ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816
www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Beliefs, practices, and interactions of teachers in a Japanesehigh school English department
Kazuyoshi Satoa,, Robert C. KleinsasserbaDepartment of English and Contemporary Society, School of Contemporary International Studies,
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies, 57 Takenoyama, Iwasaki, Nisshin, Aichi 470-0197, Japanb
Department of French, German, Russian, Spanish, and Applied Linguistics, School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies,
University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia

Abstract
This study reveals the school culture and the teachers’ professional development activities in a Japanese high school
learning environment. Furthermore, it documents the relationships among the context, teachers’ beliefs, practices, andinteractions. Using multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents of teachers from an
English department, this yearlong study revealed these English as a Foreign Language teachers lacked many teacher
learning opportunities in their context. The study revealed that teacher collaboration only reinforced existing practices,eroding teachers’ motivation to learn to teach in this speciﬁc context. The study provides evidence to teacher educators
about inservice teachers and their learning environment and the signiﬁcance of the relationships between thetwo entities.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: School culture; Beliefs; Practices; Interactions

how English teachers consider teaching in a
Japanese high school English department.1 As

1. Introduction
This study documents the relationships among
teachers’ beliefs, practices, and interactions in theirworkplace using multiple data sources, revealingCorresponding author. Tel.: +81 5617 5 1725;+81 5617 5 1729.
E-mail addresses: yoshi@nufs.ac.jp (K. Sato),r.kleinsasser@mailbox.uq.edu.au (R.C. Kleinsasser).

fax:

1
The data for this article were originally collected for a Ph.D.
dissertation (Sato, 2000). Since that time, the data have gone
through many extended analyses and the manuscript has gone
through numerous revisions (by both authors) to emphasize theissues of a school and department technical culture. We wish toemphasize that this manuscript was written with the intent ofsharing it with the wider (not just second language) teacher
education community. This is important to note, as Glensne
and Peshkin (1992) reminded us that we need not only toconsider the audience for whom we are writing, but also

0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.09.004

ARTICLE IN PRESS
798

K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

Darling-Hammond, and McLaughlin (1995) contend, ‘‘Teachers learn by doing, reading,and reﬂecting (just as students do); by collaborating with other teachers; by looking closely atstudents and their work; and sharing what theysee’’ (p. 598). Although much literature suggests
collaborative school cultures facilitate teacher
development (e.g., Little, 1982, 1986; Rosenholtz,
1985, 1989; Kleinsasser, 1993; McLaughlin, 1993;
McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001), there is little
documentation as to how teachers actually teach(and talk about teaching) within their own speciﬁcworkplace. Interestingly, Lee and Yarger (1996)
further highlight that few comprehensive investigations of relationships among teacher context,
beliefs, and practices exist. They further claim thatmost teacher education research examines only
segments of educational environments without
consideration of a more complete context and callfor an enhanced ‘‘comprehensive investigation ofteacher education’’ (p. 34). This study offers such acomprehensive attempt to investigate a teacher
population (English as a Foreign Language [EFL]
teachers) that has rarely been studied, in acountry that has few qualitative studies (see
LeTendre, 1999).
2. Theoretical framework
A major theoretical tenet supports the study:
school (technical) cultures. Feiman-Nemser andFloden (1986) suggested that studying the cultureof schools is, in part, ‘‘trying to understandhow teachers deﬁne their own work situations’’(p. 505). They further explained that ‘‘Teaching
cultures are embodied in the work-related beliefs
and knowledge teachers share—beliefs about
appropriate ways of acting on the job and(footnote continued)
recognize that writing for a particular audience may create
some limitations. Relying upon Van Maanen’s (1988) work,
they wrote, ‘‘how does the projected audience shape both theform and the substance of the researcher’s product? The
researcher may use tables and charts with one audience, but notwith another. Or the researcher may use a disciplines-based
language if writing for colleagues, but not for a more generalgroup of people. Researchers tell different things in different
ways to different people’’ (Glensne & Peshkin, 1992, p. 154).

rewarding aspects of teaching, and knowledge thatenables teachers to do their work’’ (p. 508). They
acknowledged at the time that few studies investigated the cultures of teaching and that teachers’
subjective worlds remained unclear. They cited
works such as Lortie (1975) and Sarason (1982)
that revealed that most teachers worked inisolation, were uncertain about teaching practices,and seldom interacted with other teachers to
discuss their work. Moreover, it was suggested
that teachers appeared to adapt to teaching
cultures. Lortie (1975) alluded to the idea that‘‘People in a similar line of work are likely to shareat least some common thoughts and feelings aboutthat work’’ (p. 162).
2.1. Technical culture
Although Feiman-Nemser and Floden (1986)
proposed a future research issue to examine theexistence of diversity in teaching cultures systematically, further studies identiﬁed typologies ofcommon teaching cultures. Researchers haveidentiﬁed at least two types of school cultures:
learning-enriched and learning-impoverished (e.g.,
Kleinsasser, 1989, 1993; Little, 1982; McLaughlin,
1993; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; and Rosenholtz, 1989). For instance, Rosenholtz examined
1213 teachers in 78 elementary schools andclassiﬁed only 13 schools as learning-enriched.
These were where teachers consistently collaborated with each other, set goals with principals,and ‘‘tended to hold a sustained view of theirlearning so as to better meet the challenge ofstudents’ diverse learning needs’’ (p. 103). In
contrast, in learning-impoverished schools, teachers were uncertain about their instruction, wereisolated from colleagues, and ‘‘tended to hold aterminal view of their learning, entailing masteryof routine practices and procedures’’ (p. 103).
Kleinsasser (1989, 1993) applied Rosenholtz’s(1989) model to high school foreign language
teachers in US contexts. Data were collected from37 teachers in 11 schools through interviews,
observations, and surveys. The results indicated
two distinctive technical cultures (applying a term
Lortie used in 1975). One was a routine/uncertain
technical culture (i.e., learning-impoverished),

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

where teachers were uncertain about their teaching
and whether or not some of their students could
learn, but were engaged in day-to-day routine
instructional activities. These teachers further
reported a lack of communication about teachingissues among their colleagues. The other was anonroutine/certain technical culture (i.e., learningenriched), where teachers were conﬁdent about
their teaching, and their daily instructional practices were less predictable. In addition, theseteachers incorporated more communicative activities in addition to traditional grammar focused
exercises, whereas those in routine/uncertain technical cultures relied relatively exclusively on
established traditional approaches (i.e., grammarfocused and skills based [speaking, reading, writing, and listening]). Kleinsasser’s data revealed astrong relationship between school context andteacher performance at the department and highschool level; lending strong empirical evidence to
Rosenholtz’ model and ideas.
Important factors in uncovering technical culture information is to examine teachers’ beliefs,
practices, and interactions. As Thompson (1967)
noted, the technical culture of education ‘‘rests on
abstract systems of belief about relationships
among teachers, teaching materials, and pupils;
but learning theories assume the presence of thesevariables and proceed from that point’’ (p. 19).
The three speciﬁc factors of beliefs, practices, andinteractions will each be discussed in turn.
2.2. Beliefs
Pajares (1992) reviewed research on teacher
beliefs and argued that ‘‘teachers’ beliefs can andshould become an important focus of educational
inquiry’’ (p. 307). He then sketched numerous
facets of beliefs and acknowledged that a varietyof conceptions of educational beliefs appear in theliterature, citing Nespor’s (1987) inﬂuential work,
he suggested that ‘‘beliefs are far more inﬂuential
than knowledge in determining how individualsorganize and deﬁne tasks and problems and arestronger predictors of behavior’’ (p. 311). Pajares
promoted 16 ‘‘fundamental assumptions that may
reasonably be made when initiating a study ofteacher’s education beliefs’’ (p. 324). These as-

