|
The Language Teacher | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We would like to address the issue of Japanese English teachers (JTEs) use of English in the classroom in three parts. The first part discusses data from three different groups of junior high school (JHS) and senior high school (SHS) teachers attending Monbusho Leaders Camps (MLCs) over the past three years. Participants' estimates of their classroom use of English during their first year teaching and just before the camp are compared. In the second part of the paper, we present seven reasons teachers have given for not speaking more English, and two deeper reasons that we find more explanatory. Finally, we look at some facilitative beliefs and strategies that JTEs have used to successfully increase the amount of English they use in their classrooms. Rod Ellis mentioned in a recent interview (Kluge, 1997) that more research into the use of English by Japanese teachers of English (JTEs) would be useful, citing a study that showed JTEs use Japanese for over 90% of the talking time in their lessons. He also suggested that investigating how JTEs can successfully manage the use of communicative language teaching (CLT) in their classrooms needs attention. These two aspects are intimately tied together. Switching from Japanese to more English can be facilitated simultaneously with a new emphasis on student-student interaction. If teachers merely switch to English and continue to lecture, students would surely be lost. While students can continue to benefit from certain explanations in Japanese (Modica, 1994), some interactive activities and classroom management can be done in English to great benefit. For this to work, it is suggested that teachers implement CLT activities in English incrementally, so that both teachers and students have time to adjust to new ways of teaching and learning. It is a truism that the more one is exposed to a language, the more one will learn--and the main venue for exposure to a foreign language is the classroom. Chaudron (1988) says that ". . . in the typical foreign language classroom, the common belief is that the fullest competence in the TL [target language] is achieved by means of the teacher providing a rich TL environment, in which not only instruction and drill are executed in the TL, but also disciplinary and management operations" (p. 121, emphasis added). Ellis (1984) concurs in saying that when teachers use the L1 for regular classroom management ". . . they deprive the learners of valuable input in the L2" (p. 133). Duff & Polio (1990; 1994) recorded FL teachers, all native speakers of the TL, and calculated their use of English and the TL in classes at a large American university. They found that there was great variety in the amount of TL use among teachers, from 10% to 100%. This short article hopes to contribute a perspective of non-native teachers of English and their use of the TL in their classes. It should be noted that while Duff & Polio actually tape recorded classes and calculated the amount of time spent in each language, we are relying on teacher and student reported use of each language. Both methods can provide us with valuable information. JTEs' Increasing Use of EnglishThe data presented here was collected at three Monbusho (The Ministry of Education) Leaders Camps (MLCs) in 1995, 1996, and 1997, in November of each year. Monbusho and local prefectural boards of education have organized such camps in several different areas of Japan simultaneously for the past several years. Usually several prefectures collaborate in each camp, with one acting as the organizer, and each sending representatives from many different schools totaling about 40 teachers from JHS and 40 from SHS. Our understanding from talking to the teachers at these camps is that they do not necessarily volunteer to attend and are not necessarily enthusiastic about English, but rather they are likely candidates for the roles of lead teachers, principals, or vice principals in prefectural schools in the future. They spend about one month attending lectures given by a variety of invited university professors on communicative language teaching (CLT), and they discuss teaching with their peers, mostly in English. The goals are to improve their English as well as their understanding of CLT. To our knowledge there has been no follow-up investigating to what extent teachers can actually implement what they have learned at the camps (Murphey & Sato, in progress). In 1995, at a MLC in Norikura, Gifu, about 10 JHS teachers and 10 SHS teachers were informally interviewed in English and asked how much they used English in the classroom. JHS teachers reported they used English an average of about 20% of the time. Half the SHS teachers said they spoke about 10% of the time in English, while the other half admitted that they spoke practically no English in their classrooms. The following year at Suzuka Circuit in Mie Prefecture, the 83 JHS and SHS teachers who participated in the 1996 MLC were asked to respond in writing to three questions: a) How long have you been teaching? b) What percentage of the time did you use English in English classes the first year? c) What percentage of the time did you use English in your English classes in September of 1996? Table 1 below shows the averages and the ranges of these answers, first for the JHS teachers and then the SHS teachers. Table 1: JTEs' Percentage Estimates of English Used in Their Classes: MLC '96, Mie
