JER|Journal of ELT ResearchVol. 7, No. 1, 2022, 1-20 DOI: 10.22236/JER_Vol7Issue1

Developing Preservice Elementary School Teachers’
Beliefs and Practices through TBLT-Based Teacher
Education
Kazuyoshi Sato*
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies

Tomoko Yago
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies

DOI: 10.22236/JER_Vol7Issue11-20

Although the Japanese government decided to make English a formal subject for fifth andsixth graders from 2020, there has been little discussion about how to prepare English
teachers. In fact, Curtain and Dahlberg (2003) pointed out that lack of skillful teachers has
been a serious issue in teaching foreign languages to elementary school students all over theworld. Moreover, in the research on task-based language teaching (TBLT)† “the role of theteacher has received scant attention” (Van den Branden, 2016, p.164). This study attempts toreveal how Japanese university students who desire to be elementary school teacherstransform their beliefs about English language teaching to young learners and develop theirteaching skills through TBLT-based teacher education.

Keywords: preservice teachers’ beliefs and practices, teacher development, TBLT, beliefs
about language learning, beliefs about language teaching*

Corresponding author. Email: yoshi@nufs.ac.jp
Willis (1996) defines task as “goal-oriented communicative activity with a specific outcome, where the emphasis
is on exchange meanings not producing specific language forms” (p. 36).
1

ISSN: 2502-292X, e-ISSN 2527-7448.
© 2022, English Education Program, Graduate School
University of Muhammadiyah Prof. DR. HAMKA Jakarta
DOI: 10.22236/JER_Vol7Issue1

INTRODUCTION
The question of how teachers learn to teach, whether in general or second language
disciplines, is more concerned with what teachers actually know and how they develop theirpractices than what teachers need to know and how they can be trained (Carter, 1990;
Golombek, 1994; Lange, 1990; Richardson, 1994; 1996). In other words, current research onteacher development focuses on teachers’ beliefs in relation to their practices rather thanteachers’ skills and dispositions mandated by educators or policymakers (Carter, 1990;
Richardson, 1994).
Pajares (1992) reviewed research on teachers’ beliefs and summarized 16 fundamental
assumptions.
(1) Beliefs are formed early and tend to self-perpetuate.
(2) Beliefs about teaching are well established by the time a student gets to college.
(3) Changes in beliefs during adulthood are rare.
(4) Beliefs are instrumental in defining tasks and selecting the cognitive tools with which tointerpret, plan, and make decisions regarding such tasks.
(5) Individuals’ beliefs strongly affect their behavior (for complete discussion on all 16
assumptions, see Pajares, 1992, pp. 324-326).
In short, Pajares (1992) summarized the nature of beliefs. “Beliefs are instrumental in defining
tasks and selecting the cognitive tools with which to interpret, plan, and make decisions
regarding such tasks; hence, they play a critical role in defining behavior and organizing
knowledge and information” (p. 325). Additionally, Richardson (1994) affirmed “[t]eachers
make decisions on the bases on a personal sense of what works, but without examining thebeliefs underlying a sense of ‘working,’ teachers may perpetuate practices based onquestionable assumptions and beliefs” (p. 6).
Fox (1993) made a survey of 147 first year graduate teaching assistants (TAs) in Frenchat twenty universities in the U.S. She found that teaching assistants did not conceptualize
language according to the model of communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980, seealso Savignon, 1997). Instead, they showed strong emphasis on grammar at the expense ofcommunicative activities. She claimed that "TAs who understand the nature of communication
will be less apt to fall back on incorrect notions and outdated methodologies than those who
do not" (p. 322). Johnson (1994) conducted a study on four pre-service language teachers. She
concluded that prior beliefs based on formal language learning experiences were so powerfulthat pre-service teachers could not alter their beliefs without sufficient alternative instructional
practices “to test out their emerging beliefs” (p. 451). More recently, Kelly (2018) conducteda study on 12 preservice teachers who engaged in a second language K-12 teacher education
program. The study found that preservice teachers’ view—“imparting basic literacy skills to
passive students” (p. 132) — did not change after the course.
Yet, by reviewing the literature, Fives et al. (2015) found that there are several studies
which documented preservice teachers’ belief change during preparation “by immersing themin preservice courses that require a variety of experiences, such as workshops, reflection
activities (Brownlee & Chak, 2007), and immersion in the field (Ozgun-Koca & Sen, 2006)”(p. 257).
In brief, although previous empirical studies represent the difficulty in changing beliefs
and practices of inservice teachers (Karavas-Doukas, 1996; Lamb, 1995; Sato & Kleinsasser,
2| Sato & Yago

1999; 2004) as well as preservice teachers (Fox, 1993; Johnson, 1994; Kelly, 2018), little
research has been done on preservice elementary school teachers’ beliefs and practices.
Moreover, Fives et al. (2015) claim that “[r]esearch on teachers’ beliefs needs to expand toclear investigations of beliefs about learning as distinct from beliefs about teaching, as theformer serve as the foundation for the latter” (p. 261).
Consequently, this study focuses on preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching andpractices, who had already changed their beliefs about a foreign language learning fromtraditional teacher-centered one to more communicative, student-centered one (Nguyen 2018;
Nguyen & Sato, 2016). Are they ready to develop their beliefs about teaching and practices?
Furthermore, Cochran-Smith, et al. (2016) found that most studies were about teacher
candidates’ beliefs and “[m]uch less attention was paid to the development of tangible teachingpractices” (p. 493). With these research issues in mind, this study will focus on the developmentof preservice elementary school teachers’ beliefs about teaching as well as practices.
Accordingly, we formulated the following research questions.
(1) How do pre-service elementary school teachers change their beliefs about
language teaching?
(2) How do they develop their teaching skills through the yearlong teacher training
course?
METHOD
Participants
Eight university students (one fourth-year female and seven third-year students, twomales and five females), who were planning to be elementary school teachers, participated in
the yearlong teacher training program (see Table 1). The first semester started in April 2015
with 15 weeks (a 90-minute class per week) and the second semester began in the middle ofSeptember with 15 weeks, finishing in early January 2016. The level of their English ability
was low-intermediate to intermediate (550 to 750 in TOEIC).
TABLE 1
Name, sex, age
Akemi
Aiko
Shinji
F, 22
F, 21
M, 20
Notes: All names are pseudonyms.

