EFL Policy and Practice Disparities in Japanᝲǽ୫

EFL Policy and Practice Disparities in Japan:
Can an Intercultural Communication Competency
Component Help?

Eleanor SMITHᛵǽ஖
2002 年以降，文部科学省が行う英語教育は，従来行われてきた訳読ベースの教授法（GTM）からコミュニカティブアプローチのある言語教育（CLT）へと変換されてきています。ただし，教室での実践はこれらの提案を反映していないため，日本は世界の英語能力リーグの中でその地位をどんどん落としています。この研究では，異文化間コミュニケーション能力（ICC）に重点を置いた CLT ベースの方法を利用する西洋の外国語教育の実践から着想を得て，ICC コンポーネントを含めて学生中心英語教育の影響について，学生の認識とニーズを調査しました。学生へのインタ
ビューと観察法を通じて，この調査から4 つの分野で結果が出ました。学生は，高いテストスコアを達成する以外の明確な目的がないため，現在の英語教育のやり方に不満を抱き，学習意欲を湧かせることができません（これは，政策改革にもかかわらず，GTM に重点をおいた大学入学試験によって悪化している問題と言えます）。
ICC インクルージョンを使用した学生中心の学習は，非ネイティブス
ピーカー同士の交流を主な対象に作られたコミュニケーション戦略の開発と実践と同様に，学生にとって望ましい（そして文化的に適した）ものです。ICC コンポーネントを使用すると，学生は将来，自分が職業上において，また個人的に英語を使っている姿を大きな目で捉えることができ，学習意欲を向上させることができます。

143

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 42

キーワード：英語教育，言語教育，異文化コミュニケーション能力，
非ネイティブスピーカー，ICC コンポーネント

1. Introduction
English education practices in Japan often appear misaligned with policy due to
conflicting interests of policy makers, educators, parents, and students (Bouchard, 2017).
This results in students entering university with little insight into the value of theirEnglish skill, viewing it purely as an academic stepping stone (be it gaining entry into
university, fulfilling course requirements, or as a prerequisite for employment). Their
understanding of the necessity of English as a professional and recreational tool is
minimal, contributing to low motivation (Tan & Chia, 2015), high anxiety (Andrade &Williams, 2009), and apathy (Powell, 2005).
According to the latest English Proficiency Index (EPI, 2019), Japan currently
places 53rd out of 100 countries, below other Asian countries including China, Singapore,
Malaysia, Philippines, India, South Korea, and Vietnam. Targets set out by the government
aiming to have 50% of all third-grade junior high school students attain Grade 3 of theEiken English Proficiency Test remain elusive -percentages over the last three years havestagnated below the 40% mark, shifting slightly from 36.3% in 2016 (The Japan News,2017) to 39.3% in 2018 (The Japan Times, 2018).
One reason is the persistent emphasis in schools of accuracy over fluency and alack of education in the place and purpose of English in the world (Anthony, 2016).
According to Leaver (2008) insufficient sociocultural and sociolinguistic competence
limits students to minimum proficiency levels. Oxford (2017) agrees that ‘for linguistic
abilities to be fully enriched, attitudes of curiosity, openness, and cultural awarenessneed to be fostered’ (197). It has long been recognised that language and culture are
inextricable (Xue, 2014, and Harley, 2014). The European Union (EU) in 2003 adopted aproactive approach to language learning promoting key attitudes towards other languages(Wray & Bloomer, 2006). This approach emphasised active over passive skills, effective
communicative ability, and a move away from native speaker (NS) fluency, and hassince evolved into an effort by the EU to marry intercultural communicative competence(ICC) with linguistic competence, resulting in the 2015 European Use of Full Immersion,
Culture, Content, and Service (EUFICCS) (Oxford, 2017). Similar successful movements

144

EFL Policy and Practice Disparities in Japanoccurred in North America with the development of the American Council of the
Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). A look through previous EPI rankings sees the
top ten dominated by European countries, with Japan steadily dropping from 14th (rated
as ‘moderate proficiency’) in 2011 to 53rd (rated as ‘low proficiency’). This suggests thatwhile approaches aimed towards fostering ICC are having a positive impact on linguistic
and communicative ability in Europe, the methods applied in Japan are having thereverse.
Japan’s struggle with English competency has not gone unnoticed by ministry
officials; Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology(MEXT) has repeatedly called for change in teaching practices (MEXT, 2002, 2003,
2011, and 2014) yet gaps between policy and practice persevere (Glasgow & Paller, 2016).
To understand why, and to attempt to find solutions to bridge the gap, a mixed-methods
approach was used to answer the research questions: what is Japan’s history with English
education? What are the current education policies and teaching practices? How do thestudents feel about their English education experience in terms of their perceived needs?
Echoing EUFICCS, can student-centred lessons including a non-NS interaction focussed
ICC component improve students’ perceptions of their English experience (and therefore
be deemed a culturally suitable addition to classroom practices)? The first two questions
are explored in the next section. The qualitative results of the latter two are reported later.

