Nathaniel Reed: Hi Naoki, thank you for agreeing to this interview. Your recent book, Globalisation and its effects on team teaching, is a long time coming as there are so few books written using an ethnographic approach in this context. Could I start by asking your motivations for publishing this book as well as so many articles on team teaching?
Naoki Fujimoto-Adamson: Hello, Nathaniel. Thank you very much for inviting me and asking about my recent book and team-teaching research. There are two main reasons why I have pursued this area of research. The first reason is associated with my previous teaching experience. I worked as a Japanese teacher of English (JTE) in the 1990s for almost eight years at four junior high schools in Nagano Prefecture. Around that time, I taught with more than 10 Assistant Language Teachers from English-speaking countries. Some of them were from the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) program, and the others were directly hired by the local boards of education. I had both positive and challenging experiences through communication with ALTs, students, and school management. Then some questions arose in my mind: Why did we suddenly have to team teach with those teachers from abroad? Also, I wondered why students responded differently during the team-teaching lessons compared to the regular solo lessons by myself. Besides, I wondered why the principal and deputy head treated the ALT and me unequally, although we were teachers working in the same school.
The second reason was related to my postgraduate study in the UK for almost three and a half years from 1998 to 2002. In the first year, I enrolled in an MA in English Language Teaching at the University of Essex and started researching team teaching in Japanese schools. Later, I continued my research in the Doctor of Education course at the University of Leicester for almost a decade, including a distance learning period after returning to Japan. I wrote five assignments and a thesis focused on this specific area. Also, our supervisors encouraged us to publish our coursework, which became the main reason for my motivation to disseminate my study.
Looking at the effects of globalization on team teaching seems like a huge topic to write about in a single volume. Was there a process for choosing what influences to write about?
That’s a very good question. Traditionally, it is said that the classroom is a microcosm of the wider society, so the macro level of issues outside the classroom affects the micro level of classroom activities (Holliday, 1994). However, researchers recently started looking at the meso level, which is between the macro and the micro levels (Canagarajah, 2018; Fukunaga, 2017; Liddicoat, 2014). I applied this idea when I analyzed the influences on team teaching. Firstly, on the macro level, globalization is significant, such as the global economy and international politics between Japan and the United States in the 1980s. Around that time, the trade war between the two countries had intensified, so the JET Program was offered to the United States as a gift (McConnell, 2000, p. 1) from Japan in order to reduce the US trade deficit. Surprisingly, this was the beginning of team teaching.
As you can see, it was not directly related to education. Secondly, the meso level is often related to managerial factors, like middle management in a company. In the case of team teaching, local boards of education in the municipalities and even school management in each institution are included here. Thirdly, the micro level of classroom activities concerns direct stakeholders of team teaching, specifically teachers and students; in particular, how their cultural and linguistic backgrounds affect the classroom dynamics. This idea of three levels of educational practices surrounding team teaching (Fujimoto-Adamson, 2020) is very useful when considering what’s happening in the classroom.
You discuss inclusive language education policies in other countries for speakers of other languages. Would a way forward for Japan be to consider more inclusive thinking for students too?
That’s right. I quoted a study by Creese et al. (2014) researching a Punjabi language teacher and her students in Birmingham, U.K. Since there is a large Indian community there, Punjabi is frequently used at home. Those students usually attend weekday English school and learn Punjabi on Saturdays at a special heritage language school. Interestingly, the teacher mixed languages during the lesson speaking both English and Punjabi due to a pragmatic communicative need (Creese et al., 2014). The significant point is that the teacher used localized Midlands English rather than standard English (Birmingham is located in the central or Midlands area of England). I think that this is a very good example of an inclusive language education practice.
Also, I had a chance to go to New Zealand, escorting 17 students to Waikato University College in September 2022, and I realized a progressive, inclusive language policy was in place there. Specifically, two Japanese student advisors were allocated, and they assisted my students outside the classroom. In the same way, there was a Chinese student advisor to assist students from China. In New Zealand, all students have the right to access their first language (L1). I noticed that this L1 support offered our students a sense of safety. Nowadays, the number of children having roots in different countries has been increasing in Japan as well, so I definitely believe that an inclusive language education policy is a way forward.
At the JALT International Conference 2017, Daniel Ussher (2018) detailed how JET ALTs come to Japan for a gap year. You make a similar contrast through macro, meso, and micro lenses between JET and Non-JET ALTs: that, for over 30 years, JET ALTs have been employed as part of a political soft power move, and non-JET ALTs work in schools to teach. In what ways do you see this gap in professionalism growing?
