge: A commitment to children. New York: The Free Press. Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, N. (2010). Tokugawa Defense Redux: Organizational Failure in the Phaeton Incident of 1808. The Journal of Japanese Studies, 36(1), 1-32. Yamada, H., Hristoskova, G. (2011). Teaching and Learning English in English in Japanese Senior High Schools: Teachers’ and Students’ Perceptions. Journal of Fukui-ken Eigo Kenkyu-kai. Vol.69, 3-33. Yamamoto, M. (2001). Japanese Attitude Towards Bilingualism: A Survey and Its Implications. In Noguchi, M.G., and Fotos, S. (eds.) Studies in Japanese Bilingualism (Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22). Clevedon; Muliling al Matters. 24-42. Yamawaki, N. (2006). Towards a renewal of the concept wa (和 ) for the culture of peace. Cultural Diversity and Transversal Values: East–West Dialogue on Spiritual and Secular Dynamics, 163. Accessed on September 23, 2014 from 115

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


http://www.rel-med.net/fitxer/471/cultural_Diversity_transversal_values_unesco_ ENG.pdf#page=162. Yamazaki. M. (2011). Introducing CLIL in High School: A practical guide.

[高等学

校におけるＣＬＩＬの実践 ], 新しい英語学習法【教科学習と英語の組み合わせ】 ―CLIL 方法論と実践 .[presentation slides]. Tokyo: British Council (official website). Accessed on August 25, 2015 from http://www.britishcouncil.jp/sites/britishcouncil.jp/files/eng -clil-practical-repo rt-high-school-jp.pdf Yasukouchi, T. (2014). 大学入試が変われば英語教育はこう変わる [English education will be changed like this if University Entrance exams are changed]. [conference speech]. On March 22, 2014 at TEAP seminar in Nagoya 2014. Yoneyama, S. (1999). The Japanese high school: Silence and resistance. London: Routledge. Zhang, R., and McCornac, D.C. (2013). "The need for private universities in Japan to be agents of change", International Journal of Educational Management, 27/6, 562 – 577.

116

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix A: A sample page of a MEXT’s textbook closed-end activities

(Shimozaki, et al., 2013, 139)

117

ED0014

Tomomi Cope

Appendix B:


A: Participant Information and Consent Form [for all questionnaires] Participant Information and Consent Form 参加各位の方々へ同意書

This research forms part of a dissertation for a Masters’ degree in Applied Linguistics and TESOL at the University of Leicester, U.K. Researcher & Contact Details: Tomomi Cope E-MAIL: [email protected] TEL: 090 1271 5241 Address: 2216, Nakano-Cho, Yokkaichi, Mie Dissertation Title: The role of non-native high school teachers in Japan in teaching English as a foreign language: can they help to improve English proficiency levels in Japan? Purpose of research: To explore how Japanese teachers of English working in high schools conduct their English classrooms in what classroom languages, what they concern in their teaching, and how they perceive their students in the classrooms. Particular queries are conducted to identify teacher beliefs and teacher perceptions regarding English language teaching, the surrounding pressures associated with Juken, university entrance exams. Research Methods: a) Questionnaire b) Follow-up interviews with selected participants Participants who complete the questionnaire are not required to take part in the interviews. You will only be contacted for a follow-up interview if you give permission by completing the consent box on the last page of the questionnaire. Participant statement: The purpose of this research work has been explained to me, including the use to which this research will be put and my part in this research project. I also understand that my details will remain confidential and that my anonymity will be respected. I have a right to withdraw answering a query or stop participating in this research at any point of questionnaires as well as interviews. Name: __________________________

Date: ___________________________ 118

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix C (1): B: Front page of Questionnaires [for B-1/B-2 questionnaires] Questionnaires about ‘teaching Subject of English in English language’ 英語で英語授業についての質問につきまして

Note to participants: 各位殿 Dear Sir / Madam, As you know, MEXT suggested recently that ‘English language should be as an initial teaching instruction language in the secondary schools; ‘the action plan of the reformation of English education fitted for the Globalization’ which was published on Dec.13, 2013. However, my main query is, have you changed your teaching style (preparation of the lesson/during the session/post-practices of the classroom session) after their announcement? My questionnaires are about your teaching styles. Generally they consist of the multiple choices; however, it will be greatly appreciated if you let us know your current opinion, current issues, your own suggestions in the future regarding this topic. This questionnaire will be conducted for TESOL research purposes and will contribute to the study to get the latest information on the local situation of Japanese English education. In these questionnaires, your private information is protected, and is treated with strict rules, and it will not be used any other purposes than the main research purposes. Please note: you have a right to stop answering the questionnaires at any point, and you do not have to answer certain questions if you do not feel like to do so. The data are treated anonymously, and your participants will be put first when the information is disclosed. Additionally, I can send the reports as a result of this research to you later on, upon your request. Thank you very much for taking your time and filling in this questionnaire. I would like to say a big thank to you all, for your great efforts to make the Japanese English education progress. Thank you very much. Please send your any questions to my e-mail: [email protected] about this questionnaire. Very Sincerely yours, Tomomi Cope, Completing the survey: The survey has been sent to you by e-mail. Please follow these instructions: Word document: Type your responses in the boxes provided in each section. Return the completed questionnaire as an attachment to the e-mail address below. Name: Tomomi Cope

E-mail: [email protected]

119

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix C (2): B-1: Questionnaire (in English) [main part] Questionnaires about ‘teaching Subject of English in English language’ Q1: This is a question about ‘Teaching English in English language’. In your classroom, have you changed your teaching style (methods) after the MEXT’s announcement? 1) Changed greatly 2) Changed mostly 3) Changed slightly 4) Not changed at all (I always teach English in Japanese principally.) 5) Not changed at all (I always teach English in English principally.) Please add any comments: Q2: If you answered 1, 2, or 3, please indicate how you have changed your teaching by ticking any of the boxes below – choose as many as you like. I talk more in English in the classroom sessions. I talk actively to students more than before. I interact in English with students more than before. I spend more time explaining things in English than before. I ask students in English, the difference of two English sentences by comparison I do more quick reading comprehension tasks than before. I encourage students to give their opinions in English more than before. I use English when I give instructions to students. I promote pair and group work more than before. I don’t use any Japanese in class (but I distribute hand-outs in Japanese when the session is over). Basically, I mainly teach English in Japanese; I do not speak English much in the classroom. I am more aware of my English pronunciation than before. I give more listening and speaking tasks to students than writing tasks. I speak more natural English than before. Please add any comments:

120

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix C (3): Q.3 Please tick any choice you think applies to you in your current classroom. * Please answer to the question if you chose answer 1, 2, 3, or 5 for Q1. My students concentrate on the classroom sessions more than before My students give their opinions in English more actively than before. My students are making more effort to actively express themselves in English. My students enjoy the new “English Only” environment. The students who participate in different activities are usually the same ones. Students now have more chance to listen to the Japanese teachers’ English. Only I, the teacher, consistently use English in the classroom. Students are more used to doing pair and group activities in English than before. There is a gap between some students who understand English well, and some who don’t understand English well. Some students want me to use more Japanese in the English classroom. I know some students complain about the contents of the classroom activities which are conducted in English. Fewer students raise their hands in the classroom than before. More students are passive and remain silent than before. We do more student-centred activities than before. I see there are two types of students in my classroom; one type has a positive attitude to the English classroom, the other type has a negative one. Please add any comments: Q.4 Many studies show that using L1 can help students. Please choose any tasks which you think are beneficial to your classroom work. Yakudoku (translation in L1 throughout) highlighting the grammatical differences-practice between Jpn and Eng (Grammar) English -> Japanese direct translation practice English-> Japanese translation (in English-order) English->Japanese (in natural Japanese translation) The pronunciation difference between Japanese loanwords and English phonological practice by highlighting the difference between Japanese and English Translation (writing) take from Japanese to English

121

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix C (4): Teachers help the students’ understanding by translating students’ L1 to English orally, helping students by translating their Japanese to English in written form. Let the students get used to listen to English with Japanese accent. giving an explanation of English grammar in Japanese. Let students translate English words to Japanese Please add any comments: Q.5 Please choose your teaching styles from the following options. I explain English grammar in Japanese only. I explain English grammar in English, and I also use Japanese for explanation as minimum. I explain English in English only. I explain the structure of English sentence in English by comparison with the structure of Japanese sentence. I explain the structure of English sentence in Japanese by comparison with the structure of Japanese sentence. Q.6 To what extent should teachers use L1 when teaching English? Please choose any answers you agree with. How much Japanese we use depends on the students’ English level We should use more Japanese for the lower level students in EFL classrooms. We should use more English for the higher level students. We should only use English in the classroom, regardless of the students’ level, but the level of English should be adjusted appropriately. The use of Japanese should be allowed only for ‘emergencies’. The use of Japanese should only be allowed outside classroom activities, such as workbook or supplemental hand-outs for homework. Yakudoku translation tasks should be only given as homework, not in the classrooms. Japanese-to-English-translation-based writing tasks should be only given as homework. It is essential to use Japanese in the classroom in order to understand the highly cognitive contents written in English.

122

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix C (5): I think it is very difficult for students to understand if we conduct English conversation practice only in English Translation into Japanese is essential for students to understand high-level English. Group-oriented debate and presentation tasks in English should be encouraged. Group-oriented activities or pair-work practices in English should be implemented more often. The use of Japanese should be allowed when students have a group-based brainstorming session as the pre-stage of the group-oriented presentation. We should not suppress the students’ Japanese use entirely, even if classroom activities are conducted principally in English. I allow my students to use Japanese in the classroom when they struggle to understand English. When students give their opinions in Japanese I translate them into English. When students talk to me in Japanese, I respond to them in English. Please add any comments: Q.7. English-only instruction should be used in the preparation of the university entrance exam. I strongly agree I partly agree I don’t know I partly disagree I strongly disagree Please add any comments: Q.8 What teaching methods do you use in the classroom? Audio-lingual Communicative approach Focus-on-Form Immersion CLIL the use of Can-do lists

123

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix C (6): The CEFR or the CEFR-J based EFL sessions Yakudoku method ＊Please

add any comments:

Q. 9. Which teaching methods do you expect to use in the future? audio-lingual communicative approach focus on form immersion CLIL usage of Can-do lists usage of the CEFR or the CEFR-J Yakudoku Please add any comments: Q. 10. Please indicate what type of school you work in. Public Senior-high school (3 year course) Public junior/senior high school (6 year course) Private senior high school (3 years) Private junior/senior high school (6 years) Private technical school Senmongakko (3 years) Technical highschool Kosen (5 years) Please add any comments: Q.11. Which methods have you experienced in the past, as an English language student yourself ? Yakudoku immersion audio-lingual

124

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix C (7): CLT focus on form CLIL Please add any comments: Q.12. How long have you been a teacher? less than 5 years 5-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 20-25 years 25-30 years more than 30 years Please add any comments:

Thank you very much for your cooperation. Please fill in your e-mail address if you wish to make a further contribution. I may contact you to make a further interview if necessary.

125

ED0014


Tomomi Cope

Appendix C (8): B-2: questionnaire [main part] (Japanese: original) [contents are the same as B-1].

高校英語科の授業をご担当の先生方へ英語で授業についてのアンケートのお願い文部科学省が「グローバル化に対応した英語教育改革実施計画」（平成 25 年 12 月 13 日付）で、中高にて「授業は英語で行う」と提案されていますが、それにつきましてのアンケートでございます。本アンケートは、修士論文のデータに使用されます。個人情報は守られ、本来の研究以外の用途に使用される事は一切ございません。完全に匿名で、データは取り扱われます。また、このアンケートはどの時点でも、止めていただいて構いません。さしつかえない範囲でお答えしていただければ幸甚です。このアンケートはあくまで日本全体からデータをつのった、集計による一般的な意見を調査するものであり、日本の特定の地域、個人的な職場や学校、個人を特定することも、個人を特定するような情報も、公開も、一切ございません。個人情報は厳重に秘匿され、個人情報について論文に反映されることは一切ございません。また、アンケートの詳細の内容につきましては、イギリスレスター大学の倫理審査に事前に合格した品質のものであり、本来の研究に沿ったものとなっております。大変お手数をおかけしますが、よろしくお願い申し上げます。ありがとうございます。 University of Leicester, MA TESOL and Applied Linguistics Cope, Tomomi

