English-Only Policy for All? Case of a University English Class in Japan
Maiko Berger
Abstract
This study investigated the socio-political issues related to language education, with regards to the language of instruction andthe role of the non-native English speaker teacher (NNEST) in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. This is apreliminary investigation into the legitimacy of an English only policy in the dual-lingual educational system in a Japanese
university. The university’s English program has a policy both for instructors and students to use “English at all times.” Having
taught very low to intermediate level students over several years, the researcher doubted the efficacy and affective implications ofusing only English to communicate with students.
To find out learners’ beliefs, course evaluation data from the past three years were first analyzed to explore the students’opinions with regard to the instructor’s language use. Second, the researcher conducted pre-semester, mid-semester andend-of-semester questionnaires regarding the learners’ perceptions toward the instructor’s language use and whether the learners
preferred the use of English only or the occasional use of the mother tongue, and on which occasions it was deemed appropriate.
The results showed students’ preferences toward an English-only policy. Implications for the future of university English education
lie in the way institutions utilize the multiple languages available.

Key terms: language policy; language of instruction; non-native English speaker teacher; learner beliefs

1. Introduction
The researcher analyzed and problematized the assumptions about the use of English and Japanese in a university English class. It isnot, however, her intention to change the practice for all involved but to share her insights on the topic, following the caution castby Richards (2003) not to claim too much from the results of a single piece of research. An English only policy, as well as students’beliefs on the language of instruction, is an important issue that can be researched under the framework of critical action research(Troudi, 2006). Davis (2008) tells us that in critical action research, researchers try to “change existing power structures andinequality within the community under study” (Davis, 2008: 141). Although I wish to be a critical action researcher who canchallenge the existing practice, there is a limit to the knowledge and experience I can offer. Therefore I want to use this small study
as a starting point in order to understand the issue of language policy.
2. Background of the Study
The environment that surrounds the English learners in Japan has been changing dramatically over the last few decades. On one
hand, there is a plethora of private institutions that offer extra-curricular instruction such as in daily conversation, business
communication and university entrance exam preparation, while on the other hand there are students who enter tertiary institutions
without having first mastered elementary English skills, an experience Ford (2009) also shares. The latter trend is exacerbated by
the diversified methods of university entrance exams, which admit students’ entry without requiring language competencies. As aresult, according to the Central Council for Education (2008), in Japan, more than 60% of the university teachers are concerned
about the decline of the students’ academic abilities. I have also witnessed students who may, for example, appear to holdconversation fluently, but lack elementary skills in writing or speaking accurately.
This study is based at an international, private university in Japan where domestic students comprise approximately half ofthe student body, and foreign students from around one hundred countries and regions live and study together. English courses are27

Polyglossia Volume 20, February 2011

offered mainly to students whose stronger language is Japanese. These ‘Japanese-base students’ are streamed according to theplacement test result using the Test Of English as a Foreign Language Paper Based Test (TOEFL PBT). On top of completing acertain number of English language credits, students must complete 20 credits of content lecture subjects offered in English, inorder to graduate. Therefore, English language courses are designed to prepare students for English lectures, using a four-skills
integrated approach, and with an English only policy in the classrooms. Most of the students take two four-credit courses eachsemester, each of which meets four days a week for a period of 15 weeks, which is divided into two quarters. In total, students
receive 120 hours’ worth of instruction over four months.
The participants in the questionnaire survey were registered for the course titled Fundamental English II, in whichclasses of 95 minutes long are conducted four times a week. They are predominantly Japanese, with a few Chinese and Koreanlearners of English. Their TOEFL PBT scores ranged between 400 and 450. The main objectives of this course are to gain listening
and reading skills, vocabulary knowledge, and oral fluency through class discussions. A variety of materials are used such asvideo-based lecture materials, computer-assisted language learning resources, and supplementary materials such as vocabulary lists
and video transcripts. Students also take a course called Fundamental English I, which meets at a different period of the day. This
other course focuses on learning about culture and communication, and on productive skills such as talking on a topic, giving
presentations and writing short essays.
3. Literature Review
3. 1 Critical Framework
The present study critically questions the assumptions about an aspect of TESOL practice from the perspective of critical theory(Pennycook, 1999, 2000), which, according to Pennycook (2001), is traditionally linked to the Frankfurt School and Marxist theory.
Davis (2008, p.140) defines it as follows: “critical theory looks at, exposes, and questions hegemony—traditional powerassumptions held about relationships, groups, communities, societies, and organization—to promote social change.” Critical theory“questions the assumed power that researchers typically hold over the people they typically research (Davis, 2008, p.140).” Inaction research, researchers are concerned with improving education and hold the view that action is “socially-constructed” (Carrand Kemmis, 1986, p.182). Therefore, as Burns (1999) notes, the social structures that shape the classroom practices need to bereflected on. According to Pennycook (2000, p.98), the classroom can be a place of conflict on “preferred modes of learning andteaching” and it is the struggle over the language of instruction that I wish to investigate. This researcher’s role is to examine how
an English only policy is shaped through critical perspectives.
3. 2 Critical Applied Linguistics
According to Pennycook (1999, p.343), critical theory is “a problematizing practice that questions the role of language discourse insocial life, that asks hard questions about social and cultural categories (e.g., race, gender, ethnicity) and the way they may relate tolanguage learning, and that constantly problematizes the givens of TESOL.” Pennycook (2001) proposes that critical applied
linguistics assumes that we live in a painful world, and that applied linguistics can not only alleviate such pains but also makechanges to the current practice. In the current context, the ‘givens’ are that English is to be the only or the best language of
instruction, and my pain is the awkwardness I occasionally feel in insisting on using English to instruct my Japanese-base students.
Additionally, Pennycook (2001, p.23) suggests that critical applied linguistics is a means to provide us with the “ways of dealing
with some of the most crucial educational, cultural, and political issues of our time.” It is because Pennycook believes that theclassroom is the place where learners’ identities are formed and modified.
Thus Pennycook (2001, p.129) writes: “The language we teach, the materials we use, the way we run our classrooms, thethings students do and say, all these can be seen in social and cultural terms, and thus, from a critical perspective as social politicaland cultural political questions.” When Pennycook (2001) discusses English language teaching practice in Sri Lanka, he hints thatthe idea that English should be taught best in English is also a “cultural preference” (Pennycook, 2001, p.129) rather than an28