2. Literature Review
2.1 Japan’s history with English education
Japan isolated itself from international influence for over two centuries (Koyama& Ruxton, 2004). This isolationist policy, enforced in the early 1600s, allowed minimal
foreign contact (for trade purposes) limited to Dejima (an island off the coast of Nagasaki).
1853 saw the arrival of Commodore Perry who gave Japan the ultimatum of either
voluntarily opening its borders for trade, or doing so through outside force (Seargeant,2011).
The Meiji Restoration (1868) began with universities enlisting English as an integral
part of their entrance exam from 1871, focussing on grammar-translation methods (GTM)
as a way of understanding trade documents. The Ministry of Education (‘Monbusho’),founded the same year, employed the renowned linguist Harold Palmer to review teaching

145

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 42

practices (Fujita-Round & Maher, 2008). Palmer’s research served to heavily admonish
GTM and instead strongly advocated an oral-aural method, with the support of local
institutions. Monbusho ignored his proposals (despite his methods proving both effective
and popular), instead allowing for the continuation of GTM. This display of caution andreluctance set the precedent for the coming centuries.
The early twentieth century witnessed an anti-western climate, resulting in the
cessation of English instruction during the 1930s (Shimizu, 2010). Post World War II,
however, saw both a rejection of extreme nationalism and recognition of the necessityof English, which subsequently became compulsory in schools. The 1970s was privy
to a plethora of influential literature, labelled colloquially ‘nihonjinron’ (‘the theoryof Japanese uniqueness’) leading to suppression of English to preserve cultural values(Shimizu, 2010) followed by ‘kokusaika’ (internationalism) in the 1980s which maintained
a two-fold purpose: to emerge from cultural isolation and begin to acknowledge Westernvalues (McConnell, 1996), and to promote ‘nihonjinron’ to the international community(Hashimoto, 2002). The overriding theme was to ‘be open to the outside world while
protecting and promoting national culture’ (Hagerman 2009: 53).
In the same decade the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) programme wasproposed by Home Affairs official, Nose Kuniyuki (Hagerman, 2009). The stated aims
were to provide students with direct contact with native English speakers, and to evolve
towards a more communicative approach to language learning. Those in favour saw it as
an active improvement of foreign language teaching by the government. Those against
were concerned with the hiring of young, inexperienced, unqualified teachers. The lackof notable improvement in communicative competence did little to assuage concerns(Hagerman, 2009) and it was later admitted by Nose Kuniyuki that the underlying missionof the JET programme was less about revolutionising English language learning andmore about placating growing friction between Japan and the United States (McConnell,
1996).
Japan’s economic bubble burst towards the end of the 1980s, delivering the country
into a lengthy recession. As it began to fall behind in economic terms the government
once again recognised the value of English, again as a tool for strengthening its economy,
acknowledging there was no alternative but to improve English standards within the
country (Tukahara, 2002). This move echoes earlier motives in 1868 to understand trade
documents for their economic value.

146

EFL Policy and Practice Disparities in Japan

Overall, it is clear that despite ‘pendulum shifts from eager interest to absoluterejection’ (Hagerman, 2009: 48) English has always been kept at a safe distance, seen asa necessity to improve Japan’s economic standing, or as an avenue to insert Japan into
the international community. The idea of better understanding other cultures to enhance
language learning gets lost between the desire to understand foreign thinking with regard
to trade and economy, and the need to protect Japanese culture. It is perhaps this lovehate relationship with English, paired with its absence in societal systems or seen as anecessary means to gain status (in contrast to neighbouring countries including India andthe Philippines as a consequence of colonial rule) that has contributed to a sense of apathy
towards understanding the necessity of English in the modern globalized society.

2.2 Current policy and practiceIn 2002 and 2003 MEXT released two documents outlining substantially renewed
English education policies. The latter provided detail on education goals and the avenues
deemed necessary to reach them. It promoted the increasingly popular communicative
language teaching (CLT) approach (Stakanova & Tolstikhina, 2014) over GTM (reflecting
Palmer’s pedagogy in the early twentieth century), and aimed to improve student
motivation, teaching ability, and university admissions systems (Hagerman, 2009).
In 2011 MEXT introduced new ‘Course of Study Guidelines’ for foreign language
teaching, including in it ‘Five Proposals and Specific Measures for Developing Proficiency
in English for International Communication’ (hereafter ‘Five Proposals’) which madeEnglish lessons compulsory for fifth and sixth grade elementary school students in orderto foster a ‘positive attitude to communication’ (MEXT 2011: 3). The guidelines also
called for more communication practice with primarily English instruction (Tahira 2012)
for which teachers may be inadequately trained (Van Amelsvoort, 2014).
Five Proposals emphasize the need for student centred-learning (despite many
researchers questioning its cultural suitability including Burrows 2008; Maftoon &Ziafar, 2013) and reveal an edge towards ICC (coming closer in line with EUFICCS and
ACTFL):“… [develop the] capability of smooth communication with people of different
countries and cultures … accurate understanding of your partner’s thoughts andintentions based on his/her cultural and social background, logical and reasoned

147

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 42

explanation of one’s own views, and convincing partners in course of debates”(MEXT 2011: 3).