Toru
M, 20

Yuko
F, 20

SatokoF, 20Midori
F, 20

Cika
F, 20

Content-Based English Curriculum (CBEC) and Strategy Training Program
All eight students received CBEC for two years when they entered this department. Following
the framework for a task-based approach (Willis, 1996) that includes three stages: the pre-taskstage, the task stage, and the post-task stage, CBEC starts the task cycle in the form of a
discussion topic‡ (see Appendix 1) and is integrated with four classes over a two-week cycle.
In addition, we introduced communication strategies for each topic over two semesters so thatstudents could maintain their conversations (see Wood, 2018), referring to Kenny, T., & Woo,
L. (2012) and Kehe, D., & Kehe, P. D. (2004).

2

We used Impact Issues (Day & Yamanaka, 1998) as a textbook.

Journal of ELT Research | 3

The "Pre-task" begins in week one with the introduction of the topic in the "Discussion
and Debate" (DD) class and then is followed by reading an authentic news article in the"Intensive Reading" class (IR) to develop students' background knowledge of the topic. The"Planning" stage of the task cycle continues in the next class, "Academic Writing" (AW), wherestudents brainstorm, plan, and write a draft of a two-paragraph essay based on the same topic.
In the fourth class called "Power-Up Tutorial" (PUT), the focus is on meaningful speaking
output with the students discussing the main topic in groups of three with one native Englishspeaking language tutor.
This cycle repeats for a second week in DD with students sharing their research on thesame topic in discussion groups, then reading another news article in the IR class to deepen
their knowledge, followed by students writing a second draft of their essay on the topic andsharing through peer reading and editing in AW. Finally, the students video record their
discussion of the topic in pairs during the PUT class.
The "Post task" activity for students is to write a transcription of the recording for selfevaluation and to make a plan for improvement in the next task cycle of the next topic. In thefollowing PUT class before discussing the new topic, the teachers and the tutors give feedback
and advice to consolidate and complete the task cycle.
Moreover, they received a seven-week strategy training program both in the first and thesecond semester as second-year students before entering the teacher training program. The
program aimed at developing students‟ understanding of language learning strategies (listening
strategies, communication strategies, reading and discussion strategies) so that they could try
them out in CBEC. At the end of each program, students were assigned to write a language
learning history (LLH). They were assigned to write an essay (with about 700 words) byanswering the following questions: (1) What did you like and dislike about the strategy training
program? (2) What were different from English classes you had in your high school? (3) What
were three strategies or activities which changed your ways of learning English? and (4) How
do you want to further improve your English ability?
TBLT-Based Teacher Training Program
Based on the textbook—English for Primary Teachers (Slattery & Willis, 2001), we developed
a yearlong program, aiming at developing preservice teachers’ practices based on TBLT. Table
2 shows the schedule for each semester. The second researcher conducted all the classes, while
the first researcher observed and took fieldnotes. The second researcher taught each classmainly in English except for sharing comments in Japanese after each model lesson anddemonstration.
TABLE 2Curriculum for the first semester

Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5Topic
Teaching young learners
Listen and do
Listen and Make
Speaking with support
Speaking more freely

4| Sato & Yago

Activities
Model lesson, Demonstration
Model lesson, Demonstration
Model lesson, Demonstration
Model lesson, Demonstration
Model lesson, Demonstration

Final group project
Curriculum for the second semester
Topic
Unit 6
Reading in English
Unit 7
Writing in English
Unit 8
Reading and telling stories
Unit 9
Story activities
Unit 10Planning for effective use of English
in the classroom

Activities
Model lesson, Demonstration
Model lesson, Demonstration
Model lesson, Demonstration
Model lesson, Demonstration
Model lesson, Demonstration
Final group project

Each unit was covered with two weeks. In the first week two to three students were assigned
to give a short demonstration, modeling sample tasks in the textbook. Then, in the second week,
another couple of students demonstrated their original tasks developing model ones. Finally,
students in groups of two to three worked on their materials development project. They chose
one lesson from the textbook used in public elementary schools (for fifth or sixth graders) anddeveloped a lesson plan by creating tasks based on what they had learned from the program.
Data Collection
A mixed methods research approach was adopted for this project. According to Johnson et al.
(2007), “Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher or team ofresearchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches…for the
purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (p. 213). Multiple data
sources such as LLH essays, student surveys, reflection logs, classroom observations, lessonplans, and interviews were collected for this study.
LLH essay. These eight students’ essays written at the end of the second semester in2014 (except for Akemi’s one in 2013) were collected to examine their beliefs about English
leaning) before they participated in the TBLT-based teacher training program in April, 2015.
Student survey. Based on Horwiz (1985), two instruments—the Foreign Language
Attitude Survey for Teachers (FLAST; for a full description see Savignon, 1983) and theBeliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) Techer version—were utilized (seeAppendix B). All 27 items in BALLI were included with a minor modification of wording. For
instance, “25. Americans are good at learning a foreign language” was changed to “25.
Japanese are good at learning a foreign language.” In addition, 9 items from FLAST, which
would be appropriate in the teaching context in Japan, were chosen to supplement BALLI. The
student survey was conducted three times, at the beginning of the first semester (May, 2015),
at the end of the first semester (July), and at the end of the second semester (January, 2016).
Reflection log. Students wrote a one page-long reflection log in English in their B5
notebooks about (1) the activities they liked and disliked and (2) what they learned aboutteaching after every class. They shared their logs with a couple of classmates in English at the
beginning of the next class. The second researcher collected their log books every other week
and wrote a short comment in English.
Classroom observation. As a participant observer, the first researcher documented thesetting, participants, events, acts, and gestures (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). In other words, thefocus was on what was observable avoiding early generalizations, and not on what was not