English-Only Policy for All? Case of a University English Class in Japanempirically supported truth.
Kumaravadivelu (2006b, p.70), in his reflective summary of the past 15 years of the TESOL field, explains that the 1990s
saw a critical turn in the TESOL field, “connecting the word with the world.” Language was recognized as ideology, and education
was extended to involve “the social, cultural, and political dynamics of language use” (p.70). However, it is not enough to justconnect TESOL to the world and we must also focus on “questions of power, inequality, discrimination, resistance, and struggle”(Pennycook, 1999, p.332). I examine below the power relationships though they are subtle in the TESOL field.
3. 3 English and Power
Kumaravadivelu (2006a) insists that English teachers are promoting English imperialism. His claim may sound very strong, because
there is hardly any discussion of Postcolonialism or English imperialism in Japan (Hashimoto, 2007). However, Japanese do value
English education and English teachers, as if “to imitate the norms of the colonizer” (Kumaravadivelu, 1999, p.464).
Kumaravadivelu (2006a) is right in proclaiming that native English speaker teachers (NEST) enjoy the power and privilege in many
English teaching sectors, a point also discussed by Forhan and Scheraga (2000) on hiring practice in US and by Akiyoshi (2010) inJapan. There are numerous cases where native English speakers are offered teaching positions even if the applicant lacks a highstandard of educational background, professional qualifications or experience. As a non-native English speaker teacher (NNEST), I
do not wish to uncritically accept the native speaker dominance. As Kumaravadivelu (2006a) points out, such acceptance would
mean I legitimize my own marginalization. In reality, as Troudi (2005, p.8) asserts, “English is now a gatekeeper to better jobs andprofessional opportunities in places where it was just a foreign language fewer than two decades ago.” It is not surprising to see job
openings for university instructors where being a native speaker of English, which is a trait one cannot gain through efforts, isregarded as a qualification. For instance, it is not uncommon to see such an advertisement published on the widely read website forJapan Association of College English Teachers (JACET):XXXX University’s Faculty of Humanities is currently accepting
applications for a full-time English Language Instructor (non-tenured).
Qualifications: Native-speaker of English with an MA (or above);
English-related field; experience in teaching English as a second/foreign language.

Another example is shown by a study by Shibata (2010) in which she found that senior high school teachers in Japan are
reluctant to accept non-native speakers as their assistant English teachers.
Critical analyses indicate that English “threatens other languages” (Pennycook, 1995, p.54). In this case, non-native speakers
of English are marginalized. At the faculty level, in the English section of the language centre where the study took place, English isde facto the sole language of communication even though one third of the instructors are either Japanese or can communicate inJapanese. This practice exemplifies the fact that an English speaker has power even at a place where English is a foreign language.
3. 4 Language Policy in English Classrooms
I now consider the issues within my professional life, which are the status of English in the classroom and the language policy for
the English courses. Regarding the cultural politics of the classroom, I feel many of my colleagues accept and practice the ‘English
only’ model blindly, which affects our curriculum, syllabus, and approaches to teaching and particularly the way of interacting withstudents. Considering the students’ previous experiences of learning English in which their first language (L1) was mainly used for
instruction, what they experience in the university is quite different. Having observed new enrollees with limited exposure to
English in the past years, I have witnessed students being perplexed or confused because I would only talk to them in English. They
normally have to accept the new approach and get accustomed to the habit of ‘learning English in English’ as they work through thesystem. I have heard students complain, “Why is the class conducted only in English?” I have not really had a chance to discuss this29

