Research Digest

What Do We Know About Team

Teaching Problems Affecting ALTs
Ability to Teach?
Christopher Samuell
Hannan University
Team-taught classes are becoming increasingly commonplace in a variety of formal learning
environments throughout Japan. In fact, as of 2018, Japanese schools retained as manyas 23,857 Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs) to deliver English as a foreign language(EFL) content, with this number set to increase as English has become an official subject
for fifth- and sixth-grade elementary school students as of April 2020. It is thus paramountthat both effective and ineffective team-teaching dynamics are comprehended in order tofacilitate successful language acquisition at all educational levels. It is for this reason that acomprehensive review of the literature on the current situation of team teaching in Japanwas carried out.
チームティーチングによる授業は、日本中で一般的になりつつあります。2018年度のMEXT(文部科学省)のデータによると、日本の学校において、外国語としての英語（EFL）を教える23,857人のALT（アシスタントランゲージティーチャー）が雇用されています。英語が小学5、6年生の 必須科目となる2020年には、ALTの人数がさらに増えます。以上のことから、効果的な語学習得と非効果的な語学習得の両方を理解し言語習得を推進していくことが重要となります。そこで、日本におけるチー
ムティーチングの現状について包括的な調査を実施しました。

Team teaching plays an important role in Japanese English education (Shiobara& Sakui, 2019), and it is a practice that can impact English education overall,Japanese society as a whole, and internalization of the country (Mahoney, 2004).
Although team teaching is primarily carried out from elementary school throughhigh school levels, the practice of team teaching at the university level is being
discussed in a growing number of research papers** (Lock et al., 2017; Mohamed
3

Samuell

et al., 2012; Winn & Messenbeimer-Young, 1995). According to current research,
there are several major issues affecting assistant language teachers (ALTs) inJapan. However, a great deal of this research presents these issues independentlyof each other, with little to no cohesion between the myriad problems ALTs faceon a daily basis. This disparity across research may lead to certain research biases
that present an inaccurate view of the current state of team teaching in Japan. This
paper, therefore, will attempt to reevaluate what we know about reported teamteaching problems affecting ALTs’ ability to teach.

The Team-Teaching Situation for ALTs

According to data provided by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c), 23,857 ALTs
(also often referred to as AETs, or assistant English teachers, and NETs, or
native-speaking English teachers) were practicing in schools throughout Japan
in 2018, with this number set to increase dramatically after English has become
an official subject for fifth- and sixth-grade elementary school students in 2020.
Further, according to the data provided by MEXT (2018a, 2018b, 2018c), of thisnumber, 28.8 percent (6,877) were employed by the Japan Exchange and Teaching
Programme ( JET), making JET one of the largest employers of ALTs in Japan.
Since the scheme’s inception in 1987, the number of ALTs employed by JET has
risen exponentially, from 848 in 1987 to 5,761 in 2019 ( JET, n.d.). In total, since
JET’s inception, over 70,000 people from 75 countries have participated in the
program ( JET, n.d.). While the number of JET programme participants shownin the introduction section of the JET programme’s homepage (5,528) and those
provided by MEXT (6,877 in 2018) differ slightly, the point remains that many
foreign teachers are employed by JET.
The JET programme is by no means the only employer of ALTs in Japan,
with companies such as Altia Central, Borderlink, and Interac also hiring
ALTs in various cities, as well as local boards of education also directly hiring
ALTs. Yet, JET’s substantial market share and large number of participants havearguably resulted in JET playing a significant role in creating the current teamteaching culture in Japan. With regards to this team teaching culture, McCrostie
4