Journal of ELT Research | 5

observable like motivations or attitudes (Silverman, 1993). The researcher usually sat at theback of the class, occasionally moving around the class and documenting what was happening
in the class in the field note, except for the occasions the second researcher (an instructor) asked
the first researcher for some comment on students’ demonstrations. Glesne & Peshkinsuggested that “[t]he researcher does not take charge or play the role of change agent or judge,
but stays at the psychological margins of interactions” (p.58).
Lesson plan. Students made groups (two groups of three and one group of two) for the
final project (materials development) at the end of each semester. They were expected to apply
what they had learned from the program to their final project. They chose one lesson from the
textbooks for fifth or sixth graders and developed a lesson plan based on TBLT before theirdemonstrations (see Table 1).
Interview. Following ethnographic interview ideas by Spradley (1979), the firstresearcher developed six questions to reveal how the students changed their beliefs aboutteaching and how they developed their teaching skills. Then, he asked the second researcher
for comment to improve the interview questions. With a minor modification including wording,he conducted an interview with eight students in Japanese after the end of each semester (seeAppendix C). The interview lasted 15 to 20 minutes. With the permission of students,
interviews were taped-recorded, and further transcribed for analysis. Interviews were thentranslated into English by the first researcher.
Data Analysis
25 items from BALLI and 9 items from FLAST based on Likert-scaled responses (from 1:strongly agree to 5: strongly disagree, except for No. 4 and 11, see Appendix B) were analyzed
using descriptive statistics and SPSS (2014). Because the number of participants was small, a
nonparametric test (Spearman’s ranking ordering) was used to analyzed the results in May,
July, and January. There was no significant change, which indicated that these participants had
already changed their beliefs about language learning. As a result, we further analyzed theresults in January, focusing on salient items. Those items receiving a mean of 3.6 or higher
were those with which student teachers disagreed (the closer to 5, the more strongly they
disagree with it). Those items receiving a mean of 2.4 or lower were those with which students
agreed. Items falling between 2.4 and 3.5 were those with which students neither agree nor
disagreed.
Inductive approaches were used to analyze the qualitative data from LLH essays,
observations, interviews, and documents (lesson plans) (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Silverman,
1993). Data were carefully read repeatedly identifying any category that might encode cultural
meaning (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In short, based on mixed methods data analysis, both
qualitative and quantitative data appeared to contribute to “breadth and depth of understanding
and corroboration” (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007, p. 213) that neither method alone
could have, thus offering greater reliability (Creswell, 2010).
FINDINGS
Beliefs about English Language Learning (Before the Teacher Training Program)
Using multiple data sources including surveys, reflection logs, essays (language learning
history), and interviews, together with mixed methods data analysis, Nguyen & Sato (2016)
6| Sato & Yago

and Nguyen (2018) concluded that the strategy training program made a significant role inchanging students’ beliefs about English language learning. These eight students went throughthe same program. Below are excerpts of essays about language learning history (LLH)
students wrote prior to the TBLT-based teacher training program. All students wrote that theylearned English in traditional ways in their senior high schools (memorization, grammar,
reading and translation from English into Japanese) just to pass university entrance
examinations, which is still the norm in Japan (Nishino, 2011; Sato, 2002).
I’d like to talk [about] my language history. I like learning English since I was a juniorhigh school student, because I can learn different cultures by learning English. However,it was little boring to learn English in high school, because my English teachers taught
English to pass the exam. Therefore, I really enjoyed Yoshi [the first researcher] sensei’sclass. I learned English [in] various ways, for example pair work or singing song[s].
Every way was very interesting for me. (Aiko, LLH, 2014)
In my high school days, all the classes didn’t have any activities like Yoshi’s class.
Some of my classmates were sleeping and looked like being bored. I think that generally,
there are few high school’s classes which have activities. Therefore, it seems to me that
there were no students who were sleeping while Yoshi’s class, so Yoshi’s class wasreally effective!... That is exactly the difference between Yoshi’s class and classes I had
in my high school. In addition, I had learned a lot of useful conversation strategies in
Yoshi’s class. I have never taken classes which teach me a lot of useful things more than
Yoshi’s class. (Shinji, LLH, 2014)
As these excerpts reveal, through CBEC and the strategy training programs, these eightstudents changed their beliefs about learning English from traditional ways of learning English
to communicative ways of learning English. Chika wrote:
Yoshi’s class had a pair work many times, thanks to this I could communicate with many
classmates. We can learn not only English but also everything from my classmates, too.
That’s why pair work is important. (Chika, LLH, 2014)
Midori enjoyed sharing their opinions in the literature circle (group discussion based on thesame reading materials). Midori reported:
And in the activity of the literature circle, also I shared my experiences about the topic
with my group members. Thus, in Yoshi sensei’s class, there are a lot of opportunities
to share something. I can know the other opinions or experiences from my classmates,
so I can expand the way of thinking. (Midori, LLH, 2014)
These excerpts attest to the findings of Nguyen & Sato (2016) and Nguyen (2018), which
revealed that these eight students had already changed their beliefs about English language
learning through the strategy training program toward more students-centered, communicative
ways of learning English.