Polyglossia Volume 20, February 2011

with my colleagues, and it is my hope that this paper will promote such a discussion.
In Japan, the language of instruction for English classes is mostly Japanese, from elementary through to undergraduatelevels (Hino, 2009). However, it is generally agreed in my own teaching context that English should be the sole medium of
instruction except in the lowest level classes, in order to maximize the intake of students’ English learning. Often the Direct Method
is employed as an effective teaching method, so that students learn to ‘think’ in English (Skela, 1998). Students learn English
communicatively with a focus on integrated skills, and with the aim of preparing them for content subjects. These Japanese-basestudents at the university are required to take content subjects in English even when they do not possess the linguistic ability tosuccessfully pass the courses, a point criticized by Tollefson (2000). In support of these needs and the reality, the policy to use“English at all times” in the classroom, both for instructors and students, is also prescribed in the syllabi.
The idea that English should be taught in English seems to be a national trend, which is pushing the high school teachers
to conduct classes in English, even though the Grammar and Translation Method is still the mainstream in Japanese high schools.
An English only policy is a “pervasive belief” in ESL instruction (Auerbach, 2001, p.293), and according to Cutri (2000), teachers’
decisions on classroom language policy are made by their own unexamined beliefs and assumptions, rather than as formal policy.
Cutri (2000, p.174) asserts, “Teachers’ classroom language policies and practices usually remain unarticulated, uninformed bycurrent knowledge bases, and devoid of moral deliberations.” Cases in other Asian nations such as South Korea, Indonesia andVietnam are reported widely in recent years (Johnstone, 2010, Kim and Petraki, 2009, Lin and Morrison, 2010, Ling and Braine,2007). For instance in South Korea, teaching English in English (TEE) is thought to be effective and necessary, therefore thegovernment is promoting TEE and is training teachers (Lee, 2010). However, there are not many studies conducted on TEE in Japan.
A few cases reported recently include Takagaki and Tanabe (2007) in which researchers conducted questionnaires over three years
at a high school home economic class taught in a non-native variety of English. An exploratory study by Taguchi and Naganuma(2006) discusses adjustment difficulty for students to learn in English, but this institution is an English-medium university, and thefindings focus on the participants’ perceived difficulties in language skill areas.
Having taught English to very low to intermediate level undergraduate students over several years, I doubted theefficacy, legitimacy and affective implications of using only English to communicate with students. It seemed to be almost a wasteof talent for some instructors because they are bilingual or multilingual, and they share the same mother tongue, or L1, as many of
the students. Skela (1998, p.93) supports my belief by concluding that when a native language is used sensibly, it “is a valid
resource for both learners and teachers and should not be excluded by insisting on monolingual approaches.” Dicker (2000, p.62)
also contends that little or no use of the L1 to prepare students for English medium classes in a few years is “unrealistic.” The wordsof Skutnabb-Kangas (2000, p.25) especially reinforced my belief in L1 use: “If you are an ESL teacher/or if you teach minority
children through the medium of a dominant language, at the cost of their mother tongue, you are participating in linguistic
genocide.” Of course, the situation is quite different in the current context since English is a foreign language, and the students use
their L1 as a means of communication outside the classroom.
Nevertheless, it does not feel ‘right’ for me not to allow any use of the students’ L1. Seidlhofer and Widdowson (1998,
p.9) point out that in monolingual classes, NNESTs have “the ability to use language effectively in the classroom.” Auerbach (1995)
also suggests that use of one’s L1 can be a teaching resource for the second language (L2), citing Collingham’s (1988, p.26) list: “tonegotiate the syllabus, to develop ideas as a precursor to expressing them in the L2, to reduce inhibitions or affective blocks to L2
production, to elicit language and discourse strategies for particular situations, to teach vocabulary, and to keep records.” It seems,
in recent years, in some countries both teachers and students use local languages together with English partially “to negotiate their
desired values, identities, and interests” (Canagarajah, 2006, p.22). I think there is a place for L1 use between the instructor and thestudents in my context.
In summary, I have had the following critical agenda that led me to this study. I have concerns on a) the English only policy

30

English-Only Policy for All? Case of a University English Class in Japan

at the institution; b) learners’ perceptions toward my English use in the classroom; and c) learners’ preferences on the teacher talk in
L1.
4. Methodology
The study is not experimental in nature, but exploratory. I am interested in finding out what the students’ perceptions are regarding
my English use in class. In similar studies on language policy (Johnstone, 2010), researchers interviewed both policy makers andteachers, but not students. Since my research subjects are university students who can state their preferences clearly, I think it isuseful to ask their opinions. In this particular paper, I focused on the following research questions.

(1) Why do students choose my class, and not one taught by a native-speaker of English?
(2) What do students think about my use of English and Japanese in class?

Regarding my first research question, if the answer is because I am Japanese, do they want to hear me speak Japanese?
Attitudes and behaviours are difficult to quantify, thus the study needs to be qualitative. First, anonymous course evaluation datafrom the past three years, namely, between Spring Semester 2007 and Spring Semester 2010 from the total of 303 students wereanalyzed to investigate the students’ preferences and opinions of my language use.
Second, I conducted pre-semester, mid-semester and post-semester questionnaires with both closed and open questions
regarding the learners’ perceptions toward my language choice in class and whether fundamental level English learners prefer theuse of English only or the occasional use of Japanese where appropriate, and on which occasions it is deemed appropriate.
Wellington (2000) states that questionnaires can be a valuable data collecting method especially when open-ended questions areused, in order to gain participants’ views and opinions. It may be argued that the questionnaire data are not enough to generalize theparticipants’ beliefs. As gaining pre-semester data was important and there was a time constraint on gaining the students’ consent,
especially because the procedure had to be explained even before the teacher had formed a rapport with the class, I could not planinterviews with the participants.
A total of 19 students participated in the questionnaire. Before starting the data collection, anonymity and the handling of thedata were explained orally and in writing to the participants to gain informed consent, making it clear that their privacy was secured
and the responses would not affect the evaluation on the students. The questionnaires were distributed in both English and Japanese,and participants could choose the language in which to answer. All three questionnaires are interconnected; same or similar wording
was used multiple times to elicit the participants’ ideas on the same issue over four months. The pre-semester data was collected on
paper (Appendix A) and securely kept in a locked desk. Mid-semester and post-semester data were collected using an online survey
with a password-protected account (Appendix B and C). Participants were given enough time to answer the questions, either bycompleting them at home or using the online tool. The pre-semester questionnaire asked eight items with three open and five closed
questions. The mid-semester questionnaire consisted of eight items with three follow-up questions, with a mix of closed questions,multiple choice, and descriptive questions. The post-semester questionnaire asked five items with four multiple-choice questions
and one open-ended descriptive question. The quality of the data collected, unfortunately, is limited, because as exploratory research,the data collection method should have been broader to “maximize discoveries of generalization” (Stebbins, 2008: 328). Although
not generalizable or transferable to other classes, the evidence collected supports the case in my own teaching context.
5. Findings and Analysis
5.1 Results from Class Evaluations
At the end of every semester, the university conducts a class evaluation questionnaire in all subjects. Question items and numberschange slightly every time. There are around twenty questions to which students answer on a 7-point Likert scale, with choiceslabelled strongly agree, neutral, and strongly disagree. Questions include items such as these: Q3. “The instructor responded to each31

