The past few decades have seen a gradual shift in the focus of education
related research, from that based solely on a teaching perspective to that
which incorporates a learning perspective as well. The former prioritizes
content, curriculum, and teacher role in the instruction process, while
the latter considers the importance of the learner and their role in the
learning process. This new orientation has generated new insights into the
practice of foreign language education, bringing about a shift in teaching
from that which is totally grammar-based and teacher-centered to that which
is increasingly needs-based and learner-centered. As Weaver and Cohen (1998)
point out, inherent in this shift is a change in the responsibilities of
both teachers and students. No longer does the teacher control every aspect
of the education process, rather the learners share the responsibility for
successful language learning. As Usuki (1999) pointed out, students themselves
"think that the students' role should be that of an active learner
and the teachers' role that of facilitator or advisor" (p. 7).
The purpose of this study is to consider various elements of language
education from a learning perspective, including both the teacher's viewpoint
and the learner's viewpoint. The research considers teaching practices,
educational philosophy, and teacher and student roles, as well as ideas
regarding how to improve learning. While not directly comparing the responses
of these two groups, the results do highlight the similarities and discrepancies
between them, identifying the areas on which we should focus in our attempts
to improve English education in Japan from a learning-centered perspective.
Two Surveys
The findings reported herein are based on two written surveys of similar
organization and content, one of Aomori prefectural high school teachers
(N = 116; 72% return rate by high school) and the other of first and second
year Hirosaki University students enrolled in English language classes (N
= 68). The surveys were provided in Japanese, co-written by a Japanese high
school English teacher and myself, and subjected to pre-testing by six graduate
students at Hirosaki University, of which four are high school English teachers.
In reporting on surveys which cross the gap existing between high school
and university education, these results represent the potentially very different
perspectives characterizing education in Japan. In that sense, the results
are not comparative, but rather contrastive. The high school English teacher
survey can be considered representative of the traditional educator's perspective,
in Japan that characterized by Gorsuch (1998) as dominated by a yakudoku
methodology, which she characterizes as classroom instruction based on intensive
reading of linguistically difficult textbooks with unfamiliar content, and
translation of English into Japanese, having Japanese as the language of
instruction in teacher-centered classes with no expectations and few opportunities
for students to produce English, and conformity in translations and responses
and frequent test-based assessment of students. On the other hand, the university
student survey can be considered representative of the learner's perspective,
hopefully addressing some of the stereotypes Susser (1998) pointed out researchers
have come to take for granted. University students were chosen to represent
the student response on the basis that their answers can be considered as
reflecting the breadth of the educational experience in Japan. Although
representative of different educational levels and institutions, the findings
from such contrastive surveys can provide insight into the relative learning-centeredness
of each group and identify their respective ideas concerning improving English
language education in Japan.
The surveys consisted of statements concerning course management (curriculum
design factors, class materials, and student evaluation), educational philosophy
(teaching-centeredness versus learning-centeredness and the respective roles
of the teacher and learner), and English language learning improvement (various
means for improving learners' overall learning skills and foreign language
learning skills). In order to identify the subtle balance between specific
survey items and still yield rankings of items, responses are based on a
five-point Likert scale with five indicating the positive response (important,
frequent, agree), three indicating a neutral response, and one indicating
the negative response (not important, not frequent, disagree). The figures
reported indicate mean responses.
Survey Findings
The age representation of high school teachers was relatively uniform
across age groupings, with 24 percent of the respondents in their 20s, 26
percent in their 30s, 30 percent in their 40s, and 17 percent in their 50s.
Eighty percent of the high school teachers reported holding a Bachelor's
degree, with 17 percent holding a Master's degree. Ten percent reported
membership in some sort of academic association, with 88 percent indicating
non-membership (figures do not equal 100 percent due to "no-answer"
responses).
Table 1. Educational philosophy: Teacher versus Learner-Centeredness
learning.
Student survey respondents were comprised of first and second-year university
students, with first-year students accounting for 54 percent and second-year
students 46 percent. The majority of respondents were from the Faculty of
Education (72%), with 18 percent from the Faculty of Humanities, seven percent
from the Faculty of Science and Technology, and the remainder from the Faculties
of Agriculture and Medicine.
1. Course Management/ Learning Management
The most important items cited by the high school teachers in their curriculum
design were "school-based curriculum" (3.81), "self-designed
curriculum" (3.79), and "assessment of student needs" (3.68).
The top elements cited by the university students in managing their learning
were "professorial guidance" (4.57), followed by "self-designed
study planning" (4.03) and "department-based curriculum"
(4.03).