Journal of ELT Research | 7

Quantitative Results (Surveys)
Table 3 presents the results of items these students agreed to some extent (the closer to 1, themore strongly students agreed with it). They agreed that “It’s o.k. to guess if you don’t know aword in the foreign language,” “Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language,” and “It is
important to repeat and practice a lot,” which indicates that everyone can learn a foreign
language through communicating a lot. This view is consistent with what students wrote intheir language learning history, which implies communicative ways of language learning,
though too much repetition and drills are considered as a part of the Audio-Lingual Method.
Table 4 shows the results of items they disagreed to some extent (the closer to 5, the morestrongly students disagreed with it). Students disagreed that “You shouldn’t say anything in thelanguage until you can say it correctly” and “Learning another language is a matter oftranslating from Japanese,” which support a communicative approach to language learning.
Yet, they strongly disagreed that “Language learning should be fun,” for which they expressed
their reasons in the next section. In short, the survey results were consistent throughout theacademic year, which supports the analysis of LLH essays indicating that these students had
already changed their beliefs about language learning from a traditional teacher-centered viewof learning English to more communicative ways of learning English.
TABLE 3
Items of 2.4 or lower
No.
Mean Statement8
2.38
It is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn another one.
3
2.13
Some languages are easier to learn than others.
9
2.13
It is better to learn a foreign language in the foreign country.
27
1.63
Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language.
10
1.50
It’s o.k. to guess if you don’t know a word in the foreign language.
13
1.50
It is important to repeat and practice a lot.
TABLE 4
Items of 3.5 or higher
No.
35
7
23
31

Mean
4.50
4.38
4.13
4.00

11

3.88

17
28

3.88
3.63

20
34

3.50
3.50

Statement
Language learning should be fun.
You shouldn’t say anything in the language until you can say it correctly.
People who are good at math and science are not good at learning foreign languages.
All students, regardless of previous academic success and preparation, should be
encouraged and given the opportunity to study a foreign language.
If someone spent one hour a day learning a language, how long would it takehim/her to become fluent? 1) less than a year, 2) 1-2 years, 3) 3-5 years, 4) 5-10 years,5) You can’t learn a language in 1 hour a day.
Women are better than men at learning foreign languages.
Gestures and other kinesics should be taught and evaluated as an integral part oflanguage acquisition.
Learning another language is a matter of translating from Japanese.
When a student makes syntactical errors, this should be accepted by the teacher as anatural and inevitable part of language acquisition.

8| Sato & Yago

Qualitative Results
Reflection logs and Interviews. Students wrote comments on what they learned aboutteaching English to children after each class (15 times per semester). At the end of eachsemester, the first researcher interviewed all eight students in Japanese (see Appendix C).
Based on the data analyses, we found six developmental stages (three for each semester) about
how to teach English to children.
Stage 1: from week 1 to 5 (First semester). Students enjoyed song activities from theteacher (2nd researcher) without thinking of any teaching skills. They were nervous about
demonstration. They paid more attention to classroom English, volume, pronunciation, speechrate, etc. than how to teach English to children. Below are their voices:・We sang “Hockey Pockey” for the first time. It was really interesting and even if weenjoyed it, children can enjoy it. (Yuko, RL4)
・I was care[ful] about my voice of volume and speed. However, it was not enough forchildren. I need to do that more exaggerate[d]ly. (Aiko, RL4)
・I did “Simon says” activity but it wouldn’t work because of my skills. In my image I
thought I could do “Simon says” well but, after end activity, I was depressed. (Toru,
RL3)
Stage 2: from week 6 to 10. Some of the students started thinking about how to teachsongs to children or what children could learn from songs and chants. As they became used todemonstration, they started adapting the activities from the textbook. They wrote suchcomments:

・I’m sure that I could relax during the lesson and really enjoy teaching. There are two
reasons I think. One is being accustomed to doing demonstration. Two is preparing forthe demonstration [for which] I wrote down the script. So I could reassure the lesson,
and what I should do. (Midori, RL8)
・It is important to arrange activities to make them suitable to [for] children. If they
can do well, a teacher can make it more challenging. If they can’t, easier. Teacher nevercan arrange without understanding the characteristic of activities. (Shinji, RL7)
Stage 3: from week 11 to 15. Students felt some improvement in their teaching skills
and became able to see an activity from the children’s point of view. As they became more
confident in teaching, they also found difficulties in making a lesson plan with clear goals.
Here are excerpts of their reflection logs.

・This was the last demonstration in 1st semester. I think that I improved my teachingskill a little through the first semester. (Aiko, RL15)
・I learned from Toru that a teacher [has] to consider the meaning of games or
activities. What do teachers want children to learn? Or what is the game or activities
for? (Yuko, RL14)

Journal of ELT Research | 9

・Today, we made a lesson plan for the final project. I felt the difficulty of thinking
about a connection of each class (Satoko, RL12)
The interviews at the end of the first semester revealed that four out of eight students said
explicitly that they changed their view from just having fun to organizing an activity with clear
goals. For instance:

・I had a vague idea about how to teach English to children. I though just having fun
is OK. However, through this course I learned that there is a goal for an activity andthe teacher has to work out a plan to teach. (Yuko, Interview 1)
・I used to think English for fun is all they need for elementary school students.
However, I realized that student[s] don’t learn English from just having fun. Instead,teachers need to clarify the goal for each activity. (Satoko, Interview 1)
Stage 4: from week 1 to 5 (Second semester). Students began to learn how to teachreading and writing; however, they had difficulty demonstrating activities. They learned someteaching skills for good storytelling such as changing the voice for each character. Below are
their voices:

・Actually, I’m not sure how the Japanese children can read English, so it was reallydifficult for me to do this activity….When I did this activity, the number of the English
words was little, so if I have the opportunity to do [the] same activity, I want to try to
add more words and pictures to enjoy more. (Midori, RL17)
・There’re conversations in the story so a reader should change a voice and express
the feeling. It looks easy but it was so hard to me. I tried to change my voice but it didn’tchange. (Yuko, RL19)
Stage 5: from week 6 to 10. Students developed a deeper understanding of using gestures
especially in songs and storytelling. Although they were still struggling with how to teachreading and writing to children, they gradually understood children’s learning process.
Moreover, they noticed some teachings skills for good storytelling such as asking questions
about the story. Here are what they wrote in their logs.

