LEARNING LEARNING ÙŲ(ÙŲVolume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

Uncovering Teacher Assumptions and Developing
Intercultural Communication through Heightened Local
Culture Sensitivity
Ęì(Ā ƣ0(Ŏƅ$łÆĚ®'â9Ě®Őą¶ā< ǅ29$'69ŌĚ®ƷNjo]LyPpw(ƩSatchie Haga OUDx`G
Seikei University ĉƠÑÙ
Email: hagasatchie@gmail.com

W

ith the official shift away from teaching prescribed linguistic forms toincorporating them as a part of a broader repertoire for communication(Amano, 1999; Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,2013), I, like many English teachers in Japanese universities, teach “English forcommunicative purposes” courses. However, when I began teaching them, I would often
become discouraged and frustrated when I set up communicative activities and students
would only use a minimum amount of English, and then either stop the activity and say“Finished,” or revert to Japanese. When I discussed my frustrations with one of myJapanese-American friends also teaching at a university in Tokyo, she suggested thatJapanese students need more structure. She gave me an example of a conversation activity
that worked in her class where she used vocabulary cards containing target verbs andnouns, and the students would have a conversation flipping over the cards. I have usedsimilar activities to introduce or promote vocabulary acquisition; however, in her case, thepurpose of the cards was to assist the students’ conversation. For example, on the topic ofglobal warming, several vocabulary cards would be laid out, and students would discuss
the topic with question prompts that were in the textbook. They would answer thequestions while looking at the cards, and use the vocabulary in the conversation. Whenthey used the vocabulary they replaced it with a new card. She found that students wereable to discuss more when they could see the vocabulary in front of them. In other words,
by directing and limiting the linguistic focus of the conversation activity to the specific set ofterms in her vocabulary card activity, she found that her students were able tocommunicate more.
For me, this was an entirely novel idea. Up until that point, I thought that limiting the
focus to specific vocabulary would stifle student conversation. However, when I spoke
about this activity with a non-teacher Japanese friend, their response was, “She understands
how Japanese like to learn. Free conversation is very difficult for us.” This comment caused me tostart to re-evaluate my teaching practice. I realized that perhaps I was not thinking about
my learner needs as deeply as I should have been. Like other teachers, I over-simplisticallyattributed students’ reticence in conversation activities due to their low English proficiency(Tsui, 1996), or their lack of confidence and fear of making mistakes or being laughed at—
not to lack of structure.
As I thought this over further, I started to reflect upon my own assumptions as a nonJapanese university teacher. I am Canadian and completed my Masters at an American
university; I wondered about the influence of my North American education on my
expectations for my non-North American learners. I looked to Barna (1994) who suggests
six “stumbling blocks” that can affect intercultural communication. Of the six, I realizedthat assumptions of similarities and the tendency to evaluate may be the two blocks that teachers
are the least aware of. Assumptions of similarities refers to the taken for granted, unquestioned
belief that people share similar values and beliefs as ourselves. The tendency to evaluate refers
Special Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

61

LEARNING LEARNING ÙŲ(ÙŲVolume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

