English Program in the Faculty of International Studies, Takushoku
University: English Education for ‘Empowerment’
Noriko ARAI

Abstract
The Faculty of International Studies, Takushoku University (hereafter FISTU) has originally
started as the Faculty of International Development Studies in 2000. As a unique brand-new
Faculty aspiring to educate internationally-minded youths who can function anywhere in the world
as well as survive in the era of globalization, its English program was designed with particularemphasis on teaching ‘practical and communicative English’. Looking back on the author’s own
experience of teaching English at FISTU since 2002, this paper examines how the English Programof FISTU has tackled (or not tackled) many problems standing in the way of improving students’English proficiency. After clarifying the background to so-called Japanese poor communicativecompetence in English, it reviews the English Program at FISTU from the aspects of its curriculum
reform, the utilization of G-TELP test as a placement test and TOEIC 500 as a target score and,more importantly, a kind of life motivator, the annual speech contest as a visible embodiment of
three ‘core’ English classes, the special care to support students, and the efficacy of study abroad(SA) programs. Following this, it aims to identify the defects of the current program and discuss
the tasks for its further improvement. As an exemplificative case of today’s English education
program at an average private university in Japan, to a great extent, this particular case study willreflect the current situation of today’s English education in Japan by illustrating some difficult
challenges it has faced and struggled to tackle over the past few decades. In conclusion, the notionof ‘empowerment’ is proposed as an important philosophical framework to lead to a way out fromthe blind alley of Japanese English education.

Keywords: English language education in Japan, English program in FISTU (The Faculty ofInternational Studies, Takushoku University), globalization, World Englishes, English for‘empowerment’

1. Introduction
As globalization advances, English language education is increasingly emphasized in Japan where
English is “taught not only as a foreign language but also as a global language” (Ito, 2002, p. 36). As
Schneider (2014) succinctly states, “in policy and pedagogy, and in public discourse, the impact of and a
21

NEXT GENERATION STUDIES No.1, November 2017

desire for English appears to be steadily growing” (Schneider, 2014, p. 18). There is a common belief that
English communicative competence is essential in global communication and that English is the language
which people in the world use to communicate and which enables communication with people in the world.
Whether this is true or not1, in this context English education in Japan has been reshaped so as to improve
English communication abilities in recent years and the same is the case with English education in the
Faculty of International Studies, Takushoku University (hereafter FISTU) where I have been teaching
English since September, 2002. This paper clarifies the background to Japanese poor communicativecompetence in English, and then examines how the English program of FISTU has tackled (or not tackled)many problems standing in the way of improving students’ English proficiency, focusing on the issues suchas the curriculum reform, the class division based on G-TELP scores, the utilization of TOEIC score of 500
as a target score to motivate students to study English, the annual speech contest as the visible embodimentof three ‘core’ English classes, the special care to prevent students from failing English credits anddropping out, and the study abroad (SA) programs to cultivate students’ cultural awareness. By doing so itaims at identifying the defects of the program and the tasks for its further improvement. As an
exemplificative case of today’s English education program at an average private university in Japan, to agreat extent, this particular case will reflect the current situation of English education in Japan byillustrating some difficult challenges it has faced and struggled to tackle over the past few decades.

2. Background
2.1 So-called ‘Japanese Poor Communicative Competence in English’
As is well known, there is one popular view that “Japanese are notorious for their ‘national’ failure
to acquire a working command of English” (Honna, 2006, p. 121) despite some six to ten years of English
education. It is even said that “TEFL in [Japanese] high schools and universities has been a failure”(Hashimoto, 2009, p. 22). While in Japan “English is a much-sought-after major preferred foreign
language” (Kachru, 2005, p. 75) and policy and pedagogy have experienced an enormous upsurge ofEnglish in recent years, “many –if not most—Japanese claim little fluency in the language in spite of some
six to ten years of schooling in it” (Stanlaw, 2004, p. 7). Interestingly and perhaps aptly, Kachru
characterizes the relationship between Japanese people and English language as “a sweet and sour
relationship” (Kachru, 2005, p. 73).
Of course, I have been painfully made aware of this rather shameful situation through my own
experience of learning and teaching English in Japan. The answer to the question of why we are so poor atcommanding English is not simple at all. Here, needless to say, various factors seem to combine to produce
so-called ‘Japanese poor communicative competence in English’. Although 12 factors to be listed below
might be rather overgeneralized, they are all based on my own experience of learning and teaching English
in Japan and I believe they would be a good starting point for the deep understanding of the current
situation of English education in Japan.

22

English Program in the Faculty of International Studies, Takushoku University: English Education for ‘Empowerment’

2.2 12 Factors of Japanese Poor Communicative Competence in English
1.

‘Juken’ (preparation for entrance examination) which forces students to study reading and rulelearning and to acquire the skills needed to achieve pass rates in the prescribed written exams, notcommunication skills. Here English is regarded as “a means of sorting students rather than a pass tocommunication” (O’Donnell, 2005, p. 301) and ‘yakudoku’ (a widely-used grammar-translationteaching method) “continues to predominate in English language pedagogy, its proponents
proclaiming its necessity as the key to success in the all-important entrance exams” (O’Donnell, 2005,
p. 302). O’Donnell explains:Emphasising translation over grammar study, the ‘yakudoku’ classroom is teacher-centredon the word for word translation of English text into Japanese. Language instruction isalmost always conducted in Japanese; the development of oral and written English is not
fostered in this learning environment (O’Donnell, 2005, p. 302).

The symbiosis between ‘juken’ and ‘yakudoku’ creates a powerful emphasis on “the meticulous
standards for accuracy and an unfortunate tendency to focus on exceptions to the rules of grammar”(O’Donnell, 2005, p. 302). As a result, Japanese students end up by acquiring a sort of ‘mute English’
instead of communicative English.
2. Lack of fundamental English knowledge and skills caused by lack of English learning due to therecommendation (‘suisen nyūshi’) system which allows students to enter university without writing
entrance examinations. Recently many students can get admission to Japanese universities including
Takushoku University without taking any English examinations. This very fact causes a serious
problem that they have not acquired even basic skills of English, let alone ‘mute English’, before
entering university. For such students, needless to say, the high priority of English education should
be assigned not to communicative English but to what is called ‘remedial English’ even at the level ofhigher education. This means that they are taught at university fundamental English knowledge andskills such as grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation which should have been learned at junior highschool.
3. The tradition of ‘shame culture’ which hinders many Japanese students from engaging in active
communication practice in English—they do not try to take linguistic risks, feeling afraid of making
mistakes and bringing shame on themselves by doing so.
4. Classroom culture nurtured by cultural traits which put a high value on ‘humility’ (Aspinall, 2006, p.
263-4), ‘silence’ as gold, and spirit of ‘harmony’. Japanese students tend to keep classroom
harmonious by keeping silent without showing off their skills acquired even though they are excellent
enough to do so. For them it is very important to blend into the group just by listening passively towhat their teacher says and getting on with the work they have been told to do. This kind of attitude in
the classroom cannot be considered as a barrier to progress for other school subjects such as
mathematics and science, but it can be a serious barrier for communicative English learning. With
23