Another important aspect recognized within the guidelines is that students ‘have
few opportunities to feel the necessity of English’ (MEXT 2011: 5) serving to negatively
impact student motivation, especially by the time they reach university. It suggests
pursuing several avenues including: use educational materials that introduce debate anddiscussion; show students the necessity for English in any given profession, allowing
them to imagine their future English self; gain experience overseas ‘at an impressionableage’ to allow interaction with people of diverse cultures and backgrounds (MEXT 2011:6). Abe (2018) expands on this, saying that apathy towards English education stems from‘deep-seated misconceptions’ (para. 4) which include viewing English as a commodity
rather than a necessity.
Despite these well-intentioned reforms that appear to echo successful Western
approaches, disparity between policy and classroom practice persist. Although MEXT
guidelines reveal a promising step towards teaching English as a communicative tool
between cultures (and as a more intrinsically motivated measure for Japanese people togain a deeper world view, to engage in debate, and to understand the necessity of English
both within and outside of Japan), two prominent obstacles remain to be tackled in orderto resolve contradictory practices:(1) The need for teacher training:
Ambiguities surrounding the definition of CLT, how to implement it effectively,
and the addition of the ‘teach English in English’ principle have contributed to teacher
reluctance in implementation, stemming from a lack of confidence (Fenelly & Luxton,
2011) paired with the time it takes to convert from a familiar teaching method to an
unfamiliar one (Tahira, 2012), a discord between policy and teachers’ own principles(Sougari & Sifakis, 2007) and knowledge (Sifakis & Sougari, 2010). Although Five
Proposals acknowledge the need for teacher training specific details of this remainvague, thus being somewhat of a disservice to already famously overworked teachers(see Tsuboya-Newell, 2018). Exacerbating this, both Hagerman (2009) and Glasgow
and Paller (2014) note discrepancies between MEXT-approved textbooks and policy
reforms. Textbooks continue to include minimal CLT-based content, contributing toapathy towards reforms; even if effective training were in place it would somewhat be invain if textbooks ultimately restrict its application in classrooms.

148

EFL Policy and Practice Disparities in JapanAs Five Proposals highlight, students must be made aware of the necessity ofEnglish both domestically and internationally. Going beyond the clashes between teacher
pedagogy and CLT-oriented reforms, the situation is further complicated by technologicaladvances allowing for more meaningful access to English and its associated varieties andcultures. To accommodate this, including non-NS interaction-focussed ICC components
in lessons (in a similar vain to EUFICCS and ACTFL) would scaffold students with adeeper world view and a relatable image of their future English selves, whilst potentially
increasing their communicative competency (as per Leaver, 2008, and Oxford, 2017).
(2) Assessment procedures remain unchanged:
A prominent influence on teaching practice are university entrance exams (Shea,
2009), which continue to include a heavily weighted English component emphasizing
grammar, translation, and reading capability. For the majority of students these exams are
the sole pathway into further education, triggering repeated criticism from government
officials (Kikuchi & Browne, 2009). Though teachers feel pressure from MEXT to
reform their practices to include CLT, more immediate pressure from parents to guidestudents successfully through entrance exams that remain GTM centred exerts far
more influence on classroom practice (Gorsuch, 2001), especially in a society with a‘credentialist ideology’ (Shea, 2009: 99). Some universities may even prefer to maintainthis tradition given the financial benefits from creating in-house tests (Shea, 2009).
Starting 2020, MEXT encourages universities to include English segments that test all
four language skills (McCrostie, 2017), meaning that for the first time productive skills
are given equal importance. Abe (2018) questions the validity and efficacy of this movein terms of improving competency, arguing that adding a speaking tenet to entrance
exams does not beget improvements in speaking ability and instead opens up the gateway
for private-sector test organisations to compete for examinees through score inflation.
Despite continued effort and investment into English education reform in Japan,
returns are often disappointing. Contradictions between incrementally progressive andvague policies, and teacher self-efficacy and assessment procedures remain persistent.
In order to begin bridging the gap between policy and practice, assessment proceduresmust change to suit reforms. This would enable a trickle-down effect into materialsdevelopment and teacher training and support, and subsequently classroom practice.
None of this, however, will be effective without centring ‘students’ own interests andchoices at the core’ (Abe, 2018, para. 3) as this is ultimately what drives motivation

149

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 42(Amiri & Saberi, 2017).

3. Methodology
3.1 The participants
The study involved an experimental group and a control group (consisting of 26
male and 16 females participants, and 24 male and 16 female participants respectively)
attending a compulsory English communication university-level course for one semester.
All students were enrolled on various majors, excluding English. The experimentalgroup received student-centred, non-NS interaction focussed ICC instruction in addition
to the stipulated syllabus. The control group received teacher-centred instruction solely
following the stipulated syllabus. Both groups met with the teacher weekly for a ninetyminute class.

3.2 Interviews
Five interviews were conducted. Four interviews (hereafter ‘post-interviews’)
involved twelve randomly selected participants from the afore-mentioned groups. One
interview (hereafter ‘pre-interview’) involved a participant who was a member of neithergroup. One week prior to the interviews, participants were given a written description of
the research purpose and a verbal description of likely questions. Contact details were
provided to allow participants to withdraw if necessary. Informed consent was obtained
from each person prior to the start of each interview. To avoid interviewer-researcher
bias and unnecessary transgression from the interview purpose, an interview schedule
was used annotated with probe question suggestions. All interviews were conductedin Japanese and were translated, transcribed and coded immediately after completion.
Participants were referred to by a number and either ‘E’ for ‘experimental’ or ‘C’ for‘control’. Pre- and Post- interview questions are given in Appendix I.
The pre-interview participant was a 47 year old Japanese businessman (hereafter‘BM’) with extensive experience communicating with foreigners both domestically andinternationally. This interview aimed to provide insight into the following areas: hisexperience of learning English in school; the strategies he uses to navigate throughcommunication with other non-NS business clients. It was hoped this interview would
go some way to illuminating any changes in classroom practice since BM was a school150

EFL Policy and Practice Disparities in Japan

student, and to inform the development of the ICC component.
Seven participants were interviewed from the experimental group, and five fromthe control group. The post-interviews were conducted towards the end of the semester.
The aims were to: gain clear insight into the participants’ experience of English education
prior to attending university to understand current classroom practices, and to identify
any differences in experiences between these participants and the earlier experiencesof BM; compare the differences between their previous experiences and the instruction
they received for the duration of the research, and investigate their opinions on thesedifferences; gain insight into any alterations in their perceptions of their English learning
experience that occurred over the course of the semester.