799

sumptions include among others, the notions that(a) beliefs are formed early and tend to selfperpetuate, persevering even against contradictions caused by reason, time, schooling, or
experience; (b) individuals develop a belief systemthat houses all the beliefs acquired through theprocess of cultural transmission; (c) beliefs are
instrumental in deﬁning tasks and selecting the
cognitive tools with which to interpret, plan, andmake decisions regarding such tasks; (d) individuals’ beliefs strongly affect their behavior; and (e)knowledge and beliefs are inextricably interwined(for complete discussion of all 16 assumptions, see
Pajares, 1992, pp. 324–326). Importantly, Pajares
claims that ‘‘beliefs cannot be directly observedor measured but must be inferred from what
people say, intend, and do—fundamental prerequisites that educational researchers have seldom
followed’’ (p. 314).
Studies on teacher beliefs have slowly gained
prominence, especially with regard to teacher
change issues. A ﬂurry of research on teacher
development focuses on teachers’ beliefs in relation to their practices rather than more speciﬁcallyinvestigating teachers’ skills and dispositions as
mandated by education scholars or policymakers(Carter, 1990; Richardson, 1994). The question of
how teachers learn to teach is concerned more withwhat teachers actually know and how they develop
their practices than necessarily with what teachers
need to know and how they can be trained(Carter, 1990; Richardson, 1994, 1996; Sato &Kleinsasser, 1999b).
2.3. Practices
Guskey (1986), for example, examined 52
teachers who participated in teacher development
programs and concluded that change in teachers’
beliefs ‘‘is likely to take place only after changes instudent learning outcomes are evidenced’’ (p. 7). In
contrast, Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, and Lloyd(1991) found that change in beliefs precededchange in practices. The current view is that
relationships between beliefs and practices areinteractive and ongoing (Fullan, 1991, 2001;
Richardson, 1996). Richardson (1996) evenclaimed that ‘‘In most current conceptions, theARTICLE IN PRESS
800

K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

perceived relationship between beliefs and actions
is interactive. Beliefs are thought to drive actions;however, experiences and reﬂection on action
may lead to changes in and/or additions to beliefs’’(p. 104). Although the literature on beliefs andpractices provide interesting insights into teacher
change, the connection between beliefs and practices with (varying) school cultures remains largely
untapped (see, for example, the discussion in
Hamilton, 1993).
2.4. Interactions
Another inﬂuential area of research that offers
insight into school (technical) cultures is not onlyinteractions between beliefs and practice but also
the interactions of the people within the learning
community. Many researchers argue persuasively
that collaborative school (technical) cultures promote continuous teacher learning (Kleinsasser,
1993; Little, 1982, 1986, 1993, 1999; McLaughlin& Talbert, 2001; Rosenholtz, 1985, 1989). Rosenholtz (1985) contended that ‘‘teachers in effective
schools interacted to a greater extent on the basisof professional concerns rather than social chatter,
did so with greater frequency, and with a greaternumber of colleagues’’ (p. 365). However, Little(1990a, 1992) cautioned about the optimistic viewof teachers’ collaborations because collaborations‘‘may lead teachers to pursue new courses ofaction and support one another in the attempt—or
to join together to preserve and reinforce the statusquo’’ (Little, 1990a, p. 527). In short, not allteacher collaborations lead to what Hargreaves(1992, 1994) labeled a collaborative culture, where
teachers have on-going learning opportunities(Little, 1992). Hargreaves identiﬁed fragmented,
individualism, balkanization, and contrived collegiality as varying consequences of collegiality invarious circumstances. Therefore, the type ofinteractions teachers participate in and how
teachers’ interactions with their colleagues in theirschool (technical) cultures inﬂuence their beliefs
and practices need to be more closely scrutinized.
It cannot necessarily be assumed or assured
that ‘‘collaborations’’ lead to improved (or positive) teacher development (Grossman, 1992; Little,
1990a, 1999).

Moreover, interactions with other teachers may
not be limited to just the workplace. Externalinteractions such as networking also may offer
teachers opportunities for professional development (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1994; Lieberman,
1995; Lieberman & Miller, 1986, 1990, 1994;
Lieberman & McLaughlin, 1992; Little, 1990b,
1992, 1993). Lieberman and McLaughlin (1992)
suggested that networks attract more teachers thanconventional inservices mainly aiming at knowledge-transmission, because they focus on speciﬁc
activities, establish a climate of trust and support,
offer intellectual and emotional stimulation, andprovide leadership opportunities. However, little is
known about the effects of networks (Grossman &Stodolsky, 1994; Little, 1992), and the power of
networking has possibly been underestimated,
especially outside the particular learning community (Lieberman & Miller, 1994).
Quite a few of the studies cited above did not
systematically examine the school (technical)
culture speciﬁcally focusing on teacher beliefs,
practices, and interactions. In fact, Lee and Yarger(1996) precisely pointed out that a large majorityof teacher education research examined only
segments of teacher education and rarely considered the workplace for a more complete study ofschool (technical) cultures and the relationships ofvarious factors within them. More recently Lortie(1998), in revisiting issues in his seminal piece
Schoolteacher, recommended that considerable‘‘more research is needed on teachers and theirwork’’ (p. 161).

3. Problem statement and research questions
The Japanese government in 1994 introduced
into high school English departments a newsyllabus orientation to communicative language
teaching (CLT). Such a syllabus stressed thesigniﬁcance of communication-oriented English
in classes that traditionally were taught throughgrammar-translation methods (see also LoCastro,
1996). Little remains known, however, as to howinservice teachers perceive English language teaching, how they actually teach (or change theirteaching), how they interact with colleagues, orARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

how they continue to learn to teach in a Japaneselearning environment. This study examines beliefs,
practices, and interactions through English teacher
interviews and actions, in general, and investigates
EFL inservice teachers within their workplace. The
following questions provide focus to uncoverfeatures of these teachers’ (technical) culture:
1. What are the beliefs, practices, and interactionsof EFL teachers who work together in a highschool English department in Japan?
2. What are the relationships among EFL teachers’ beliefs, practices, and interactions?
3. How do these EFL teachers’ (technical) culture—their beliefs, practices, and interactions—
reciprocally inﬂuence individual EFL teachers’
beliefs, practices, and interactions?
The methods section next overviews the various
strategies used in the project to help begin
answering the research questions and help articu-

801

late the school (technical) culture in which these
Japanese English teachers ﬁnd themselves.

4. Methods
Lee and Yarger (1996) suggested a comprehensive investigation of teacher education include
multiple modes of inquiry or triangulation tocapture complexities (see also Foss & Kleinsasser,
1996, 2001; Mathison, 1988; Sato & Kleinsasser,
1999a). Therefore, this yearlong study employedmultiple data sources using interviews, observations, and documents to examine inservice EFL
teachers’ beliefs, practices, and interactions in theirschool workplace. Data collection began during
the Japanese school year’s second term (September). (It is important to note that Japanese schools
begin their school year in April and the year
usually consists of three terms. After 40 days
summer vacation, the second term begins inTable 1
Participants in the study, including their participation in the data collection
Name(JET/NET, F/P)

Sex Age Years Study
Major/Minor
Teach. degree(s)Section

Survey Inter.

Obser.

(1)(2)(3) (1)(2)(3)
Yasuda (JET, F)
Kondo (JET, F)
Sudo (JET, F)
Higuchi (JET, F)
Goto (JET, F)
Terada (JET, F)
Hatano (JET, F)
Inoue (JET, F)
Toda (JET, F)
Yoneda (JET, F)
Sakamoto (JET, F)
Kobayashi (JET, F)
Hori (JET, F)
Koide (JET, P)
Noguchi (JET, P)
Brad (NET, F)
Tony (NET, P)
Mick (NET, P)
Tim (NET, F)

M
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
M
F
F
M
M
M
M

32
44
53
24
49
40
48
53
26
55
33
50
26
28
23
29
33
25
27

3
19
27
1
22
17
25
25
2
32
11
26
1
4
0
6
4
2
3

BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA/MA
BA
HS
BA

Psychology/English
Education/English
E-literature
Psychology/English
Religion/English
Psychology/English
E-literature
EnglishEnglishEnglishEducation/English
Education/English
E-literature
Sociology/English
Japanese LT/English
Engineering
History/E-literature

Student affairsStudents’ management (Chief)
Career guidance (Chief)
Student affairs
School affairs
Teaching affairs
School affairs
Career guidanceStudents’ Management
Vice-principal
School affairs
Teaching affairsStudents’ management

Asian studies

Note: All teachers’ names are pseudonyms.
(JET/NET, F/P)=Japanese English teacher/Native English teacher, Full-time/Part-time.
HS=High School.