Polyglossia Volume 20, February 2011

student’s questions, including my own.” Q4. “The course involved sufficient interaction between instructor and students.” Q12. “I
was enthusiastic about the class.” Q18. “I am satisfied with the course content of this class and its instructor’s teaching.” Q19. “I
would recommend this course to a friend or colleague.” There are only two questions related to language use. One is Q7. “The
instructor spoke in a clear and easy to understand manner.” The other is Q8. “The instructor carried out classes in the proper
language of instruction,” but students are not required to answer this question for language courses. This is probably because it isassumed that the target language is to be used for language instruction. Therefore, I examined only one question related to theteacher’s language use.

Figure 1. Questionnaire results between Academic Year 2007-2009. To what extent do you agree with the statement? “The
instructor spoke in a clear and easy to understand manner.” (N=303)

As Figure 1 shows, it is clear that the majority of students found the instructor’s speech clear and accepted her English
language use as natural. Here are some excerpts from the students’ comments that were added at the end of the survey.

•Her English was easy to understand. (Anonymous, Spring 2007)•As she talked to me a lot outside the class, it was beneficial and I could practise conversation. She explained a lot inclass, so it was easy to understand. (Anonymous, Spring 2008)•Teacher's delivery was easy to understand, and the class atmosphere was cheerful so I had fun. (Anonymous, Spring2008)•It was a good class, which made me realize that the time I am immersed in English surely will improve my English ability.
(Anonymous, Spring 2009)

These student voices come voluntarily, since the comments are unconstrained. Therefore it is assumed these excerpts express theircandid opinions. However, this item on the delivery of speech does not really reveal what learners think of the instructor’s English.
For that reason, the same item with an additional inquiry was run in the current study. The result is shown in 5.2.2.
5. 2 Results from Spring 2010 Surveys
The participants’ opinions were collected throughout the semester between April and July 2010. At the beginning of the semester,eight items were asked based around three themes. First was the reason for choosing the particular instructor’s class. Second wastheir attitude toward the language of instruction, and the third was their attitude toward their own language use.
5.2.1 Students’ ChoiceRegarding the students’ class choice, they could choose from two different schedules and six instructors who taught the same coursewith the same materials and methodologies in this semester. Of the six instructors, I was the only non-native speaker of English,

32

English-Only Policy for All? Case of a University English Class in Japan

however, because of my family name there is a possibility that students assumed the instructor to be a foreign national or a NEST.
Therefore, it was unexpectedly found that more than half of the students had known the instructor was Japanese. Asked why theychose this class, a few pointed out external factors such as the availability and convenience, because the classes were conducted in
the afternoons. However, the most recurring factors were personality and the fact that I am a Japanese speaker. About half of theclass said that their friends or senior students recommended he or she take my class. As for the instructor being Japanese, one
student in particular expressed his clear intention:“I took the same class with a foreign teacher before, but I couldn’t communicate well. With a Japanese teacher, I thought
I can consult her on my progress better” (Anonymous, Spring 2010, my translation).

From these findings, I can surmise that whether the English instructor is a native speaker or not did not influence thestudents’ decision to register for a particular class in this case. Additionally, as I discussed in 3.3, it is true that native English
speakers have power in English teaching contexts, but it does not mean NNEST are always disadvantaged. This result shows thatsome students prefer to learn from NNEST in some cases. This is an encouraging point for NNESTs.
5.2.2 Teacher’s Language Use
The second theme, students’ attitude toward the language of instruction, centred on this question: Do you like it if the instructor uses
only English at all times?

Figure 2. Learner Preference on Teacher’s Language Choice: pre-semester. “Do you like it if the instructor uses only English at all
times?” (N=19)

From this question, shown in Figure 2, it was found that the majority of the students want the instructor to use only English.
Even those who answered “No” want Japanese use only if it is necessary. Asked about the occasions students would like theinstructor to use Japanese, they answered similarly as the following shows:yI want to listen to important points in Japanese.

yWhen I really don’t understand.

yAfter class.

Following the initial questionnaire, I conducted classes in English, with occasional insertion of Japanese phrases to help
comprehension, to gain attention, or to create a humorous atmosphere. In the middle of the semester, I asked the same question andthe result was similar. Some of the reasons for preferring English only in class were as follows:y

I can feel English on a daily basis.

33

Polyglossia Volume 20, February 2011y

I can get used to English.

y

I think it will improve my listening skill.

y

Because we are studying English.

There were also students who answered, “It depends.” Their reasons were:y

By using Japanese, my understanding will be enhanced.

y

There are times when I don’t understand in English.

yWhen teaching important things I want her to use Japanese.