問１

「英語で授業」についての質問です。文部科学省が「グローバル化に対応した英語教

育改革実施計画」（平成 25 年 12 月 13 日付）で、中高にて「授業は英語で行う」と提案されましたが、先生ご自身は、その通達以前と、その後と、ご教授のスタイル（教え方）に変化はございましたか。（※必須）１）大きく変化した２）おおむね変化した３）若干変化した４）以前と全く変わらず日本語主体５）通達に関係なく以前から英語主体ご意見（特に４を選ばれた場合、理由を簡単にご教示下さい）

126

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix C (9):

問２

１で、１,２,３を選択された方に質問です。実際の具体的状況として、

あてはまるものを、下記の選択肢からいくつでも、お選びください。（複数回答可）自分は授業中、より多く英語を話すようになった自分は、より積極的に生徒に話しかけるようになった自分は、英語で生徒と会話のやりとりをする事が以前より増加した自分は以前に比べて、英語で事物を説明する時間をかけている生徒に、２つの英文対比の課題を、英語で指示するようになった速読で内容を把握するタスクを、以前よりも増やした生徒が英語で自分の意見を表現する事を、強く勧めるようになった「～しなさい」など生徒への行動指示に英語を使うようになった生徒のペア・グループ活動を、以前よりも強く勧めている授業中日本語は一切使用しないが、授業後日本語解説を配布している普段は日本語で英語を教えていて、自分は教室で英語を余り話さない以前と比べて、自分自身の英語の発音を意識するようになったと思うライティングより、リスニング・スピーキング課題を増やした自分は、以前よりも、自然な英語を話すようになった＊ご意見:

問３

本質問は、問１で、１，２，３，５を選ばれた先生方への質問です。現在ご担当の教室で、先生ご自身が「これはあてはまる」とお思いになるケースを、すべて、次の選択肢からお選びください。（複数回答可）生徒は、以前と比較して、授業により集中するようになった生徒は、以前より活発に英語で意見を発言するようになった生徒がより活発に英語で自己表現する努力がみられるようになった

生徒がこの新しい「英語だけの環境」に楽しんでいる様子が伺える異なる課題は与えても、毎回決まった生徒達だけが参加している

127

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix C (10): 日本人教師の英語を、生徒が耳をかたむける機会が増えた結局、教師である自分だけが、教室で英語を使用している以前より生徒が英語でのペア・グループワークに慣れてきている英語でよく理解できる生徒とそうでない生徒の差が出ているもっと日本語で英語を教えてほしいという生徒の要望もある英語での授業活動について不満を言う生徒がいる事を知っている以前よりも、授業中手を挙げる生徒の数が減った以前より受け身な態度で、授業中ずっと黙っている生徒が増えた

問４多くの研究が、第一言語（L1)の使用（日本人の場合日本語）が、生徒の外国語に役立つと報告されています。先生が、これは有用であるだろうと思われるものを、いくつでも下記からお選びください。（複数回答可）必須訳読（全体的な訳読）日本語と英語の文法的差異を気づかせる練習［グラマー］英 → 日直訳（英語から日本語）英 → 日逐語訳（英語の語順に従って、日本語で訳す）英 → 日意訳（意味をくみ取った高度な日本語訳）カタカナ日本語と英語の発音の違い（音声）日本語と英語の音声面での違いを気づかせる比較練習日本語から英語への訳［英作文］練習日本語の生徒の説明を、教師が英語で口頭で助けて言い換える日本語の生徒の文を、教師が英語で書き直し理解を助ける日本人の英語の発音の聞き取りに慣れさせる日本語で英文法を解説する生徒に英単語を和訳させる（意味調べ）

128

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix C (11): ご意見記入欄：

問５先生のご教授スタイルに該当するものをすべてお選び下さい。（複数回答可）※必須英語の文法事項は日本語のみで説明している英語の文法事項は主に英語で説明し日本語は最小限必要程度に使う英語の文法は英語のみを使って説明している英語の文法構造を日本語の構造と比較して英語で説明している英語の文法構造を日本語の構造と比較して日本語で説明している＊問５についてご自由にご記入下さい。

問６英語を教える時どの程度まで、教師は L1(日本語）を使用するべきだと、思いますか。先生が「そう思う」内容のものを下記からいくつでもお選びください。（複数回答可）※必須どの程度使用するかは、生徒の英語レベル次第である英語レベルが低い生徒には、より多くの日本語を使用するべき英語レベルが高い生徒には、より多くの英語を使用するべき全授業は英語だが、最適なレベルの英語を考えて使用するべき日本語はあくまで「緊急的要素」で使用するべきである日本語は授業以外の課題や家庭の補助課題などでのみ使用する訳読タスクは家庭での宿題のみで、授業中は行わない日英への英作文タスクは家庭での宿題のみ与えるべきである高次元の英語内容理解の為の日本語使用は、教室内では必須である英語だけの会話練習だと、生徒が理解困難だろう高度な内容の英語を理解するために、日本語和訳をする作業は必須である英語での集団ディベート・プレゼンは推進するべきである英語でのグループワーク・ペアワークは頻繁に行うべきである

129

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix C (12): 集団プレゼンする場合、皆で案を練る段階では生徒同士の日本語はよしとする英語原則の授業でも、生徒の日本語使用を完全に抑圧するべきでない英語の理解に困る時は日本語を使用していいと、生徒に伝えている生徒が日本語で発話した時、教師はそれを英語になおす生徒が日本語で話しかけても、教師は英語でしか応答しない

問７大学受験対策は、英語のみでの指導で

おこなうべきである。※必須

１）強く同意する２）部分的に同意する３）わからない４）部分的に同意できない５）まったく同意できない

*

理由をお聞かせください：

問８教室では現在どのような教授法を採用していますか。（複数回答可）※必須オーディオリンガルコミュニカティブ・アプローチフォーカス・オン・フォームイマ―ジョン CLIL（内容言語統合型学習） Can-do リストの使用・活用 CEFR あるいは CEFR-J を使用した授業つくり訳読法

130

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix C (13):

問９将来、使ってみたい教授法をお選びください。（複数回答可）※必須オーディオリンガルコミュニカティブ・アプローチフォーカス・オン・フォームイマ―ジョン CLIL（内容言語統合型学習） Can-do リストの使用・活用 CEFR あるいは CEFR-J を使用した授業つくり訳読法