3.3 Observation Diary
To provide greater insight into the learning experiences of both groups an observation
diary was kept by the teacher each week. Diaries provide avenues for analysing andunderstanding of the social processes of the classroom (Sā, 2001), and also illuminate
unexpected and potentially significant phenomena (Whyte, 1984, cited in Richards,
2003: 110). Knowing one is being observed carries with it a sense of intrusion. In light of
this, students in both groups were exposed to the teacher’s ‘Memory Aid’ from the firstweek of instruction. This was a notebook within which field-notes were kept alongsidenotes concerning notices and reminders not pertinent to the investigation. Students
thus quickly became used to the teacher making notes, partially reducing the effectof observers paradox described by Richards (2003). Consent to observe students was
obtained at the start of the course.
To ensure the diary was used to its fullest potential, several factors were kept in
mind, as outlined by Sā (2001) and Richards (2003), including the following: aim fordetail; ‘Observe and look for nothing’ (Richards 2003: 134) to avoid recording only
events deemed pertinent to the investigation; immediately after each lesson transfer
field-notes to a structured observation sheet allowing for observation to remain open
and unbiased during the lesson. Structured write-ups took approximately twelve hours
per week. Participants were referred to anonymously, using notation such as ‘Ss’ to referto ‘students’ or ‘S1’ to refer to an individual participant. All notes were kept with theresearcher at all times during observation and write-up, and locked in a filing cabinet
when not in use.

151

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 42

4. Results and Discussion
After initial coding of the pre-interview and post-interviews the following themes
emerged: the prevalence of GTM in both junior high school and high school English
lessons paired with the lack of a specified purpose and awareness of the necessity English
influencing motivation; open-mindedness towards other cultures and non-NS; a desire
for more communication strategy instruction; a desire for teachers to be more aware of
students’ language learning wants and needs (echoing Abe, 2018).
Some notable points that emerged from the observation diary and deserve discussion
are: student responses to activities that focussed on strategy practice; student reactions toother cultures, particularly with reference to creating and challenging stereotypes.

4.1 Classroom practice, purpose, and motivation
The interviews show that classroom practice appears to have changed very little
within the last thirty years, with content still leaning towards GTM (as per Glasgow& Paller, 2014). Teachers appear either inadequately trained in CLT (as per Fenelly &Luxton, 2011, and Tahira, 2012) or in pedagogical conflict with policy outlines (as per
Sougari & Sifakis, 2007; and Sifakis & Sougari, 2010). Unchanged university entrance
test methods remain an overriding influence on class content (as per Tahira, 2012).
Communication lessons (that should balance all four language skills according to MEXT,
2011) remain GTM focussed.
Extract 1: Lesson purpose (pre-interview)BM:If, see, they had told us the purpose … for example if you learn something otherthan Japanese, like English, you’ll have these chances in life, this will happen foryou … to begin with … the purpose was missing so … right … how do I say? If
I think about it now it is so useful me now and now I am an adult I can see this.

Extract 2: Classroom practice and purpose (post-interview: control group)
C1:

Yeah, seriously, it was all about the entrance test for me.

C2:

Yeah, so even in our last lesson the teacher gave us a printed copy of the test. We
just had to memorise the answers.

C1:

So your lessons really had no meaning!

C2:

Yeah that’s right … I think it’s because the teacher thought that was the best way
to learn.

152

EFL Policy and Practice Disparities in JapanIR:

I see.

C3:

It’s so different to now. Also for me it really depended on the teacher. Many
teachers would talk a lot and we would just listen. They always told us that was
best.

Extract 3: Classroom practice and purpose (post-interview: experimental group)IR:

So, the grammar lesson was just writing and listening?

E6:

Didn’t we do that in both though? In communication and grammar we had longsentences—

IR:

Long sentences?

E6:

Yeah translate the sentences then tell the teacher. Translate it then say it.

E7:

Yeah that was our communication lesson too.
The value of maintaining English communication skills is not explored by theeducational institutions beyond this point, being a disservice to students who likely need
communicative English for their future professional and recreational purposes. For thisto change, teachers should be provided with ample and continuous training in CLT and
ICC approaches, materials need to reflect these approaches, and assessment procedures
need to change to sufficiently accommodate reforms.
Perhaps one flaw in MEXT (2011) is the restriction of ‘future English self’ (6) toprofessional realms. The interviews show a clear desire for participants’ English skill tobe applied both professionally and recreationally, domestically and internationally.
Extract 4: Future English Self (post-interview: control group)IR:

I’d like to know how you see yourself using English in the future. Maybe at work
or—

C2:

Go travelling and … without problems … I can use English with the locals.
Maybe it’s impossible but I want that!