Team Teaching Problems, OnCUE 13(1), pages 3-14

(2017) stated that “In theory, Japanese teachers work in tandem with foreignassistants to create and teach useful and engaging communicative lessons” (para.
18). He went on to suggest that “In reality, overworked teachers often don’t havethe time required to properly co-plan a team-teaching lesson—especially when
dealing with an inexperienced ALT fresh off the plane” (para. 18). This reality
has resulted in a dynamic which many team teachers—both native-speaking andJapanese alike—view in a negative light (Tonks, n.d.).
Despite the programme’s use of the term teacher, JET’s primary focus is
the promotion of “grass-roots internationalisation at the local level” **( JET,
n.d., para 2). As a result, “ALTs typically do not receive training in teamteaching prior to their arrival in Japan” (Sponseller, 2017, p. 124). Hence, fromthe program’s inception, The Council of Local Authorities for International
Relations (CLAIR), the governing body overseeing JET, has viewed JET not
in terms of educational outcome, but as a means of sustaining Japan’s politicalobjectives and continued internationalization (Sponseller, 2017). In this regard,
JET could be said to have been a success, creating a degree of exposure to foreignculture “that few countries can match” (Roloff-Rothman, 2012, p. 2). However,as a result of primarily focusing on simply bringing foreign teachers to Japan, an
overwhelming majority of JET ALTs receive little formal teacher training, yet all
are required to team-teach classes alongside a Japanese teacher of English ( JTE).
Additionally, there appears to be confusion regarding the pedagogicalroles that JETs are expected to play in the classroom. A contrabuting factor tothis confusion could be the use of ambiguous phrasing with regard to official
JET policy on team teaching, described in the program’s official handbook,which “creates confusion among ALTs about their role” (Ohtani, 2010, p. 41).
According to Sponseller (2017), the guide stresses that “JTEs and ALTs should
work cooperatively, while at other times it reminds readers ALTs are assistants,
and still other times it advises ALTs to take a great deal of initiative” (p. 124).
Confusion regarding the role of ALTs in the classroom often leads to clashes
between the JTEs and the ALTs; in fact, it has been claimed that weaknesses
in each other’s L2 and differences in teaching styles were causes of frustration
between the two (Moote, 2003). Mahoney (2004) clarified that some of this5Samuellfriction between teaching partners is caused by confusion or clashes over whichrole is more important for the ALT to play in the classroom, that of the assistantteacher, or that of the cultural ambassador.
Furthermore, Martin (2010) stated that CLAIR aimed to increase the“number of team-teaching hours, and thus, increase the number of ALTs
nationwide” (p. 151). Despite this comment dating back more than 10 years
now, and considering that, as of April 2020, English has become an official
subject for elementary school fifth- and sixth-grade students, it would be natural
for CLAIR to continue to increase the number of ALTs for a number of years
to come in order to meet the demand for ALTs in elementary schools. Martin(2010) also posited that:“Since the establishment of the JET Programme 22 years ago, there has beena shift away from the JET ALT to the less expensive company ALT. There
has also been a shift in expectations away from cultural exchange to teaching
responsibilities and company involvement in curriculum and teacher training”(p. 151; italics added).
This shift suggests that an increasing number of company ALTs may begin
to receive formal teacher training prior to entering the classroom. In responseto this shift in expectations, it is important to review the current state of teamteaching in Japan, seeking to draw attention to potential barriers that may
impede its effective implementation. The sheer number of practicing ALTs
throughout Japan (MEXT 2018a, 2018b, 2018c), working at levels ranging
from elementary to higher education, suggests that team teaching with ALTs
still plays a key factor in Japan’s bid to become more internationalized and to
improve students’ English communication abilities. This situation may beof concern to college and university education because team teaching is so
ingrained into the Japanese educational system at all levels and continues to be
an area of interest for researchers of the Japanese educational system. This paper
will endeavor to address any bias or inaccurate information that may exist bycomparing and contrasting various existing studies in order to consolidate ourcurrent understanding and suggest possible new avenues for future research.