NEXT GENERATION STUDIES No.1, November 2017

regard to this point, Aspinall says, “Clearly, the nature of communicative English as an academic
subject that requires an extra dimension of activity above and beyond ‘book learning’ creates serious
problems for the established Japanese culture of learning in schools” (Aspinall, 2006, p. 264).
5. ‘Native speaker fallacy’ that “the native speakers’ English is standard and worth trying to achieve as
the best knowledge about English language use” (Abe, 2013, p. 49-50). In Japanese junior and seniorhigh school, as Abe (2013, p. 50) points out, all the audio materials accompanying English textbooks
are recorded by native Western English speakers, Americans in many cases. Besides, most of thenative speaking English teachers working at Japanese schools are native Western English speakers(and surprisingly the majority are white men). Here is what is called “native-speakerism” which is “apervasive ideology within ELT, characterized by the belief that ‘native-speaker’ teachers represent a‘Western culture’ from which spring the ideals both of the English language and of English language
teaching methodology” (Holliday, 2006, p. 385). In such an educational milieu it might be natural thatmost students should have “a belief that the native western speakers’ English is the only correct andauthentic form of English” and “it may be that this general belief causes Japanese people to lose
confidence in their own English” (Abe, 2013, p. 50). Lack of confidence would surely lead to theirhesitation to speak English in front of others and block their progress with English communication
skills.
6. Major affective as well as cognitive barriers caused by learning English which is a ‘noncognate’
language. Needless to say, English is ‘a truly foreign language’ which is more demanding thancognate languages for Japanese students to learn, thereby producing strong negative affective
reactions from them. According to Samimy (1994) who conducts research on teaching Japanese
language to American university students, “the attrition rate among students who take Japanese has
been reported to be ‘as much as eighty percent’” (Samimy, 1994, p. 29). Moreover, she introduces the
ETS (Educational Testing Service) Oral Proficiency Testing manual which states “under ideal
conditions, it takes American students 720 hours of instruction to reach the Level 3 in oral skills in
French or Spanish, whereas it takes the same students 2,400-2,760 hours to achieve the same level oforal proficiency in Japanese” (Samimy, 1994, p. 29). Terashima (2010) also explains the relationshipbetween linguistic distance and difficulty of language acquisition for native English speakers in thefollowing table:
Table 1
Linguistic Distance: Time Required for the Acquisition of a Target Language and its
Difficulty for Native English Speakers
FrenchRussianChineseKoreanJapanesetime required

1

3

no data

No data6difficulty

1~2

2~4

5~7

9~10

10

Note. Adapted from Terashima (2010, p. 127)24

English Program in the Faculty of International Studies, Takushoku University: English Education for ‘Empowerment’

Conversely, these researches would also indicate enormous difficulty of learning English for Japanese
students. From the above information, it might be even surmised that about eighty percent of theJapanese students studying English are potential dropouts. If so, it would be considered quite naturalthat Japanese cannot easily acquire the language. Thus, linguistic distance between Japanese andEnglish is a serious barrier for Japanese students to overcome.
7. Lack of enough hours of instruction. Despite the fact that it takes enormous time for Japanese students
to reach a certain level of English oral skills as discussed above, Japanese schools (junior and seniorhigh schools and universities) do not offer sufficient hours of English instruction. According toHanefuji (2006), Japanese students study English at junior and senior high school for 550 ~ 950 hours(Hanefuji, 2006, p. 16). In universities the hours of English instruction vary according to schools andmajors. In the case of FISTU 315 hours are spent on the instruction of compulsory English classes.
Thus obviously Japanese students do not get enough hours of English instruction from schools. To
make the matter worse, many students not only in FISTU but also in general do not spend much timein studying English after school despite the fact that they need to supplement the lack of study time.
As a result, their English proficiency remains low level.
8. Large class size which makes the management of the class difficult for English teachers and hinders
active communication practices there. O’Donnell takes note of the belief of a Japanese teacher whom
he interviewed for his research that “communicative teaching cannot be accomplished unless classsizes are substantially lowered” (O’Donnell, 2005, p. 312). A couple of years ago FISTU decreased
the average number of the students in one class from over 30 to about 25 for the purpose of improving
the quality of English education. Although this was surely a good improvement, the class size is stillrather big for active and effective communicative English learning/teaching.
9. Few opportunities to speak with English speakers not only during English class but also in daily
school life. Abe (2013) claims, “Increasing the number of English speaking teachers (whether they arenative English speakers or not) is necessary because Japanese students have few opportunities to
speak with them” (Abe, 2013, p. 52). In fact, many students wish to communicate with English
speakers at school and improve their communication skills. In 2015 I conducted a survey byquestionnaire to 22 first-year students in the lowest-level English class. To the question of whether
they like English or not, 11 students (50%) answered “Yes” and 4 (18%) answered “Rather yes”. The
students who answered “No” or “Rather no” were only 6 (27%). Besides, to the question asking theaim of learning English, 9 students (41%) answered, “They aim at improving communication skills”.
Despite their poor English skills assessed based on the results of the placement test, surprisingly manyof them were still interested in English, or rather, English communication. We, English teachers,
should take their wishes and needs in English education more seriously and explore pedagogicalapproaches that can meet them. In this sense, the current situation which do not offer many
opportunities to speak with English speakers at school is nothing else than discouraging anddemotivating for students.
10. Lack of synergy among English teachers. In Japanese universities many English teachers work25

NEXT GENERATION STUDIES No.1, November 2017

part-time and most of them teach English at a couple of universities. In such circumstances it is quitedifficult that they spend extra time exchanging information about their classes and students andcooperating with other teachers teaching the same class. In the case of FISTU students need to takethree kinds of compulsory English classes taught by three different English teachers in charge of eachclass. Ideally speaking, these three teachers should share information about their teaching, students’attitudes, progresses, problems, etc. and utilize it for educational purposes during the term. But thereality is that each class is taught completely separately as an independent one and the three teachers
do not know what is going on in other two classes. This can be the case happening in many otheruniversities in Japan. Although it might be too demanding to ask all the teachers for extra time toshare their class information after class, lack of synergy among English teachers can be regarded as a
backdrop of inefficiency of English education in Japanese universities.
11. “Sociolinguistic reality [which] does not call for much English” (Schneider, 2014, p. 22). In practice“English is not much needed in Japanese society” outside of international businesses (Honna, 2006, p.
121). In short, English competence is not necessary for our survival. Japanese is the only language weJapanese need to master for our daily survival. In such a monolingual society it might be natural thatJapanese students should have poor communicative competence in English.
12. Strong tendency that students are attracted to many other exciting and interesting activities rather
than English learning. Although this might be an indirect factor causing students’ poor English
communication abilities, it can be still an important aspect in considering the issues of motivation, or
rather, the lack of motivation to study English. During university, students put their heart into many
interesting activities such as sports clubs, part-time jobs and volunteer work. In a sense, their lives arefull of exciting things to do and, needless to say, English learning which requires a lot of time, efforts,
and patience for the improvement must be perceived to be boring and unexciting. As a result, many
university students end up doing the minimum work required to get the credits of the compulsory
English classes without aspiring to acquire a good command of English.
These are the notable and important factors which I consider cause so-called ‘Japanese poor
communicative competence in English’. It might be said that the future success of English education in
Japan depends on removing or at least minimizing these factors for the improvement of English
proficiency. In the following section, looking back on my own experience of teaching at FISTU over the
past decade, I will examine how the English Program has tackled (or not tackled) the above 12 factors inorder to make progress with students’ English competence.