C3:

Also I want to be able to use it at work. Maybe I can’t.

IR:

No, I think you can.

C3:

Because now, even in Japan, we have to use English a lot, even online in Google
and so on. So, I need English.

IR:How about you?

C1:

For me? I want to be able to use it smoothly in Japan, either at work or with
tourists.
The focus on its professional value may reinforce negative internal dialogue such

153

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 42

as ‘If I do not do well in English, I will not succeed in my career’. Adding a recreational
tenet allows for the exploration of enjoyment with English, in terms of interactingwith foreign exchange students, or traveling to foreign countries. This would improve
motivation levels, which were arguably low for some interview participants during theirschool years, as shown in the extracts below.
Extract 5: Motivation (pre-interview)BM:

We had no idea, because look, everyone … it was mandatory. To study or learn
how to speak for yourself? We never thought about that. So we never wanted tolearn. So the lessons were never fun.

IR:So, motivation—BM:

Yeah, completely unmotivated.

Extract 6: Motivation (post-interview: control group)
C3:

Yeah, it was so boring!

IR:

Did any of it go in?

C3:

No and that’s why I started to really dislike English. It was only grammar andwriting.
MEXT (2011) proposals to allow students to see the necessity of English beyond

the entrance test are being disregarded. More recent proposals (outlined in McCrostie,2017) to adapt current admissions tests by 2020 could have a trickle-down effect into
school classrooms, influencing teaching and materials development, and subsequently
motivation.

4.2 Perspectives and desires: communication strategies and ICC
A salient theme is that participants felt what they need most is a set of practicalcommunication strategies, to the point of them being no longer strategies but habits (asper Oxford, 2017). This is indicated in the extracts below.
Extract 7: Communication strategy desires (pre-interview)BM:

I want to be able to better catch what they are saying … or know how to show
I don’t understand. Now my English conversation school teachers tell me that itcomes naturally but it doesn’t for me, so I get a bit annoyed.

Extract 8: Communication strategy desires (post-interview: control group)C3:

I’m really worried about whether what I’m saying is being understood because mylevel is so low.

154

EFL Policy and Practice Disparities in JapanIR:

Like … did my message get across or not?

C3:

Yeah like that.

C1:

Me too.

IR:

You too? OK

C2:The other person. I’m worried about if they can understand me.
A large proportion of the participants’ English learning experience was devoted

to receptive over productive skills (harking back to Meiji era methods described byHagerman, 2009, and Shimizu, 2010), yet what they desire appears to be the reverse,
more in line with EUFICCS approaches described by Oxford (2017). If student interestsand choices form the central core of English education (after Abe, 2018) then persistentand explicit communication strategies (not limited to non-NS interactions) should be an
integral part of this.
Diary Extract 1 illustrates students’ reactions to communication strategy exercises
taught during the ICC component, further supporting the sentiments above. By contrast,
Diary Extract 2 for the same week paints a different picture, exhibiting well-documented
strategies such as avoidance and abandonment (Tarone & Yule, 1987):
Diary Extract 1: Experimental Group (Circumlocution task)“All responded very positively and proactively to this activity. Most could convey their
meaning — even those with lower confidence levels discovered they could be understood
through applying gestures with words, or sometimes in place of them.”
Diary Extract 2: Control Group (Discussion task)“Very reluctant to say they don’t understand something, will often choose a dictionary
over formulating a clarification question. It seems they give up quickly, and often resort
to interjecting Japanese words.”
With regards to ICC, O’Connell (2015) generalises that Japan is largely stereotypical
toward the ‘other’. While this may be true, Diary Extracts 3, 4, and 5 show steps towards
understanding how negative stereotypes can make others feel (and therefore hindersuccessful communication) was taking effect. The first activity asked students to draw
their image of a woman in Nairobi sitting outside her home eating a snack. The second
asked students to compare two almost identical images of a family eating dinner, the only
difference being the ethnicity of the families.
Diary Extract 3: Experimental Group (Creating and challenging stereotypes — adapted

155

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 42from Johnson and Rinvolucri 2010: 27)“When explaining why S1 drew an overweight woman sitting outside a simple hut for theactivity, she commented that in her mind Kenyan people had little money to buy healthy
food or afford a ‘proper’ house, yet was surprised to find out from her internet searches
that Nairobi was in fact an affluent city and that she had ‘got it totally wrong’.”
Diary Extract 4: Experimental Group (Communication strategies review through image
comparison)“When describing the differences between two images of families eating dinner, S4commented that she would prefer to eat with the Asian family because they were eating
salads, whereas the other family (a group of white people) were probably eating steak or
a barbeque. S3 pointed out that the food in both pictures was the same. S4 reacted withsurprise, admitting ‘I didn’t even look, I just assumed’.”
Diary Extract 5: Experimental Group (Course Reflection Activity)“Students were commenting on what they could remember. One noted that he wasunderstanding better the idea that stereotypes are easy to make and difficult to break andhow important realising this had been for him. When another member questioned him,
he described feeling uncomfortable that others saw Japanese people as cold or formal andthat this made him aware that his negative beliefs of others had the same impact.”
The control group remained attached to NS ideals. This perhaps stems from:struggling to identify a NS from a non-NS (Extract 9) and thus assuming that all
foreigners who speak English are NS; what little exposure to foreigners they have isusually in educational institutions who employ largely NS teachers (Extract 10); viewing
NS countries as places they are more likely to visit (Extract 11). The experimental group
views had expanded to included non-NS ideals (Extract 12).
Extract 9: Differentiating NS from non-NS (post interview: control group)C2:

I often have foreigners visit my work and use English.