6

Team Teaching Problems, OnCUE 13(1), pages 3-14

Summary of Research on ALTs So Far

Sutherland (2014) presented an investigation into identifying four barriers
to native English-speaking assistant teachers’ ability to model native English
in Japanese classrooms. Specifically, the inquiry was concerned with AETs’classroom practices, and the efficacy of their roles as models of native English.
Sutherland (2014) hypothesized that these barriers are an over-reliance on inclass translation, the assistants’ use of simplified English and “foreigner speech,”the use of scripted dialogue, and limited Japanese language proficiency amongst
AETs. The author concluded that, while there are certainly benefits to having
AETs in classrooms, their ability to model native level English is routinely
impeded by the barriers identified above.
Sutherland interviewed only JTEs, and did not include any perspectives of
AETs in his research. This naturally resulted in potentially skewed responses,
wherein JTEs could be interpreted as suggesting that AETs are primarily
responsible for creating barriers in team teaching situations. Moreover, theseresults contrast with previous research conducted independently by Carless(2006), Igawa (2009), Mahoney (2004), Martin (2010), Moote (2003), Reed(2016), Shiobara & Sakui (2019), Sponseller (2017), and Turnbull (2018).
Moote (2003) attempted to determine the manner by which JTEs andNETs perceive their roles in the classroom, as well as those of their teachingpartner(s). This study questioned five JTEs and five NETs. Although the sample
size was smaller than that of Sutherland’s (2014) research, by interviewing both
JTEs and NETs it provided a more authentically representative sample, andtherefore a better-balanced perspective. In doing so, Moote’s (2003) inquiry
directly challenged several of Sutherland’s conclusions regarding team-teachingbarriers in the Japanese context. For instance, Moote observed differences inpedagogic styles and an absence of communication between teaching partners
to be the two most common problems for NETs. They indicated that JTEs were
not provided with adequate time to meet to discuss classes or, in some instances,were hindered from cooperatively organizing classes due to linguistic barriers.
During the course of their research, Shibara and Sakui (2019) also found that
there would be issues of miscommunication when there was not enough time to7

Samuelltalk about the lesson in advance. They noted that this “lack of communication
causes stress inside and outside of the classroom for ALTs and hinders building a
positive relationship between teachers” (p. 112).
These findings can be expanded upon by examining Carless (2006) andIgawa (2009). Carless (2006) posits “JTEs disliked the extra effort involved inplanning team-taught lessons, particularly in cases where a co-planning period
was not built into school administrative structures” (p. 6). In 2009 Igawa
conducted a study into EFL teachers’ views on team teaching. The sample
consisted of 105 teachers currently practicing at Japanese secondary schools. Of
the 105 participants, 74 were JTEs and 31 were ALTs. Igawa found that 51.4%
of JTEs and 45.2% of ALTs cited planning as a “significant factor” (p. 163) ofsuccessful team teaching.
Therefore, when discussing team teaching issues, lack of communication
between JTEs and ALTs and inadequate time for co-planning are arguably mostprominent. Kano, Sonoda, Schultz, Usukura, Suga, and Yasu (2016) carried out
a survey consisting of 1,545 ALTs employed by both the JET programme andprivate dispatch companies, with 655 of them mainly teaching in elementary
school and 890 in junior high school. The results suggested that, in the case of
JHS teachers, “barriers derived more from lack of in-class utilization of ALTs’
expertise and insufficient communication” (p.78). Kano et al. (2016) further
clarified that some JTEs do not encourage verbal communication with students
in their classes, creating a reduced role for the ALT and “leaving the ALTs unable
to understand their roles in the classroom” (p.78).
As noted above, the absence of clearly defined roles within the classroom wasanother issue that featured prominently in various studies. McConnell (2000,
cited in Turnbull, 2018) posited that ALTs on the JET Programme work within
a complex system that requires them to teach English conversation, focus on
written examinations, and all the while “speaking of internationalization whilst
practicing it only at a distance” (p. 86). Reed (2016) further adds that thismixture of vaguely defined roles and limited training practices results in ALTs
not knowing what to do when they enter the classroom, which ultimately may
be seen to restrict ALTs ability to deliver communicative classes. Additionally,
8