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XX
XXX
XXX
XX
XX
XXX
XXX

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

XX
XXX
XXX
XX
XX
XXX
XXX

ARTICLE IN PRESS802

K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

September.) First a survey was conducted to
identify each teacher’s background. Interviews,
classroom observations, and documentation collection were repeated in the third term and the ﬁrst
term of the following school year.
Table 1 details some background information of
the 19 teachers (15 native Japanese speakers, four
native English speakers) who participated in the
study. All were members of the English department in a private Japanese high school. (Please
note that pseudonyms are used throughout thedata presentation.)
Most of the EFL teachers participated in three
qualitative interviews (one interview each for thethree terms) (Spradley, 1979). Interviews wereconducted in Japanese, tape-recorded, transcribed,
and translated for analysis (except for the four
English native speakers). Field notes documented
the setting, participants, events, acts, and gesturesof the community members (Glensne & Peshkin,1992). Audiotapes of classroom practices supplemented ﬁeld notes and daily teacher interactions inthe staff room, halls, departmental meetings, andworkshops as well as informal conversations ofteachers were further noted. Documents of teaching materials, examination papers, curricula,department goals, and school handbooks werealso found to be useful (Glensne & Peshkin, 1992;
Guba & Lincoln, 1981).
Inductive approaches were used to analyze thequalitative data from interviews, observations, anddocuments (e.g., Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln& Guba, 1985; Silverman, 1993). Ideally it issuggested that when multiple data are systematically analyzed and interpreted, more trustworthy conclusions result (see Eisner, 1991;
Glensne & Peshkin, 1992). Mathison (1988)
proposed that researchers avoid a singular proposition and construct ‘‘plausible explanations about
the phenomena being studied’’ (p.17). Thus, allthree data sources were analyzed and integrated tocreate evidence of the (technical) culture.

5. Results
Repeated analysis measures of multiple data
sources from these Japanese High School teachersof English revealed and documented the school’s(technical) culture. Teachers’ beliefs about how
they learned to teach along with their practices inEnglish language teaching and interactions within
and without the workplace helped develop anunderstanding of their school and department’s
norms and values. The presentation of researchﬁndings below considers these themes, with
illustrations from the supporting data that bring
together beliefs, practices, and interactions.
5.1. How teachers reported they learned to teachTo examine what inﬂuenced teachers’ beliefs
about language teaching and learning these EFL
teachers were asked where their ideas came fromor how they leaned about English language
teaching. In general, teachers seemed to rely on
their own L2 (second language) learning andteaching experiences. The interview data revealed
that their L2 learning and initial teaching experiences along with their socialization in their current
school remained inﬂuential in their approaches toEnglish language teaching. Although they mentioned various sources about how they learned toteach, they seemed to prioritize the same kind ofbeliefs based on their L2 learning and teachingexperiences. Interestingly, their beliefs remained
constant regardless of age or number of years
teaching experiences. (It should be noted that the
numbers (1), (2), or (3) following quotations
indicate the ﬁrst, second, or third interview,
respectively.)
5.1.1. L2 learning and initial teaching experiences
Personal experience in learning English andidentifying previous English language teachers
supported many of these English teachers’ beliefs
about language teaching and learning. For instance, Sakamoto, the department head, referredto her source of learning English was ‘‘how I
studied English by myself.’’
Sakamoto: After all, the way I teach is based on
how I learned English in classes. Anothersource may be how I studied by myself.
Therefore, I have been teaching according to
my vague conception of how we can understandARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

English. I think it is very personal. I don’t
remember having learned any teaching methods. So I may have preconceptions about theway of teaching. (1)Kobayashi was inﬂuenced by his junior highschool teacher. He revealed that his teachingapproaches were not so different from those hedeveloped when he started teaching. ‘‘I remember
my teacher at a junior high school. He was awonderful teacher. So I imitated his teaching style
at ﬁrst. Then, I developed my teaching skills little
by little. Those experiences became the basis of myteaching style. Basically my teaching approaches
are not so different from those days’’ (1).
Yasuda mentioned his previous high schoolclasses, ‘‘The classes focused on grammar, but we
had oral communication classesy . [The teacher]used many different activities such as listening tosongs and drawing comic strips. I still remember
what he did and use his ideas’’ (1). While Sudo
immediately responded, ‘‘First of all, I can thinkof my high school teachers’’ (1). Not only did
Inoue also confess that how he taught was basedon how he learned, he also offered that he further
learned about English language teaching during
his university practicum experience in a junior highschool. Moreover, Inoue, Kobayashi, Yasuda, andSudo, among others, further mentioned that theyrelied to some extent on watching the teachers intheir current school. As Sudo stated after talking
about his learning experiences in high school,‘‘Then, by watching other teachers in my department and comparing their teaching with mine for along time, I have formed my teaching style’’ (1).
Teachers brought their beliefs about teachingfrom various sources before they started teachingin this workplace. As they started to teach in thisschool (technical) culture, they also revealed thatwatching other teachers was an additional sourceof learning how to teach. Yet, how did they
identify themselves within the school (technical)
culture they eventually found themselves? Ifteachers continued to teach the same way they
were taught, how did teachers react to theircurrent workplace? To what extent did teachers
adapt themselves to the patterns of teaching intheir current school (technical) culture? Did these803

teachers have any opportunities to learn new ideas
inside the school and discuss them? Section 5.1.2
begins to unravel these issues.
5.1.2. Trial and error socialization: internalinteractions
Most teachers stated that they actually learned
from watching other teachers. Traditionally, thisEnglish department provided several opportunities
during the school year for peer-observation anddiscussed each observed class during departmental
meetings.2 Additionally, novice teachers in their
beginning year typically observed experienced
teachers. Higuchi reported, ‘‘I watched several
teachers in the ﬁrst term’’(1). It was not surprisingthen to hear that other novice teachers adapted tothe pattern of the teachers they observed. Hori
tried imitating other teachers’ techniques. He
stated ‘‘I was impressed with Mr. Terada’s readingclass. He used different approaches, using comprehension questions about the passages and nottranslating all the sentences’’ (1).
Even if newer teachers said they tried different
activities in their classrooms, they struggled withthe teaching approach based on the yakudoku(grammar-translation) method. Toda reported
that learning from watching other teachers meant
to teach the same way as others did. As a result, he
did not try new ideas, ‘‘But, to be honest, the wayof teaching is somehow limited because we have todo the same lesson by using the same textbook. It
is like a patterny Because I have been following
the pattern of what other teachers are doing so far,
I would say that I have learned how to teach by
watching other teachers’’ (1).
Subsequent data documented that other novice
teachers socialized themselves to the school(technical) culture of this high school workplace.
For example, Koide, who started to teach during
the ﬁrst term, reported that she observed otherteachers’ classes and developed her teaching style.
She said, ‘‘Well, I referred to the lesson plans of2
Although teachers reported this observation, it is interesting
to note that during the year-long study (terms two, three, andterm one of the following year), observations like those
discussed in the interviews were only documented four times.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
804