to the tendency of approving or disapproving the statements or actions of the other person
based on our framework rather than making an effort to understand it from theirworldview (Barna, 1994, pp. 341-342). I realized that I had succumbed to these stumbling
blocks—I had been expecting my students to conduct the communicative activities as
Western students without deeply considering their existing values and communicationstyle.
I decided that as a window and a model for intercultural communication, before
imposing my values onto my students, I should first make an effort to understanding theirworldviews. It was only when I approached teaching with a heightened local cultural
sensitivity—to understand and respect the students’ background schema, and adjust myteaching to meet their expectations—that I began to see them take great strides indeveloping their communicative ability.
In this short reflective article, I will first share questions from my teaching practice andthen examine the research to reflect upon classroom intercultural concerns. I will conclude
with future considerations about my learner development practices.
Understanding my Students’ Worldviews
In order to deepen my knowledge about my students’ perspectives, the questions that
I wanted to answer were: How do my students best learn? What kind of classroom and activities are
comfortable for them and will promote their learning? How do they communicate? What communication
techniques do they use in Japanese that they can learn in English? and What is different for them aboutcommunicating in English compared to communicating in Japanese?
Learning in Japan: Expectations of teachers and students.
In Japan, like in many Asian cultures, the teacher’s role “has socially been prescribed asthat of a model, a knowledge transmitter, a learning guide, an authority, an expert, anurturer and a virtuoso, and the student’s role as that as a receiver, a follower, an apprentice
and an audience” (Li, 2003, p. 74). This is in contrast to Western education systems that
tend towards teachers acting as facilitators where questions and discussions among
students are encouraged (Saito & Ebsworth, 2004). Students are viewed as cocreators/facilitators in the learning process and the teacher can be wrong. Expatriate
teachers with TESOL training often are prepared with activities that focus on a learnercentred classroom, the development of learner autonomy, meaning focused input/output,
and encourage unplanned discussions (Li, 2003; Saito & Ebsworth, 2004). However,Western concepts such as autonomy, spontaneous discourse, and a democratic learning
environment may often be unfamiliar to the Japanese learner and can be met withresistance. As I started to think this over more, I understood my friend’s comment now
that “Japanese students need more structure.” I began to look for patterns and create formulas
for students to remember and develop. For instance, instead of introducing a topic,
teaching them the vocabulary and then giving them discussion questions, I started withhow to give an answer to a question that promotes more discussion. One effective pattern
I introduced to them is an “Answer-Add-Ask” (AAA) pattern, where lower-level students
focus on pragmatics such as turn-taking and higher level students can engage in developing
and expressing opinions in a modified Response-Opinion-Ask pattern.
In order to meet student expectations of providing them with models for them to frame
their output, I gave them many examples of English discourse markers that they could use
to structure their conversations. Additionally, I used Bloom’s taxonomy of questions(Anderson et. al., 2001) as a framework to provide the learners with many examples ofSpecial Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

62

LEARNING LEARNING ÙŲ(ÙŲVolume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

English question stems. In student reflections, a common sentiment shared by all levels isthat they initially find creating their own questions and continuing a conversation to bevery difficult; however, remembering the examples made it easier. After discussion
activities where students were required to discuss one topic for 5 to 10 minutes, students
frequently commented that the structured patterns they learned in class helped to maintainthe momentum of communication and extend their conversations beyond their
expectations. For instance, Kotaro, a second-year student, was surprised at how long they
could talk about one topic and now wanted to talk more than the time allowed, while
Atsumi, another second-year student, observed that asking questions was very helpful for
her to keep the conversation going. Moreover, students felt that their English ability had
progressed. For example, after a discussion activity, Shoei, a first-year student, commented,“I feel my English improved a lot,” while Yu, a second-year student, felt he “could speak morethan usual.” Teppei, a second-year student, observed that using the ready-made phrases
helped with communicating more fluently, and Saki, another second-year student, foundthe phrases so useful that she wanted me to prepare more that she could memorize andincorporate in her conversations.
Regarding values, Western, including English-speaking cultures, tend to be classified as
individualistic with self-determination to achieve personal (individual) goals. This is incontrast to Eastern collectivist values that tend to emphasize a sense of self that isinterconnected with others and the harmony of interpersonal relationships (Hofstede,2011). For Westerners, being different and having unique ideas is highly regarded.
However, for Japanese, being part of a group and being similar is seen as desirable. In mycase, I recognized that students liked to work together, but I had thought that this was due
to it being easier to complete the assigned tasks rather than a cultural preference. However,I now started to recognize the cultural implications of collectivist values on theircommunication. For example, in discussion they were much happier when they shared thesame opinion than if they disagreed (i.e., happy shouts of “Me too” vs. silence).
In order to facilitate familiarity with new types of communicative activities as well as
promote solidarity amongst the students, I now consider the first month of the year as anextended “ice breaker.” In the first month, I have students do tasks working in pairs andgroups with the primary purpose of finding similarities and becoming closer to one
another. For example, they would form teams with team names based on one thing thateveryone in the team liked (e.g., “navy blue” or “sleep”), and they would share their reasonsfor choosing this university. They would work on projects that they would present to theclass and vote on. The secondary objective of these activities was for them to become
familiar with interactive activities. Advancement of their English skills was a third
objective, so while I structured the activities to use English I was not strictly enforcing
English usage at this point. In student reflections, they made comments about how theycame to class more eagerly because they had friends and wanted to communicate with theirfriends. They also mentioned that, because others were trying harder, they also wanted tomake more effort themselves to communicate in English.
Promoting English communication while maintaining Japanese values.
An important concern for collectivist societies is the concept of face. Research has foundthat individualists have high self-face concern that leads towards dominating conflictstrategies, while collectivists have high other-face concern that results in avoiding conflictand high mutual-face concern that lead to cooperating conflict strategies (Oetzel et al., 2001).
As such the free-flowing style of discussion and debate commonly practiced in North
America or Europe is unpractised in Japan because people prefer to avoid the risk ofSpecial Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