・Children will be able to read sentences, if there’re steps. At first teachers read thesentences or main words and children find the pictures. And then children repeat after
the teacher. Next, they play the game like matching game and see the sentences. Finallychildren can read them [in] silently. (Yuko, RL25)
・To get children involved [is] also important. When we read a story, it’s good to stopsometimes, and ask questions about the story. It might be like “Who went to the river?”“What’s the name of the boy?” In order not to make children passive in classes even inreading, I would like to try to have children speak and think a lot. (Shinji, RL21)

10 | S a t o & Y a g oStage 6: from week 11 to 15. Students gradually gained the knowledge and the skills ofteaching English to children. However, they noticed the difficulty integrating four skills,
especially reading and writing skills. They further developed their understanding about making
a lesson plan with clear goals by integrating four skills. They wrote their comments:

・Recently we’ve chosen suitable gestures for children quickly. It means we could
understand what children like gradually. I realize I have to think about children all [the]time when I teach English to them and enjoy the class. (Chika. RL28)
・Through the demonstration, I thought that it’s hard to introduce reading and writing
activity. Children need to connect sounds and letters. It takes time to acquire how toread and write English. Therefore, teachers should make a plan considering theprocedure of the four classes. (Aiko, RL30)
In the interviews conducted at the end of the second semester, all eight students reported thatthey changed their view about teaching English to children. They realized the significance ofmaking a lesson plan with clear goals. For example:
・I used to think playing games in English is fine so that they can learn vocabulary.
However, I realized that teachers need to set up goals in making a lesson plan. (Toru,
Interview 2)・Just singing a song, reading a story, or playing a game is not enough. I really
understood the importance of the teaching procedure with clear goals and steps.
Without them, English class will end up just a fun class, without learning for children.
(Satoko, Interview 2)
Classroom observation A. The first researcher observed the group project
presentations conducted at the end of the first semester in July, 2015. There were three groups(two groups of three and one group of two). Each group chose one unit from the textbook (“Hi,friends 1”) for fifth graders and developed a lesson plan for three to four 45-minute classes.
However, each student had 20 minutes for demonstration. Here is a description of thepresentations made by one group (Toru, Chika, Akemi). They chose “sports” as a topic. First,
Toru introduced sports words such as baseball, soccer, and basketball with picture cards after
greeting and singing “Hello Song.” The other seven students played roles of his students. He
put each card on the board. Then, he took out one or a few cards from the board and asked
students, “What’s missing?” After that, he moved to “Simon says.” When Toru said “Simon
says, soccer,” students showed how to kick a ball with gestures. He sometimes said“basketball” without saying “Simon says” and a few students made a mistake. Then, Toru
moved to a matching game and made pairs. He gave one set of picture cards to each student.
Students laid those cards on their desks face down. Then, Toru asked everyone, “What sports
do you like?” Each student took one card and said the name of the sport. If both students in apair took the same card, they could keep their cards. Toru could use ideas he learned from thecourse book, which belonged to “Listen and do.”The second class was taught by Chika. After greeting and singing the same song, shemade one big circle. She asked one student to say her favorite sport. Then, the next student

Journal of ELT Research | 11

repeated the name of her sport and said his favorite sport. Students clapped their hands so thateach student could say the name of the sport the previous student said and his/her favorite sport
to the rhythm. After finishing the warm-up, she made pairs and showed how to play Tic-TacToe with one volunteer. Each student said, “I like〜.” and put his/her small card to continue
the game. Finally, Chika made two groups and gave picture cards to each group. Students ineach group spread the card face up. Students asked the teacher, “What sports do you like?” andChika said “tennis.” The student who took the card first could keep it. They continued the game
which also belonged to “Listen and do.”
The third presenter was Akemi. After greeting and singing the same song, she reviewed
sports words by using picture cards. She showed a soccer card and said “I like soccer. I likesoccer, raise your hand.” Some raised their hands. She then asked a few students “What sports
do you like?” After that, she made one big circle and students sat down on their seats. She gave
directions in English, “This is a bomb, here you are. Ask next person, what sports do you likeand pass the bomb. Next person, answer, I like 〜. We have 20 seconds. Are you ready? Let’s
start clockwise.” After 20 seconds, the bell rang and all the students asked the question to thestudent who held the bomb. The student answered the question. Then, she moved to a new
game—“Fruit basket.” Akemi took one student’s seat out of the circle and the student stood at
the center of the circle. All the students asked the student, “What sports do you like?” She said
“I like basketball.” Then, some students who liked basketball stood up and moved to different
seats. One student who could not find a seat stood at the center of the circle. They continued
the game. Finally, Akemi introduced an interview game. She delivered a work sheet and gave
instructions, “Let’s play interview game. First, do rock, scissors, paper. Winner, please ask
what sports do you like? Loser, please answer, I like〜. then, switch. Loser ask, winner answer.
OK? Are you ready? Let’s start.” By this time all the students could use “What sports do you
like? and I like〜. Though Akemi’s instructions in English sometimes included errors, she was
successful in having students use more English, which she learned from the course book—“Speaking with support” an “Speaking more freely.”
The observation supports the qualitative data based on reflection logs and interviews,
which revealed three stages and development of their teaching skills. Students became used togiving a demonstration and developed a lesson plan by creating activities based on what they
had learned from the program.
Classroom observation B. The first researcher observed final group presentations at theend of the second semester in January, 2016. Students in two groups of four were assigned tochoose one unit from the textbook (“Hi, friends 2”) for six graders and develop a lesson planfor four 45-minute classes. This is a description of one group (Yuko, Midori, Chika, Toru). The
topic was birthday. First, after greeting Yuko reviewed words of 12 months and sang –“Monthsof the year” together with students. Then, she introduced cardinal numbers from 1 to 31. After
that, she made two groups and students counted a number from 1 to 31 in a circle. Each student
could say up to three cardinal numbers and the last student who said 31 became a failure. She
then introduced a matching activity. She made two groups and gave two sets of cards facedown: one for events and the other for dates. Each student drew one event card and one datecard face up saying in English. The rest members in each group checked and said “Yes” or