Team Teaching Problems, OnCUE 13(1), pages 3-14

vaguely defined ALT roles may not only limit effective teaching but also hinder
the development of professional relationships. This potentially exacerbates
situations in which ALTs and JTEs do not communicate or plan classes together,leading to barriers that result in ALTs being under-utilized and therefore limiting
their ability to effectively employ their team-teaching potentials. These factors
can certainly be seen to “negatively impact learner outcomes” (Reed, 2016, p. 85).
When considering what can be done in order to tackle some of these issues,
Roloff-Rothman (2012) noted that improved communication would certainly
lead to better working relationships, potentially resulting in a situation where
ALTs are better utilized. However, Reed (2016) suggested that the blame doesn’t
lie solely with the ALTs or the JTEs; rather, institutional constraints createa situation in which there is inadequate time to discuss or reflect on lessons,
therefore obstructing potential peer support. The author continued, “Insteadof seeing these institutional and sociocultural forces as barriers to teaching, it
is more productive to see them as considerations to be used as a framework forteacher training” (p. 86). Turnbull (2018) supported this claim in stating:“this is, most certainly, a mutual lack of understanding between the ALT
and JTE regarding how best to interact and cooperate with one anothereffectively, and training is needed on both sides as a result if positive change
is to be seen” (p. 101).
Indeed, according to data from observations of two classrooms and teacher
interviews at two junior high schools in Japan, Fujimoto-Adamson (2010)
observed two different examples of team teaching which exemplified goodresults depended on ALT training or experience. During a lesson consisting of anexperienced ALT and a Japanese teacher with a postgraduate degree in ELT, sheobserved “smooth collaboration” (p. 204) between the JTE and ALT. Whereas
in the case of an ALT who did not have a teaching qualification or experience,
and a Japanese teacher whose specialty was not language education, she observedcases of “ineffective team-teaching practice” (p. 203).
Reed (2016) suggested mutual training is “desirable for promoting
professional development” (p. 85). Alternatively, Turnbull (2018) recommended
that the ALT and JTE undertake in-service training together, suggesting that
9

Samuellthis kind of team-learning can help to “develop their awareness, respect andappreciation for one another in the classroom” (p. 105). Although this idea ofteam-learning would be highly beneficial, restrictions of time and teachers’ busy
schedules make this proposal somewhat unrealistic. Therefore, Shiobara andSakui (2019) suggested that instead of formal meetings, teachers could attempt
to find impromptu opportunities in school or at social events to communicate
with their teaching partners. Regardless, both Reed’s (2016) suggestion of mutual
training, and Turnbull’s (2018) concept of team-learning possess the potential
to enhance communication, engender more successful lesson planning and, asa result, facilitate organizational structure and a more appropriate utilization of
the ALTs strengths, thereby creating the opportunity for more effective teamteaching in Japanese classrooms.
Furthermore, Aline and Hosoda (2006) argued that both JTEs and ALTs
should be made aware of the interactional patterns they use in the classroom.
Through observation of team teaching classes at six elementary schools
throughout Japan, they identified four participation patterns (e.g., roles) Japanese
homeroom teachers utilized in classes with ALTs; “a bystander, a translator, a colearner of English, or a co-teacher” (p. 8). Aline and Hosoda (2006) suggested
that teachers should be made aware of the implications, both positive andnegative, that their own participation patterns have on the class. They positthat through analysis of recorded classes, teachers may be able to evaluate theirclassroom behavior and make decisions that facilitate more effective teamteaching on a moment-by-moment basis.
The data presented in the studies detailed here demonstrate the potential
for a multitude of factors to be complicit in the generation of such barriers.
These include administrative barriers created by the schools, JET, and privatecompanies, as well as both JTEs and ALTs themselves.
One more caveat worthy of note is that while Moote (2003) draws attention
to the limited English ability of the JTEs, it is always important to consider that
ALTs may also have limited proficiency in the L1 of the local community, inthis instance, Japanese. The ability to communicate with the local community
in the L1 is one of the critical components of an effective language teacher, as
10Team Teaching Problems, OnCUE 13(1), pages 3-14

noted by Knagg (2016), who suggests that the modern model of the ALT “isnot monolingual and unqualified but increasingly multilingual, multiculturaland expert” (p. 3). It is therefore imperative that the responsibility of successfulcommunication should be recognized to fall on both the JTE and the ALT.