63

LEARNING LEARNING ÙŲ(ÙŲVolume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

offending other people. Rather, Japanese spend more time finding similarities or common
ground through which they can develop their relationships.
Recognizing this concern, I began to teach discourse markers, strategies, and patterns
that helped to promote other-face and maintain harmony in a discussion. For instance, inorder to “save face” when disagreeing, the response in the Respond + Opinion +Ask/Pass pattern should be positive (e.g., “That is a good point.”), before stating
disagreement (Positive Response + Disagreement + Pass). Students find disagreement
much easier to give and receive when adding this positive statement.
Face-saving discourse markers and strategies cannot be taught in one lesson, but need
to be practiced throughout the term in various fluency activities. By the end of the school
year, at all levels, most of my students successfully structured their opinions using thesepatterns and there were significantly fewer silences in their discussions.
Most students mentioned that due to the frequency of practice in the class they could
use the phrases more naturally. However, there were comments regarding how thepsychological difficulty of voicing disagreement affected participation in the discussion.
Rei, a second-year student, observed that while it was easy for him to discuss when hecould agree with other people, it was difficult to disagree because he did not want to“oppose” others. Being afraid to disagree made it difficult for him to convey his opinion
and therefore he was less active.
Other students commented that using the patterns helped encourage more honest
communication. For instance, Haruki, a second-year law student, pointed out that bystarting a response with a positive statement about the other person’s opinion people felt
more comfortable about sharing their true opinions. Shuma, another second-year student,
commented on the Japanese value of ocha wo nigosu, which is to be ambiguous as a means
to preserve good social relations. He mentioned that, although he felt that this “virtue”
was comfortable for Japanese, it made it difficult to understand people’s true opinions. For
Shuma, using the ready-made phrases combined with the patterns that positively
recognized the other person’s comments helped to make an atmosphere where it was both
comfortable to talk, and easier to understand people’s true feelings about a given topic.
Some students even mentioned that they wanted to use the patterns to promote
communication in Japanese. For instance, Chihiro a second-year student, stated that it wasdifficult at the beginning to use the phrases and patterns, but after using them in the class,they became natural and she started “to think that I can use this way in Japanese discussion, too. If
I say ‘I agree with you’ or ‘I can understand what you said’ before describing own idea, I can show how I
think people’s idea and give the reliefs. Therefore, I would like to use this [sic] discussion phrases inJapanese discussion.”
Explicit teaching of intercultural differences.
Another way I was able to deeply understand my Japanese learner perspective was forme to not only learn about differences between English and Japanese communication, but
to become able also to explain it in a simple way for my learners to understand.
In order to raise student awareness I began providing examples using visual aids. For
instance, I found that most students believe that English is more direct, but they do notknow why. I introduced Hall’s (1959, 1976) work on High Context and Low Context cultures.
In High Context cultures, such as Japan, the onus is more on the listener to understand.
This is in contrast to Low Context cultures such as English-speaking America, Australia,
Canada or the UK where the onus is generally on the speaker to make themselves
understood. I prepared a slide show where I explain and give examples of High Context

Special Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

64

LEARNING LEARNING ÙŲ(ÙŲVolume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017and Low Context communication. Additionally, I used cartoons with Japanese speakers
and English speakers that visually highlight various intercultural differences that can affectcommunications. Some explicit learning points include the difference between waiting to
be asked for one’s opinion vs. proactively stating an opinion, and cultural expectations
about the way to communicate an opinion. For instance, in Japanese, it is common to say
the background first and then end with the main point. In English, the opinion comes first
and then the reasons. By understanding differences from the learner perspective rather
than simply saying “In English we do this, in this way,” I have become able to provide morecomprehensive suggestions and explanations to my students, and, in turn, they havebecome more motivated to try different models of communication.
Future Considerations
For teachers like me who are from a culture that is different from their learners, therole that we language teachers have provides an opportunity for us to view our own values
through an introspective lens whereby we can deepen our intercultural awareness. In orderto develop intercultural communicative competence in our learners, it is important for us
as educators to understand that our worldview is limited due to the assumptions that weeither consciously or unconsciously hold. We must first seek to understand our students
from their worldviews and then bridge the gap. The end result may be that our students
do not communicate in ways that we expect. However, our purpose should not be to meet
our expectations, but rather to empower our students to communicate their intentions
authentically. We can do this by being mindful of our students’ individual and culturalneeds as we foster their communicative competence. Looking forward, I would like topursue more research into learner intercultural communicative competence and develop
activities that use more authentic examples of Japanese and English. In order to raiseawareness and uncover teacher assumptions about how students from different cultures
should engage with their pedagogy, I would like to develop a practical model that educators
can use to identify intercultural concerns within their classroom. I am looking forward to
exchanging ideas with the Learner Development community about these issues in the
future.