＊問８および問９について、ご自由にご記入下さい：

問 10 勤務されている学校の種類をお選びください。※必須公立高等学校（３年制）公立中高（６年制）私立高等学校（３年制）私立中高（６年制）専門学校（３年制）高専

問 11 先生ご自身が、過去に、学生として受けたことのある英語の授業形態を教えてください。（複数回答可）※必須訳読方式イマ―ジョンオーディオリンガルコミュニカティブアプローチフォーカス・オン・フォーム CLIL

Appendix C (14):

131

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


問 12 教師としての勤務年数を教えてください。※必須～５年未満～５～９年１０～１４年１５～１９年２０～２４年２５～２９年３０年以上

アンケートご協力ありがとうございました。さらにご協力いただける方は、メールアドレスをご記入ください。追加インタビューをお願いするため、後日ご連絡させていただく場合がございます。よろしくお願いします。

E メール：

ご意見：

132

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix D: C: Follow-up Interview Consent Form Thank you very much for your cooperation. ご記入ありがとうございます

In addition to this questionnaire, I would like to conduct brief follow-up interviews via e-mail, telephone or in person. The interviews will last approximately 15-20 minutes. As with the questionnaire, participants’ real names will not be used be in the final paper so as to ensure confidentiality. You have a right to stop taking any further interviews at any point.

If you are willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview, please enter your name and e-mail address below.

I am willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview:

NAME: __________________________________________ E-MAIL ADDRESS: _________________________________ 133

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix E: 1. Hiragana and Katakana development from Chinese character (Kanji)

あ

安

‘a’ of Hiragana syllabic alphabet

伊

イ ‘i’ of Katakana syllabic alphabet (Ishii, 2011)

Appendix E: 2. 訓点送り仮名 Kunten-Okurigana

2 レ

朋発送

リ

朋有り

よ

遠方より来

住

5

自号・ご

3

遠

4

方

6

来

先の

たる。

。

エンポウヨリキタル

kitaru]

郵便リ名住番二・ご住前・振所・お号・ご所・お込名ご住住号・ご一名先・振前・振所・お所・お一住前・振込み込号・ごタ名名二所・お 1.original sentence ル込日・発先・振住 (Chinese)中国語前・振前・振名発送先・振送方込み 2. Original所・お sentence 込込前・振先の with ‘Kunten Okurigana’ 訓点送り仮名込み法を日・発名先・振先・振郵便 a) 込一＝1 (read firstly) 日・発ご連送方前・振込 b) 先・振二＝2 (read secondly) 込みみ番送絡下法方を込 c) ㇾ=re-ten ㇾ点(mark ‘re’) 日・発日・発込み号・ご法さごを連 d) 先・振リ=い katakana 片仮名 ’ri’リ送送方方日・発住ごませ。 e) 込タル= 絡連下’ta, ru’タルみ katakana 法を法を送方所・お絡下さい日・発ごご連連法を名

enpou yori

所・お

トモアリ

[Tomo a-ri

1

号・ご

有

3.Yomi-kudashi bun 読み下し文 (so-called ‘read-along sentence’) instant transformed style in Japanese 134日本語

(Kamata, et al., 2013)

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix F: A sample of Yakudoku The process of Yakudoku Original sentence

a) The man who cannot be trusted is to society what a rotten beam is to a house. (1) Step 1: Chiku-go Yaku 逐語訳 :word-for-word translation (Fukuyasu, 2014) The man /who cannot be trusted/ is/ to society/ what a rotten beam /is /to a house. b) その男は/信用されることができない/である/社会にとって/腐った梁であること/である/家にとっての。

1

/

2

/

3 /

4

/

5

/

6 /

7

(2) Step 2 : Choku-yaku 直訳(direct translation) (‘literal translation’ (ibid.)): faithful to the original meanings, but more natural order than ‘Chiku-go-yaku’) c) 社会にとって、信用されることができないその男は

4

/

2

/

1

家にとって、腐った梁である。

(3) /

7

/

5

/6

(3) Step 3: I-Yaku 意訳 (in natural Japanese translation) (the final stage of Yakudoku) d)社会にとって、信用されない人は、家にとっての腐った梁と同じである。 e) 信用のできない人物と社会の関係は、腐った梁と家屋の関係に等しい。(Adapted from Okada, 2003). Note: [Okada’s book (2003) displays that ‘sentence e)’ is ‘the correct answer’.]

Note: There are three steps in Yakudoku translations. However, students are required to do ‘I-Yaku (Step 3)’ for the exams, as only (4) is recognised as the ‘perfect’ answer.

135

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix G (1): (Questions and a summary report) * N.B. All participants’ names are pseudonyms. 1.

Q1: This is a question about ‘Teaching English in English language’. In your classroom, have you changed your teaching style (methods) after the MEXT’s announcement?

Changed greatly

7.1

18.1

[n=9

[n=23

21.3 18.9 [n=24

%

[n=27]

Changed mostly

[N=127]

34.6 [n=44]

Q1: Remarks: a) Japanese-instruction supporting group 1. 日本語を介した授業の方が効率的と考えるから。[Zaki] I think Japanese-based classroom is more effective (than English-based one).

2. 中学で成績５段階の１か２をとった生徒がほとんどです。英語ときくとほとんどの生徒が拒絶反応を示しますので、ALTとのT/T以外は、日本語で行っています。[Momo] Our schools’ students are the ones who received the bottom grades (the grade of 1 or 2 of 5) at junior-high schools, so most students dislike English classrooms. That is why I conduct the Japanese-based classrooms apart from some team-teaching sessions with ALTs. 3. 自分自身の英語力の問題。つまり生徒に理解できるようにいかに英語表現をするか、準備をする余裕がない。[Aska] I think this (=the reason why I do not run English-based classrooms) comes from my own problem .I am not confident in my English proficiency to make my students understand. Therefore, I have no room to be ready for English-based classroom.