These responses reveal that the students believe they need English input, which matches exactly with the intention of the English
program policy. From this finding, it seems as though my argument for L1 use is unfounded because students prefer English to
Japanese in class.
At the mid-semester questionnaire, after students had experienced two months’ interaction with the instructor and also had
chances to talk to her in Japanese outside class, their opinions about the use of Japanese in class were collected. Auerbach (2001)
contends that students often react negatively to the L1 use, even considering it as an obstacle to learning. Contrary to their
expectations about listening to English all the time, the result showed their positive attitudes toward the instructor’s use of L1.
y

It is perfectly fine to use Japanese for things that are difficult to communicate in English.

y

The teacher is trying to enhance students’ understanding.

yThere are times I really can’t understand. I am happy if the teacher speaks in Japanese, and can understand so I will
not repeat the error.

yWhen it is difficult for us to understand, I would like her to use Japanese, but I want her to speak English as much as
possible.

y

I cannot understand everything the teacher says, so using Japanese for important matters and for supplementary
purposes will deepen our understanding.

The commonalities that can be found from these comments are: students acknowledge their limitation in comprehensions, and thatthey value ‘understanding’ the message. Therefore, they do not mind the instructor using L1 if necessary.
Since the survey asked about the use of languages by one instructor, one might suspect that students could not have judged
her use objectively. However, the students took a course taught by a NEST as well. Therefore they could compare and point out the
problems. In addition, the positive attitude toward the use of L1 does not derive from the instructor’s incompetency in English.
Positive comments on the instructor’s English outnumbered negative points:y

It is clear and I think the pronunciation is good too.

y

It is very easy to catch what she is saying.

y

It is easy to understand.

y

She speaks very slowly, so I think it is easy to understand.

yPersonally, when I go abroad I notice that I am used to hearing Japanese speakers’ English, which is different from
native English, so I find it difficult to listen to native speakers’ English.

As a university lecturer who is expected to perform at a high standard of English, I have often felt uncertainty over whether
students favourably accept my non-native English variety. Seen from this finding, students find the pronunciation and speed of myspeech easy to understand and follow. However, from the last comment, I felt that I might be hindering the students’ listening ability
at more advanced levels, since they get used to the non-native model.
5.2.3 Students’ Language Use
The third theme that emerged from the survey was about the students’ attitude about their own language use, which is not part of myresearch questions, yet sheds light on understanding their beliefs about language learning. Regarding the question, “Do you (the34English-Only Policy for All? Case of a University English Class in Japan

student) want to use English only in class?” the great majority of them answered “Yes.” Of those who answered, “Yes,” the great
majority said they want to improve their spoken English and that they want to use the class as a practice venue. Only a few statedthat they would like to use Japanese among classmates. At the end of the semester, two thirds of the class reported they used English
80-99% of the class time.
At mid-semester and the end of the semester, I asked the students how much effort they made in speaking English. Of
sixteen students who answered the question, “During the First Quarter, did you always try to use English with your instructor?”
most (81.3%) students either answered “Yes, always,” or “Most of the time.” The reasons why some used Japanese were either
when they could not express well in English, for confirmation or in an emergency. Of the twelve students who answered the samequestion at the end of the semester, 75% of them answered “Yes, always” or “Most of the time.” Although the total number of theparticipants is small, it was evident that more students tried to use English in interacting with the instructor later in the semester.
I also asked about the interaction with the instructor outside the class time. Most students reported using only English inmost interactions with the instructor. However, more students reported using Japanese when they talked to the instructor in her
office. Some stated they prefer the use of Japanese when they want to discuss complicated matters, especially topics that are moredelicate or when discussing grades. From this it seems students approach the instructor differently depending on their needs and thesituation. What is clear from this is that in principle, students want to use English all the time, whenever possible. This leads one toquestion whether the L1 use by the instructor is of value when learners are so keen to hear and use the target language. Participants,
although sometimes unable, tried to always use English, and only resorted to L1 when it was necessary. Thus, consideration needs
to be given to language choices between students and instructor in-class and outside class.
5. 3 Discussion and Limitations
I would like to discuss the implications of the findings. Let me first address the first research question, “Why do students choose myclass, and not one taught by a native-speaker of English?” In summary, I discovered that students want to listen to the teacher speak
English, regardless of the nationality or the mother tongue of the teacher. They choose a class for a variety of reasons, but the mostimportant factor seems to be a recommendation from their friends or senior students. Here are the main points evident both fromother studies and from students’ voices:• Students do not mind if the teacher uses Japanese occasionally• Students like the teacher to use English• Understanding the message is important for students• When and how to switch languages needs to be considered
Regarding the students’ preference on the instructor’s language uses, let me address the second question, “What do students
think about my use of English and Japanese in class?” First, it was confirmed both from the analysis of past class evaluations andrecent surveys that students have no problem with the instructor’s spoken English. Second, it was clear from the surveys thatstudents want to hear English as much as possible. Third, it also became evident that students accept the teacher’s use of L1 in classand outside class, especially when the message is important or complicated. The same student from 5.2.1 said, “The teachers I had
before were nice, but I felt it was difficult to consult them on various matters, because of the language barrier.” The idea thatstudents and the instructor can choose the language as a tool of communication seems to lower their anxiety, thus creating a
supportive and friendly atmosphere.
Thirdly, it was my aim to question the English only policy at the institution. Before conducting this study, I was hoping tofind a case for an increased use of L1 and to free myself from the English-only ideology. Considering the preferences indicated by
the students, an English-only policy in the intensive English education system seems to be a good strategy. In other words, learning
English in English is perceived to be a preferred way of instruction for students. Then, how about teachers’ ideas? I wish to examine
how an English only policy is shaped, but it is not known from this study and I will need to interview policymakers and colleagues