References
Amano, I. (1999). Daigaku: chosen no jidai [Challenges to Japanese universities]. Tokyo:
University of Tokyo Press.
Anderson, L. W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D. R. (Ed.), Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer,
R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY:
Longman.
Barna, L. M. (1994). Stumbling blocks in intercultural communication. Interculturalcommunication: A reader, 6, 345-353. Retrieved fromhttp://pharmacy304.pbworks.com/f/Barna,+L.M.+(1994).pdf
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Anchor Press.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 2-26. Retrieved fromhttp://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=orpc
Li, M. (2003). Roles, expectations, and pedagogies: Cultural influences and implications.
New Zealand Journal of Adult Learning, 31(1), 63-81.

Special Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

65

LEARNING LEARNING ÙŲ(ÙŲVolume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2013). English
Education Reform Policy corresponding to Globalization. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/en/news/topics/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/01/23/13
43591_1.pdf
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., & Wilcox, R.
(2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany,
Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 235-258.
Saito, H., & Ebsworth, M. E. (2004). Seeing English language teaching and learning
through the eyes of Japanese EFL and ESL students. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1),111-124.
Tsui, A. (1996). Tsui, A. B. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In
K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research insecond language education (pp. 145-167). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Special Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

66

LEARNING LEARNING ÙŲ(ÙŲVolume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

Reader Response to “Uncovering Teacher Assumptions and Developing
Intercultural Communication through Heightened Local Culture
Sensitivity”
Maho Sano
Soka University

S

atchie discusses why intercultural understanding is substantial for bothlearners and teachers. She shares her struggles in teaching her Japanese
students communicative English and explains different changes she madeto her approach after a friend of hers said that providing more structured
speaking activities was more in line with what Japanese students expect. That
was in contrast to Satchie’s assumption that more control over students would
hamper the development of learners’ conversation skills in English. This caused
Satchie to realize that she was teaching through the lens of westerneducational values.
Reading Satchie’s article brings to mind remarks that my students’ havemade like: “My English is poor, so if I speak, that will be troublesome to myclassmates.” and “It is embarrassing to make mistakes.” I used to try to promote
more open-ended speaking activities, hoping that my students would improvetheir speaking fluency. However, my students were reluctant to speak. Fromreading Satchie’s article, I can see that I inadvertently ignored my students’cultural value of face saving. Students’ lack of linguistic knowledge was one
cause of their reluctance, but lack of knowledge resulted in reluctance rather
than in having many students talking with inaccurate English.
Reflecting on this teaching experience, I think that teachers should beaware of intercultural differences whether or not they share the same culture
with their learners and respect learners’ own culture or not. In retrospect, I feelthat I have unconsciously adopted teaching styles that are often seen as
western, even though I was educated in Japan and got used to exam-based
cramming until going to university. I came to believe that trying to speak
without being afraid of mistakes and less-controlled activities were moremeaningful. I got trapped by the “assumptions of similarities” referred to in
Satchie’s article: Our belief that people share similar values as ours.
Understanding learners’ cultural values and communication styles is essential,
but teachers should not let students stick exclusively to their own cultural values.
For example, a student may constantly refuse to disagree with someone tosave the person’s face. This communication style may work on certain
occasions, but the student will face communication troubles in another context.
Our job, in terms of intercultural awareness raising, is to encourage students togo beyond their comfort zone, and be exposed to and understand different
values and communication styles without downplaying their own culturalvalues. How to do so in terms of learner development in language education
is worth exploring.
In encouraging students to be open to different cultural values, one thing
we should keep in mind is that no student is on one end of the continuum ofWestern vs. Asian values. Learners, even from the same culture, stand on

Special Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

67

LEARNING LEARNING ÙŲ(ÙŲVolume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

various points on the continuum. Therefore, the danger of ignoring individual
differences could be a risk whenever teachers categorize students into distinctgroups of “Asian” and “Western” based on stereotypical views of therespective cultures. However, culture is definitely an essential variable;
understanding and considering intercultural differences can contribute to thecreation of a learning environment where learners can prepare themselves tocommunicate successfully in authentic communication settings.