K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

experienced teachers when I began to teach in theﬁrst term. I observed several teachers’ classes’’ (3).
The following was the lesson plan she gave theresearcher:
Teaching Manual
1. Warm-up
2. Model reading by teacher+Question ‘‘What
did you catch?’’
3. Vocabulary check ‘‘Let’s check the vocabulary’’
4. Repeat after teacher ‘‘Let’s read together’’5. Individual reading ‘‘I will give you two
minutes. Please read aloud individually’’
6. Aloud reading, point out one or two students
and ask them to read in font of the class
7. Explanation of new expressions
8. Sentence translation, ask each student to readone sentence and translate, model translationor correction by the teacher
9. Questions
10. Ask them about how they feel and think about
the contents of the story.
Although Koide expressed a desire that ‘‘Students learn English by actually using it’’ (3), shefollowed a pattern of teaching based on the
yakudoku method. In two different classes, she
introduced her previous experience in America(she was a university exchange student) and talked
about the importance of studying English to help
motivate her students. In one class, this talk wasdone at the beginning of the lesson and in theother class at the end. Yet, the moment she started
to use the textbook in either of the classes, shefollowed the pattern of the lesson plan. In fact,
vocabulary, translation, and grammar were thefocal issues of most of the teachers in thisdepartment.
Furthermore, many of the teachers with ﬁve or
fewer years experience became aware teachers
within this workplace were reluctant to critiqueother (especially experienced) teachers’ practices
and teaching behaviors. As Higuchi revealed, ‘‘We
observed Mr. Terada’s and Mr. Goto’s classes inthe ﬁrst term. In the following department meetings, we talked about their practices. But, we justmade small talk about safe topics. When I had myclass observed last year, I received many critiques.
After all, I thought teachers would avoid critiquing experienced teachers’ practices’’ (3). It
seemed all right for experienced teachers to
critique younger ones, but critiquing of experienced teachers was less prevalent.
Yoneda’s experiences as a vice-principal andteacher for 30 years, as he reported, gave somefurther insight to this school’s socialization qualities. He stated in his interviews that he learned
to teach in his senior year at university and on
his ﬁrst job at a junior high school (where he
was seven years). ‘‘Then, I came to this highschooly I have been teaching that way for 30
years without thinking so much about what is agood way of teaching’’ (1). Although he previously
watched other English teachers’ classes he saidhe ‘‘didn’t dare change my teaching with thoseideas’’ (2). He found his practices became like apattern or routine. He stated, ‘‘I think I became
stubborn as I grew older. I might try new ideas
in my classes. But, I am sure I would go back to
my familiar way of teaching, if they don’t work’’(2). He did not think he could use those newideas, because they were not compatible with histeaching approaches. Interestingly, Yoneda confessed in his third interview that current students
don’t laugh at his jokes as they did in his earlier
years of teaching and that his teaching brought
little satisfaction. In his own words: ‘‘Well,no successful classes. I think it is bad to say this.
Sounds like I am escaping from teaching. But,
I have to admit that I don’t receive any positive
responses from my students’’(3). Sakamoto
was another experienced teacher who also acknowledged that little satisfaction in her teachinglessons may be a problem. ‘‘I think I didn’t spend
much time preparing for the lesson so that I could
be satisﬁed with my classes. I think it is myproblem. I need to study about teaching approaches’’ (2).
In short, teachers did interact with teaching
English in this workplace. They spoke about how
they learned to teach with each other through theirtrial and error teaching experiences; however, in
too many cases their individual struggles were little
discussed. Moreover, in their isolation and by theirown admission, many of them subsequently

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

returned to their typical grammar-translation
focused activities (yakudoku method). Consequently, even trial and error seemed to lead tosocialization within this particular workplace.
Action all too easily seemed to eventually revert
back to complacency. Then, how did such perceptions and actions determine what these teachers
thought about English language teaching? In thenext section, we attempt to provide and extend theevidence to this question.
5.2. Perceptions and actions of English language
teaching
In this section, we examine these English
teachers’ practices of English language teaching.
Three norms or values were uncovered: examination-oriented English, keeping pace, and managing
school tasks and students.
5.2.1. Examination-oriented English
EFL teachers were asked to describe or deﬁnetheir understandings of English language teaching
and how students learned English. Most teachers
were puzzled by the focus of such questions
and regarded them as difﬁcult. In fact, most could
not delineate or further explain their views, andrelated that they were unsure and confused about
how to teach English. For instance, Sakamoto
stated that students would learn English byactually communicating with native speakers
rather than learning from the textbook. ‘‘So, I
think they learn English by actually using it. Whenit comes to examination-oriented English, students
learn it if they want to get into universities’’ (1).
Terada confessed that he had not yet discovered
how to teach English. ‘‘I have no clear answers forthis question. I am still looking for the answer’’(1). In subsequent interviews, teachers reiterated
such difﬁculties, several confessing that they were
not sure how to teach. For example, Higuchi
found the question ‘‘tough,’’ and wished that‘‘students could learn English by themselves,
consulting the dictionary. But, some students stillsay ‘I don’t know the meaning of this word,’
without looking it up in the dictionary. I hate thisattitude. How to teach English is difﬁcult, isn’t it? I
am not sure of it’’ (3).

805Many of the English teachers in this school
were unsure of teaching their chosen discipline.
Yet they also reported that they could notignore the inﬂuence of examination-oriented English which was heavily centered on grammar.
Hatano described how such an examination focus
takes away from classroom teaching and students’language learning possibilities. He stated, ‘‘But,
we cannot ignore university entrance examinations. That’s another problem. If entrance exams
were removed, it would be time that we started
to think about alternatives’’ (1). There was apersistent dissonance throughout the interviews
where these EFL teachers, on the one hand,
expressed individual wishes toward teaching
English as a means of communication, yet on theother hand, they acknowledged that they could
not ignore examination-oriented English. In fact,
most of these teachers reported in their interviews
that school norms and values supported a (hidden)
goal of examination-oriented English, while they
became less talkative about their individual wishes
in subsequent interviews.
In observing classrooms, such as Toda’s,
Koide’s, and Yoneda’s (teachers discussed in theabove Trial and Error Socialization section), it was
not surprising to see how examination-oriented
English was supported by the use of textbook,handout, and grammar activities. For instance, anearly observation of Toda’s classroom revealed
that he began his lesson with chorus reading while
the students repeated what he said. He asked two
individual students to read the text and then told
the students to use the handout and asked
questions about grammatical points. Students
had difﬁculty answering Toda’s questions; manytimes he ended explaining them himself. It took
longer than Toda expected, saying to the class, ‘‘It
takes time, doesn’t it?’’ After spending about
20 min to cover ﬁve grammatical points, he went
back to the ﬁrst sentence of the text and asked
individual students to translate each sentence into
Japanese.
It is interesting to note that even when teachers
tried to complete activities different than grammar-translation ones, there was still relianceon such traditional aspects of language teaching.
For example, Sudo’s individual ideas about

ARTICLE IN PRESS
806

K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

communication-oriented English were manifested
to a more limited extent in special classes.3 In suchspecial classes teachers did not have to teach forcommon examinations and thus many had more
freedom to try new ideas and materials. The
classroom observation data documented Sudo’s
oral communication class for Level 3 commercial
studies students. Sudo was teaching this new classfor the ﬁrst time. Although in his ﬁrst two
interviews he expressed his anxiety about how toteach, he collaborated with Brad (a native English
speaker) and tried various things in his specialclasses. In an observed class, Sudo ﬁrst tried pairwork using material Brad developed. After explaining the activity in Japanese and waking up a
student, students were engaged in the activity,
using both English and Japanese. Sudo spent
about 10 min ﬁnishing this activity, and asked one
student to collect papers and then moved on to
the next activity. Surprisingly, in the second half
he reverted to using a vocabulary list and gave
students a quiz, which appeared to be familiar toboth him and his students. He told the class inJapanese to pay attention to their pronunciation
and accent that were usually different fromequivalent Japanese words. He asked three individual students to pronounce the words andcorrected their pronunciation. Another student
was then asked to read, the rest of the classrepeated what was read, and then Sudo told theclass to repeat after him. After that, a quiz wasannounced and he chose 16 words and gave theclass eight minutes to translate them fromJapanese to English. Sudo then collected papers,
and gave an announcement about the assignment
and the class adjourned.
The latter half of his class was completely
different from the ﬁrst half. Sudo returned toroutine practices that highlighted teacher control.
Accordingly, his use of English decreased dramatically, he reverted to speaking Japanese, andcompleted the activities in a timely manner. Afterclass, he was asked why he used such a handout.
‘‘When students get into an activity, they can enjoy
3

Special classes include both regular and oral communication
classes in non-general commercial, music, and nursing studies,
where teachers had more freedom to teach and select materials.

it. But, their abilities are limited and it is not easy
for them to communicate in English for the wholehour. So, I have to incorporate materials students
can work on easily’’ (1). It seemed difﬁcult for
Sudo to keep learners’ attention for a whole hour.
His practices reﬂected what he said in his interview
where he reported that on occasions he had nochoice but to go back to routine practices withwhich learners were familiar. Whether in regularor special classes (ones that did not even necessarily have an examination), examination-oriented
English pervaded the teachers’ perceptions andactions.
5.2.2. Keeping pace
Departmental goals were also possibly hidden,
or at least unavailable. Such goals were neither
present in many of the school’s documents nor was
there a need to discuss them even though
Mombusho [Japan’s Ministry of Education] introduced new guidelines for communication-oriented
English in 1994 and required a mandatory new
subject (oral communication). Toda revealed:‘‘Goals? I’m not sure about them. We have notdiscussed well what we should teach for. For
example, we have not talked about what we want
to do in oral communication classesy So I don’tknow our goals’’ (1).
There was confusion concerning the goals or
objectives themselves, not to mention how to teachfor them. Inoue termed the situation chaotic. ‘‘One
thing is the direct inﬂuence of the introduction of
mandatory oral communication classes three years
agoy However, we are at a loss to explain thegoals and objectives, and to know how much weshould incorporate communication into highschool English teachingy On the other hand, wecannot ignore entrance examinations. The situation seems chaotic right now’’ (1).
There were no clear goals nor had theyseemingly ever been discussion about them.
Instead, these teachers took it for granted thatthey should follow examination-oriented English.
Moreover, other English language teachers used
the focus of examination-oriented English to makestudents complete more drills as homework everyday. For example, Yasuda, a level 1 teacher,revealed the reason they were giving a morning