3. English Program in FISTU
3.1 English Curricula in FISTU
3.1.1 ‘Innovative’ Old Curriculum for Improving Communicative Competence
In 2000 FISTU originally started as the Faculty of International Development Studies, and it wasthen the only undergraduate school in Japan where students could major in Development-Cooperation
26

English Program in the Faculty of International Studies, Takushoku University: English Education for ‘Empowerment’Studies. It also offered another department called Asia-Pacific Studies which was also unusual as anundergraduate course in Japanese universities at that time. As a unique brand-new Faculty aspiring to
educate internationally-minded youths who can function anywhere in the world as well as survive in theera of globalization, its English program was designed with particular emphasis on teaching ‘practical andcommunicative English’ and its curriculum made for that purpose was surprisingly innovative andunconventional.
Table 2
Old English Curriculum at FISTU Adopted from 2000 to 2003
year

term

Taught by JTEs

Taught by NESTs

Taught by NESTs

Credits

1

Communication I A

Communication I B

Reading & Writing I

1x 3 = 3

2

Communication II A

Communication II B

Reading & Writing II

1x 3 = 3

1

Presentation I A

Presentation I B

Debate I

1x 3 = 3

2

Presentation II A

Presentation II B

Debate II

1x 3 = 3

1

2(total) 12

In 2002 when I began teaching English there, I was unexpectedly asked to be in charge of oral
communication classes called Communication A for the first-year and Presentation A for the second-year.
Both were aimed at developing English oral communication skills through extensive oral communicationand listening practice. The main focus of these classes was on giving students an opportunity to start bytalking familiar topics, to build confidence in using English without being afraid of or shy about speaking
English in front of others, to enjoy using English and to get a sense of achievement from expressing
themselves in English. To put it briefly, they were designed as the classes to break their silence in English
classrooms. The role of Japanese teachers was to help them overcome their psychological barrier inspeaking English and get used to English communication. The reason why these unique classes wereincorporated in the curriculum seems to lie in the fact that many students have not acquired basic
communication skills even after six years of English education at junior and senior high school. In fact,many Japanese students feel frustrated when their mind goes blank even when listening to the simplest ofEnglish or at their own lack of ability to say even the simplest of expressions.
However, why were these classes taught by Japanese teachers of English (JTEs), not by
native-English-speaking teachers (NESTs)? Normally in Japanese universities JTEs teach English reading
and writing skills as well as grammar, whereas NESTs teach listening and speaking skills, as well as oral
communication and presentation skills. And this division of roles has remained unchanged as somethingprescriptive and superior up to now. But the English program of this brand-new Faculty unconventionallyassigned oral communication classes to JTEs and reading and writing classes to NESTs. Communication A
and Presentation A, both of which were taught by JTEs, were paired with Communication B and
Presentation B taught by NESTs respectively. Each pair was composed of the part teaching ‘unstructured’
discourse of English communication and presentation such as small talks and everyday casual27NEXT GENERATION STUDIES No.1, November 2017

conversations (Communication A, Presentation A) and another part teaching the ‘structured’ one which
focused on reading for, writing and presenting a speech (Communication B, Presentation B). This was
actually a quite natural division of roles which could bring out the best in strength of each side, as JTEs
knew the process of acquiring English communication skills through their own learning experience andNESTs were much better versed in structured English. Nevertheless, I could not realize this immediately.
Recollecting my own experience of learning and teaching English, neither had I seen JTEs teachEnglish oral communication nor taught it myself in spite of the fact that I had experienced teaching English
at several Japanese universities before. Therefore, at first I was perplexed about what to do in thesecompletely new classes. However, it ended up being a needless fear and unexpectedly I found this way
rather effective and innovative. And, above all, these classes were always interactive and so very lively andinteresting.
With no teaching model in mind, I could teach English freed from the traditional teaching methods
such as ‘yakudoku’ (grammar-translation teaching method) which I had got used to both as a student and ateacher. “Don’t worry! Look at me! When I was a university student, I couldn’t speak English at all. You
are much better!” Speaking like this, I tried to make myself function as a kind of facilitator to decrease
students’ enormous hesitation to speak English and encourage them to speak English freely withoutbothering too much about grammatical mistakes or correct sentence structures. Here I made the most of myown ‘painful’ experience of struggling with English in the past and presented myself in the classroom not
as a good “role model” with a high fluency in English, which Tsukamoto’s (2011) study considers very
important, but rather as a bad “role model” from whose ‘shameful’ experience they could learn something
fundamental and useful in acquiring English communication skills.
At the same time, sometimes I tried to make myself function as a kind of cultural mediator to informthem about cultural differences we Japanese find confused in communicating in English and how to deal
with them. Here I introduced my experiences of living in the UK, where I discovered English as a living
communication tool, not a subject for exams, and found English communicating style quite different fromJapanese. In order to avoid misunderstanding and make communication smooth, needless to say, it isessential for students to know the aspects of cultural differences and language usage depending on thesituation.
In spite of its certain effectiveness and potential as a new ‘innovative’ system, the English
curriculum was reviewed shortly in 2003 and the unique system in which JTEs teach oral communication
and NESTs reading and writing was replaced by the traditional one in which JTEs teach grammar, reading
and writing and NESTs listening and speaking, oral communication and presentation skills. And thecurriculum was completely reformed at the same time with the Faculty reform carried out in 2005. The
main reason of this change was that the previous curriculum did not give students any opportunities tolearn English grammar properly despite the fact that many of them had not understood basic grammar at all.
Moreover, their average TOEIC score had never reached 400 and it seemed necessary for JTEs to teachbasic grammar properly first of all in order to improve their English proficiency. This was simply because
JTEs were “perceived as good teachers of grammar, and had the ability to resort to the students’ first28

