The Language Teacher
01 - 2000
What's Wrong with Japanese English Teachers?
Mike Guest
Miyazaki Medical College
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Next comes the oft-heard claim that Japanese English teachers are rooted in either outdated audio-lingual paradigms or mired in the (gasp!)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!
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website