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

English quiz to the students was to form the habitof studying every day. ‘‘Well, I am not sure ofgoals for this year, in particular. As for the level 1
cohort, we decided to prepare students for STEP
(the Standard Test of English Proﬁciency). We
have given them a quiz every morning since early
Juney because everyone has to sit for the test in
October’’ (3).
Sakamoto elaborated her reason why she had
not changed her teaching approaches at the end of
the school year. She said that developing practices‘‘take time, energy, and will power’’ (2). Using thesame materials and keeping pace for the common
test seemed to be easier for these teachers.
Sakamoto explained ‘‘we took it for granted that
we had to keep pace with others for the common
testy We had been busy covering the same pages,
and could not afford to make full use of ourindividualities. In fact, I didn’t have to, because I
could get through with the classes without using
my individuality’’ (2).
There was agreement among the busy EFL
teachers in this school to keep pace with others
and get things done. Toda thought balancing thefour skills was important but reported he could
not afford to incorporate interactive activities. ‘‘Ihave been thinking well-balanced way of teachingis good, but I had difﬁculty trying it in my classes.
I have to keep pace with others according to the
textbook. I cannot afford to incorporate otherclassroom activities or interactive activities in myclasses’’ (3).
EFL teachers discussed the progression ofteaching according to the textbook with eachother and shared handouts; however, they did notseem to have enough time to talk about instructional issues, per se. While some wanted to talkmore about teaching issues (e.g., Toda), forexample, Sudo wished they could share teachingideas. ‘‘Well, we did have opportunities to talkabout the progression, but should have talked
more frequently. We should exchange information
about lessons including teaching ideas and students’ responses with each other more often. [y] I
think we lack it. We mainly talk about administrative things’’ (3).
Collaboration seemed to consist of talking
about the progression of classes and some sharing807

of materials. In other words, these EFL teachers
did not collaborate in solving instructional challenges/problems or developing the curriculum.
Keeping pace with others as a group seemed to
be a priority in this workplace. The majority ofteachers followed a pattern of teaching unquestioningly according to the textbook, even though they
were not satisﬁed with and did not query their own
practices. Inoue, an experienced teacher, confessedthat he could not think of any successful classes,
nor did he experiment with any new ideas.
Inoue: Well, we used the textbook of basic
grammar in the ﬁrst term. Each lesson had ﬁve
key sentences, and to have learners memorize
them I gave a quiz at the beginning of the nextclass. After that, I brieﬂy explained grammar
points in the next lesson and had students
translate key sentences and try the exercises. If
necessary, I added other exercises or had themmake simple sentences. I had this kind ofpattern. I don’t think it is good, but otherteachers followed it, too, because we talked
about how to go about our lessons. (1)In fact, in his observed class, he simply went
immediately to his routine practice when the classstarted. As did many other teachers, he made ahandout for his classes. Here again, one can see theinterplay between beliefs, practices, and interactions from the data sources of interviews andobservations. After class, Inoue told the researcher, ‘‘Every Level 1 teacher prepares a similar
handout. But, each makes it by himself, because
each has his own way of teaching.’’ Surprisingly,
although other grade level teachers used different
textbooks and materials, they conformed to thissimilar preparation for and pattern of teaching,keeping pace with the material that preparedstudents for exams.
5.2.3. Managing school tasks and students
Another value and norm within this school was
the managing of school tasks and students. For
example, Sakamoto, a department head, made it
clear that the school had an atmosphere where
good teachers emphasized homeroom management. She said ‘‘for example, collecting signatures
for a petition, selling tickets for a festival toARTICLE IN PRESS
808

K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

parents, writing many homeroom newsletters, andso forth, are highly valuedy In the English
department, as far as the class is concerned, themost important thing is order and classroom
management’’ (1). Brad, with three years teachingexperience in this school, noticed that those who
were involved in extra curricular activities andattended lots of meetings were considered goodteachers. ‘‘And to an extent, I think people justhave to turn up for class and keep the students
under control’’ (1). Those who were busy working
hard for homerooms, school events, extra curricular activities, and union affairs appeared to be
the more highly regarded teachers. Evaluations
centered on teacher capacity for managing students, keeping order, and getting things done, as
opposed to (actual) teaching. In fact, Yoneda(a vice-principal) commented on such an ethos in
his third interview. ‘‘It is true that teaching isimportant but there are other tasks that teachers
have to do. Well, after all, managing students isimportant, even though a teacher is good atteaching English’’ (3).
Classroom observations further revealed theseteachers’ actions. Novice teachers, especially,
committed more attention to classroom order intheir second and third classroom observations.
For example, Toda reported that he was unsure ofteaching and went back to routine practices tokeep classroom order. The second classroom
observation data documented that his routine
practices were intensiﬁed by checking preparationand dictionaries and by giving a quiz at the
beginning of the lesson in the third term. Toda told
the researcher that he made it a rule to give a quiz(memorization of four key sentences from thegrammatical points in the handout) and have theclass use the dictionary in his classes in the third
term. He said that he sometimes checked students’dictionaries and preparation to remind them of theimportance. Nonetheless, his class was dominatedby explaining grammatical points and translation.
His new rule to give a quiz and to use a dictionary
resulted in reinforcing his routine practices. In his
second interview he confessed that he wasdepressed and wished he could teach English as ameans of communication, rather than translating
every sentence into Japanese. ‘‘However, I have noidea about how to deal with the textbooky
Eventually, I ended up with the yakudoku (grammar-translation) method. I just couldn’t help it. I
am depressed with self-hate. I still don’t know how
to teach English’’ (2).
Even in his elective writing class4 for the level 2
students, where he wished he could have themcorrespond with students in an Australian highschool, all Toda focused on was how to keep
classroom order. Toda reﬂected on his class.
Toda: I have not done anything new. [y] Many
students were sleeping during the lesson, and I
had to wake them up. So, I was busy maintaining the classroom order, and couldn’t afford totry different activities in this classroom atmosphere. I mainly taught according to the writing
textbook. It focuses on how to translate
Japanese sentences into English ones. (3)Toda found motivating students very difﬁcult.
Although many teachers reiterated lack of students’ motivation as one of the sources that might
inﬂuence the way they taught, they avoided
challenging such conﬂict and relied on familiar
practices.
The ESL teachers’ data revealed three inﬂuential(hidden) teacher/department/institutional goals
that included examination-oriented English, keeping pace with each other, and managing various
school tasks and students. These teachers foundthat examination-oriented English was an aim toforce students to form a habit to memorize andstudy English. Thus, the majority of the teachers
continued to teach according to the lessons in the
textbook, putting emphasis on grammar andtranslation, while avoiding communication-oriented activities. Classroom observation data
helped further describe and illuminate these EFL
teachers’ practices. The majority of teachers
in regular classes (and even in special and electiveclasses) conformed to an established patternof teaching with heavy emphasis on grammar
4