IR:

OK. Do you know where they are from?

C2:

No idea but maybe native speakers? I’m guessing American or maybe European?
They speak English.

Extract 10: NS teachers at school (post-interview: control group)C5:

We had a foreign teacher.

C4:

Ryan

C5:

Bryan

156

EFL Policy and Practice Disparities in JapanIR:

What, you had the same teacher?

C5:

No Ryan. His nickname was Lion.

C4:

Yeah mine was Bryan … Bald Bryan. He would be in the corridor outside theclassroom. We would go out and talk to him one by one.

C5:

Wow!

Extract 11: NS ideals influencing travel choices (post-interview: control group)
C4:

Yeah I’m not interested in … India.

IR:

Oh? Why?

C4:

I’d never go there, or even meet an Indian person. If it was someone that I think
I’d meet like an American or Australian or … somewhere where I want to go—

IR:

Oh I see so it’s as much about where you want to go as it is about the people you
would meet here?

C4:

Yeah.

Extract 12: Non-NS interaction acceptance (post-interview: experimental group)IR:

OK thank you. So next section … for example, I am a native speaker, but what
if I wasn’t a native speaker? Would you be OK with that? For example, I am
Malaysian … but I can speak English.

E6:

Yeah, that’s no problem.

IR:

Why?

E8:

If I’m honest I don’t understand that much English.

E6:

Yeah, they’re much more experienced than me.

IR:

So it doesn’t really matter what nationality your teacher is?

E5:

No, not really.

E6:

For me too.

IR:

OK so … so who do you speak more often with?

E7:

Non-native speakers, right?
The use of non-NS teachers in English education would help students recognise thatspeaking fluidly and employing strategies to navigate through communication mishaps
does is a more attainable, practical goal than endeavouring to achieve elusive NS fluency,
and towards helping learners understand the diversity of both native and non-native
Englishes as well as the legitimacy of the latter.
In the Five Proposals a call is made for increased debate and discussion in classrooms;

157

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 42some proportion of lessons should be student-centred and collaborative. The experimentalgroup lessons were predominantly so, which appeared favourable with students:
Extract 13: Student-centred learning (post-interview: experimental group)
E8:

I hate TOEIC but Communication is … fun.

E7:

Yeah, fun.

IR:

Thanks … so … why?

E8:

We have a lot of group work and pair work.

E6:

Yeah it feels like I’m doing something, being productive.

E5:

Like I’m studying.

E8:

Liar!

IR:

Really?

E5:

I feel like I’m learning English.

E6:

I guess … we do a lot of games, activities, then we speak and try to use it together
like … in reality.
This suggests that, contrary to Burrows (2008), these approaches to language

education in Japan appear not only culturally suitable but also desired, and more credit
should be given to learners’ ability to engage productively and collaboratively in lessons.
Experimental group participants were quick to accept the interconnectedness oflanguage and culture whereas this required some explanation for the control groupinterviewees:
Extract 14: Intercultural Communication Comprehension (post-interview: experimentalgroup)
IR:

OK, next one. Do you know what intercultural communication is?

E2:Yeah it’s communicating with people from other cultures.

IR:OK, so do you think language and culture are connected?

E3:

Totally!

E2:

Uh … Yes?

E1:

Wait, but didn’t we study that? Haven’t we been learning that since the beginningof the … the first lesson?

IR:OK, so do you feel that learning about intercultural communication helped yourEnglish skill?

E2:

Yeah, for me it did.

E1:

Me, too. I relaxed more.

158

EFL Policy and Practice Disparities in JapanIR:

How about you?

E3:

I don’t know …

E2:

I feel that my knowledge increased

E4:

Yeah, that’s right.

E1:

I feel more confident … like … it’s OK to ask if I don’t know.

Extract 16: Intercultural Communication Comprehension (post-interview: control group)IR:

OK. Have you heard of intercultural communication?

C4:

No, not really.

IR:

So, it’s all about learning how to communicate with people whose culture isdifferent to yours … Would you be open to that?

C5:

It depends on the country.
The experimental group participants valued the influence the ICC component hadon their linguistic abilities; it seemed to serve well in terms of reducing apathy andanxiety, and increasing motivation.

5. Conclusion
With policy and practice in conflict, ultimately it is the students who lose out. A
sense of quiet frustration with persistent GTM-based practices, vague lesson purposes,
and a lack of explicit instruction in the necessity of English for both professional andrecreational uses (in Japan and overseas), is palpable. Students quite clearly desire
student-centred approaches that involve clear-cut communication strategy instruction,and recognise the benefits of a non-NS interaction focussed ICC component as it serves
to both develop their English linguistic abilities and relieve pressures to achieve NS
accuracy. In this respect, student needs and MEXT reforms are in alignment. To better
serve our students throughout their English education (and, ultimately, better serve
Japanese society), assessment procedures must adapt to accommodate for studentcentred learning and intercultural communicative competency development. In doing
so, teaching materials and teaching practices will surely follow suit. Additional research
into the effects of student-centred learning and ICC component inclusion on students’semester scores could yield some interesting insights.