English Program in the Faculty of International Studies, Takushoku University: English Education for ‘Empowerment’language when necessary” (Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014, p. 1). Since then I have been teaching grammar,
reading and writing in the class named English Foundation Skills. Frankly speaking, sometimes I wonder
how much more effective this traditional way of teaching English is and if this change might be not areform but a retrogression or not, missing the previous interactive, lively oral communication classes
where I could see students ‘empowered’ in the process of finding their English voice.
3.1.2 ‘Traditional’ New Curriculum for Building Up English Foundations
The Faculty was renamed the Faculty of International Studies in 2005 when it was reformed in its
course system. At present it offers seven courses: International Cooperation, International Culture,
International Economics, International Politics, International Tourism, International Agriculture,
International Sports. As stated above, the English program also revised its curriculum so as toaccommodate English education as a ‘tool’ to gain academic knowledge in these seven courses, whileemphasizing the aspects of ‘practical and communicative English’ much more strongly in response tosocial ‘desperate’ demand for globally competitive graduates with high communicative abilities in English.
The current curriculum is composed of two parts: (i) three ‘core’ English classes and (ii) a variety ofPractical English classes. First- and second-year students need to attend the three ‘core’ English classes andearn 12 credits in total. And when they become third-year they are required to register two PracticalEnglish classes and earn 2 credits. Each English class is worth 1 credit and students are required to take atleast 14 credits in English: 12 of three ‘core’ English classes and 2 of two Practical English classes.
3.1.2.1 Three ‘Core’ English Classes
Three ‘core’ English classes are (a) English Foundation Skills I~IV, (b) English Oral Communication
Skills I~IV, and (c) English Presentation Skills I~IV, and students has each of the classes on Mondays,
Wednesdays and Fridays during the first two years and need to take 12 credits in total as is shown in thefollowing table:
Table 3Current English Curriculum
year

term

Taught by JTEs

Taught by NESTs

Taught by NESTs

Credits

1

Foundation Skills I

Oral Communication Skills I

Presentation Skills I

1x 3 = 3

2

Foundation Skills II

Oral Communication Skills II

Presentation Skills II

1x 3 = 3

1

Foundation Skills III

Oral Communication Skills III

Presentation Skills III

1x 3 = 3

2

Foundation Skills IV

Oral Communication Skills IV

Presentation Skills IV

1x 3 = 3

1

2(total) 12

The broad descriptions of each class are:1.

English Foundation Skills: this class is taught by JTEs with the emphasis on basic grammar,
pronunciation and vocabulary expansion in addition to reading and writing.
29NEXT GENERATION STUDIES No.1, November 2017

2. English Oral Communication Skills: this class taught by NESTs is aimed at improving students’ oral
communication skills.
3. English Presentation Skills: this class is also taught by NESTs and has its goal as the integrated formof making full use of all the four skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking which students will
have learned in the above two classes.

Foundation
SkillsPresentation
SkillsOral
Communication
SkillsFigure 1. The Image of the Connection among Three ‘Core’ English Classes
Contrary to its concept and image, however, ‘lack of synergy’ among three teachers in charge ofeach class can be observed here as I discussed above as the tenth factor of Japanese poor communicativecompetence in English. Of course, we, English teachers, sometimes exchange information about ourclasses and students in the lecturers’ room or in the corridor during a break between classes or lunch time,
but no system has been established in order to connect the three classes with a view to producing synergy
effect. This could be seen as a kind of systematic fault which might need some repairing.
However, it is easier said than done. What can we do in order to connect the three classes in asystematic way and gain synergy effect in the English education of FISTU? Probably the possible andfundamental thing to do would be to examine the current three syllabi of each class and combine them intoone ‘big’ syllabus so that they could share it. But this would certainly require reviewing textbooks used ineach class and surveying minutely what is taught there. As a result, it might be necessary even to regulate
textbooks and contents taught there. Such a strict regulation might prevent each teacher from expressing
his/her individuality and damage educational effect. Needless to say, this must be avoided and here theissues of how much we should leave each class to teacher’s discretion should be carefully considered. The
current system which separates each class as individual guarantees teacher’s right to choose the textbook in
accordance with the broad description of his/her class and makes it possible for them to teach English intheir own style. This would be a merit of the current system. Maintaining such a merit and avoiding too
strict regulations, we need to explore the best way of connecting the three ‘core’ classes systematically andgain more educational effects by doing so. This is one of the urgent tasks for the English Program of
FISTU.
30

English Program in the Faculty of International Studies, Takushoku University: English Education for ‘Empowerment’

3.1.2.2 Practical English Classes
In addition to the above three ‘core’ classes, there are a variety of Practical English classes offered in
the Faculty. Practical English I and II are elective classes for first- and second-year students to prepare for
TOEIC test. Practical English III and IV for third-year students are, as I mentioned, compulsory. However,
if students’ TOEIC scores have reached 500 when they become third-year, these classes are exempted andthey can get 2 credits without attending the classes.
The Faculty also offers four elective English classes called Advanced Practical English for third- andfourth-year students. Here students can learn mainly academic English laying stress on TOEFL and other
English tests.
However, why should we offer these English classes to prepare for external English tests such as
TOEIC and TOEFL under the course name of ‘practical English’ in the university curriculum? Especially it
seems that the classes for TOEIC test are rather overemphasized despite criticisms that TOEIC test
composed of English listening and reading sections cannot measure every aspect about students’communicative proficiency (Cunningham, 2002; Knapman, 2008; Takahashi, 2012). Takahashi (2012)claims that “what is measured [by the TOEIC test] is only the degree of receptive skills” and the test scorescannot measure accurately the “communicative abilities which ensure the test-taker’s interactions in reallife contexts” (Takahashi, 2012, p. 132). In this sense, TOEIC test which is “such a pencil and paper
multiple choice test” that cannot reflect real life communication is neither ‘practical’ nor ‘communicative’(Takahashi, 2012, p. 132). If we aim at offering English program focusing on truly practical andcommunicative English in a very real sense, it would be necessary to review the current curriculum puttingstrong stress on TOEIC test.

3.2 Class Division Based on English Proficiency
In FISTU all the English classes except Advanced Practical English are divided based on students’proficiency in English. In April when the academic year starts first- and second-year students take G-TELP
Test (Level 4) as a placement test and are divided into 12 classes according to six levels based on the
results of the G-TELP Test. Each class consists of about 25 students. Added to these 12 classes, there are
two more classes for the students who belong to International Sports course. Their English curriculum isdesigned specially for them so that we can teach them English specific to their course and treat themdifferently from the students of other courses.
G-TELP (General Tests of English Language Proficiency) conducted by ITSC (the International
Testing Services Center) in the US “assesses the English language ability of nonnative speakers in realworld situations” and “the content comprises practical words and expressions in actual, contemporary use
in the U.S.” (G-TELP). It evaluates the English proficiency of examinees at five different levels (fourlevels in Japan) and the following (Figure2) is the correlations with other prominent English language tests
such as TOEIC, TOEFL and EIKEN:

31

NEXT GENERATION STUDIES No.1, November 2017

G-TELP

TOEIC
scores

TOEFL
scores

EIKEN

- 990
Level 1

- 900
- 800

Level 2

- 700
- 600

Level 3

- 650

Grade
1

- 600
- 550

Grade
Pre-1

- 500
Grade
2

- 500

Grade
Pre-2

- 400
Level 4 - 300

- 400

Grade
3

- 200
Figure2. Correlations with Other Tests
Source: G-TELP, http://www.g-telp.jp/index.html
Note. "Eiken" is the test of Practical English Proficiency
administered by Eiken Foundation of Japan.
One of the biggest differences between G-TELP and other English tests such as TOEIC and TOEFL
is that the former is ‘Criterion Referenced Test’ whose “assessments are made according to universally
recognized criteria that describe the ability of the examinee in the performance of specific language tasks”
and the latter is ‘Norm Referenced Tests’ which “compare the examinee’s test scores with those of otherexaminees” (G-TELP; Ogasawara & Maruyama, 2014). While the scores of TOEIC and TOEFL “serve as
general indicators of language proficiency relative to that of other test-takers”, G-TELP provides“objective, diagnostic information” on the examinee’s performance (G-TELP). As English proficiency
should not be measured by comparing students’ scores, G-TELP as a criterion-referenced test is considereddesirable as a placement test.
FISTU use G-TELP Level 4 Test, which has three sections of Grammar, Listening and Reading &Vocabulary, to evaluate students’ proficiency. It focuses on basic English in simple communications and is,
as Figure 2 shows, equivalent to TOEIC score of less than 400 or EIKEN Grade 3 which is the English
proficiency level of junior high school graduates in Japan. Level 4 Test can differentiate well TOEIC
scores of less than 400 and this very fact makes us keep on using it as a placement test.
The average G-TELP scores of the first-year students of FISTU in 2015 are Grammar 62.5,
32

English Program in the Faculty of International Studies, Takushoku University: English Education for ‘Empowerment’

Listening 55.7, Reading & Vocabulary 55.9, and Total 174.1. Considering that a skill area score of 75% ormore indicates that “examinee has demonstrated mastery of the particular skill area” (G-TELP), these
average scores clearly show that more than half the students of FISTU need ‘remedial English education’at university. As I discussed above as the second factor in causing Japanese poor communicativecompetence in English, they should be taught basic English knowledge and skills such as grammar,
vocabulary and pronunciation which should have been learned at junior high school.
At the same time, however, the result of G-TELP test in the year also shows that about 26% of thefirst-year students obtain the total score of more than 240. Obviously this group of the students has alreadyacquired a mastery of basic English skills and does not require remedial English education. What theyrequire is the further improvement of their English competence. Thus, G-TELP test plays an important role
not only as a convenient and reliable placement test but also as a tool to grasp students’ English level andtheir needs in English education.

3.3 TOEICAs for TOEIC test, FISTU administers TOEIC IP test twice a year in April and November and all thefirst-year students are required to take the November TOEIC test. Since 2013 the Faculty has set a target
score at 500 and, as I explained above, introduced compulsory Practical English classes for the third-year
students who have not obtained the target score (Practical English III and IV), expecting this system could
promote students’ motivation to learn English even for the purpose of gaining enough TOEIC score to beentitled to the exemption from the third-year compulsory classes of Practical English. However, both in2013 and 2014 the average scores of TOEIC test did not reach even 400, and consequently in 2015 many
third-year students had to take Practical English III & IV against our wish. To make the matter worse,many of them voluntarily chose to take the classes instead of making efforts to improve their TOEIC
scores before they became third-year.
This fact actually aroused deep doubts among English teachers about the meaning of setting TOEIC
500 as their target score. It might be said that this newly introduced system has been already a mere
formality. Nevertheless, it should be noticed that it has surely contributed to encouraging and motivatingsome, not many though, students to study English hard to reach the target score. Even among the studentsof the lowest-level class some studied English from the very basic skills and succeeded in getting morethan 500. For example, a female student I taught when she was a first-year student could improve herEnglish proficiency enormously in the process of learning English with the aim of gaining TOEIC 500.
Her G-TELP scores in April, 2013 when she entered FISTU (Grammar 45 + Listening 45 + Reading &Writing 20 = Total 110) placed her in the lowest-level class (Class 1). She was one of the students whoentered FISTU by means of the recommendation (‘suisen nyūshi’) system. Looking back on her highschool days, she told me that she had done nothing but play rock music in her club activity. Entering
FISTU, however, she seriously started thinking about her future career and studying English from the basic
at the university and even at an English language school outside of the university. After one year’s hard
study she achieved the TOEIC score of 505 in April, 2014 and her English class for the second-year went
33

NEXT GENERATION STUDIES No.1, November 2017

up from Class 1 to Class 3. This little success brought her confidence in her own ability, encouraging her tostudy English more and go for the next challenge in her life. Now she studies at a different university inorder to realize her dream of studying abroad. As can be seen here, TOEIC 500 means more than the score.
It can work positively as a motivator for students not only to study English but also to challenge manyother things in their lives. In this respect, we cannot easily disregard this system just as a mere formality.

3.4 Speech Contest
In November an annual speech contest for the first-year students is held. Although students’speeches are prepared and trained in the class of Presentation Skills, we actually regard them as theoutcome of the three ‘core’ English classes. The contest is simply a good opportunity for students todevelop their communicative competence and presentation skills in English as well as their own thoughts
and opinions in the process of producing the speech draft. Even though the students’ speeches presented
there cannot be expressed numerically like the result of TOEIC test, they are surely the visible achievementof English education in FISTU.

3.5 Special Care
English program in FISTU deals with many problems all the year around and some of them have no
relation with English education. For example, we call all the students who have not turned up for the firstand second English classes at the beginning of the term in order to remind them to attend the class. Thismight sound silly, but it works and many students start attending not only the English classes but also otherclasses. In this way we try to prevent students from failing English credits and even dropping out of theuniversity. Besides, some students have psychological problems and cannot interact with other studentssmoothly in the classroom. For such students attending oral communication classes is nothing but a greatburden and it is part of our job to understand this and help those students in many ways so as not to fail thecredits and end up leaving school.

3.6 Study Abroad Program
FISTU offers a variety of Study Abroad (SA) programs 2 and encourages the students to participate inat least one program so that they can develop not only their linguistic ability but also ‘cultural awareness’
which is essential in fostering their communication skills. Regarding ‘cultural awareness’, Ito (2002)
advocates the necessity of “cultural learning” in today’s English language education in Japan as follows:

We should desire to develop among our students awareness of the existence of cultures different
from their own, awareness of the interrelation between English and the culture of English-speaking
people, and awareness of the global status of today’s English. This multifaceted awareness is then
expected to lay the basis for a positive attitude among our students toward cross-culturalcommunication and understanding. This attitude then has to be converted into a skill with which to
explore not only other cultures but also their own cultures, and later into a skill with which to34

English Program in the Faculty of International Studies, Takushoku University: English Education for ‘Empowerment’

explore the world around themselves through the medium of English (Ito, 2002, p. 52).