136

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix G (2): (Questions and a summary report) 4. 英語を母語としない子供に、全部英語でやっても理解しえない。効果的なのは幼児のみ。[Yoko] I think my students don’t understand all-English contents, as their mother tongue is not English. I think the all-English method is only effective to small children. 5.いわゆる底辺高のため、英語での授業はほぼ不可能。 [Rin] It is almost impossible for us to conduct English-based classrooms, as our school is one of the lowest level schools. 6.現任校では、まず、「英語の楽しさをわかってもらう」というところを重点に置いています。そして、それを実践するためには「英語を使用して教える」というのはしばしば障壁になるのではと思います。困難校に勤務経験のある方ならおわかりかもしれませんが、まず生徒のモチベーションが低い。教えた事も次の授業までにはほぼ忘れてしまう。そもそもアルファベットの理解すら怪しい。簡単な単語も読めない。このような状況ではいくら易しい英語といっても限界がある。 [Nao] I think the important thing in the current (lower-graded) school is to make my students understand how English language is fun to learn. In this respect, I think conducting the sessions in English can become a barrier to them. If you have teaching experience at low-level schools, you may understand my feelings. Initially, the students’ motivation level is low in such schools. They easily forget almost everything they have learned by the next lesson. Anyway, many of them are not even able to recognize the alphabet properly. They cannot even read simple words. Under these circumstances, I don’t really think that we are able to conduct an English-based classroom even if we use the plainest English.

Q2: Please indicate how you have changed your teaching by ticking any of the boxes below – choose as many as you like.

137

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix G (3): (questions and a summary report) 1. Q3: Please tick any choice you think applies to you in your current classroom.

2. Q4: Many studies show that using L1 can help students. Please choose any tasks which you think are beneficial to your classroom work.

138

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix G (4): 5. Please choose your teaching styles from the following options.

6.

Q6. To what extent should teachers use L1 when teaching English? Please choose any answers you agree with. (multiple answers accepted) * figures in black: actual responded numbers * figures in green: percentage (%)

139

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix G (5): 7. Q7: English-only instruction should be used in the preparation of the university entrance exam. (See fig 13 on the main text). Q7. Remarks

(N.B. All names are pseudonyms.)

[A] ‘English-only instruction is not useful to Juken’ group a-1)

Aoki : 多くの場合、大学受験で求められる英語の力とは、リーディングとリスニングが大半を占める。ライティングは、大学によって課すところと課さないところがあるし、スピーキングに至ってはまず求められない。そうした受験の現状を鑑みると、生徒のニーズはリーディングとリスニングに偏っている。そのニーズに効率的に応えるには all English の必然性があるとは思えない。 In many cases, reading and listening tasks are what are asked in the university entrance exam as English proficiency. Some universities do not conduct writing tests. Generally, no university gives any speaking tests. If you consider this situation, you will realise that students want us to give preparation only for reading and listening tasks. Given their requests, I don’t see the point in conducting English-only sessions.

a-2) Toshi : センター試験レベルまでは、英語のみでも指導は何とか可能ではあるだろう。しかし、国公立大学の２次試験レベルになると不可能である。設問の仕方が、大きく異なるから、それにあった指導をしないと、生徒の受験対策にならない。 Level-wise, English-only teaching may manage to prepare for the grade of the ‘Center Exam (Center-Shiken)’. However, I think that the grade of the secondary exams of national universities is too high to be conducted with English-only sessions. Their contents are so unique, so students cannot score well (by English-based instruction) unless we give a proper preparation (in Japanese). I assume Japanese instruction is fit for the preparation.

a-3)

Miu: 大学入試に和訳を出題する大学がある以上、ある程度日本語を使って説明した方が良い。また効率も良い。 As far as some universities give Japanese-translation tasks, we need to explain English in Japanese to a certain degree. Japanese-based teaching is also efficient.

140

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix G (6): Q7. Remarks (continued) [A] a-4)

Sasaki: 大学の入試（英語）がかなり変わってきているとはいうものの、語学系以外の入試がそこまで対応しているとは言えないので、短い時間の中での効率性を考えると「英語のみ」はリスクが高い気がします。 Considering the effectiveness within the limited numbers of English sessions at school, I think it is risky to do English-only instructions because non-linguistics faculty’s university entrance exams still require Japanese-involved tasks, despite the fact that the contents of the exams are overall changing drastically.

a-5)

Ryo: 大学受験がＴＯＥＩＣのようなものであれば英語のみの授業も可能だが日本語を使った現在の入試ではムリではなかろうか。 If the entrance exams resemble TOEIC, we could do English-only lessons, but we can’t do so, as the current exams require Japanese.

a-6)

Seika: 高校で学ぶ英文法は、かなりややこしいものが多く、Ｌ１能力なしではすぐに理解ができない。かえって生徒が混乱する。Ｌ２でＬ２を教える（海外）の語学教育では、日本の高校生のように（大学受験に必要な）高度な文法を教えていない。 In senior-high schools in Japan, many items of English grammar are pretty complicated, so students cannot understand the items without the aid of L1 ability. I think English-only instruction makes students very confused, as it fails to help them to understand the complicated rules of grammar. I think that the language education (overseas) taught in L2-exclusively does not teach high-level grammar (that is necessary for the university entrance exams) like Japanese high school students receive.

a-7) Hitoshi: 文科省の指導をどの程度入試問題に反映させるのか全く不明なのに、英語のみの指導でカバーできるというほうが、理にかなっていない。 We have no idea how much the MEXT’s announcement (in 2013) reflects on the contents of the entrance exams. Therefore, it does not make sense that we can manage the whole contents of the exam in English-only teaching.