Suggestions for Future Research on ALTs

The research discussed within this paper provides compelling insights into thedifficulties currently facing JTEs and ALTs in Japan. However, in order to provide
a more comprehensive understanding of the issues, further research is needed.
It is crucial that follow-up studies include large samples, consisting of JTEs andboth JET and non-JET ALTs alike in order to provide a representative analysisof the factors contributing to effective and ineffective team-teaching practices.
Research into the effectiveness of the training available to privately
employed ALTs, board of education ALTs, and JETs, may yield interesting
results. Specifically, an investigation into handbooks and training guides mayhelp to illuminate why issues relating to confusion in roles and communication
continue to affect so many ALTs. Finally, as McCrostie (2017) noted, ALTs
are often required to rotate around different schools throughout the weekor month, which is yet another issue that can make planning classes difficult.
Shiobara and Sakui (2019) expanded on this point by concluding that “most of
the ALTs thought that an important factor in building relationships between
ALTs and HRTs [homeroom teachers] is how often the teachers meet” (p. 111).
Therefore, an investigation into the number of hours ALTs spend at each of
their schools in relation to how effectively each school’s JTEs and ALTs feel they
can communicate with each other may be beneficial in helping to create a more
complete picture of issues relating to ineffective communication.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Joe Falout for all of his hard work with editing this paper.

11

SamuellReferences

Aline, D., & Hosoda, Y. (2006). Team teaching participation patterns ofhomeroom teachers in English activities classes in Japanese public
elementary schools. JALT Journal, 28(1), 5-22.
Brown, J. (2016). Team teaching in the English classroom in Japan: A call forintercultural communicative competence development. Accents Asia, 8(2),102-112.
Carless, D. R. (2006). Good practices in team teaching in Japan, South Korea
and Hong Kong. System, 34(3), 341-351.
Fujimoto-Adamson, N. (2010). Voices from team-teaching classrooms: a casestudy in junior high schools in Japan. Business Communication Quarterly,73(2), 200-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569910367608
Glaser, B. (1999). The future of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research,
9(6), 836-845.
Igawa, K., (2009). EFL teachers’ views on team-teaching: In the case of Japanese
secondary school teachers. West Tennoji University Bulletin, 47, 145-172.
http://www.shitennoji.ac.jp/ibu/toshokan/kiyou/047.html
JET Programme. (n.d.). Introduction. [online] http://jetprogramme.org/en/
about-jet/
Kano, A., Sonoda, A., Schultz, D., Usukura, A., Suga, K., & Yasu, Y., (2016).
Barriers to effective team teaching with ALTs. In P. Clements, A. Krause, &H. Brown (Eds.), Focus on the learner (pp. 74-82). Tokyo: JALT.
Knagg, J. (2016). Foreword. In F. Copland, S., Garton, & S. Mann (Eds.), LETs
and NESTs: Voices, views and vignettes (pp. 3-4). London: British Council.
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/pub_BC_Book_
VVV_online_screen_res_FINAL.pdf
Lock, J., Clancy, T., Lisella, R., Rosenau, P., Ferreira, C., & Rainsbury, J. (2017).
The lived experiences of instructors co-teaching in higher Education. Brock
Education Journal, 26(1), 22-35.
Mahoney, S. (2004). Role controversy among team teachers in the JET
Programme. JALT Journal, 26(2), 223-244.
Martin, R., (2010). Team-teaching in Japanese public schools: Fissures in
12Team Teaching Problems, OnCUE 13(1), pages 3-14