Needless to say, the experience of studying abroad is the experience of “cultural learning”. Students
can broaden their perspectives of different people and cultures as well as themselves and their own cultures.
Moreover, they can realize the usefulness of English language as lingua franca through their experienceand many of them come back to Japan with strong sense of purpose in their study.
Besides, as I mentioned as the eleventh factor in Japanese poor communicative competence inEnglish, sociolinguistic reality in Japan does not call for much English. In fact, most of the Japanese
students do not have an opportunity to use English as a means of real life communication in their daily life.
Therefore, SA experiences have significant meanings for them, fueling their efforts to communicate inEnglish. Moritani et al. (2016) points out the psychological impact of an SA experience especially in the
motivational and attitudinal aspects which influences the students’ future linguistic outcomes. As thestudents’ willingness to communicate in target language is an essential factor for their linguistic progress,
the important role of affective factors on the linguistic outcomes derived from SA experience should be
more stressed in English education in Japan. In this sense, it would be vital to the further improvement of
our English program to explore the possibility of developing its own SA programs and establish a system
to incorporate them into the curriculum in the near future 3.

4. Tasks for the Future
Looking back on my experience of teaching English at FISTU, I examined the English programfrom the aspects of its curriculum reform, the utilization of G-TELP test as a placement test and TOEIC
500 as a target score and, more importantly, a kind of life motivator, the annual speech contest as a visible
embodiment of the three ‘core’ English classes, the special care to support students, and the efficacy of SA
programs. Although we have made every effort to provide good English education for our students insideand outside the classrooms, the examination has revealed that the program is still imperfect in many
respects and needs its further development for the purpose of improving students’ communicativecompetence in English. The main tasks to be tackled are as follows.

4.1 Revising Curriculum for Truly Practical and Communicative English Education
The old English curriculum of FISTU was designed with the intention of reforming students’ ‘mute
English’ caused by ‘Juken’ and English learning through ‘Yakudoku’ with its emphasis on thoroughly
communicative English learning through the unique system in which JTEs teach oral communication and
NESTs reading and writing. As a result, this curriculum did not provide students with an opportunity tolearn English through ‘Yakudoku’. In this sense, this was an innovative curriculum aiming at transforming
their ‘mute English’ to ‘communicative English’ through the process of finding and fostering their English
voice. At the same time, the unique teaching system forced JTEs to speak English much more in
instructing students and transform their teaching from Japanese-based instruction to English-based, which
was simply revolutionary as we JTEs had got too much used to learning/teaching English in Japanese. If
35NEXT GENERATION STUDIES No.1, November 2017

we aim at truly practical and communicative English education, such merits of the old curriculum should
be remembered once again and incorporated in the future revised curriculum.
On the other hand, it is essential to maintain the aspect of the current English curriculum which
offers opportunities to learn basic English knowledge and skills for developing four well-balanced skills,
especially grammar which is “part of the required knowledge in language acquisition”, to the students who
have not acquired them before entering the university (Okada, 2014, p. 99). Contrary to the old curriculum,
the current one focuses on building up students’ basic knowledge and skills of English and in the class
entitled Foundation Skills JTEs teach mainly English grammar, reading and writing following the
traditional role division of English teaching. As Park (2012) claims that one of the strengths of NNESTs[nonnative-English-speaking teachers] is “their ability to explain and teach English grammar due to their
lived experiences as English language learners”, it would be appropriate for JTEs to teach grammar (Park,
2012, p. 129). However, the problem which might happen here is that there is high possibility for JTEs to
end up reapplying such a traditional teaching method as ‘Yakudoku’ and returning to the old way ofteaching English which does not pay much attention to developing students’ communicative competence.
Here it seems helpful to note Takahashi’s study (2010) discussing the indispensability of grammaticalcompetence as “solid core” in fostering communicative competence (Takahashi, 2010, p. 62-4). She
advocates “Form-focused instruction” which “assumes that learner’s attention to linguistic forms while
focusing on meaning plays an essential role for learning grammar” and argues the importance ofconducting both “implicit grammar instruction” and “explicit grammar instruction” in the framework ofcommunicative approach (Takahashi, 2010, p. 57, 59). The English Program of FISTU should place
grammar instruction in this way for the purpose of improving English communicative competence.
Moreover, the current curriculum with strong emphasis on TOEIC should be reconsidered. A seriesof Practical English classes are aimed at preparing for TOEIC. As I discussed above, studying for TOEIC
is not useful in nurturing truly practical and communicative competence of English. Instead of TOEIC, it
would be more helpful to offer truly practical English classes such as media English and business writing
as well as communicative English classes to give students more opportunities to speak English withEnglish speakers in the curriculum.
4.2 Diversifying Teaching Staff from the Viewpoint of ‘World Englishes’
At present nineteen English teachers (three full-time JSEs, five part-time JSEs, one full-time NEST,
one special part-time NEST, and nine part-time NESTs) are working for FISTU. Out of the eleven NESTs
only one is female and the rest are all male, and all are white Westerners (American, Australian, British andIrish). I consider this rather ill-balanced in the light of the concept of teaching/learning English as aninternational language. As is well-known, English is now regarded as ‘World Englishes’. Japanese students
need to know the fact that multiple varieties of English are spoken around the world and recognize they do
not need to speak like native English speakers. If they have opportunities to be taught by English speaking
teachers from the Outer and Expanding circle countries (Kachru, 1985) who speak the varieties of English,
they may “see English from different perspectives” and “begin to notice that communicating in a variety of36

English Program in the Faculty of International Studies, Takushoku University: English Education for ‘Empowerment’

Englishes is both practical and fun, and that they too can perceive themselves as intelligible to other
English speakers all over the world” (Abe, 2013, p. 52). The awareness of ‘World Englishes’ may pushaside their pressures to speak like native English speakers by encouraging them to speak English “without
having an overemphasis on pronunciation and grammar” (Abe, 2013, p. 52). Thus, diversifying teaching
staff would surely contribute toward correcting their ‘native speaker fallacy’ which blocks the
improvement of their communicative abilities. Together with having English teachers with different
backgrounds, it would also be effective to incorporate SA programs in non-Western countries where
English is effectively spoken as their second and foreign language into the English curriculum.