141

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix G (7): Q7. Remarks (continued) [Ｂ]

A doubt about English-only instruction

b-1) Suguru: ネイティブの ALＴにわかりやすく説明してもらっても、生徒の理解度は低い。いろいろ試してみて、説明は日本語で、学んだ文法を、英作文やスピーキングで表現させるほうが、一番力がつくと考える。 Students do not understand well even if the native speaker ALTs carefully explain the contents in plain English to them. In my personal experience as a teacher, after various attempts, I think the best way to improve students’ English ability is to ask students to express themselves in English in writing and speaking tasks, based upon English grammar that was explained by JTEs in Japanese in advance.

b-2) Riku: 日本語を使ったほうが効率が良い場面では、日本語の使用は排除されるべきでないと考えます。それによって、授業全体における英語の使用が促進されればよいと考えます。 I think we should not exclude the use of Japanese if we encounter the situations when Japanese-instruction is more efficient. I think that if we use Japanese in classrooms in such a way, the overall usage of English throughout the classroom sessions will be promoted.

b-3)

Emi: 生徒が理解あるいは推測可能な英語でないと、英語を使う意味はないと思います。 There is no point to use English in the classroom unless that English is understandable to or guessable by the students.

b-4) Yuka: 「英語で指導」というのは現在の体制が続く限り、教師・生徒の両者にとって負担だと思います。理由は、従来のリーディング・ライティングの課題に加えて、「英語で取り組む」というエキストラ（余分）の負担が求められるからです。 So long as the current system continues, English-based instruction is just a burden for both teachers and students. The reason is ‘dealing with the tasks in English’ is an extra burden on top of the traditional reading and writing tasks.

b-5) Aki: 先生が従来型の授業を英語でするのは反対です。生徒の理解度が低下した上、生徒が英語を使って活動する時間が減るので意味がないと感じている。 I object that JTEs conduct traditional-styled teaching by simply switching the instruction language to English. That way will lower the comprehension levels of students, and it will reduce the spare time of the students’ English activities.

142

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix G (8): Q7. Remarks (continued) b-6) Ichiro: 英語主体の授業≫は全ての生徒に可能だと思いません。トップクラスの高校で英語主体の授業を実施しています。推薦でトップ大学（立命館・中央大学）へ進学していった生徒でさえ、All English の授業は、何かわかったようなわからなかったような、ずっともやもやした気分だった、と言わしめた。Stand up, please. Repeat after me.などの classroom English ならまだしも英語で英語の文法などまで説明を受けて１００％の高校生が理解できるとは到底思えません。下手に文法解説を英語で聴くくらいなら、底の部分は日本語で説明をされて、そこから文法問題や reading の理解をしていったほうがしっかりと理解できる≫と実感したものでした。よって≪教師がかみくだいて、いろいろ工夫≫をしたとしても、ある程度の自ずと限界があろうかと拝察します。 I don’t think that English-only classrooms are for all students. I run English-centered classroom at a top-level high school. I have heard one excellent student to be able to enter the top-tier universities confess that all-English classroom contents were not quite understandable to him. I don’t think 100% of high school students can understand the explanations about English grammar in English. The grammar contents are not like simple classroom instruction language. As my personal experience as a student a long time ago, I could understand English grammar in Japanese very well, and then I felt I could tackle English grammar quizzes and reading comprehension smoothly – rather than be taught English grammar in English-only. I assume that there is some limitation of English-based instruction, regardless of whether any teacher uses various tactics or explains English carefully to students or not.

[C]:

‘English-only instruction is good for Juken’ group

c-1) Takuto: 英語主体の授業は受験に役立つというのは強く同意します。中堅以降の私立大学では古い形態の入試が残るかもしれませんが、既に東大を初めとして、多くの国立大学や難関私大では 4 技能統合の入試を検討しておられます。来年 1 月のセンターはいよいよ新指導要領の元でのオール・イングリッシュに対応したセンター入試が行われるはずですし、多くの難関私大が英検・ＩＥＬＴＳ，ＴＥＡＰ，ＴＯＥＦＬの採用を決めています。今のセンターでも、出題を英語に変えれば、すぐに対応できる、英検 2 級とほぼ同内容の出題となっているので、 4 技能統合入試は加速されるのは間違いないと思われます。 I strongly agree that an English-centred classroom is useful for Juken entrance exam preparation. Probably some middle-level private universities will continue to hold the old-fashioned exams, but some national universities such as Tokyo University and high-level private universities have already considered holding the 4-skill-integrated entrance exams. Moreover, the new ‘Center Exam’ which is adapted to all-English based on the new ’Course of Study’ will be held in 2016, and many high-tier private universities are going to adapt Eiken, IELTS, TEAP and TOEFL scores as substitutions of their entrance exams.

143

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix G (9): Q7. Remarks (continued) (c-1 :continued) I assume that the 4-skill-integrated entrance exams will spread very quickly, as even the current Center Exam is adaptable to the English-based one, as the contents are very similar to Eiken 2nd grade tests (that are formatted in English only).

c-2) Kai: 内容が抽象的な話（概念についてなど）になった場合は、英語であろうと日本語であろうと理解できない状況にはなると思います。しかし、それでも英語での授業は可能であり、日本語の必要性はないと考えています。 When it comes to learning the contents, such as about abstract subjects (or some concepts), the students will not understand the contents whether English-based or Japanese-based instruction is given to them. However, I think English-centered lessons are still able to be conducted in this situation; we do not need any Japanese in the classroom.

[D] Other opinions d-1) Haruka: 結局のところ、英語で英語の授業を行って、素晴らしい授業をされる先生もいれば、そうでない先生もいます。従来型でも活動が多く、生徒の英語能力（言語的能力及びコミュニケーション能力）のつく授業をされている先生もいるので、日本語の使用だけで授業の良しあしは決まらないのではないかとも考えています。 After all, some teachers who teach English in English run great lessons, and some don’t. Nevertheless, there are also teachers who conduct very traditional style, but who always give plenty of students’ activities and successfully promote students’ English competence (linguistic competence and communicative competence). Therefore, I think the use of Japanese language do not determine the quality of classroom sessions.

d-2) Yumi : 英語の時間に英語を使用するということに期待をしている生徒たちもいると思います。ＥＦＬ環境の日本では英語を使用する機会が日常で存在しないからです。そんな子供達を前に、日本語を使用して英語の授業をするというのは生徒たちがガッカリすると思います。学びたいというモチベーションの低下につながるのではないでしょうか。 I think some students love English and expect to use English in English classrooms. In Japan, as an EFL environment, there is no chance to use any English in daily life. So, the teachers may let them down if they dare to use Japanese to teach English. Japanese use in English classrooms may demotivate the students who want to learn English.

144

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix G (10): Q7. Remarks (continued) d-3) Teru: 生徒の英語能力が低くても、英語で参加したいという意思があるならば、英語主体で行っても構わないと思います。 As far as the students have intentions to join the classroom in English, I think conducting the classroom in English is no problem for even low level students.

145

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix G (11): 8. Q8: What teaching methods do you use in the classroom?

9. Which teaching methods do you expect to use in the future?

146

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix G (12): 10. Q10: Please indicate what type of school you work in.