Yes, I also noticed a significant gap between JET ALTs and non-JET ALTs when I worked as an English teacher at some junior high schools in Nagano Prefecture in the 1990s. However, around that time, I didn’t know what made this happen. To understand the situation clearly, the three levels of perspective: macro, meso, and micro, as I explained in my answer to your second question, are helpful.
The idea of JET ALTs used to create soft power (Metzgar, 2017) can be seen from the macro perspective because they have been recruited by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). Soft power can be people and culture, which together affect other countries positively. It is the opposite of hard power, which is equal to military power. In fact, Metzgar (2017) suggested that JET ALTs’ duty is outside the classroom; therefore, their backgrounds were varied and expected to create a good relationship in various fields between Japan and the United States. For this reason, JET ALTs’ contracts are relatively short—a maximum of five years. However, they work in schools despite having no teaching qualifications. As they have no qualifications, you might ask why they are placed in the educational sector.
In contrast, non-JET ALTs are often hired locally, sometimes in collaboration with the private sector and municipalities. In that case, the meso level of organizational factors are involved because the micro level of educational needs must be met on a long-term basis. Consequently, some non-JET ALTs’ contracts are much longer than that of JET ALTs. I know some of them have been working in Japanese schools for more than 20 and 30 years. Unsurprisingly, the gap in professionalism has grown due to the different lengths of the teaching experience between JET and non-JET ALTs. However, I noted that some non-JET ALTs used to be JET ALTs when they were younger and then transitioned from the JET Program into the private sector. Accordingly, their initial teaching experiences were through the JET Program, and they have remained in the educational sector and so continue to work in Japanese education but no longer for the objective of MOFA’s soft power. In fact, one of the non-JET ALTs I interviewed and whose lessons I observed in my book used to be a JET ALT. Eventually, he became a brilliant teacher with a Master of Education. Apparently, that is not an unusual case.
Do you envision any change in ALT hiring practices to be more like those in neighboring Asian countries that use team teaching?
Maybe, that could be an alternative idea. When the JET Program was launched in 1987, more than 800 ALTs were invited from four English-speaking countries: the United States, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand (MEXT, 2002). However, the recruitment policy has been changing over the years. As Kachru (1992) suggested the idea of “three concentric circles” (p. 356) of English speakers around the world, I believe that teaching world Englishes is an important concept to consider. Kachru categorized English speakers into three groups: (1) Inner Circle; (2) Outer Circle; and (3) Expanding Circle. The Inner Circle includes people speaking English as a first language. They are what we call native speakers of English, such as Americans, British, and Canadians. The Outer Circle indicates countries where English is spoken as a second language (ESL), for example, India, Singapore, and the Philippines. They have colonial histories with inner circle countries, so English is an official language. Finally, the Expanding Circle of nations are people speaking English as a foreign language (EFL), including Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese.
Crystal (2003) estimated that the number of outer circle nations is almost double that of the inner circle nations. Surprisingly, the number of the expanding circle nations is three times more than that of the inner circle nations. Under these circumstances, we have to realize that English among the Inner Circle cannot be the only model to learn. Regarding the recent ALTs’ nationalities, the outer and expanding circle nationalities have been increasing, such as Filipinos and even Japanese. In my book, an ALT from Poland, an expanding circle nation, appeared and worked effectively with a JTE.
When we think about our students’ future working situations, it might be practical to recruit ALTs from neighboring Asian countries. I am currently working at a university in Niigata, and I heard our university graduates who successfully got jobs using English at work mainly communicate with people from neighboring Asian countries, such as Korea, China, and the Philippines. Those university graduates are in manufacturing, such as making machinery and kitchen utensils as well as the service industry; for example, in airports and hotels, and even retailers like supermarkets. For this reason, I am sure there is a need to hire ALTs who have Asian backgrounds.
The landscape of ALTs is changing. There are over 20,000 ALTs currently working in Japan, and there are those with PhDs, decades of experience, children, and even mortgages. There are also over 2,000 ALTs with Japanese nationality. As the annual number of JET ALTs declines and hiring bodies move towards capable teachers living in Japan, is the idea of ALTs being young, inexperienced, and foreign becoming an outdated view of ALTs?