12 | S a t o & Y a g o

“No.” Students took both cards if both cards were matched; otherwise, they returned cards face
down.
Second, Midori followed the first lesson. After greeting, she reviewed cardinal numbers
and sang a song—“Months of the year.” She then read a picture book she made about 12
animals’ birthdays. After that, she reviewed the story by asking questions such as “When is abear’s birthday?” She gave each student a mask of an animal and called him/her in front of theclassroom. Students asked him/her “When is your birthday?” Then, each student with an animal
mask answered.
Chika taught the third lesson. After greeting, she started her lesson by singing “HelloSong” and “Months of The Year.” Then, she quickly reviewed cardinal numbers. After that,
she read the same picture book and asked questions about 12 animals’ birthdays. Next, shemade pairs and gave 12 picture cards and birthday cards. Students in pairs matched them andput them in order from January to December. She changed pairs and did it again.
The fourth lesson was taught by Toru. After greeting, he showed his birthday card to
students and said, “Let’s make a birthday card.” He gave instructions in English including“Please write down your name,” “Please write down your birthday,” and “Please draw yourfavorite things.” It took about 20 minutes. Then, he said, “Let’s make one line according tobirthdays.” Students asked each other—“When is your birthday?” and made a line. After that,
he displayed all the birthday cards students made on the blackboard. The class was over.
The observation at the end of the second semester shows that students worked onmaterials development project by using ideas from the textbook based on TBLT, especiallyintegrating four skills with a clear goal (making a birthday card).
DISCUSSION
Although previous empirical studies represent the difficulty of changing preservice teachers’
beliefs and practices (Fox, 1993; Johnson, 1994; Kelly, 2018), this study shows the possibility
to transform pre-service teachers’ beliefs and practices about English language teaching toyoung learners. In this section, we discuss the findings by responding to the research questions.
How do pre-service elementary school teachers change their beliefs about language
learning and teaching?
These eight students had positive attitude toward language learning and beliefs about teaching
English to children when the training started. Their previous two-year English program basedon CBLT and the strategy training program influenced their beliefs about language learning(see Nguyen, 2018; Nguyen & Sato, 2016). Chika reported:
Yoshi’s class had a pair work many times, thanks to this I could communicate with many
classmates. We can learn not only English but also everything from my classmates, too.
That’s why pair work is important. (Chika, 2014)
In short, the data revealed that these students changed their beliefs about learning English
from traditional ways of learning English to communicative ways of learning English.
They developed their beliefs about teaching English to elementary school students
through the yearlong teacher training program. In particular, by the end of the first semester,

Journal of ELT Research | 13

most students changed their beliefs from just having fun to organizing an activity with clear
goals. They further developed their understanding about making a lesson plan with clear goals
by integrating four skills by the end of the 2nd semester. In summary, this study attests to Fiveset al. (2015), who affirm that “[r]esearch on teachers’ beliefs needs to expand to clear
investigations of beliefs about learning as distinct from beliefs about teaching, as the former
serve as the foundation for the latter” (p. 261). Similarly, Cochran-Smith, et al. (2016) claimthat “for teacher candidates to be prepared to teach in ways that support learners’ constructionof knowledge, they themselves need to experience the knowledge construction process as
students in teacher preparation programs” (p. 492-493). This study revealed the significance ofchanging beliefs about language learning as students prior to the teacher training program.
Then, how many years and what kind of teaching approaches are necessary to changepreservice teachers’ beliefs about learning before they are ready to change their beliefs aboutteaching? Who can be responsible for creating a foreign language curriculum through which
preservice teachers can experience learning similar to teaching approaches in a teacher training
program?
How do they develop their teaching skills through the yearlong teacher training course?
By reviewing 1500 articles about teacher preparation which were published in major teacher
education journals from 2000 to 2012, Cochran-Smith, et al. (2016) found that most studies
were about teacher candidates’ beliefs and “[m]uch less attention was paid to the developmentof tangible teaching practices” (p. 493). Yet, this study found out that these eight students went
through six stages (some were overlapped) to develop their teaching skills. They include:(1) enjoy songs and activities without thinking of teaching skills, become nervous about
demonstration(2) start arranging the activities from the textbook, become used to demonstration(3) feel some improvement in their teaching, become able to see an activity from thechildren’s point of view, find difficulties in making a lesson plan with clear goals.
(4) learn the difficulty of teaching reading and writing.
(5) struggle with how to teach reading and writing to children, gradually understandchildren’s learning processes.
(6) further develop their understanding about making a lesson plan with clear goals by
integrating four skills.
In short, learning how to teach is not linear rather it is complex. Moreover, each stage indicatesthese preservie teachers’ evolving beliefs about how to teach English. Cochran-Smith, et al.
(2016), by reviewing the literature, affirm that “[g]iven the uncertainty involved in teaching, it
was not surprising to find that many of the practices explored in these studies focused on
preparing teacher candidates to reflect on their practices in order to learn from it” (p. 493).
These eight students engaged in writing reflection logs after each class and shared them withother classmates in the following class so that they could “cultivate habits of mind and skills
for learning in and from practice” (p. 493, see also Fives et al., 2015). Then, how long dopreservice teachers need to form the habit of reflection? What other reflection activities are
effective to improve their teaching skills?
14 | S a t o & Y a g oCONCLUSION
Although previous studies documented the difficulty of changing preservice teachers’ beliefs
and practices (Cochran-Smith, et al., 2016; Fox, 1993; Johnson, 1994; Kelly, 2018) and little
research has been done on preservice elementary school teachers’ beliefs and practices, thisstudy revealed the possibility to transform pre-service teachers’ beliefs and practices about
English language teaching to young learners. In sum, the study identified the following threemain findings.
(1) Students need to engage in a communication-oriented English program to change
their beliefs about learning prior to the preservice teacher training program.
(2) They need to go through several stages to develop their teaching skills based on
TBLT throughout the entire academic year.
(3) They need sufficient alternative instructional practices with reflection “to test out
their emerging beliefs” (Johnson, 1994, p. 451) so that they can further develop theirbeliefs about teaching.
Nonetheless, we acknowledge some limitations. There continues to be need for larger
sample size, additional quantitative and qualitative data. In particular, though these eightstudents received the same kind of English program based on CBLT following TBLT as those
who participated in Nguyen (2018) and Nguyen & Sato (2016), they were not involved in thosestudies.
Acknowledging the findings here may not be easily generalized, we encourage futurestudies. How will these preservice teachers actually teach when they become teachers inelementary schools? Cochran-Smith, et al. (2016) affirm that “since few of the studies followed
teacher candidates beyond the completion of those courses, little is known about the persistenceof results over time” (pp. 493-493). Similarly, Farrell (2003) claims that “One of the single
most influential factors in teacher socialization and development for beginning teachers is theirrelationship with their colleagues during their first years as teachers” (p. 97; see also Sato,
Mutoh, Kleinsasser, 2019, Williams, Prestage, & Bedward, 2001). Such future studies willcontribute to the teacher education in general and language teacher education in particular.
REFERENCES
Brownlee, J., & Chak, A. (2007). Hong Kong student teachers’ beliefs about children’s
learning: Influences of a cross-cultural early childhood teaching experience.
Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 7, 11-21.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches tosecond language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1-47.
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.
Curtain, H. I., & Dahlberg, C. A. (2003). Languages and children: Making thematch. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cochran-Smith, M., Villegas, A. M., Abrams, L. W., Chavez-Moreno, L. C., Mills, T.,& Stern, R. (2016). Research on teacher preparation: Charting the landscape of a
sprawling field. In C. Bell & D. Gitomer (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching

Journal of ELT Research | 15

(pp. 439-539) (Fifth ed.). American Educational Research Association.
Creswell, J.W. (2010). Mapping the developing landscape of mixed methods research.
In Tashakkori, A., & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods insocial & behavioral research (2nd edition) (pp. 45–68). London: Sage.
Day, R. R., & Yamanaka, J. (1998). Impact issues. Hong Kong: Longman.
Farrell, T. (2003). Learning to teach English language during the first year: personal
influences and challenges. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 95-111.
Fives, (2015). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching (and learning). In H. Fives & M. G. Gill
(Eds.) (2015). International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs(pp. 249-265). London: Routledge
Fox, C.A. (1993). Communicative competence and beliefs about language among
graduate teaching assistants in French. The Modern Language Journal, 77 (3),313-324.
Glensne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researcher.
New York: Longman.
Golombek, P. (1994). Putting teacher back into teachers' knowledge. TESOL Quarterly,
28 (2), 404-407.
Horwitz, E. (1985). Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in theforeign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 18 (4), 333-340.
Johnson, K.E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice
English as a second language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10 (4),439-452.
Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward a definition of
mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112–133.
Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers' attitudes to thecommunicative approach. ELT Journal, 50 (3), 187-198.
Kehe, D., & Kehe, P. D. (2004). Conversation strategies. Bratteboro, Vermont:
Pro Lingua Associates.
Kelly, L. B. (2018). Preservice teachers’ developing conceptions of teaching English
learners. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 110-136.
Kenny, T., & Woo, L. (2012). Nice talking with you 1. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lamb, M. (1995). The consequences of INSET. ELT Journal, 49 (1), 72-80.
Lange, D.L. (1990). A blueprint for a teacher development program. In J.C. Richards &D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp.245-268). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Nguyen, T. T. (2017). The impact of cooperative learning training on learner beliefs:
Building a community of practice. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Nagoya
University of Foreign Studies.
Nguyen, T. T., & Sato, K. (2016). Changes in learner beliefs of Japanese students:
An impact of the cooperative strategy training program. International Journal of
English Language Teaching, 4 (8), 46-66.
Nishino, T. (2011). Japanese high school teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding
communicative language teaching. JALT Journal, 33, 131–156.
Ozgun-Koca, S., & Sen, A. (2006). The beliefs and perceptions of pre-service teachersenrolled in a subject-area dominant teacher education program about ‘Effective
Education.’ Teaching and Teacher Education, 22 (7), 946-960.
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62 (3), 307-332.

16 | S a t o & Y a g oRichardson, V. (1994). Conducting research on practice. Educational Researcher, 23(5), 5-9.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach.
In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education, (2nd edition)(pp.102-119). New York: Simon & Schusler Macmillan.
Sato, K. (2002). Practical understandings of CLT and teacher development.
In Savignon, S.J. (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts
and concerns in teacher education (pp. 41–81). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R.C. (1999). Communicative language teaching (CLT):
Practical understandings. The Modern Language Journal, 83(4), 494-517.
Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R.C. (2004). Beliefs, practices, and interactions of teachers in a
Japanese high school English department. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20,
797-816.
Sato, K., Mutoh, N., & Kleinsasser, R.C. (2019). Longitudinal research on EFL teacher
professional development in (Japanese) contexts: Collaborative action research
projects. Language Teaching Research, 1-27.
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Savignon, S.J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice(2nd Ed.). New York: The McGrow-Hill Companies, Inc.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text, andinteraction. London: SAGE Publications.
Slattery, M., & Willis, J. (2001). English for primary teachers. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
SPSS Faculty Pack. (2014). SPSS professional statistics for the Macintosh.
SPSS Inc.
Van den Branden, K. (2016). The role of teachers in task-based language education.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 164-181.
Williams, A., Prestage, S., & Bedward, J. (2001). Individualism to collaboration:
The significance of teacher culture to the induction of newly qualified teachers.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 27 (3), 253-267.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Wood, J. (2018). A mixed methods study of the relationship between learning touse communication strategies and the development of L2 interactional competence.
Unpublished PhD dissertation. Nagoya University of Foreign Studies.
APPENDIX A
Main Topics for the CBEC (for the first-year students)
1st Semester
1. English in Elementary School(Goal: 3 minutes)(Discussion question (DQ): Are youfor or against introducing English
into elementary schools?)
2. Living together without marriage(3.5 min.)Communication Strategies
Opener: How ya doin? How’s it goin? Closer: Nicetalking with you. You, too. Turn taking: How about you?
Pardon me? Let me see. Let me think. That’s a difficult
question
Rejoinders: Oh, really? Oh, yeah?
Soundsnice/great/fun/interesting/boring/healthy/dangerous!