35Polyglossia Volume 20, February 2011

in my context. Following this study, I may not immediately change the already practised way of Teaching English in English (TEE)in my class, nor will I advocate the increased use of Japanese or the mixture of two languages. Even though the use of L1 may notharm the learning environment, this preliminary investigation does not indicate whether it is more ‘effective,’ compared with an
English only policy.
Meanwhile, a case of switching languages in Japanese language classrooms is reported (Hobbs, Matsuo and Payne, 2010)
but the finding is limited to suggesting teachers’ use of classroom language depends on their culture of learning. Other studies thatreport teachers’ code switching practices in English classes include cases in South Korea (Liu et al., 2004) and China (Qian et al.,2009). The findings from high schools in South Korea indicate that students are likely to respond to their teacher with the language
used. This implies that teachers should use English more if they want students to use the language. I believe there is a need for more
research into the applicability of these findings with respect to teaching in the local context focused on here. In order to find out theeffectiveness of code switching, it may be necessary to conduct an experimental study with a control group and an experimentalgroup, an idea also suggested by Troudi (2006). However, there are some hurdles to this. For one, it is not practically possible toconduct a true experiment by randomly assigning groups of students with similar competencies. Second, such a study may not be
ethical if either of the student groups feels disadvantaged because of the treatment. Third, one group’s success may not be applicable
to all the other learners, since every learner is different and there are many factors that contribute to one’s success. Furthermore, thecollected data explain in relative detail the beliefs of the students I have encountered, but the amount and the depth of the findings
are limited. There is a strong need for triangulation of the data, for instance from other colleagues both Japanese and non-Japanese. I
agree with Hayes (2009) that bringing experiences of NNEST is necessary.

6. Conclusion
In this final section I will discuss the future development and the changes that can evolve from this study. These are the necessary
actions in order to continue this study in more depth. First, investigating the students’ voice with interviews is indispensable, andhaving a control group may be helpful. To begin with, I can interview a different group of students whom I have been teaching
English to using mainly Japanese. Second, it is necessary to compare the data with other instructors’, including between NESTs andother NNESTs. Third, as I discussed above, I should seek other stakeholders’ voices in a coordinated way. It will be of great value toinvestigate teachers’ beliefs. Fourth, I would like to observe classes in which two languages are used interchangeably, in order toinvestigate the feasibility and the effectiveness of code switching in EFL teaching.
Although this small study is far from initiating a change, it has empowered myself in realizing the positive affective
elements in my practice. I still do not see a strong case for not allowing the first language for teachers. Kumaravadivelu (1999)
argues that critical approaches to TESOL are always changing, and I agree that we should not stop questioning things that are
accepted by many, but at the same time acknowledge the limits of our knowledge and try to learn from new developments in thefield. Therefore, in the near future, I hope to organize a collaborative research project on the language policy. Building on collective
evidence, it may be possible to suggest a hybrid language policy for English classes, where the knowledge of the students’ first
language as well as teachers’ language capabilities are utilized effectively in learning English as a foreign language.

References
Akiyoshi, A. (2010). Questioning the rationale for native speakers only in hiring practice: from parents’ perspective. Polyglossia,
19, 13-25.
Auerbach, E. R. (1995). The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power in pedagogical choices. In J. Tollesfson (Ed.). Powerand Inequality in Language Education (pp. 9-33). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Auberbach, E. R. (2001). “Yes, but…”: Problematizing participatory ESL pedagogy. In P. Campbell, and B. Burnaby (Eds.).

36

English-Only Policy for All? Case of a University English Class in Japan

Participatory Practices in Adult Education (pp. 267-305). London: LEA.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). TESOL at forty: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1), 9-34.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. London: Routledge.
Central Council for Education (2008). Gakushi katei kyouiku no kouchiku ni mukete [Towards Establishing a Bachelor Degree
Education]. Retrieved August 8, 2010 fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/shingi/toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2008/12/26/1217067_001.pdf
Collingham, M. (1998). Making use of students’ linguistic resources. In S. Nicholls and E. Hoadley-Maidment (Eds.), Current
Issues in Teaching English as a Second Language to Adults (pp. 81-85). London: Edward Arnold.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Cutri, R. M. (2000). Exploring the spiritual moral dimensions of teachers’ classroom language policies. In K. J. Hall and W. G.
Eggington (Eds.), The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching (pp.165-177). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Davis, C. (2008). Critical action research. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp.
139-142). Los Angeles: Sage.
Dicker, S. J. (2000). Official English and bilingual education: The controversy over language pluralism. In J. K. Hall and W. G.
Eggington (Eds.), The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching (pp. 45-66). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ford, K. (2009). Principles and practices of L1/L2 use in the Japanese university EFL classroom. JALT Journal, 31 (1), 63-80.
Forhan, L. E. & Scheraga, M. (2000). Becoming socio-politically active. In J. K. Hall and W. G. Eggington (Eds.), The Sociopolitics
of English Language Teaching (pp. 195-221). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hashimoto, K. (2007). Japan’s language policy and the “lost decade.” In A. Tsui and J. Tollefson (Eds.), Language Policy, Culture,and Identity in Asian Contexts (pp. 25-35). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hayes, D. (2009). Non-native English-speaking teachers, context and English language teaching. System, 37, 1-11.
Hino, N. (2009). The teaching of English as an international language in Japan: An answer to the dilemma of indigenous values andglobal needs in the Expanding Circle. In L. Lim and E. Low (Eds.), AILA Review, Vol. 22 (pp. 103-119).
Hobbs, V., Matsuo, A., & Payne, M. (2010). Code-switching in Japanese language classrooms: An exploratory investigation ofnative vs. non-native speaker teacher practice. Linguistics and Education, 21, 44-59.
Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET) homepage. Retrieved May 5, 2010, fromhttp://www.jacet.org/kobo/index.html
Johnstone, R. (Ed.) (2010). Learning Through English: Policies, Challenges and Prospects: Insights from East Asia. Malaysia:
British Council.
Kim, Y. & Petraki, E. (2009). Students’ and Teachers’ Use of and Attitudes to L1 in the EFL Classroom. Asian EFL Journal, 11/4,
58-89.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 453-484.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006a). Dangerous liaison: Globalization, empire and TESOL. In J. Edge, Relocating TESOL in an Age of
Empire (pp. 1-26). New York: Palgrave.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006b). TESOL Methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1), 59-81.
Lee, W. (2010). Insights from South Korea. In Johnstone, R. (Ed.) Learning Through English: Policies, Challenges and Prospects:
Insights from East Asia (pp. 47-68). British Council.
Lin, L. & Morrison, B. (2010). The impact of the medium of instruction in Hong Kong secondary schools on tertiary students’vocabulary. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9/4, 255-256.