Yes, it is undoubtedly true that the ALTs’ educational and linguistic backgrounds have diversified over the years. To be honest with you, I haven’t met ALTs with PhDs, but I do know some ALTs with an MA, including you, Nathaniel. In fact, they are serious and hard-working teachers. Most took postgraduate courses outside Japan through distance learning programs while working as ALTs at Japanese schools. Speaking of Ph.D. holders, one of my friends used to be a JET ALT, and he received his Ph.D. in linguistics. He is currently teaching and researching at a Japanese university. I think that it is beneficial that he is able to make his contribution towards team teaching as a researcher now. I also know some ALTs who have long teaching experience, for instance, over 20 years in Niigata. They stand in stark contrast to JET ALTs, who have a maximum five-year contract due to the purpose of creating MOFA’s soft power (Metzgar, 2017).
In terms of native Japanese ALTs, I think that they can be good role models for Japanese students. In fact, I had an opportunity to participate in three online lessons for fifth graders in an elementary school in Nagano in February 2021. I was invited at that time because there were no JET ALTs at school because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As you know, international travel was restricted in those days. Therefore, my role was a kind of a Japanese national ALT in the team-teaching lessons. Thanks to the generous support of a JTE and homeroom teachers, their students were able to communicate actively with me during the lessons. This means that the ALTs’ nationality does not matter for team teaching. In fact, we have to be aware of the recent concept of English ownership (Crystal, 2003). According to Crystal (2003), since the language does not belong to a specific group of people anymore, particularly inner circle nations, everybody has ownership of English including Japanese teachers and students.
Team teaching policies in South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan seem more organized and intentionally target effective language education. However, you detail those policies and directives behind ALTs, JTEs, and team teaching in Japan have seemingly endless contradictions. Do you feel that by exposing these realities, somebody up top will listen and provide clearer guidance for language teachers?
The purpose of my book is to raise awareness of all three stakeholders of team teaching, not only the policymakers—somebody up top at the macro level—but also teachers working at the micro level and the educational management dealing at the local boards of education and the individual institutions at the meso level. As McConnell (2000, p. x) stated, team teaching was introduced in a top-down manner, so surely the policymakers need to know how school sites are affected by their national project. In particular, we admit that although the JET Program has had a considerable effect in creating soft power, the educational outcome has not always been achieved. I wrote this book to inform them about what’s happening at school sites. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize that we shouldn’t just leave the responsibility to the stakeholders at the macro level. Specifically, since the stakeholders at the meso level are between policymakers and teachers, it is necessary for them to try their best to change the status quo by informing policymakers about the reality of the school sites.
As for the direct stakeholders of team teaching at the micro level, I realized that providing online seminars through ALT Training Online, which you started, is very helpful for ALTs to improve their pedagogical skills. Hopefully, JTEs will also take action rather than passively accept the current situation. I believe that such a bottom-up orientation (Copland & Creese, 2015) makes a significant contribution to the development of team teaching in Japan.
Thank you so much for your time and wishing you the best with your future team-teaching research.
References
ALT Training Online. (2021). ALT training online (ALTTO). https://altto.net
Canagarajah, S. (2018). Materializing ‘competence’: Perspectives from international STEM scholars. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12464
Copland, F., & Creese, A. (2015). Linguistic ethnography: Collecting, analysing and presenting data. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473910607
Creese, A., Blackledge, A., & Takhi, J. K. (2014). The ideal ‘native speaker’ teacher: Negotiating authenticity and legitimacy in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 937–951. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12148
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486999
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015400
Fujimoto-Adamson, N. (2020). Globalisation and its effects on team-teaching. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Fukunaga, S. (2017). A study of the development of the language planning and policy (LPP) field and English education policy in Japan. Journal of Kyushu District National Universities Education Departments, 5(1), 1–41. https://kyutech.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/5467/files/07fukunaga_05-01_2017.pdf
Kachru, B. B. (1992). Teaching world Englishes. In Kachru, B. B. (Ed.) The other tongue. (2nd ed.) (pp. 356–365). University of Illinois Press.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2014). The interface between macro and micro-level language policy and place of language pedagogies. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 9(2), 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/18334105.2014.11082025
McConnell, D. L. (2000). Importing diversity: Inside Japan’s JET program. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018268000005653
Metzgar, E. T. (2017). The JET Program and the US-Japan relationship: Goodwill goldmine. Lexington Books.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2002). Handbook for team-teaching (Revised ed.). Gyōsei.
Ussher, D. [Confident English]. (2018, May 24). JET 30 years on: Still meeting needs? JALT international conference 2017 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho_OJ-JSKN4