There are some elective English classes for levels 2 and 3
students, including grammar, reading, and conversation classes.
Some choose English, and others choose different subjects. The
class size is smaller than the regular class with about 15
students.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

explanation and Japanese–English translations.
These teachers committed more attention toclassroom order, adhered to their routine practicesof grammar-translation activities, and checked
who prepared for class and who brought theirown dictionaries, etc. In contrast, it must be duly
noted that in a very few special classes, a small
minority of teachers tried out new ideas anddeveloped activities to suit learner interests andneeds. Nonetheless, such activity remained quite
marginal with little impact on instruction in the
majority of the regular English classes.
5.2.4. Summary
Throughout the year-long study, teachers’ beliefs, practices, and interactions within this school(technical) culture remained consistent. The complexity of this school’s (technical) culture, however, was highlighted through interview,observation, and document data. Managing students and having students participate in routine
activities were the staple means of what teachingmeant in this school (technical) culture. There wasa lack of communication regarding instructional
issues, per se that kept teachers from discussing in
depth any substantive teaching issues or collaborating with each other on various curriculum issues.
As a result, these teachers did not provide evidence
that they created or involved either themselves ortheir students in innovative instructional activities.
In fact, as Yasuda previously confessed, examination-oriented English was effective to manage
students and make students form the habit ofstudying. Even in special classes where teachers
had more freedom to teach, they still had difﬁculty
keeping from (traditional) grammar-translation
focused activities. Although a very small minorityof teachers tried new teaching ideas and assessments, many of these same teachers, as seen in
their observations and heard in their interviews,
related that there were challenges. Even if suchactivities were tried, teachers reported that their
few innovative teaching experiences were
little shared with other teachers. Such action or
possible collaboration remained marginal in thisworkplace. Consequently, English teacher beliefs,
practices, and actions interacted with each otherwithin this English language teaching community809

and helped to uncover the school’s (technical)
culture.
5.3. Teacher learning opportunities: externalinteractions
As explained in the theoretical framework, wemust further scrutinize how teachers’ externalinteractions lead to teacher development andhow perhaps teacher interactions outside theworkplace inﬂuence their beliefs and practices.
This section examines how teachers reported such
available learning opportunities and to further
clarify the complex issues of how these teachers
view English teaching.
5.3.1. Informal workshops
In their initial interviews, 13 of the 15 teachers
readily admitted they had not recently attended
any workshops. There were no government
inservice programs provided during the bulk of
the school year (three school terms) when thisstudy was conducted. Instead, only two teachersreported attending informal workshops at the
beginning of the study.
Terada, a former representative of Kenkyukai—
an informal network organized by private highschool teachers—continuously attended workshops of Kenkyukai, though he warned he had
been busy with extra jobs such as union meetingsand school affairs. ‘‘Recently, I joined the workshop from which I learned a top–down approachto reading. We invited an instructor from alanguage school. She demonstrated the approachby using different materials according to students’levels. I learned how to help students activate theirschema on the topic, and tried to use this approachin my classes’’ (1). Higuchi, a novice teacher,attended Kenkyukai twice (she was asked by
Terada to attend). She reported that one workshop
dealt with a demonstration of how to translate
English sentences into Japanese according toEnglish word order. She thought she was the only
one who spent time on translation in classes but
was surprised to ﬁnd that almost all the teachers at
the workshop completed translation exercises.
‘‘Then, I used the method in my classes. I asked
each student to translate an English sentence into

ARTICLE IN PRESS
810

K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

Japanese according to sense groups from the
beginning. I sometimes gave them hints. They
could manage to translate the sentence’’ (3). The
second workshop concerning how to use newspapers and write an essay she found too difﬁcultfor her students. Although Higuchi actually used
an idea from the workshop in her class, she did notreport sharing her teaching experience with otherteachers.
Most English teachers in this workplace reported that they were either too busy to go or were
not offered enough informal workshop opportunities. Interestingly, some suggested reasons forabandoning workshops. For example, Toda encountered many interesting ideas at workshops but
found most of them not helpful to his classroom
teaching. ‘‘If I could change the class pattern of myown will, I could try out many things. However, I
have to follow the textbook as other teachers do.
After all, I have a limited choicey This may be
the reason I am getting away from workshops,
because I wonder if the ideas presented there are
actually useful’’ (1).
5.3.2. Inservice workshops and ma programs
Koide attended the workshop organized by alanguage school where she learned hands-on
activities. One of the topics was how to create aclassroom where students would learn to ask
questions in English. She learned from the
instructor ‘‘that it is difﬁcult for the students toexpress their opinions in English unless they areused to expressing theirs in Japanese in daily
lessons’’ (3). She also learned that students needed
to practice speaking their minds not only inEnglish, but in Japanese in other subject classes
as well. Koide thought that English teachers‘‘usually forgot such an important point’’ (3).
After the workshop, Koide tried to report on it ina subsequent department meeting and although
she distributed a handout to every teacher she
unfortunately could not report on it due to otheragenda items and a lack of time.
Brad acknowledged that he beneﬁted most fromhis M.A. study, when he was asked where his newteaching ideas came from this year. He talked
about developing tasks (e.g., shape drawing andcalculations) that the students really enjoyed‘‘because they were doing something with thelanguage’’ (2). Brad also shared that other ideas‘‘came from friends, other textbooks, but not
too many came from school during this year,
really’’ (2).
Brad emphasized the role of the teacher as a
facilitator. He was asked to describe his understanding of English language teaching and said,‘‘As for me, information-gap is everything in theclassroom. Then you got a negotiation. If you got
a negotiation, you can overcome the gap. I think
the job of the language teacher is to basically set
up the information-gap, to provide the raw
materials, and be ready to act as a facilitator’’ (2).
The few teachers discussed above thought theylearned how to teach by actually using ideas fromexternal interactions. However, few teaching experiences were reported to or shared with theirteaching colleagues, thus many innovative ideas
remained unnoticed in this workplace as a whole.
Toward the end of the year-long study (i.e., endof the ﬁrst term of the following school year) 12 of
the 16 teachers during their third interviews
explicitly stated that they did not or could notattend any workshops during the ﬁrst term of thefollowing school year. The majority continued to
avoid workshops. In particular, experienced teachers tended to stay away from any kind ofworkshops even though they expressed desire
to attend in repeated interviews. For example,
Kondo reiterated that he hoped to attend aworkshop to study about teaching, ‘‘I am thinking
of going to [name] next year and studying one
more time. Workshops held by [name] are good, inparticular, for young teachers. I still have a feelingthat I want to study and refresh myself again,
though’’ (3).
Teachers may have alluded to some enthusiasm
in speaking about attending workshops; however
few actually either attended any or were making
plans to attend. Most had no recent experienceswith workshops, mainly because they reported
they did not have enough time or did not feel apractical need to attend. In fact, Toda lost interestin workshops. Interestingly, the few teachers that
did attend informal workshops neither reported on
the content nor shared new ideas with otherteachers informally in this workplace. Lack of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

participation in learning opportunities seemed tomake it even more difﬁcult for teachers to learn,develop, or possibly change their beliefs, practices,
and interactions in this school (technical) culture.

6. Discussion
Wolcott (1990) admonishes qualitative researchers about conclusions, ‘‘My advice is to work
toward a conservative closing statement that
reviews succinctly what has been attempted, what
has been learned, and what new questions havebeen raised’’ (p. 56). With this in mind, we returnto the three research questions to guide thediscussion.
6.1. What are the beliefs, practices and interactionsof EFL teachers who work together in a high school
English department in Japan?
Teachers’ beliefs, practices, and interactions
were inferred from what they said and did (seePajares, 1992). The analysis and presentation ofdata revealed a school’s (technical) culture—its
norms and values—that included, but were notlimited to, managing students and various task
assignments took precedence over teaching, andcommunication and collaboration consisted of
keeping pace with other teachers and getting
through the day. Such norms guided not only
what they taught, but how they taught. Thus, theseteachers developed and shared the beliefs that it
was particularly important to teach the same way
for the common test and to maintain classroom
management. Repeated measures including interviews and classroom observations uncovered thatthe teachers in this workplace, regardless of age orteaching experience, conformed to a particularpattern of teaching, with heavy emphasis on
grammar explanation and translation. The practices focused extensively on a (hidden) goal towardexamination-oriented English, in lieu of explicit orcommunity developed goals, content within classrooms that relied abundantly on grammar andtranslation, and a pattern of teaching by what is
termed the yakudoku method. Even though theteachers had opportunities to use materials other811