4.3 Developing a New Evaluation System
One of the biggest systemic defects in the English Program of FISTU is that no systematic
evaluation system “from the perspectives of ‘language assessment’ and ‘program evaluation’” has not beendeveloped (Saida et al., 2010, p. 241-2). ‘Language assessment’ is mainly composed of students’proficiency, achievement and self-learning motivation. Although TOEIC can be a motivator in encouraging
students to study English, TOEIC scores do not always reflect students’ English proficiency. In this regard,
the English Program should review the current system to use TOEIC as their goal, an indicator of students’proficiency and achievement, and instead explore other methods which can assess their English
competence in a much more concrete and visible way. One direction would be to introduce Can-Do
statements (CDS) to the curriculum so that students’ English competence can be grasped clearly andobjectively for both teachers and students. In this case, CDS should be “tailor-made” so that it can fit ourstudents and assess their proficiency as accurately as possible (Fujita & Mayekawa, 2013, p. 147).
Another much easier way would be to use G-TELP not only as a placement test but also as a‘posttest’ to assess their improvement of the skills. At present G-TELP is used just for the purpose ofdividing students into classes based on their English proficiency. However, G-TELP could be more useful
if we try to make the most of it by grasping students’ needs through its results, providing English teachingwhich fits them during the term, and assessing the improvement of their skills after the term. Utilizing
G-TELP as a series of cycle in this way would be helpful in producing good educational effects.
Besides, the current system which allows each teacher to decide the assessment of students’ grades
simply makes the achievement evaluation opaque, unclear, and even unreliable when considering thegrades of ‘S’ or ‘A’ do not always guarantee their good English skills. In order to avoid this, it would benecessary to set the same objectives, syllabus and grading system to be shared among teachers so thatstudents’ grades could reflect their proficiency and achievement. However, we have never discussed theseissues among English teachers in the program in the past. This very fact may be actually a fatal flaw of ourEnglish Program. We have totally lacked a perspective to evaluate objectively our English Program. For
the further improvement of the program, needless to say, it is essential to establish a system to monitor the
program itself at regular intervals and revise it if necessary.

37

NEXT GENERATION STUDIES No.1, November 2017

4.4 English Education for ‘Empowerment’
Another defect is that English education in Japan including the English Program of FISTU seems tolack any clear vision or philosophy of teaching/learning English. What kind of English should we Japaneseacquire? What should we target in our English education? Why should we teach/learn English? The
answers of all these questions remain unclear and just the idea that English is so important and useful as aninternational language that we Japanese need to acquire its skills has urged and pressurized us to try toteach/learn English hard.
At FISTU I have seen many students suffering from their poor English competence despite the factthat most of them like English and wish to become a good English speaker. “What should I do to improve
my English skills?” “What is necessary to be able to communicate in English?” Every time they ask methese questions, their hopeless faces remind me of my school days. When I was a university student, I was
dreadfully pressurized into mastering English by a wave of ‘internationalization’. The word
‘internationalization’ sounded attractive, but it also burdened us, young students, with a feeling of great
oppression. And now the word ‘globalization’ oppresses my students enormously and impels them toconquer English by any means in order to survive the era of ‘globalization’. In a sense, we Japanese havebeen obsessed with English learning spurred by such vogue words as ‘internationalization’ and‘globalization’, and, as a result, miserably we have ended up disempowered by our lack of enoughcompetence to command English. Remembering the fact that English is just a foreign language, it would
be nonsensical and unnecessary that we have felt so oppressed by English. Besides, English is now aninternational language whose ownership native speakers cannot claim and which “no nation can havecustody over” (Kilickaya, 2009, p. 36). The concept of ‘World Englishes’ is useful here again in that weJapanese also can speak our variety of English “not as passive and malleable subjects, but as agentive andcreative multilinguals” (Kuppens, 2013, p. 327). English education in Japan should not only “teach English
so that they [students] will be able to understand/tolerate many accent and varieties through exposure”(Kilickaya, 2009, p. 37) but also develop “the Japanese variety of English that is not restricted by thenative-speaker norm” (Matsuda, 2003, p. 726). By doing so we Japanese will be empowered with its
intelligible competence. English education in Japan should set the goal for this purpose. The viewpoint ofEnglish education for ‘empowerment’ will help us explore “a different way of looking at the language[English], which is more inclusive, pluralistic, and accepting than the traditional, monolithic view ofEnglish in which there is one correct, standard way of using English that all speakers must strive for”
(Matsuda, 2003, p. 727) and establish a different way of learning/teaching English for Japanese people tocreate a new relationship between English and themselves.

Conclusion
English education in Japan has been wandering into a blind alley for a long time, searching for asurefire remedy which can cure Japanese poor competence to command English. As can be seen, theEnglish Program of FISTU is no exception. Although we have tried hard to develop students’ English
competence in the framework of teaching practical and communicative English, we have not yet
38English Program in the Faculty of International Studies, Takushoku University: English Education for ‘Empowerment’established an effective system to produce satisfactory results in our English education. Or rather, lots ofdefects of the program hindering the improvement of students’ English competence have been found as aresult of looking back on my own teaching experience at FISTU and examining the English Program forthis paper. The tasks are daunting and many of them cannot be tackled alone. It would be most important tocooperate with other English teachers and the faculty members in order to improve our English Program.
No matter hard it may be, challenging the tasks and repairing the defects one by one will surely lead us to away out from the blind alley of English education in Japan and pave the way for its original, new English
education which can empower us Japanese.

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Natsumi Aratame (Takushoku University, Tokyo,
Japan) who kindly offered me precious opportunities to make a presentation at Philippine-Japan
International Roundtable Conference on TESOL in Asia: Connecting the Philippines and Japan throughEnglish Education held in Cebu city, Philippines in November, 2015 and to write this paper based on thepresentation.

Notes
1. Kubota and McKay’s study (2009) questions “to what extent English actually does serve today as a
lingua franca in multilingual, internationally diverse communities” (Kubota & McKay, 2009, p. 593).
Concluding that “English is not an international lingua franca in many multilingual contexts yet itexerts invisible symbolic power” (Kubota & McKay, 2009, p. 616), they advocate that “[a]s TESOL
professionals, we need to critically reflect on our own attachment to English so that we can create a
discourse that affirms all kinds of diversity; promotes language awareness, attitudes, and skills
necessary for communicating with non-English speakers; and scrutinizes racial, class, linguistic, andcultural biases that perpetuate unequal relations of power” (Kubota & McKay, 2009, p. 615).
With regard to multilingualism, since its foundation in 2000 FISTU has adopted ‘a dual foreign
language system’ teaching students two foreign languages, that is, English and one more chosen by
students themselves among 11 foreign languages: Arabic, Brazilian-Portuguese, Chinese, Filipino,Hindi, Indonesian, Korean, Malay, Spanish, Thai, Vietnamese. Although it can be too demanding forstudents to learn two foreign languages at the same time, it goes without saying that this system surely
contributes toward widening their views and developing their language awareness based on
multilingualism, which I find invaluable in educating internationally-minded youths in the Faculty ofInternational Studies.
However, the reality is much more complex. In spite of the dual language system which
promotes multilingualism, there is still a tendency that we consider English much more important as‘Almighty’ lingua franca than any other foreign language. Students are, in a sense, pressurized to
improve their English proficiency as much as possible for their future success.

39NEXT GENERATION STUDIES No.1, November 2017

2.