Reader Response to “Uncovering Teacher Assumptions and Developing
Intercultural Communication through Heightened Local Culture
Sensitivity”
Trevor Raichura
Himeji Dokkyo UniversityHow much do we place our own expectations about what entails a good
discussion (based on our cultural background and life experience),
instead of properly understanding how communication takes place inour students’ cultures? I could certainly relate well to the discouragement andfrustration Ms. Haga originally felt, and this short reflective article gave me
plenty to reflect upon concerning my own teaching situation and how students
in my classes communicate and discuss.
What challenges me the most about this short paper is figuring out how I can
integrate some of its ideas into my own teaching. In particular, I teach a classon debate, and as Ms. Haga suggests, using strong language to disagree withothers (let alone crushing the logic behind their arguments) is highly counterintuitive in Japan. Is it possible (and desirable) to have students preface theirrebuttals with words of affirmation? Is it acceptable to reject the conventionsof debate, which encourage contention? I suppose an initial answer to thesequestions would need to be fleshed out by looking at the course outcomes
more closely, and perhaps giving them an overhaul. In the end, the skills thatlearners develop in the course should match their perceived future needs. In
what cultural context will they need to develop arguments? What kind of
disagreements and counterarguments can they expect to hear? Do they feelthey will need to be able to affirm other people’s opinions before offering theirown (preserving “other-face”), or will they need to make their own arguments
clear, convincing and superior to others’ arguments (“self-face”)?
As I thought through these questions, I couldn’t help but wonder how
practical it is try and help students develop a more informed understanding ofcommunication in “English cultures.” With the global expansion of English
education, is it even true that interaction in English globally can be restricted
to low context culture norms? Perhaps English communication in countries like
Singapore or India is more “high context,” making it more similar to Japanesecommunication than one might think. For that matter, as Japanese English
begins to emerge as a legitimate form of the language, perhaps high context

Special Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

68

LEARNING LEARNING ÙŲ(ÙŲVolume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

communication in English will also become a valuable tool for students toacquire.
Speaking of Japanese English, the increased adoption of English into
Japanese society will hopefully give more and more people in Japan a greater
sense of ownership of the language still referred to as “foreign.” The general
attitude towards English that I often encounter in Japan is that “it is spoken bypeople in other countries, but is completely unnecessary for everyday life inJapan.” On one hand, there is merit to this viewpoint. Most Japanese people
conduct their business and social lives without ever having to speak a word ofEnglish. Besides that, the foreign population (the majority of which is Chineseand Korean) is still under 2% of the whole. International business can be eitherdelegated to the few who speak English, or assisted by professional interpreters.
However, this attitude towards English may not always be the norm—especiallyin light of the Ministry of Education’s endeavors to increase the number of“Super Global Schools” (which will ideally enable more Japanese people toplay active roles in the world, presumably in English). It may take years or evengenerations to see a marked difference in the overall attitude towards English
in Japan. However, should English become a greater part of the Japanese
identity, communication may stylistically come to resemble Japanese, while
linguistically patterning itself after western norms of communicating in English.
In other words, Japanese English may follow the grammatical rules of western
English, but use a more roundabout way of expressing opinions, such as leaving
the onus on the listener to understand the speaker’s feelings. It will beinteresting to see how perceptions of the importance of English evolve in Japan,
and how those involved in language education adapt to the newly evolving
practices in English use. I am also interested to see how learners develop
communication practices that sit somewhere on the spectrum between
traditional western and traditional Japanese communication styles.
Reading Satchie’s article, reflecting on it, and writing this reader response
have helped me to recognize the importance (and responsibility I have) ofbetter understanding my students’ worldviews, cultures, experiences, andperceived future needs, and to better meet my students in their contexts of use.
As a result, I am trying new ways of making open-ended communication
activities meaningful for my students, and I also hope to integrate some ofthese ideas into the overall structure of my debate class in the coming months.

Special Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

69