11. Which methods have you experienced in the past, as an English language student yourself? (See fig 12 on the main text). 12. How long have you been a teacher? (See fig 12 on the main text).

147

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix H (1): the Follow-up Interviews: Question 1: 普段の、英語主体の授業の進め方、英語主体授業の成功の秘訣についてのお考えを、具体的に教えてください。また従来との違いなどお気づきの点をお聞かせ下さい。

Q: Please tell me your ways to conduct the English-centred classrooms. Please state any remarks of English-based classrooms especially in respect of the comparison to the traditional teaching. 1. 1) [Interviewee 1 (Masao)]: 話している間に、英語の間違いがあっても、誤りを正すことは殆どせず、相槌を打ち、話が継続するような場の雰囲気を作るように配慮しています。

I usually let students speak without correcting their English errors even I notice them. I always consider creating a good atmosphere in the classroom, to enable students to converse continuously in English. I often nod and display my agreement to the students who are speaking English.

2) [Interviewee 2 (Toyo)]: 英語で話すとき、スピードはあまり気にせず、ややゆっくり程度です。単語に関しては極力やさしい単語に置き換えています。構文・熟語をピックアップしたポイントのプリントは先渡ししておきます。

I talk to students in English a little slowly. I don’t’ care about my speech rate in English. However, I try to use plainer English words when I speak to them. I give out some handouts about the sentence structures and idioms before the classes.

3) [Interviewee 3 (Kou: the teacher who accepted a classroom observation)]: 授業では生徒は、日本語は話してはいけないという雰囲気が徹底しています。文法事項や、理解が難解な英文説明ですが、語学原理的観点から、日本語で説明しますが、板書は英語でします。補助プリントも英語のみ書いてあります。日本語を用いないと英語が理解できないという生徒を育てないようにしています。既習事項の応用で気付かせることができるものがあれば、英語のみで説明しています。読解にはretellingを多用しています。キーワードをいくつか探させ、それ以外はできるだけ原文にない語を用いてretellするようにしています。何回か繰り返しretellさせた後、生徒が自分で話したことを思い出してノートに書き取らせ、ノート回収して添削し、理解度も同等にはかるようにしています。 Speaking→Writingという方針を徹底しています。英英辞書は薦めていますが強制はしていません。英単語を英語で説明させ、その後英英辞書の説明を読み上げ書き取らせるということをしています。

148

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix H (2) the Follow-up Interviews: In my classroom, students think speaking Japanese is prohibited. I use Japanese to explain English grammar and difficult English expressions that are hard to understand only in English, from the viewpoint of linguistics perspectives. However, I only write English explanations in English (not in Japanese) on the blackboard. My handouts are written in English, too. I do not want to create students who become dependent on Japanese all the time to understand English. I attempt to explain the linguistic items learnt before in English. I often do retelling as an English comprehension task. Initially, I ask students to find keywords, and then, I retell the contents with the words that do not appear in the textbooks, except the keywords in front of the students. After several retellings, I ask the students to write down the contents they remember, and then I collect their notebooks to check how much they understand the contents. I utilise this “Speaking →Writing” process as a norm. Although I don’t force the students to use an English-English dictionary, I encourage them to use it. I often let them explain an English word in English, and I read a definition that is in the English-English dictionary and ask them to write the definition.

4) [Interviewee 4 (Kei)]: 訳読式の授業をしますと、本文に置かれていることに焦点が置かれます。つまり内容把握だけをすることになります。そうすると、生徒の考えや意見を問うという所まで授業はできません。また、仮に意見を問うことができたとしても、生徒は日本語で意見や考えを考え、それを英訳するという作業に終始してしまい、即興性が欠け、時間を要する作業になります。また、訳読式だと英語の理解を超えて、国語力が多く問われていきます。英語を直訳すると意味がよくわからないだとか、日本語だと言わない表現になったりします。そのため、英語→和訳→日本語というように段階を増やしてしまうことになっています。そのような意味で英語主体の授業は、１．英語から日本語にするタイムロスを省ける２．英語のひらめきが速くなる３．状況処理ができるようになる、などのいろいろなメリットがあると思われます。

Yakudoku-based practice focuses on what exactly is stated in the textbook. In other words, students are only expected to comprehend the contents of the main texts. When we conduct such Yakudoku practice, we do not really have any spare time to ask students to express their thoughts or opinions. Furthermore, even if we have a chance to ask the students’ opinions, it is very time consuming to get their opinions as what they do is to compose the sentences in L1 first, and then they translate the L1 sentences into L2. It lacks improvisations. Anyway, Yakudoku needs L1-proficiency, which is a different ability from English comprehension. The Japanese sentences translated directly from English often do not make sense at all, or often turns into strange expressions that do not exist in L1. Therefore, we have to take further steps to modify the direct translations into more natural ones: English→Direct Translation→ Natural Japanese. In this respect, English-based classroom has various advantages, such as it: 1. 2. 3.

saves time as it omits the English→Japanese conversion process promotes students’ more inspirational practices in English enables the students to get more prompt reactions in English.

149

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix H (3) the Follow-up Interviews: 5) [Interviewee 5: Ken] リスニング・スピーキング・ライティング・リーディングの４分野それぞれでの英語主体授業の利点を説明したいと思います。 I’d like to explain the strength of conducting the English-based classrooms in four fields: Listening, Speaking, Writing and Reading. a) Listening:教師の用いる英語の音声上、文法上の correctness が求められますが、

リスニング力向上には寄与していると思われます。 Listening: I think the English-based classrooms contribute to improve students’ listening ability. Teachers need to offer the correctness of articulating English words in respect of pronunciation and grammar to students though. b) Speaking: 生徒のスピーキング活動には、要約力との関連があるのではないかと思います。特に時間を区切ってのスピーキング活動を同じトピックについて繰り返すと、内容が洗練されていきます。また、クラスメイトの用いる表現から学ぶことができます。

Speaking: I think there is a relationship between the students’ speaking activities and the students’ digesting ability of the contents. Eventually, their contents will get sophisticated after the students repeat the several speaking activities about the same topic repeatedly. c) Writing: ライティングについては、生徒の様子を見ていると、how to write(文法など)より、what to write about(内容)に苦しむようです。上記のように、スピーキング活動を繰り返してから書き始めるとスムーズのようです。この統合的活動を繰り返すと、短時間で自分の意見をまとめる能力の向上に影響があるのではないかと思っております。

Writing: I think my students struggle with ‘what to write about (contents)’ rather than ‘how to write (grammar, etc.). Doing repetitive speaking activities are effective to solve the problem. If they repeat these integrated activities, I think it would contribute to improve the ability of digesting their opinions within short time. d) Reading: リーディングについては、生徒がつまづきやすいポイントを、シンプルな英語で言い換えたりして(あたかも小学校の国語の授業のように)、読み聞かせたり、絵や図を交えて教師が話したりすることで、様々な読みの仕方を提示できるのではないでしょうか。

Reading:

I think teachers can offer various ways of reading. For example, in using plain English (just like the Japanese language classrooms at primary schools), or giving explanations with the aid of pictures or graphics for the points that students tend to get confused.