The most important items cited by the high school teachers in conducting
classes were "the Ministry of Education-approved textbook" (3.73),
"realia" (3.62), "educational materials" (3.56), and
"supplementary texts or materials" (3.44). The items of most importance
for the university students in their classes were "realia" (4.19),
"educational materials" (4.06), and "professor-supplied textbook"
(4.07), followed by "self-supplied texts or materials" (3.50).
The most important means of evaluating students cited by teachers were
'one final examination' (4.62), followed by "class participation by
students" (4.24) and "multiple quizzes" (4.05), ahead of
"teacher-developed homework" (3.91), "textbook-based homework"
(3.62), "communicative language use" (3.56) and "subjective
evaluation of progress" (2.91). The most important aspects of being
graded from the university student perspective were "class participation"
(4.57), followed by "evaluation of communicative language use"
(4.31), "multiple quizzes" (3.94), "evaluation of student-produced
study materials" (3.87), "one final examination on textbook material"
(3.90), "evaluation of textbook-based homework" (3.68) and "subjective
appraisal of progress' (2.91).
No longer does the teacher control every aspect of
the education process.
In terms of management of teaching and learning, the results show that
the teachers, for the most part, conduct classes using a traditional, teaching-centered
approach based on a uniform curriculum, text, and evaluation formula, initially
confirming Gorsuch's (1998) portrayal of Japanese high school English education
as based on a yakudoku methodology. However, there also appears to
be a latent learning-centered mentality, as seen in the responses alluding
to use of a self-designed curriculum and assessment of student need, use
of realia and educational materials, and evaluation based on participation.
Learners, on the other hand, appear to expect teacher guidance in directing
their learning on the one hand, but conversely look to the use of realia
as learning material (ahead of texts, either teacher provided or self-supplied)
and class participation and language use as the preferred means of evaluation
on the other. It is interesting to note that while neither teacher nor student
advocate purely subjective evaluation of progress, both saw class participation
as important and the student respondents further saw evaluation of communicative
language use as important in student evaluation, both of which have subjective
qualities to them.
2. Educational Philosophy and Teacher-Student Roles
Using an attitude scale format based on 12 contrasting statements, the
teacher survey identified (see Table 1 for full survey responses and mean
responses):
(1) two indicators which pointed toward a teaching-centered philosophy
(statements 1a/b: "testing" over "observation" as "the
best measure of learning progress" and statements 9a/b: "fundamentals
of language" over "how to study and learning" as "the
most important thing to teach");
(2) two indicators which pointed toward ambivalence regarding educational
centeredness, where no significant difference was found between responses
to contrasting statements (statements 4a/b: "teacher instruction and
explanation" and "self-discovery" as "required for successful
learning," and statements 5a/b: "even with the proper materials,
students do not know how to learn" and "given the proper materials,
students know how to learn");
(3) five indicators which pointed toward a learning-centered philosophy
(statements 6a/b: "student effort" over "teacher effort"
in "determining student success," statements 8a/b: "learner
interaction" over "teacher instruction" as "preferable
class activities," statements 2a/b: "flexibility and response
to student needs are important' over "following the set curriculum
is important," statements 7a/b: "there are many ways to learn"
over "there is one way to learn," and statements 3a/b: "independent
study" over "teacher instruction" as "important for
effective learning"); and
(4) a 'teaching-centered educational philosophy' attitudinal mean score
of 32.85 (s.d. 4.87) (out of maximum score of 50) countered by a 'learning-centered
educational philosophy' attitudinal mean score of 39.13 (s.d. 4.52) on the
part of the teachers.
Using the same attitude scale approach, the student survey identified:
(1) six indicators which pointed toward a learning-centered philosophy
(statements 2a/b: "flexibility and response to student needs are important"
over "following the set curriculum is important," statements 6a/b:
"student effort" over "teacher effort" in "determining
student success," statements 8a/b: "learner interaction"
over "teacher instruction" as "preferable class activities,"
statements 3a/b: "independent study" over "teacher instruction"
as "important for effective learning," statements 7a/b: "there
are many ways to learn" over "there is one way to learn,"
and statements 1a/b: "observation" over "testing" as
"the best measure of learning progress");
(2) three indicators showing ambivalence regarding educational centeredness,
where, as above, no significant difference was found between responses to
opposing statements (statements 4a/b: "teacher instruction and explanation"
and "self-discovery" as "required for successful learning,"
statements 9a/b: "fundamentals of language" and "how to study
and learn" as "the most important thing to teach," and statements
5a/b: "even with the proper materials, students do not know how to
learn" and "given the proper materials, students know how to learn");
and
(3) a "teaching-centered educational philosophy" attitudinal
mean score of 30.81 (s.d. 4.57) (out of maximum score of 50) countered by
a "learning-centered educational philosophy" attitudinal mean
score of 38.69 (s.d. 4.38) on the part of the students.