159

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 42

References
Abe, M. (July 13th 2018). The Ill-Considered Reform of Japanese University Entrance Exams.
Retrieved on August 10th 2019 from https://www.nippon.com/en/currents/d00413/the-illconsidered-reform-of-japanese-university-entrance-exams.html
Amiri, F. and Saberi, L. (2017). The impact of learner-centered approach on Learners’ motivation in
Iranian EFL students. International Academic Journal of Social Sciences 4(1): 99–109.
Andrade, M. and Williams, K. (2009). Foreign Language Learning Anxiety in Japanese EFL University
Classes: Physical, Emotional, Expressive, and Verbal Reactions. Sophia Junior College Faculty
Journal (29): 1–24.
Anthony, G. C. (2016). Comparative Observations of the EFL Contexts in Thailand and Japan. Sangyo
Bunka Kenkyu (25): 31–44.
Bouchard, J. (2017). Ideology, Agency, and Intercultural Communicative Competence: A Stratified
Look into EFL Education in Japan. Singapore: Springer Nature.
Burrows, C. (2008). An evaluation of task-based learning (TBL) in the Japanese classroom. English
Today, 24(4): 11–16.
EPI (2016). EF- English proficiency index — Comparing English skills between countries. Retrievedon August 12th 2017 from www.ef.edu (no author given).
EPI (2019). EF- English proficiency index — Comparing English skills between countries. Retrievedon December 12th 2019 from www.ef.edu (no author given).
Fennelly, M. and Luxton, R. (2011). Are they ready? On the verge of compulsory English, elementary
school teachers lack confidence. The Language Teacher, 35(2): 19–24.
Fujita-Round, S. and Maher, J. C. (2008). ‘Language Education Policy in Japan’. In S. May and N.
H. Hornberger (eds.). Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd edn) Volume1: Language
Policy and Political Issues in Education. New York: Springer, pp. 393–404.
Glasgow, G. P. and Paller, D. L. (2014). ‘MEXT-approved EFL textbooks and the new Course of
Study’. In N. Sonda and A. Krause (eds.). JALT 2013 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT, pp.
113–122.
Glasgow, G. P. and Paller, D. L. (2016). ‘English language education policy in Japan: At a crossroads.’
In R. Kirkpatrick (ed.). English language education policy in Asia: Language Policy 11.
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 153–180.
Gorsuch, G. (2001). Japanese EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of Communicative, Audiolingual, andYakudoku Activities: The Plan Versus the Reality. Education Policy Archives 9(10).
Hagerman, C. (2009). English Language Policy and Practice in Japan. 大阪女学院大学紀要㧢号
Osaka Jogakuin Daigaku Bulletin, 6: 47–64.
Harley, T. A. (2014). The Psychology of Language: From Data to Theory (4th Edition). New York:
Psychology Press.
Hashimoto, K. (2000). ‘Implications of the recommendation that English become the second official
language in Japan’. In A. Kirkpatrick (ed.). Englishes in Asia: Communication, Identity, Powerand Education. Melbourne: Language Australia Ltd, pp. 63–73.

160

EFL Policy and Practice Disparities in Japan
Johnson, G. and Rinvolucri, M. (2010). Culture in our classrooms: teaching language throughcultural content. England: Delta Publishing.
Kikuchi, K. and Browne, C. (2009). English educational policy for high schools in Japan: Ideals versus
reality. Regional Language Center Journal, 40(2): 172–191.
Koyama, N. and Ruxton, I. (2004). Japanese Students at Cambridge University in the Meiji Era,
1868–1912: Pioneers for the Modernisation of Japan. North Carolina, U.S.A: Lulu Press Inc.
Leaver, B. L. (2008). ‘Keynote address’. In D. B. Butler and Y. Zhou (eds.). Teaching and learning tonear-native levels of proficiency IV: Proceedings of the spring and fall 2006 conferences of theConsortium of Distinguished Language Centers. San Juan Bautista, CA: MSI Press, pp. 9–14.
Maftoon, P. & Ziafar, M. (2013). Effective Factors in Interactions within Japanese EFL Classrooms.
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, Vol. 86(2): 74–79.
McCrostie, J. (2017). ‘Spoken English tests among entrance exam reforms Japan’s students will facein 2020.’ The Japan Times, July 5th. Available at www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2017/07/05.
[accessed August 9th, 2017].
MEXT. (2002). Towards Advancement of Academic Ability. Retrieved on August 8th 2019 from www.
mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpac200201/hpac200201_2_015.html
MEXT. (2003). Regarding the establishment of an action plan to cultivate “Japanese with English
abilities”. Retreived on August 2nd 2017 from www.gifu-net.ed.jp/kyoka/eigo/Communicative
EnglishMEXT. (2011). Five Proposals to Improve the Proficiency of English as Lingua Franca. Retrieved on August
3rd 2017 from www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2012/07/09/1319707_1.pdf
MEXT. (2014). English Education Reform Plan Corresponding to Globalisation. Retrieved on August
8th 2019 from www.mext.go.jp/en/news/topics/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/01/23/1343591_1.
pdf
O’Connell, S. (2015). Intercultural Communication Education at Tertiary Level in Japan : Past, Present
and Future. アカデミア. 文学・語学編 Academia. Literature and Language, 97: 101–114.
Oxford, R. (2017). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies: Self-Regulation inContext (2nd edn). New York: Routledge.
Powell, S. (2005). Apathy and Attitude: A Study of Motivation in Japanese High School Students ofEnglish. Asian Englishes (8): 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2005.10801166
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
Sá, J. (2001). Diary Writing: A Research Method of Teaching and Learning. Paper presented at the
Science Education: Research Teachers Practices Conference, University of Evora, Portugal.
Available at http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001698.htm [accessed August 3rd,2017].
Seargeant, P. (2011). ‘Introduction: English in Japan in an era of globalization’. In P. Seargeant (ed.).
English in Japan in an era of globalization. New York: Palgrave McMillan, pp. 1–11.
Shea, D. (2009). The University English Entrance Exam and its Implied Effect on EFL Pedagogy inJapan. The Hiyoshi Review of English Studies (55): 97–132.
Shimizu, M. (2010). Japanese English education and learning: A history of adapting foreign cultures.