the ALT industry. Language, Culture, and Communication, 2, 145-152.
https://doi.org/10.14992/00005759
McConnell, D. L. (2000). Importing diversity: Inside Japan’s JET Program.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
McCrostie, J. (2017). As Japan’s JET Programme hits its 30s, the jury’s still out.
Japan Times. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2017/05/03/
issues/japans-jet-programme-hits-30s-jurys-still/#.XOZH6S2Q0Wo
MEXT. (2018a). Heisei 30 nendo eigo kyoiku jisshi jokyo chosa (shogakko) no
kekka gaiyo [Survey on the current state of English language education(elementary school) 2018 ]. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20200710mxt_kyoiku01-100000661_3.pdf
MEXT. (2018b). Heisei 30 nendo eigo kyoiku jisshi jokyo chosa (chugakko) no
kekka gaiyo [Survey on the current state of English language education(junior high school) 2018]. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20200710mxt_kyoiku01-100000661_4.pdf
MEXT. (2018c). Heisei 30 nendo eigo kyoiku jisshi jokyo chosa (kotogakko) no
kekka gaiyo [Survey on the current state of English language education(senior high school) 2018]. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20200710mxt_kyoiku01-100000661_4.pdf
Mohamed, M., Ng, N., Jin, N., Halim, A., Chong, I., Tong, S., Ling, L.,
Ahmad Tarmiz, M, A., & Abd Karim, A. (2012). Team teaching in higher
education: The relationship between team norms and effectiveness.
International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 1, 83-97.
Moote, M. (2003). Insights into team-teaching. The English Teacher, 6(3), 328-334.
O’Leary, Z. (2017). The essential guide to doing your research project (3rd ed.).
Sage Publications.
Ohtani, C. (2010). Problems in the assistant language teacher system andEnglish activity at Japanese public elementary schools. Educational
Perspectives, 43(1-2), 38-45.
Reed, N. (2016). Pedagogical teacher training for ALTs in Japanese publicschools. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Focus on the learner(pp.83-89). JALT.
13

SamuellRoloff-Rothman, J. (2012). Looking for common ground: an investigation of
motivational strategies valued by ALTs and JTEs. Accents Asia, 5(2), 1-20.
Shiobara, F. J., & Sakui, K. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes to team-teaching inJapanese elementary schools. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & P. Bennett(Eds.), Diversity and inclusion (pp.109-114). JALT. https://doi.
org/10.37546/JALTPCP2018-15
Sponseller, A. C. (2017). Role perceptions of JTEs and ALTs engaged in teamteaching in Japan. Hiroshima Journal of School Education, 23, 123-130.
Sutherland, S. (2014). Team teaching: four barriers to native English-speaking
assistant teachers' ability to model native English in Japanese classrooms.
The Asian EFL Journal: Quarterly Journal, 16(2), 156-180.
Tonks, B. (n.d.). ESL team teaching in the Japanese context: Possibilities, pitfalls
and strategies for success. The International TEYL Journal. http://www.
teyl.org/article12.html
Turnbull, Blake. (2018). Perceptions of value in Japanese English education:
Self-reflections of ALTs on the JET Programme. Asian Journal of English
Language Teaching, 27, 83-111.
Winn, J. A., & Messenbeimer-Young, T. (1995). Team teaching at the university
level: What we have learned. Teacher Education and Special Education,
18(4), 223-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649501800402

Author bio

Christopher Samuell has been teaching English in Japan for the past 9 years. He
holds a Master’s degree in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. He
currently teaches classes in academic English, global English for use in study abroad
programs, and oral communication. His research interests include sociolinguistics,
teacher autonomy, and learner motivation. <samuellchris@gmail.com>
Received: June 3, 2019
Accepted: May 6, 202014