37

Polyglossia Volume 20, February 2011

Ling, C. Y. & Braine, G. (2007). The attitudes of university students towards non-native speakers English teachers in Hong Kong.
RELC Journal, 38, 257-277.
Liu, D., Ahn, G., Baek, K., & Han, N. (2004). South Korean high school English teachers’ code switching: questions and challenges
in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 605-638.
Pennycook, A. (1995). English in the world/The world in English. In J. Tollesfson (Ed.), Power and Inequality in Language
Education (pp. 34-58). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33 (3), 329-348.
Pennycook, A. (2000). The social politics and the cultural politics of language classrooms. In K. J. Hall and W. G. Eggington (Eds.),
The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching (pp. 89-103). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. London: LEA.
Qian, X., Tian, G. and Wang, Q. (2009). Codeswitching in the primary EFL classroom in China – two case studies. System, 37,
719-730.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seidlhofer, B. & Widdowson, H.G. (1998). Applied linguistics, pragmatics, and language pedagogy. In R. de Beaugrande, M.
Grosman, and B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Language Policy and Language Education in Emerging Nations (pp. 3-27), Volume LXIII.
London: Ablex.
Shibata, M. (2010). How Japanese teachers of English perceive non-native assistant English teachers. System, 38, 124-133.
Skela, J. (1998). The role of the native language in teaching English as a foreign language. In R. de Beaugrande, M. Grosman, and
B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Language Policy and Language Education in Emerging Nations (pp. 93-107). London: Ablex.
Skutnabb-Kangass, T. (2000). Linguistic human rights and teachers of English. In K. J. Hall and W. G. Eggington (Eds.), The
Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching (pp. 22-44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Stebbins, R. A. (2008). Exploratory Research. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp.
327-329). Los Angeles: Sage.
Taguchi, N. & Naganuma, N. (2006). Transition from learning English to Learning in English: Students’ Perceived Adjustment
Difficulties in an English-Medium University in Japan. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8/4, 52-73.
Takagaki, T. & Tanabe, N. (2007). High school freshmen’s responses to home economics conducted in a non-native variety ofEnglish: A three-year survey on content-based instruction in Japan. Asian TEFL Journal, 9/2, 7-18.
Tollefson, J. (2000). Policy and ideology in the spread of English. In J. K. Hall and W. G. Eggington (Eds.), The Sociopolitics ofEnglish Language Teaching (pp. 7-21). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Troudi, S. (2005). Critical content and cultural knowledge for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Teacher
Development, 9 (1), 115-129.
Troudi, S. (2006). Empowering ourselves through action research. In P. Davidson et al. (Eds.). Teaching, learning, leading:
Proceedings of the 11th TESOL Arabia Conference. Dubai: TESOL Arabia Publications (pp. 277-209).
Wellington, J. (2000). Educational Research: Contemporary Issues and Practical Approaches. London: Continuum.

38

English-Only Policy for All? Case of a University English Class in Japan

Appendix A
Pre-Semester Survey
Questions: please answer these questions either in English or Japanese in order to help me understand your expectations about thisclass (Fundamental English II AA/AX). The answers will not affect your grades.
皆さんの、このクラスに対する考えを知りたいので、以下の質問に英語か日本語で答えてください。成績評価には一切関係ありません。

1. Why did you choose this class?
なぜこのクラス・教員を選びましたか。

2. Did you know your instructor’s nationality?
教員の国籍を知っていましたか。

3. If you answered “No”, what was your guess?
「いいえ」と答えた人は、教員がどこの国出身だと予想していましたか。

4. Do you like it if the instructor uses only English at all times?
教員が常に英語を使用することを希望しますか。

5. If you answered “No”, on which occasions do you want me to use Japanese?
もし「いいえ」と答えた場合、どのような際に日本語を使用して欲しいですか。

6. Do you (the student) want to use English only in class?
あなた自身は授業中常に英語を使用したいですか。

7. Why?
６番のように答えた理由は何ですか。

8. If you answered “No” in Q6, in which occasions do you want to use Japanese?
６番で「いいえ」と答えた人は、どのような状況で日本語を使いたいですか。

Thank you very much!