161

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 42

Educational Perspectives, 43(1, 2): 5–11.
Sifakis, N. C. and Sougari, A. M. (2010). ‘Between a rock and a hard place: an investigation of EFL
teahcers’ beliefs on what keeps them from integrating global English in their classrooms’. In C.
Gagliardi and A. Maley (eds.). EIL, ELF, Global English: Teaching and Learning. Bern: Peter
Lang AG, pp. 301–320.
Sougari, A. M. and Sifakis, N. C. (2007). ‘Intercultural education through the EFL lens — what doteachers think?’ In F. Boers, J. Darquennes, and R. Temmerman (eds.). Multilingualism andApplied Comparative Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 193–211.
Stakanova, E. and Tolstikhina, E. (2014). Different approaches to teaching English as a foreign
language to young leaners. Procedia — Social and Behavioural Sciences, 146: 456–460.
Tahira, M. (2012). Behind MEXT’s new Course of Study Guidelines. The Language Teacher, 36(3):3–8.
Tan, S. K. and Chia, S. A. (2015). Motivation: The Japanese EFL Context. Josai International Review(20): 39–45.
Tarone, E. and Yule, G. (1987). ‘Communication Strategies in East-West Interactions’. In L. E. Smith(ed.). Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes. UK: Prentice Hall International,
pp. 49–65.
The Japan News. (2017). ‘Japanese students’ English skills far below govt targets.’ Yomiuri Shinbun,
April 6th, p. 3 (no author name given).
The Japan Times. (April 7th 2018). English Proficiency at Japan’s Middle and High Schools Falls Far
Short of Government Targets. Retrieved on August 7th 2019 from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/
news/2018/04/07/national/social-issues/japans-high-school-english-proficiency-falls-shortgovernment-targets/#.XUqE4ugzbIU
Tukahara, N. (2002). The sociolinguistic situation of English in Japan. Revista de Sociolinguistica.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1537/1d2519fd3c3f7cf34dcb02bd21c04efe9f72.pdf [Accessed
August 3rd, 2017].
Tsuboya-Newell, I. (March 13th 2018). Japan’s Overworked and Underpaid Teachers. Retrievedon August 10th 2019 from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2018/03/13/commentary/japancommentary/japans-overworked-underpaid-teachers/#.XU-rpugzbIV
Van Amelsvoort, M. (2014). Language Teacher Training Approaches in Japan: What are the Issues?
Bulletin of Kanagawa Prefectural Institute of Language and Culture Studies (3): 31–44. https://doi.
org/10.20686/academiakiyou.3.0_31
Whyte, W. F. (1984). Learning from the field. Beverly Hill, California: Sage.
Wray, A. and Bloomer, A. (2006). Projects in Linguistics: A Practical Guide to Researching Language.
London: Hodder Education.
Xue, J. (2014). Cultivating intercultural communication competence through culture teaching. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 4(7): 1492–1498.

162

EFL Policy and Practice Disparities in Japan

Appendix I: ‘Pre-Interview’ Schedule
Pre-interview

Post-interview

1. Can you describe a typical school English lesson you had?

☑

☑

2. What were your feelings about those lessons?

☑

☑
☑

3. What did you think the purpose of learning English was?

☑

4. Do you continue your English education now? (In whatway? Does this suit you better? In what ways?)☑

5. How do these classes compare to your English education at
Junior High School and High School?

☑

☑

6. Where do you use English the most?

☑

7. Who do you use English with? (native/ non-native)☑

8. Does communication come easier with NS or NNS?

☑

9. What are you worried about when talking to NS? And
NNS?

☑

☑

10. Have you heard the phrase “intercultural communication”
before? What do you think it means?

☑

☑

12. Do you think schools should include an interculturalcommunication section in their English programs?

☑

13. How would you like to continue your English education in
the future?

☑

☑

14: How would you like to use your English skill in the future?

☑

☑

15: Is there anything else you would like to add that I didn’t
think to ask you?

☑

☑

☑

5. What would you like to change about your Junior HighSchool and High School English lessons?

☑

6. Would you be happy with a NNS teacher?

☑

8. Do you think it is better to try to speak with NS or NNS?

☑

10. Do you aspire to speak like a native speaker one day?

☑

11. After studying this course, do you feel more comfortable
talking with NS and NNS?

☑

13. Do you think about culture and language are connected?

☑

163