150

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix H (4) the Follow-up Interviews: Question2: 英語主体で授業を展開されているということですが、生徒の理解度のばらつきを気が付かれた場合、どのようにフォローされていますか。

You say you conduct English-centred classroom. What do you do if you find some students do not understand the contents very well?

2. Responses: 1) [Interviewee 5: Ken] 授業中の対策、授業後（課題や補助プリントなど）の対策に分けて回答します。平素より、グループ学習(協同学習)で授業を展開しておりますので、授業中では、グループ内での教えあいを促しております。グループ内で解決できないときは、別のグループに教えを請うて良い時間を取っています。

I’d like to explain the follow-ups during the classrooms and after the classroom (homeroom tasks or handouts). As I generally conduct group-oriented learning (cooperative learning)-based classrooms, I encourage my students to teach each other among the same group members. I also give extra time to ask a group to another group, if they are not able to solve a particular question. 授業後には、プリントを投げ込みで入れたりします。

After classrooms, I occasionally give extra handouts to students.

2) [Interviewee 6(Keiko)]: 英語主体で理解の進まない生徒についてですが、英語を平易な表現にして説明することもします。それと、難易度によりけりかと思いますが、よく行う方法としては peer teaching をとります。（願わくば英語でと言いたいですが、現状では日本語で行っています。）その際にお互いにわからないところを補いあったりするのでいいのではないかと思っています。（ただし、ペアについては組み合わせを考えなければならないときがあります。ティーンエイジャー特有の仲の良さ悪さが影響される場合があるからです。）

I often retell the contents of the textbooks with plainer English expressions, and explain the contents to the students who do not understand English well. Additionally, although depending on the levels of the contents, I often use a ‘peer-teaching’ method. (Currently my students do peer-teaching sessions in Japanese, but, to be honest, I want them to do it in English (in the future)). I think peer-teaching session is good as the students can clarify unclear points by conversing with each other during the session. (However, I sometimes have to select the peer-teaching members very carefully, because some students are on some ‘teen-age’ related difficult relationships.)

151

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix H (5): 5) [Interviewee 6 (Tsuyoshi: a CLIL teacher)]

協調学習でクラスの人数が多い時の留意点は以下のように考えています。１）全グループに、活動のゴールを明確にしめす。ゴールに向けての活動手順を活動前に徹底して理解させる。２）グループ活動中に教師はfacilitatorとして教師対各グループのoral workを通じて生徒がプロダクションで使用する英語表現についての援助を行う。あとは活動が成立する前提として、普段からOral Workにより、授業中の英語の使用に慣れさせておくこと、および、グループワークができるクラスの雰囲気や人間関係は必要だろうと思われます。 Retelling with 100% new information: グループを組み替え、最初のグループで得た情報を交換する活動は通常の授業でも行っているStory retellingのような活動をイメージしています。一斉授業のretellingでは、普通はすでに情報を共有してしまっているので、新たな内容を追加しない限り新情報はゼロで、発表後に質疑をする必然性が生じません。問答の練習の質疑という感じになってしまいますが、これを「協調学習」の中で行うと、 Retellingの内容が１００%新情報なので、生徒同士で質問し合う必然性が生じて、よい言語活動になると、最近感じております。 I think there are two points to do successful “cooperative learning” in a large-sized classroom: 1) Indicate the activity goal to each group. Explain the procedures they need to reach the activity goal before starting the activity. 2) Teachers should become facilitators, and assist the students with their English expressions used in the production, through teacher-group mutual oral work. I would like to exemplify a story retelling activity. That is that I change the members of a group, and then the students exchange the information obtained by the first group. Usually, we do not feel the necessity to do a question & answer session when we do the classroom-based retelling activities, as the information is what we have already shared and therefore, it is not new information unless new contents are added. It is like a question-answer practice. However, we can expect a fresh, good linguistic activity when we do a retelling activity within the frame of ‘cooperative learning’, as the information is 100% new and students feel necessity to exchange the information with each other.

152

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix: I : The textbook pages used for the Kou’s classroom observation a) a textbook [Norman Rockwell’s ‘The Problem We All Live With’]

(Tanabe, et al., 40 and 41, 2014) b) Questions about the textbook a)

Answer the following questions. 1. What is probably written in a letter in a man’s pocket? 2. Why can we feel Ruby’s isolation and her determination to go to school?

3. Why do you think the word on the wall was disappearing?

153

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix J: Transcription Conversion System 1, 2

number of extract

1b, 1c

interaction which follows immediately after previous extract

01, 02

speaker turn

T

teacher

S1, S2

unknown students

Sg

students in a group

[]

overlapping speech

/, //, ///

pause (length in seconds)

bold

emphasis given by speaker

(xxx)

unintelligible speech

(hello)

guessed speech

{

}

activity associated with the speech

interpretive comment

Italics

translation of original speech in vernacular

NB.

All names of teachers and students are pseudonyms.

(Adopted by Barnard and McLellan, 2014).

154

ED0014

Tomomi Cope


Appendix K (1): Transcript [Excel file] -

See a separated Excel file named ‘Appendix K - Transcript’.

Appendix K (2): Audio-recording of a classroom observation [MP3 file] -

See a separated MP3 file named ‘Appendix K – audio-recording’.

Appendix L: Kou’s response of the questionnaire [PDF file] -

See a separated PDF file named ‘Appendix J – Kou’s response’

155