FISTU offers seven short study abroad programs (Canada, China, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia,
Philippines, and Thailand) during summer and spring vacations. The periods range from two weeks to
one month and mostly first-year students participate in the programs. They can choose to learn either
English language or the native language of each country in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines andThailand.
Studying English language in the Southeast Asian countries has different value from studying
English in English-speaking Western countries such as the USA and the UK, because students canhave opportunities to speak with many people in those countries who speak both English and theirnative language in their everyday life despite the fact that English is a foreign/second language forthem and learn the usefulness of English language as an international communication tool. Hereprobably students can understand native-like pronunciation and way of speaking English is not soimportant for English communication and shake off their obsession of ‘native speaker fallacy’ whichpressurizes them to speak like native speakers. Besides, English teachers in those countries know very
well how to learn English and improve English skills as non-native English speakers from their own
learning and teaching experiences. Therefore, it would be helpful for our students to receive English
instruction from them in improving their English skills.

3. Over the past few years more than fifty students of FISTU have studied English at English language
schools in Cebu city, Philippines. FISTU has allowed many of them to replace their study there withEnglish classes at FISTU and gain the credits depending on their study hours and contents. In thisrespect, we have already incorporated SA programs into our program.

References
Abe, Emiko (2013). Communicative language teaching in Japan: Current practices and future. English
Today, 29, 46-53.
Aspinall, Robert W. (2006). Using the paradigm of ‘small cultures’ to explain policy failure in the case offoreign language education in Japan. Japan Forum, 18(2), 255-274.
Cunningham, Cynthia R. (2002). The TOEIC test and communicative competence: Do test score gains
correlate with increased competence? Retrieved March 20, 2016, fromhttp://test.birminghamdev.bham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/cels/essays/
matefltesldissertations/Cunndiss.pdf
Eiken Foundation of Japan. Eiken Website. Retrieved June 1, 2017, fromhttp://www.eiken.or.jp/eiken/
Fujita, Tomoko & Mayekawa, Shin-ichi (2013). Nihon no daigaku eigo kyōiku puroguramu ni okeru
Can-do Statements no kijun settei [Creating the standards of Can-do statements for English education
program in Japanese universities]. JLTA Journal, 16, 147-165.
G-TELP. G-TELP Website. Retrieved March 28, 2016, from http://www.g-telp.jp/english/
Hanefuji, Yumi (2006). Eigo o manabu hito, oshieru hito no tame ni: ‘hanaseru’ no mekanizumu [For those40

English Program in the Faculty of International Studies, Takushoku University: English Education for ‘Empowerment’

who learn and teach English: a mechanism of ‘being able to speak’]. Tokyo: Sekaishisōsha.
Hashimoto, Kayoko (2009). Cultivating “Japanese who can use English”: Problems and contradictions ingovernment policy. Asian Studies Review, 33, 21-42.
Holliday, Adrian (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385-387.
Honna, Nobuyuki (2006). East Asian Englishes. In Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, & Cecil L. Nelson(Eds.), The handbook of World Englishes (pp. 114-129). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ito, Harumi (2002). A new framework of culture teaching for teaching English as a global language. RELC
Journal, 33(2), 36-57.
Kachru, Braj Bihari (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language inthe outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning
the language and literatures (pp. 11-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, Braj Bihari (1997). World Englishes and English-using communities. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 17, 66-87.
Kachru, Braj Bihari (2005). Asian Englishes beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Kilickaya, Ferit (2009). World Englishes, English as an international language and applied linguistics.
English Language Teaching, 2(3), 35-38.
Knapman, George Slade (2008). The TOEIC: A critical review. Fukui Kogyō Daigaku Kenkyū Kiyō, 38,
85-94.
Kubota, Ryuko & McKay (2009). Globalization and language learning in rural Japan: The role of English
in the local linguistic ecology. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 593-619.
Kuppens An H. (2013). Cultural globalization and the global spread of English: From ‘separate fields,
similar paradigms’ to a transdisciplinary approach. Globalizations, 10(2), 327-342.
Matsuda, Aya (2003). Incorporating World Englishes in teaching English as an international language.
TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 719- 729.
Moritani, H., Manning, C., & Henneberry, S. (2016). Preliminary findings of L2 motivational changes in ashort-term study abroad program. Sōgōseisakuronsō, 31, 41-56. Shimane: University of Shimane.
O’Donnell, Kevin (2005). Japanese secondary English teachers: Negotiation of educational roles in theface of curricular reform. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 18(3), 300-315.
Ogasawara, Shinji & Maruyama, Masazumi (2014). To what extent can G-TELP (Level 3) scores predict
TOEIC scores? Annual Review of English Learning and Teaching, 19, 45-63.
Okada, Misuzu (2014). Investigating implicit and explicit grammar knowledge of Japanese learners ofEnglish and association with other knowledge. JACET Annual Review of English and Teaching, 19,
99-113.
Park, Gloria (2012). “I am never afraid of being recognized as an NNES”: One teacher’s journey inclaiming and embracing her nonnative-speaker identity. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 127-151.
Saida, Chisato & Arita, Yukiko (2010). Designing an evaluation system for university English education:
From the perspectives of language assessment and program evaluation. ARELE, 21, 241-250.
Samimy, Keiko Komiya (1994). Teaching Japanese: Consideration of learners’ affective variables. Theory
41

NEXT GENERATION STUDIES No.1, November 2017

Into Practice, 33(1), 29-33.
Schneider, Edgar W. (2014). New reflections on the evolutionary dynamics of world Englishes. World
Englishes, 33(1), 9-32.
Seargeant, Philip (Ed.) (2011). English in Japan in the era of globalization. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stanlaw, James (2004). Japanese English. Language and culture contact. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Takahashi, Junko (2010). Gaikokugo toshiteno eigo gakushū ni okeru bunpō shidō no yakuwari ni tsuite[The role of grammar instruction in the context of teaching ESL and EFL in Japan]. Tama University
Journal of Faculty of Global Studies, 2, 57-66.
Takahashi, Junko (2012). An overview of the issues on incorporating the TOEIC test into the university
English curricula in Japan. Tama University Journal of Faculty of Global Studies, 4, 127-138.
Terashima, Takayoshi (2010). Eigo kyōiku ga horobiru toki: ‘eigo de jugyō’ no ideorogī [When English
education is dying: An ideology of teaching English in English]. Tokyo: Akashishoten.
Tsukamoto, Mizuka (2011). Students’ perception of teachers’ language use in an EFL classroom. Osaka
Jogakuin Daigaku Kiyō, 8, 143-154.
Walkinshaw, Ian & Oanh, Duongthi Hoang (2014). Native and non-native English language teachers:
Student perceptions in Vietnam and Japan. SAGE Open, April-June, 1-9.

About the author
Noriko ARAI, PhD is Professor in the Faculty of International Studies at Takushoku University,
Tokyo, Japan. Her research interests include gender studies, auto/biography and English education in Japan.
Email: narai@ner.takushoku-u.ac.jp42