Table 2. Teacher and Student Roles
explain the content of the course and textbook.
assign homework and develop tests.
correct student's mistakes.
identify and address students difficulties.
develop appropriate learning strategies & materials.
organize and coordinate student learning activities.
listen and take notes in class.
complete the homework and pass the tests.
correct mistakes and seek perfection.
seek feedback and help from the teacher.
develop effective learning behaviors.
learn to study on his or her own.
Note: Te = Teacher Survey (N = 116); St = University Student Survey
clear="ALL">(N = 68); all responses based on 5-pt Likert scale
"ALL">(5 = positive response, 3 = neutral, 1 = negative)
The teacher survey revealed that the principal teacher roles in the minds
of teachers were "identifying and addressing student difficulties"
(4.22), "developing appropriate learning strategies and materials"
(4.11), and "organizing and coordinating student learning activities"
(4.04), with the principal learner roles as "learning to study on his
or her own" (4.59) and "developing effective learning behaviors"
(4.34), as shown in Table 2. The student survey identified the principal
teacher roles in the minds of the students as "identifying and addressing
student difficulties" (4.42), "developing appropriate learning
strategies and materials" (3.95), and "organizing and coordinating
student learning activities" (3.52), with the principal learner roles
as being "developing effective learning behaviors" (4.44) and
"learning to study on his or her own" (4.39).
Summarizing these results, not only do both teachers and learners profess
a learning-centered orientation and see the teacher's role as identifying
and addressing student difficulty, developing learning materials, and coordinating
student activities, with the learner's role being learning to study autonomously
and developing effective learning behaviors, they do so to a strikingly
similar degree. The only significant areas of differences between the two
groups concern "testing" versus "observation" as "the
best means of evaluation" and teacher focus on teaching the "fundamentals
of the language" rather than "how to study and learn the language."
In addition, it is significant to note that students were ambivalent in
responses concerning both "instruction and explanation" versus
"self-discovery" as "required for successful learning"
and their "ability to learn on their own," calling into question
students' confidence in activating their attitudes.
3. English Language Learning Improvement
Responses regarding the most important means by which both learning skills
in general and English language learning can be improved were virtually
identical. The surveys showed that the most important means by which learning
skills can be improved were seen in "improving student attitudes toward
learning" (teachers: 4.31, students: 4.41), "improving the understanding
of the fundamental processes of learning" (teachers: 4.31, students:
4.32), and "improving the planning and management of the learning process"
(teachers: 4.25, students: 3.98), as shown in Table 3.
The elements cited as important in improving English language learning
were similar as well, seen as improving "student attitudes toward learning"
(teachers: 4.58, students: 4.70) and "class curriculum and management"
(teachers: 4.48, students: 4.47), followed by improving "the design
and quality of textbooks" (teachers: 3.88, students: 3.70) and "teacher
training" (teachers: 3.90 students: 3.70).
From these results, it is apparent that both teachers and students focus
on student "attitudes" over both teacher and student "know-how."
In responses to both how to improve learning in general as well as English
language learning, "attitude improvement" was the most cited response,
followed by improvements in either teacher know-how ("class curriculum
and management") or student know-how ("processes of learning and
learning management").
Implications
There are several broad implications that can be taken from the surveys
with regard to improving learning from a learning perspective. First, it
is clear that achieving a learning-centered approach to English education
is possible. From the results of the two surveys, it is clear that both
teachers and students in Japan do possess a learning-centered consciousness.
That consciousness can be seen in the overall learning-centeredness attitude
scores as compared to the teaching-centered scores, as well as in responses
supporting the notions that the effort on behalf of students determine their
own success, that class time should be for learning-directed interaction
and practice on the part of the student, that there are many both individual
and independent ways of learning, and that flexibility and response to student
needs on the part of the teacher are important in learning. The roles ascribed
both teachers and students in both surveys reflect this learning-centered
orientation, with teachers seen as learning facilitators rather than simply
content providers, homework providers, and test givers, and students seen
as active and independent learners, instead of note-takers, homework doers,
and assistance seekers.