39

Polyglossia Volume 20, February 2011

Appendix B
Mid-semester Survey
Thank you very much for taking part in this survey. Your feedback will help improve my practice for the future. You do not need togive any personal information, and the result will be used for 1) my personal development as a teacher and 2) future presentations
and publications as part of my educational research. I would greatly appreciate your help in advance.
アンケートへのご協力、ありがとうございます。このアンケートでは個人情報は一切取り扱いません。成績にも全く関係ありません。皆さんにお答えいただく内容は、今後の私自身の教員としての力量を向上させるため、また、教育研究活動の一環として、研究学会で概要を報告させていただくこと等に使わせていただきたいと思っています。

1. Do you like it when the instructor uses only English in class?
担当教員が講義中常に英語を使用することを好ましく思いますか。
Yes.

はい

No.

いいえ

It depends. 場合による
Why do you think so? その理由は何ですか。

2. How do you feel when the instructor uses Japanese in class?
担当教員が授業中に日本語を使用したらどのように感じますか。

3. During the First Quarter, did you always try to use English with your instructor?
第１クオーター中、あなたは教員と常に英語で話す努力をしましたか。
Yes, always はい、常にMost of the time ほとんどいつも
Sometimes ときどきNo

いいえ

When did you use Japanese with your instructor? どのようなときに教員に日本語で話しかけましたか。

4. During the First Quarter, how many times did you interact with your instructor outside class time? (Before or after class, during
Office Hour, e-mail, or on campus)
第１クオーター中、授業外で何回担当教員と接しましたか。（授業の前後、オフィスアワー、メール、キャンパス内で）Never 全く接していない
Once

一度

2 - 3 times ２〜３回
4 - 5 times ４〜５回
6 - 7 times ６〜７回
8 or more times ８回以上

5. When you interacted with your instructor outside class time, how much Japanese did you use?
授業時間外に担当教員と接した際、どの程度日本語を使用しましたか。

40

English-Only Policy for All? Case of a University English Class in Japan

Never 日本語

A little bit

少しは全く使わなかだけ使った

Sometimes とA lot of the time

Most of the time

きどき使ったかなり使ったほとんど日本語だったった
Talking before or after class
授業前後の会話でTalking in the instructor's
office

教員の研究室でE-mail

メールの際

Talking on campus キャ
ンパスで会った際
In what situations did you use Japanese? どんな状況で日本語を使いましたか。

6. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
以下の記述にどの程度同意しますか。
The instructor speaks in a clear and easy to understand manner.
担当教員の話し方は分かりやすく明瞭である。
Strongly agree 強くそう思う
Agree そう思う
Neutral どちらともいえない
Disagree そうは思わない
Strongly disagree 全くそうは思わない

7. What do you think of your instructor's English?
担当教員の話す英語についてどう思いますか。自由に記述してください。

8. What can the instructor do to improve herself?
担当教員に対して要望があれば自由に記入してください。

Thank you very much for taking the survey.

41Polyglossia Volume 20, February 2011

Appendix C
End-of-semester Survey
Thank you very much for taking part in this final survey. Your feedback will help improve my practice for the future. You do notneed to give any personal information, and the result will be used for 1) my personal development as a teacher and 2) future
presentations and publications as part of my educational research. I would greatly appreciate your help in advance.
アンケートへのご協力、ありがとうございます。このアンケートでは個人情報は一切取り扱いません。成績にも全く関係ありません。皆さんにお答えいただく内容は、今後の私自身の教員としての力量を向上させるため、また、教育研究活動の一環として、研究学会で概要を報告させていただくこと等に使わせていただきたいと思っています。
1. Throughout the semester, how much English did you use in this class?
あなたは春セメスターを通して、どのくらい授業中に英語を使用しましたか。
100%
80-99%
60-79%
40-59%
20-39%
0-19%
Why do you think so? その理由は何ですか。

2. During the Second Quarter, did you always try to use English with your instructor?
第 2 クオーター中、あなたは教員と常に英語で話す努力をしましたか。
Yes, always はい、常にMost of the time ほとんどいつも
Sometimes ときどきNo

いいえ

When did you use Japanese with your instructor? どのようなときに教員に日本語で話しかけましたか。
3. During the Second Quarter, how many times did you interact with your instructor outside class time? (Before or after class,during Office Hour, e-mail, or on campus)
第 2 クオーター中、授業外で何回担当教員と接しましたか。（授業の前後、オフィスアワー、メール、キャンパス内で）Never 全く接していない
Once 一度
2 - 3 times ２〜３回
4 - 5 times ４〜５回
6 - 7 times ６〜７回
8 or more times ８回以上

4. When you interacted with your instructor outside class time, how much Japanese did you use?
授業時間外に担当教員と接した際、どの程度日本語を使用しましたか。

42

English-Only Policy for All? Case of a University English Class in Japan

Never 日本語

A little bitは全く使わなかだけ使った

少しSometimes とA lot of the time

Most of the time

きどき使ったかなり使ったほとんど日本語だったった
Talking before or after class
授業前後の会話でTalking in the instructor's
office

教員の研究室でE-mail

メールの際

Talking on campus キャ
ンパスで会った際
In what situations did you use Japanese? どんな状況で日本語を使いましたか。

5. Please write freely what the instructor can/should do in order to improve her practice.
担当教員に対して要望、特に、改善すべき点があれば自由に記入してください。

Thank you very much for taking the survey.

43