than textbooks, they maintained surprisingly
similar patterns of teaching. In oral communication classes, too, it was found that a main concern
was keeping order and keeping pace with otherteachers.
Concerning teachers’ interactions with colleagues, there was collaboration that seemed tosustain the norms and values of this particular
workplace. Teachers did talk to each other about
where they were with the subject matter in theirclassrooms and they were concerned about central
examinations; yet they rarely probed, to any great
extent, the issues dealing with instructional practices either to each other or at department meetings.5 Concerning teachers’ external interactions,many teachers did not participate in external
workshops or meetings. Those few that did rarely,
if ever, had the opportunity to share theirinformation, ideas, or innovations with theircolleagues or in department meetings in this school(technical) culture. Many regarded teaching as a
private undertaking. Pajares (1992) maintainedthat ‘‘All teachers hold beliefs, however deﬁned
and labeled, about their work, their students, theirsubject matter, and their roles and responsibilities’’(p. 319). The research here identiﬁed not only how
such beliefs were deﬁned or labeled but further
described what teachers thought about their work,
their subject matter, their roles and responsibilities, and, at times, their students.
5
We are aware of the literature that discusses successful
professional development in Japanese elementary schools
concerning the use of research lessons (see Lewis & Tsuchida,
1997, 1998) and/or lesson study (see Fernandez, 2002;
Fernandez, Cannon, & Chokshi, 2003; Stigler & Hiebert,1999). Much of this literature provides empirical evidence fromelementary school level teachers that research lessons/lesson
studies improve classroom practice, spread new content andapproaches, connect classroom practice to broader goals, andexplore conﬂicting ideas. Such activity; however, appears to be
more prevalent in elementary schools than high schools. As
Fernandez (2002) highlights in a footnote: ‘‘The fact that lesson
study is not common in Japanese high school has more to dowith the nature of Japanese high school life and its teachers
than with any inherent feature of lesson study that would makeit inappropriate for teachers of older students’’ (p. 405). The
data presented in this paper provide evidence that at least in thisparticular private high school (at the time of this particularstudy), professional development is not practiced that includes
research lessons/lesson studies.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
812

K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

Through multiple data sources, the presentation
revealed that these teachers shared beliefs, practices, and interactions in this workplace. Yet
additional questions need to further probe howsuch ﬁndings would be understood or used by thevery teachers who provided information for thedata set (and others). For instance, would teachers
recognize their school’s (technical) culture as
described in this presentation? If so, how would
they react to it? To what extent do teachers within
this workplace (and without) recognize the valueof their beliefs, practices, and interactions? Moreover, if a technical culture as Thompson (1967)
contends ‘‘rests on abstract systems of belief about
relationships among teachers, teaching materials,
and pupils’’ (p. 19), how do teachers recognize anduse such abstractions to beneﬁt their English
language teaching and their students’ English
language acquisition and learning? How doteachers become aware of the context of situation
and what it allows them or not allows them to do?
Many such questions rest upon the simple fact thata technical culture has been documented and can
only be asked once such evidence is provided (asdone in this presentation). The complexity of
beliefs, practices, and interactions—a (technical)
culture—intensiﬁes as research widens and deepens our understandings of second language
learning environments.
6.2. What are the relationships among EFL
teachers’ beliefs, practices, and interactions?
A succinct response to this question is that
beliefs, practices, and interactions create a web ofrelationships within this school’s workplace. In themain, this web creates the (technical) culture thatprovides for the types of interactions that occur,
the manner in which most of the teachers practice,and the beliefs that are held by the teachers bothcollectively and individually. Internal interactions
centered on talking about the progression to keep
pace with other teachers rather than discuss
instructional issues. These teachers did collaborate
to maintain classroom management, to ﬁnd out
where their colleagues were in using textbooks andvarious other materials, and to help students
prepare for university examinations. Externalinteractions that included workshops were avoided
by many teachers (especially experienced ones),and even the more novice teachers moved awayfrom attending workshops. Teachers stated thatthey did not feel any practical need or advantage
to attend workshops because such ideas gained
from attending them were not useful in theirclassrooms; new or innovative ideas seemed not to
be a necessity. Such beliefs, practices, and interactions developed a (technical) culture that not only
deﬁned beliefs practices, and interaction but
inﬂuenced them as well.
The English language teachers in this department held tightly to grammar, translation, and the
yakudoku method. Both ‘‘normal’’ English and the‘‘new’’ communication classes were surprisingly
very similar in how teachers practiced English
language teaching and learning. The teachers’
beliefs were revealed through their discussing what
they thought language teaching was and further,
seemed to help describe what was seen in theobservations. These and other insights provided
strong evidence to support Little’s (1990a) claimthat collaboration may lead teachers to reinforce
existing practices. By examining collaboration
through qualitative data, the study revealed thatthese teachers collaborated, but collaboration here
meant keeping things moving according to theexisting norms and values of the workplace. In
using Hargreaves’ (1992, 1994) types of collaboration, it would appear that his ideas of individualism and balkanization are prevalent within thisschool’s (technical) culture. It would be interesting
to ask how teachers would perceive their relationships among their beliefs, practices, and interactions within this workplace.
Other possible queries and inquiries include:
How would teachers describe (and document) theirbeliefs, practices, and interactions (i.e., their[technical] culture)? How would teachers ﬁnd
and/or judge the documented relationships of thispresentation? How could teachers further clarify
the relationships between beliefs, practices, interactions and their workplace? If teachers felt a needto change any part of their workplace, beliefs,
practices, and interactions, how would the datacollected, analyzed, and presented here help them
to begin such a project? The added perspectives

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

and understandings of such inquiry would help
illuminate how relationships interact with educational purposes and practical educational accommodations. In promoting further research inteacher education Floden (1997) suggested: ‘‘We
need, however, to build on these insights, pushing
beyond merely saying that our work is hard. We
need to investigate particular promising approaches, and to pursue analyses that show why
things are hard, in the hopes of gradual but
signiﬁcant improvement’’ (p. 282). There is ample
work yet available to further clarify, explain, andunderstand workplace relationships between beliefs, practices, and interactions; and what all thismeans to both practitioners and researchers invarious educational settings (and their varying[technical] cultures).
6.3. How do EFL teachers’ (technical) culture—
their beliefs, practices, and interactions—
reciprocally influence individual EFL teachers’
beliefs, practices, and interactions?
We hope that the manner in which the data were
presented in the results section of the manuscript
helps answer this question. We documented how
these teachers reported they learned how to teach,then how teachers talked about learning to teachin this particular school. We further analyzed thebeliefs of these teachers’ ideas about English
language teaching, along with reporting on someobservations of them in their classrooms. Externalinteractions were then examined and the ﬁnal
section dealt with the school’s norms and values or
its (technical) culture. We see how teachers reliedon their early language learning experiences andtheir initial language teaching experiences as they
began teaching in general and, at times, in thisparticular school. From their interview andobservation data, we also began to see how theirprevious experiences either engendered agreement
or disagreement within the school (technical)
culture many found themselves. If previous
experiences coincided with the school’s norms
and values, the teachers were content; if previous
experiences challenged the school’s norms andvalues, subtle changes occurred with how theteachers talked about language teaching and813

taught the English language in their classroomsin their current environment. Clearly, the community understanding of teaching English in thisschool and department can be found in the data
presentation and the answers to the ﬁrst two
research questions. We can see how the individual
teacher beliefs, practices, and interactions not only
helped develop the school (technical) culture, but
can also see that some teachers may hold personal
beliefs, practices, and interactions, while they
developed the school community’s beliefs, practices, and interactions. Yet, these personal beliefs,
practices, and interactions are rarely part of dailyinteractions within the teachers’ workplace andwith teachers (and students, for that matter), in
general. Individual (personal) beliefs, practices,
and interactions take a backseat to the community’s (technical) culture. One teacher may thinkthat teaching language for communication isimportant, but that teaching language for communication within this environment is too difﬁcult
so the individual belief appears to be placated by
the community belief. Another teacher attended aworkshop and wanted to share the information ata faculty meeting; however there was not enoughtime for such an agenda item. Again, community
action preceded an individual’s intentions. Stillother teachers spoke about the need to speak more
English in the classrooms, yet they found (as did
many of their colleagues) that there was notenough time (and perhaps the effort just was not
worth it when central examinations loomed everon the horizon). Pajares (1992) explained thiscontext-speciﬁc nature of beliefs as follows:
All individuals, at some point in their lives,
suffer attacks of cognitive (belief?) dissonance,
where incompatible beliefs are suddenly thruston them and they must behave in a mannerconsistent with only one of these beliefs. It is at
this point that connections are discovered or
created and the centrality of a belief comes toprominence. (p. 319)
This context-speciﬁc nature of beliefs could also
explain the shifting conceptions of teachers as
they socialized themselves to the school’s (technical) culture. As these teachers became accustomed
to their routine practices, they seemed to be