Journal of ELT Research | 17

(DQ: Are you for or against living
together without marriage?)
3. Healthy Eating (4 min.)(DQ: What is a healthy food you
recommend?)
4. Environmental Issues (4 min.)(DQ: What can you do for a better
environment?)
5. Professional Sports (4.5 min.)(DQ: Are you for or against Japanese
baseball players’ playing in MLB?)
6. Pets (5 min.)(DQ: Do you think keeping a pet is agood idea?)
2nd Semester
1. International Marriage(5 min.)(DQ: Do you think the advantages ofinternational marriage outweigh thedisadvantages?)
2. Organ Transplants (5 min.)(DQ: Are you for or against using theorgans of dead people?)
3. Working Women (5.5 min.)(DQ: Are you for or against the ideathat women should stay at home after
giving birth?)
4. Same-Sex Marriage (6 min.)(DQ: Are you for or against same-sex
marriage?)
5. Death Penalty (6.5 min.)
DQ: Are you for or against capital
punishment?)
6. Six-year Teacher Training
Program (7 min.)(DQ: Are you for or against a six-year
teacher training program?)Complete shadowing, partial shadowing

Follow-up questions: What, Where, When, What kind of,
How long/far/late/big?
Clarifications: You did what? He went where? What did
you say?
Clarifications: What do you mean? Can you give me an
example? Could you tell me? Could you explain?

Review of communication strategies

Shadowing and summarizing

Paraphrasing: What does that mean?

Explaining in detail: What do you mean?
Summarizing: Let’s me summarize what you said.

Review of communication strategies

APPENDIX B
Survey on Beliefs about Language Learning and Teaching
Directions: Indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement by choosing theappropriate scale between ‘strongly agree’ and ‘strongly disagree.’
1. It is easier for children than adults to learn a foreign language.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
2. Some people are born with a special ability which helps them learn a foreign language.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
3. Some languages are easier to learn than others.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
4. The language I am planning to teach is: 1) a very difficult language, 2) a difficult language,3) a language of medium difficulty, 4) an easy language, 5) a very easy language.
1----------2----------3----------4----------5
18 | S a t o & Y a g o

5. It’s important to speak a foreign language with an excellent accent.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
6. It is necessary to know the foreign culture in order to speak a foreign language.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
7. You shouldn’t say anything in the language until you can say it correctly.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
8. It is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn another one.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
9. It is better to learn a foreign language in the foreign country.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
10. It’s o.k. to guess if you don’t know a word in the foreign language.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
11. If someone spent one hour a day learning a language, how long would it takehim/her to become fluent? 1) less than a year, 2) 1-2 years, 3) 3-5 years, 4) 5-10
years, 5) You can’t learn a language in 1 hour a day.
1----------2----------3----------4----------5
12. Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of new vocabulary
words.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
13. It is important to repeat and practice a lot.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
14. If you are allowed to make mistakes in the beginning it will be hard to get rid ofthem later on.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
15. Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of grammar rules.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
16. It’s important to practice in the language laboratory.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
17. Women are better than men at learning foreign languages.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
18. It is easier to speak than to understand a foreign language.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
19. Learning a foreign language is different from learning other school subjects.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
20. Learning another language is a matter of translating from Japanese.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
21. If I learn to speak this language very well, it will help me get a good job.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
22. It is easier to read and write a language than to speak and understand it.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
23. People who are good at math and science are not good at learning foreign languages.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
24. Japanese think that it is important to speak a foreign language.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
25. People who speak more than one language well are very intelligent.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
26. Japanese are good at learning foreign languages.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
27. Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language.

Journal of ELT Research | 19

strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
28. Gestures and other kinesics should be taught and evaluated as an integral part of language
acquisition.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
29. Dialogue memorization is an effective technique in the process of learning a second
language.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
30. To learn a second language, one must begin the study at an early age.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
31. All students, regardless of previous academic success and preparation, should be
encouraged and given the opportunity to study a foreign language.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
32. Foreign-language teachers need not be fluent themselves to begin to teach effectively forcommunication.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
33. Students should answer a question posed in the foreign language with a complete sentence.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
34. When a student makes syntactical errors, this should be accepted by the teacher as a naturaland inevitable part of language acquisition.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
35. Language learning should be fun.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree
36. One can exchange ideas spontaneously in a foreign language without having linguistic
accuracy.
strongly agree 1----------2----------3----------4----------5 strongly disagree

APPENDIX C
Interview questions (translated from Japanese)
1. Did you enjoy the teacher training program about how to teach English to children? Was
the program useful?
2. Which activities or teaching approaches were useful? Why? Please choose a few examples
and state your reasons.
3. Was the textbook (English for Primary Teachers, Slattery & Willis, 2001) by useful?
4. Were model lessons and demonstrations useful? Were those successful? What did you
learn?
5. How was the final group project? Did you have any difficulty? What did you learn?
6. How did you change your views about teaching English to children? Why? Please give
examples and explain your reasons.

20 | S a t o & Y a g o