Table 3. English Language Learning Improvement
Improve attitudes toward learning
Understanding fundamental processes of learning
Planning and management of learning
Improving memorization of content to be learned
Improving student attitudes toward learning
Class curriculum and management
Improving teacher training
Design and quality of textbooks
Note: Note: Te = Teacher Survey (N = 116); St = University Student Survey
clear="ALL">(N = 68); all responses based on 5-pt Likert scale
"ALL">(5 = positive response, 3 = neutral, 1 = negative)
However, it is also clear that dependence on the traditional model of
teacher-centered education, that based on a teaching perspective (and that
outlined by Gorsuch, 1998), persists for both teachers and students. Teachers
(understandably) admitted a philosophical preference for teaching the fundamentals
of the language and a practical belief that testing was the best measure
of progress. Neither teachers nor, more importantly, students indicated
believing that learner self-discovery was preferable to teacher instruction
and explanation, or that learners were capable of learning on their own.
These results point to an orientation based on what can be characterized
as hierarchical educational dependence, with the teachers looking
toward the school-based curriculum, the Ministry of Education textbook,
and purely-objective testing regimens to organize their teaching, and the
students looking toward the teacher to organize their learning.
Finally, it was clear that attitude was seen as more important than either
teaching or learning. Indeed, the attitude of the learner towards the target
language, its speakers, and the learning context undoubtedly plays an important
part in learner success. However, as pointed out by Mitchell and Myles (1998),
attitude maintenance is the more pressing problem, one they see addressed
by motivation. To improve learning, the question of becomes how to increase
and maintain motivation, how to inculcate students with the motivation to
"want to achieve a particular goal and devote considerable effort to
achieving that goal" (Gardner and MacIntyre, 1992, p. 2). As Cohen
(1998) pointed out in his book on strategy use in language learning, motivation
to use strategies can be generated by pointing out to students that strategy
use can make learning easier, and then maintained by giving the learners
increasing levels of control over strategy use. Using this reasoning, rather
than viewing improved attitude as a necessary precursor to learning, attitude
should be thought of as a variable that improves along with the motivation
generated by the promise of improved learning in a learning-centered educational
environment.
Usuki (1999) stated that she believed that "the most important thing
to consider [in language teaching methods] is the responsibility of a teacher
as a teacher and a learner as a learner; self-direction of their own roles
as teachers and learners" (p. 33). The results of the present survey
point to the responsibility teachers and learners can take in fulfilling
their respective roles in a learning-oriented educational setting. First,
both teachers and students should work to complete the philosophical shift
toward a learning-centered consciousness. For both groups, this means recognizing
the importance of student self-discovery as an element of their learning
success and working to increase student confidence in their own capability
to learn. Increasing the number of opportunities for independent or student-directed
study, together with affective reinforcements by teachers as students engage
in such study, may generate this confidence. Further, teachers should recognize
the value of homework and student-produced material as a means of course
evaluation. Second, both should seek a balance between objectivity and subjectivity,
in terms of both the organization and the evaluation of the learning. In
terms of actual practice, teachers should increasingly employ their own,
relatively subjective curriculum and develop their own materials on the
basis of what they believe to be necessary in their own classrooms. Learners,
on the other hand, must accept the reality of subjective elements inherent
in learning-centered language learning and work to develop their own, individual
approach to language learning. Third, both teachers and learners should
consider that a positive attitude on the part of learners toward learning
does not necessarily preface learning, nor ensure success in learning. Rather,
a positive attitude can be generated by both an understanding of the fundamentals
of learning and some degree of learner control of the learning process;
both important elements of a learning-centered approach.
This means recognizing the importance of student self-discovery
as an element of their learning success.
The writer wishes to thank Noro Tokuji of Aomori Minami High School
and the graduate students of Hirosaki University Faculty of Education English
Department for their assistance in the preparation of this survey.
References
Cohen, A. D. (Ed.) (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second
language. London: Longman.
Gardner, R. C. & MacIntyre, P. D. (1992). A student's contributions
to second language learning. Part II: affective variables. Language Teaching
26, 1-11.
Gorsuch, G. J. (1998). Yakudoku EFL instruction in two Japanese
high school classrooms: An exploratory study. JALT Journal, 20 (1),
6-32.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories.
London: Arnold Publishers.
Susser, B. (1998). EFL's othering of Japan. JALT Journal, 20(1),
49-82.
Usuki, M. (1999). Learning from the learners's voice: A consideration
of learner development. The Language Teacher 23 (9), 6-9.
Weaver, S. J., & Cohen, A. (1998). Making strategy training a reality
in the foreign language curriculum. In A. D. Cohen, Strategies in learning
and using a second language (pp. 66-97). London: Longman.
Anthony Rausch has been teaching in Japan for ten
years, and is presently in the Faculty of Education of Hirosaki University.
He is interested in improving English learning in Japan by virtue of learning
strategies. asrausch@cc.hirosaki-u.ac.jp