ARTICLE IN PRESS
814

K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

comfortable with their beliefs, and their beliefs
were reinforced or became more central in theirbelief systems. Although several teachers expressed
their dissatisfaction, at times, they continued toteach the same way. We see that the school’s(technical) culture inﬂuences to a greater extent an
individual’s beliefs, practices, and interactions
than an individual’s beliefs, practices, and interactions inﬂuence a school’s (technical) culture. In
this school, it appears these English language
teachers accommodate the school’s (technical)
culture to a much greater extent than the school’s(technical) culture accommodates the individual’s
personal beliefs, practices, and interactions.
Although many scholars assume that teachers
learn to teach in authentic contexts by reﬂecting
and interpreting their practices, and by reconstructing their knowledge of teaching, they provide
little to no evidence about a real school that
demonstrates and explains the variables theyhighlight and present. One also clearly sees in thispresentation that these teachers in this real school
did reﬂect, interpret, and socially construct English
language teaching, just not in the way somescholars want them to do or think they should.
The data in this presentation reveal the manner inwhich these teachers in this real school talk about
and socially construct English language teaching;that is, how they practice English language
teaching, how they interact with English language
teachers and students in the school, and how theyrarely interact with the English language teachingprofession outside the school, if at all. Even
though a small minority of teachers tried new
ideas, these individual teachers’ experiences were
little shared and innovations became marginalized
in this real school. The data support Hawley andValli’s (1999) claim that ‘‘Without collaborative
problem solving, individual change may be possible, but school change is not’’ (p. 141). In otherwords, teacher development entails both classroom and school improvement (Fullan, 2001;
Lieberman & Miller, 1990). This idea encourages
examination of some additional questions. How
would these teachers communicate and collaborate
with others if they were given more free time?
What would induce them to attend workshops
outside the school? How could they be encouraged

to discuss new ideas presented at workshops or
inservices in their school (technical) culture? How
could small communities of inquiry spread andreculture the entire school?
As the teacher education profession continues todocument and deﬁne the complexity of teaching
and teacher education, it is important that thevarious disciplines (foreign languages, mathematics, science, social studies, English, etc.) offer
evidence through multiple data sources from realclassrooms and learning environments. We concur
wholeheartedly with Lortie (1998) who when herevisited some issues in his seminal work Schoolteacher aptly wrote ‘‘that considerably more
research is needed on teachers and their work’’(p. 161). The study herein described adds to such a
research collection.

References
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach.
In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher
education (pp. 291–310). London: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies
that support professional development in an era of reform.
Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597–604.
Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye: qualitative inquiry and theenhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Floden, R. (1986). The cultures ofteaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research onteaching, ((3rd ed.)) (pp. 505–526). New York: Macmillan.
Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches toprofessional development: the case of lesson study. Journalof Teacher Education, 53(5), 393–405.
Fernandez, C., Cannon, J., & Chokshi, S. (2003). A US–Japanlesson study collaboration reveals critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 171–185.
Floden, R. E. (1997). Communications: reﬂections andimplications. In D. M. Byrd, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.),
Research on the education of our nation’s teachers(pp. 277–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Foss, D. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1996). Preservice elementaryteachers’ views of pedagogical and mathematical content
knowledge. Teaching & Teacher Education, 12(4), 429–442.
Foss, D. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (2001). Contrasting research
perspectives: what the evidence yields. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 7(3), 272–295.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change(2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change(3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of groundedtheory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL:
Aldine.
Glensne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative
researchers. New York: Longman.
Grossman, P. L. (1992). Teaching to learn. In A. Lieberman(Ed.), The changing contexts of teaching (91st yearbookof the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I)(pp. 179–196). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1994). Considerations ofcontent and the circumstances of secondary school teaching.
In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research ineducation, Vol. 20 (pp. 179–221). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guskey, T. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher
change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.
Hamilton, M. L. (1993). Think you can: the inﬂuence of
culture on beliefs. In C. Day, J. Calderhead, & P. Denicolo(Eds.), Research on teacher thinking: understanding professional development (pp. 87–99). Bristol, PA: The Falmer
Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1992). Cultures of teaching: a focus for change.
In A. Hargreaves, & M. G. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding
teacher development (pp. 216–240). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times:
teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. London:
Cassell.
Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective
professional development: a new consensus. In L. DarlingHammond, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning
profession: handbook of policy and practice (pp. 0–0). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kleinsasser, R. C. (1989). Foreign language teaching: A tale oftwo technical cultures. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University
of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign.
Kleinsasser, R. C. (1993). A tale of two technical cultures:
foreign language teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education,
9(4), 373–383.
Lee, O., & Yarger, S. J. (1996). Modes of inquiry in research onteacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of researchon teacher education, (2nd ed.) (pp. 14–37). New York:
Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Lewis, C. C., & Tsuchida, I. (1997). Planned educational change
in Japan: the case of elementary science instruction. Journalof Education Policy, 12(5), 313–331.
Lewis, C. C., & Tsuchida, I. (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly
ﬂowing river: How research lessons improve Japanese
education. American Educator, 14–17, 50–52.
Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: transforming conceptions of professional learning.
Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 591–596.
Lieberman, A., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). Networks foreducational change: powerful and problematic. Phi Delta
Kappan, 73(9), 673–677.

815

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1986). School improvement:
themes and variations. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Rethinking
school improvement: research, craft, and concept(pp. 96–114). New York: Teachers College Press.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1990). Teacher development in
professional practice schools. Teacher College Record, 92(1),105–122.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1994). Problems and possibilities
of institutionalizing teacher research. In S. Hollingworth, H.
Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform(93rd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education (pp. 204–221). Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
LeTendre, G. K. (1999). The problem of Japan: qualitative
studies and international educational comparisons. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 38–45.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation:
workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325–340.
Little, J. W. (1986). Seductive images and organizational
realities in professional development. In A. Lieberman(Ed.), Rethinking school improvement: research, craft, andconcept (pp. 26–44). New York: Teachers College Press.
Little, J. W. (1990a). The persistence of privacy: autonomy andinitiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers
College Record, 91(4), 509–536.
Little, J. W. (1990b). The mentor phenomenon and the socialorganization of teaching. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of
research in education, Vol. 16 (pp. 297–351). Washington,
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Little, J. W. (1992). Opening the black box of professional
community. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The changing contexts
of teaching (91st yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education, Part I (pp. 157–178). Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a
climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151.
Little, J. W. (1999). Organizing schools for teacher learning.
In L. Darling-Hammond, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teachingas the learning profession: handbook of policy andpractice(pp. 233–262). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
LoCastro, V. (1996). English language education in Japan.
In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom(pp. 40–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). School teacher. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lortie, D. C. (1998). Unﬁnished work. Reﬂections on Schoolteacher. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullen, & D.
Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educationalchange (pp. 145–162). Netherlands, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic.
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher,17(12), 13–17.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
816

K. Sato, R.C. Kleinsasser / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 797–816

McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). What matters most in teachers’
workplace context? In J. W. Little, & M. W. McLaughlin(Eds.), Teachers’ work: individuals, colleagues, and contexts(pp. 79–103). New York: Teachers College Press.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional
communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice teaching.
Curriculum Studies, 19, 317–328.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational
research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Richardson, V. (1994). Conducting research on practice.
Educational Researcher, 23(5), 5–9.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs inlearning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of researchon teacher education, (2nd ed.) (pp. 102–119). New York:
Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991).
The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices inreading comprehension instruction. American Educational
Research Journal, 28(3), 559–586.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective schools: interpreting theevidence. American Educational Research, 93, 352–388.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace. New York:
Longman.

Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of the school and the problemof change (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sato, K., (2000). EFL teachers in context: beliefs, practices, andinteractions. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999a). Multiple data sources:
converging and diverging conceptualisations of LOTE
teaching. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
24(1), 17–33.
Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999b). Communicative
language teaching (CLT): practical understandings. The
Modern Language Journal, 83(4), 494–517.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: methods foranalysing talk, text, and interaction. London: SAGE
Publications.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: best ideas
from the world’s teachers for improving education in theclassroom. New York: The Free Press.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. St. Louis:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: on writing
ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wolcott, H. F. (1990). Writing up qualitative research. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.