Over the past twenty years in ubiquitous Letter-to- the-Editor columns,
English teaching conferences, Monbusho back rooms, and endless scuttlebutt
ema- nating from the after-hours haunts of foreign English teachers in Japan,
the demonizing of the Japanese English teacher has been relentless and complete.
So much is this so that it is almost difficult to find even one so vilified,
a Japanese English teacher him- or herself, who has much good to say about
his or her English language ability or teaching skills. It has become so
commonplace to complain about the state of secondary school English teaching
in Japan that it now serves as a topical "given," the default
departure point for the familiar litany of complaints.
First and foremost among these is the widespread argument that, despite
six years of formal teaching, most Japanese students still have difficulty
in carrying out conversations with native English speakers. Why this should
come as a shock to anyone is the real question. If one argues that an ability
to apply an academic skill comfortably to real life situations should be
expected of high school graduates, why are teachers of physics, chemistry,
history etc. not likewise criti- cized? After all, given six years of sociology
how many high school graduates can apply this knowledge in a productive
way in society? After ten years of math or science, how many high school
graduates would feel comfortable designing a bridge or predicting the effect
of climate on flora? The point is . . . do any high school subjects
lead to students being able to use the fruits of those lessons on a daily
basis in society? No! So why then is it expected that students who have
studied English are expected to maintain a functional, or even expert, native-like
level of skill in society?
Next comes the oft-heard claim that Japanese English teachers are rooted
in either outdated audio-lingual paradigms or mired in the (gasp!) grammar-translation
method. Unfortunately, this over-generalization leads to not a small amount
of smugness on the part of newly arrived foreign teachers in Japan, oozing
with sopho- moric hubris in being able to show the Japanese English teachers,
many of whom have ten to twenty years classroom experience, how to "do
it right." If some resistance is felt by the veteran Japanese English
teacher to the newcomers fresh out of their home country's college system,
it is entirely understandable.
I have given or been involved with presentations geared towards Japanese
secondary school teachers all over Japan for some years now and have been
pleas- antly surprised by the willingness Japanese teachers have shown to
attend these seminars (despite their very busy schedules), and to make concerted
efforts to adapt new methodologies to their classes. Doubtless, vestiges
of unshakable tradition remain entrenched, but the sense of change in classrooms
over the past decade has been palpable. The image of the hapless Japanese
English teacher, still believing that the gram- mar-translation method is
current and effective, is quickly becoming an outdated stereotype.
Third, and perhaps most interestingly, I wonder if all such methodologies
and practices are really so utterly hopeless. I ask this because noted English
scholars such as Michael McCarthy, Michael Lewis and Terry Shortall are
currently restating the value of drills and the use of grammatical prototypes
as a classroom necessity. McCarthy has argued that basic rote memorization
is just about the only way a vocabulary foundation can be established, a
solid basis that will then allow for more complex and varied lexical development
at later stages. Lewis has often criticized the shortsightedness of the
"communicative" methodn as carried out by many teachers assuming
to be "progressive." After all Lewis argues, if the teacher is
merely providing "motivating" contexts for the students to chat
in, where is the new language input? Won't students simply regurgitate the
tired old, incomplete vocabulary, structures and discourse patterns they've
been stuck with for years? Shortall has pointed out the value of utilizing
grammatical proto- types, despite popular ridicule that certain models of
language are not particularly representative of real-life discourse. He
argues that grammatical prototypes are perfectly acceptable as classroom
texts at an early stage, because they provide good support for cognitive
linguistic categories (provided that learners then proceed to authentic
texts thereafter). Moreover, numerous scholars are now recognizing the importance
of a phonologi- cal "loop" in language acquisition, further legitimizing
the role of drills and rote memorization .
Finally, what is the purpose of English education in Japan's secondary
schools? Monbusho itself seems some- what schizophrenic on this question,
paying lip service to the necessity of "communicative skills"
while doing little to lessen teachers' curricula burdens nor using much
muscle in influencing the design of university entrance exams. But one has
to wonder why so many unquestioningly believe that the primary purpose of
secondary English education should be to produce people who can communicate
to the world in English? After all, the primary purpose of teaching geometry
is not to produce students who can apply these skills to engineering or
architecture!
Rather, it would seem that the purpose of educating students in secondary
schools is the belief that it gives them a grounding in general cognitive
discipline that provides a foundation for real learning at a later stage.
(One could refer to it as "learning how to learn.") So then, why
should English be treated differently and thus scapegoated for its supposedly
outdated and un- productive methods? Why is the success of English alone
measured as if it were a vocational school subject?
Are Japanese English teachers really that bad? No. When my students arrive
at the university level they have a basic grounding in grammar, vocabulary,
spell- ing and pronunciation, just as they are expected to display rudimentary,
not expert, skills when they begin their university biology or history courses.
If the students arrive with these basic skills, and we should really expect
no more, I think it's high time that we start talking about what the secondary
school English teachers are doing right!