From Table 1, we can see that both SHS and JHS teachers doubled the amount they said they spoke in class from the first year up until the present year. The range differences of these figures tells us that there are teachers who report conducting their classes mostly in English (70% to 80%), while others report speaking very little (5% to 10%). That the reported amount of English decreases from JHS to SHS is an anomaly that probably happens only in certain Asian countries, and it confounds the expectations of those who equate more advanced language courses with more contact with L2. In Japan, in our opinion, the entrance exam syndrome among SHS teachers is such that they use English less the closer their students get to the exams, as they believe that cramming information into students' heads can be done faster in Japanese. Table 2 shows the results of asking a third group of teachers at the MLC in Gotemba, Shizuoka Prefecture, in 1997. In addition to the three questions asked the previous year, these teachers were asked d) How much do you plan to speak in English when you go back to teaching in December? SHS teachers were also asked to consider their oral communication classes, which began in SHS in 1994, separately from the other English classes they taught to see if calling classes "oral communication" would increase the presence of English. Table 2: JTEs' Percentage Estimates of English Used in Their Classes: MLC'97, Shizuoka
From Table 2, we can see that both SHS and JHS teachers again in 1997 report that they increased the amount of English they said they spoke in class (incr.=c-b). Both JHS and SHS teachers report starting higher than the 1996 group (7% higher for the JHS teachers and 10% higher for the SHS teachers). They also had ending averages that were higher (about 5% higher for JHS and 15% higher for SHS). The range differences of these figures again tells us that there are teachers who are conducting their classes mostly in English, as much as 90% of the time, while others are speaking as little as 5% of the time. Interestingly, teachers reported they planned to speak 16% to 20% more English upon returning to their schools in December. Figures on the amount of English in their SHS oral communication classes show that JTEs report that they use more English in these classes, an average of 90% of the time, perhaps because of the occasional presence of native speaking assistant language teachers (ALTs). Some, however, still report using as little as 10% (ranging to 100%). Unfortunately, we have no data on how often ALTs were actually present and whether or not this caused an increase. To summarize, increases in English appear within each group and across groups. Within each group, most teachers say they use more English in their classes as they advance in their careers. We see this as very positive, contesting the more cynical view that teachers tend to stagnate and teach the same way throughout their careers. Whether some of these changes occurred as a result of MonbushoŐs new oral communication curriculum in high schools starting in 1994 or not, we have no way of knowing. Across groups, the 1997 teachers report using considerably more English their first year of teaching (7% to 10% more) and just before the camp (5% to 15% more) than the 1996 group reported. We can only speculate why this might have happened (younger group of teachers, simply a variance in groups, etc.), and it will be interesting to see if future groups also increase in the same way or not. Contradicting EvidenceThere is some anecdotal evidence that these increased figures may be exaggerated. In interviews with several full-time SHS teachers at an evening graduate school (not at a MLC), several reported to us that they believed most teachers at prefectural high schools, whose students wanted to go to college, continue to teach mostly grammar in their oral communication classes, and all in Japanese. One asserted that changing the names of the courses did not change the primary responsibility of teachers: to get students into good colleges. While only anecdotal reports, these may indicate that at least some JTEs hold fast to the belief that the only way to pass the exams is through teaching grammar in Japanese. While such teaching is surely useful to an extent, we contest the overgeneralization of this approach which more often than not de-motivates students and presents an impoverished view of language learning. Obviously the reliability of the MLC and interview data can be questioned. Actual recorded data, video or audio, of classes and more teacher and student interviews, would allow researchers to make more valid estimates of the extent of classroom English, and this among a more diverse group of teachers. We may also find a much bleaker picture if we ask and observe teachers who are not seeking professional advancement. Still, the figures suggest that at least some teachers are daring to make changes in their teaching. Reasons For Not Being Able to Use More EnglishSasaki (1997) notes that the question of how much JTEs speak English "turns out to be a many-faceted question. There are personal, psychological, social, administrative, pedagogical, and practical arguments that are at times at odds with one another" (p. 66). We list seven arguments for speaking Japanese and not speaking English that we have heard from many teachers:
All of these arguments are valid if teachers just want students to pass the English sections of entrance exams, and if students don't mind not being able to speak English after six years of study. However, teachers teaching communicatively in English and students passing entrance exams are not mutually exclusive: we have met students who can both pass the exams and speak English, and who have never been abroad. We suggest that teachers can facilitate both, and students and teachers can enjoy the excitement of a more dynamic teaching and learning situation. Support for this comes from seven SHS JTEs' case histories about their short-term attempts at increasing their English in the classroom (Murphey & Sasaki, 1997). These teachers found that when they exposed students to English in communicatively comprehensible ways, student motivation and teacher motivation both went up. Furthermore, a content analysis of 40 language learning histories written by first-year university students revealed that JHS and SHS JTEs' use of English often sparked enough motivation in students for them to study more outside of school (Murphey, 1997a; Yamashita, 1998). While the above seven reasons for not using English are important to consider (and warrant applied-strategies to resolve), there are two deeper reasons why JTEs shy away from English that we feel are much more explanatory and that need more attention before things will change greatly. These are:
In Japan, would-be English teachers graduate from universities after only a few required courses in pedagogy (all of which are usually taught in Japanese) and two weeks of training in a school, and then they are expected be a sensei --a perfect one (or at least they think they must be perfect). Not surprisingly, many avoid using English at all. After all, most of their teachers never did, so why should they? In our opinion, the perversion of perfectionism is in control. However, some teachers do change (see below). The second deeper reason for not speaking English in class is that students will not understand. The overgeneralized solution thus far has usually been nonstop translation and speaking in Japanese 90% of the time. There are, however, other ways to make things comprehensible and to organize some interaction in English. How JTEs Can Use More English in ClassWe suggested earlier that there is an intimate connection between speaking more in English and CLT. A founding principle of CLT is "communication for understanding" and a variety of techniques are available to accomplish this. From observing and reading about JTEs (Murphey & Sasaki, 1997) who switch to more meaning-based instruction in English and reading about them in Japanese students' language learning histories (Murphey, 1997a; 1998), we have found that such teachers often use the following facilitating beliefs and strategies laid out on the four continuums below. Implicit in the continuums is that there can be small incremental changes and continual teacher development from wherever teachers find themselves at any time. 1. From conservatism to more risking-to-be-better /------------------------> Facilitating beliefs: What teachers have done in the past is the best they could do with the knowledge and resources they had available. However, we can continually improve our instruction and look for better ways to teach. We can experiment and see what happens. There is no single best way, and it's okay to adjust our teaching as we progress in our careers. As we are doing this we show ourselves to be lifelong learners and become examples for our students. Speaking more in the target language and doing new activities are risks that can greatly stimulate teacher development and student motivation. Facilitating strategies: I look for small and large ways to improve my instruction and my own learning. I ask other teachers about their beliefs and techniques and methods. I experiment. 2. From all-or-nothing thinking to more incremental changes /-----------------------------> Facilitating beliefs: I can try to speak English just a little more at a time. I can try to use just one new activity for a while until I become comfortable with it. It is not a question of changing completely, but of improving every day a little bit. Facilitating strategies: I can plan to speak in the L2 just a few more sentences, or minutes, a day. I can decide before I go to classes what the new input will be for that day, or what the new activity will be. The more students get comfortable with me speaking in English, the more I can ask them to speak in small chunks of time as well. And the more excited about communication in English we all become. 3. From perfectionism to more humanism /-------------------------------------> Facilitating beliefs: I am not perfect. I am human. I make mistakes too. I am still a learner of the language. I want to continue to improve my own English and one way I can do this is to use more English in class. Facilitating strategies: I tell my students that I am not perfect and take the weight off my shoulders. I demonstrate that I make mistakes and that I don't know sometimes. This relaxes my students as well and let them know they also donŐt have to be perfect. Then we all feel more free to risk speaking in English. 4. From information giving to more comprehensible communicating /-----------------------------------------------> Facilitating beliefs: I know I can give students more information in L1 more quickly and that is sometimes useful (e.g., grammar explanations). However, it is also useful to be able to actually use English for real purposes at least part of the time in the classroom to increase motivation and learning of a different kind. Facilitating strategies: There are many things that I could start with: greetings and good-byes, classroom instructions ("Open your books"), total physical response (TPR) routines ("Stand up"), and telling short stories. To assure understanding I can pre-teach some vocabulary, draw on the board, use gestures, speak slowly, and repeat. I can also ask students to tell each other what they understand. I can do just a few of these things at a time and learn how they work incrementally. Finally, one first-year university student put it very well when we asked for messages to give to teachers in the MLC workshops: "I think JHS and SHS teachers should study with their students and tell students that they're depending on each other." Another told us she had a teacher who used a lot of English but used to call himself "Mr. Mistake," and so they felt it was OK to make mistakes and try to speak English. As the old saying goes, "Call yourself by your worst name, and take away your enemy's best weapon." In this case, the enemy's weapon is simply the ridiculous idea in our heads that we must be perfect and that we cannot change our teaching. This fear of errors is, we feel, the worst enemy that anyone faces when trying to speak a foreign language in public. Foreign language teachers have a choice each time they go into the classroom: they can teach this fear to their students and propagate the myth of the "shy Asian" (Mayer, 1994) or they can relax and learn with their students, thereby teaching them that learning can be a lifelong pleasure. AcknowledgmentsWe would like to acknowledge generous feedback from Laura MacGregor and two anonymous TLT readers. We also thank Monbusho and the individual prefectures for organizing the camps, as well as the teachers who attended them. A Nanzan University Pache I-A grant supported this research.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
