Investigating
Japanese students’ communicative English learning experiences
This study identified
English learning activities experienced by students prior to their tertiary
level education. A convenience sample of 159
students at three different institutions responded to a 50-item questionnaire,
primarily to determine the English activities experienced, and secondarily, to
indicate preferences for those activities. The questionnaire also attempted to
determine the level of interest towards experiencing untried activities. The
results indicated that, while some students have been exposed to a wide range
of activities, the majority had experiences limited to traditional, as opposed
to communicative approaches. The preference for activities varied, but
interest in experiencing the untried was limited. These results have
implications for reforms at all levels of education in Japan.
本研究は、英語学習において第３期段階の教育に先立ち、学生が経験する学習活動を明らかにするものである。３ヶ所の教育機関で１５９人の学生に対し、５０項目からなるアンケート調査が行なわれ、主にこれまで経験した英語学習活動、またそれに対する好き嫌い、さらにはまだ経験したことのない学習活動に対する関心度が測定された。その結果、幅広い学習活動を経験している学生もいたが、大部分の学生はコミュニケーションのための英語学習方とは相反する、伝統的学習方法に限定された学習活動しか経験していなかった。学習活動に対する好き嫌いは様々であったが、馴染みのない学習活動に対する興味は限定されていた。本研究の結果から、日本においては、あらゆる英語学習段階で変革が必要であることが示唆された。
Introduction
English instruction
within the school system in Japan has traditionally been grounded in the
grammar-translation approach as a result of the need during the Meiji Era
(1868-1912) to help modernize Japan by making English research understood
expediently (Doyle, 1994). The traditional approach has been characterized as
a teacher-centered, lecture-style class instructed in Japanese using reading
and one-way text translation from English, based on grammar rules with limited
student output (Gorsuch, 1998). While foreign language teaching methodology
has undergone several changes in approaches since the Meiji Era, Japanese
education has largely adhered to the grammar-translation approach into the
modern era. In 1989, The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology, Mombusho, now Mombukagakusho, revised the English
language curriculum, shifting it toward more
communication-oriented methods. This new national standard sought, “to develop
students’ abilities to understand a foreign language and express themselves in
it; to develop a positive attitude toward communicating in it; to heighten
interest in language and culture, deepening international understanding”
(Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 1994, p. 5).
However, without teacher training or mandated increases in communicative
content for entrance examinations (Murphey, 2001), neither students nor
teachers were given motivation to deviate from traditional grammar-translation
curriculums.
Since then, some
universities and colleges have voluntarily added communicative content to
their entrance examinations and the JET (Japan English Teachers) Program has
introduced native English speakers to most elementary school classrooms. Also,
at tertiary education levels in Japan, instructors can structure their classes
with a great deal of latitude (Evanoff, 1993), allowing for the utilization of
communicative approach curriculums, if desired.
The communicative
approach has been referred to as, “a family of approaches” (Nunan, 1989, p.
12), encompassing a wide variety of methodologies (Richards and Rogers,
1986). Celce-Murcia (2001) outlined it as one in which students and
facilitating teachers use the target language with the primary goal of
communicating in a meaningful way by the use of group work, pair work,
role-plays, materials reflecting real life and integration of the four macro
skills. Brown (2001, p. 43) presented six interconnected characteristics:
classroom goals focused on all components of communicative competence,
techniques to engage students, a balance of fluency and accuracy, preparation
for communication outside the classroom, student-centered classes, and
facilitating teachers.
The rationale for this
study, determining the actual experiences of students in their English
classes, was to serve as a reality check in the current atmosphere of a desire
for communicative competence at pre-tertiary levels of education in Japan.
Most Japanese teachers of English still lack the training to implement
communicative methodologies in their classes (Lamie, 2000), which may, in
part, stem from the practice of new teachers being trained by other teachers
using traditional approaches (Shimahara, 1998). Consequently, traditional
grammar-translation approaches continue to be the norm. One study found that
many students preferred traditional approaches (Matsuura, Chiba &
Hilderbrandt, 2001) indicating preference for what they may have experienced
through their teachers’ methodologies.
Accordingly, in an
attempt to establish some baseline data with regard to in-class, pre-tertiary
level exposure to communicative English learning experiences,
this
study sought to answer the following questions:
Primary level: How
much exposure to communicative
language learning
activities had students experienced prior
to their tertiary
level education?
Secondary level: What preference did students have
for the
experienced activities? What interest did students
have in
experiencing untried activities?
Methods
Design
The design for this
study was quantitative and non-experimental, utilizing a questionnaire
administered during a regular, tertiary level class period near the beginning
of the 2001-2002 academic year. Required time was twenty to thirty minutes
from the issuing of instructions to the completion of the questionnaire.
Participation was voluntary and anonymous with a response rate of 100% from
the students in attendance on the day the questionnaire was administered,
which represented 72% of the 220 students enrolled.
Participants
One hundred and fifty
nine first year Japanese university students (75 female and 84 male) from
three institutions in seven classes taught by the researcher responded to the
questionnaire (see Appendix). The average age was 18.6 years old, with an age
range from 18 to 25. English was required for 146 students (92%), and optional
for 13 (8%). The breakdown of majors was: Early Childhood Education 44 (28%),
Economics 50 (31%), English 32 (20%), Nursing 20 (13%) and Other 13 (8%). The
sample, by educational institution, was: two-year college 107 (67%),
three-year nursing school 20 (13%), and four-year teachers’ university 32
(20%), with 52 (33%) from public and 107 (67%) from private institutions. This
diverse sample was consistent in that all the students had attended junior and
senior high school after implementation of the new course of study and the JET
Program.
Instrument
A questionnaire
adapted from Spratt (1999) was used. The original, validated instrument was
used to measure student activity preferences. For this study it was modified
to measure: student exposure to activities, preference for those experienced,
and interest in those untried. The questionnaire was translated and back
translated as an error check, but was not piloted due to constraints of time.
It was written in Japanese to facilitate understanding by respondents.
The questionnaire
consisted of 50 items in the form of a statement,
In my English classes I have …, (completed
by an activity).
There
were three sections:
-
Section
A required a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to whether the item had been experienced.
-
Section
B required the rating of experienced/yes items on a five point Likert scale: 5=
Strongly Like, 4=Like, 3=Neutral, 2=Dislike, 1=Strongly Dislike.
-
Section
C required a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to indicate interest in experiencing
untried/no items.
The 50 items on the
questionnaire were divided into 20 items generally characteristic of
traditional Japanese approaches, and 30 items generally characteristic of
communicative approaches, presented in random order. The division was mainly
guided by the outlines of Brown (2001), Celce-Murcia (2001) and Gorsuch
(1998).
Results
All responses have
been expressed as percentages, rounded off to whole numbers. The data of the
Likert scale were consolidated as follows: 5 and 4 = Like, 3 = Neutral, 2 and
1 = Dislike. (See Appendix for complete questionnaire and data). The means for
sections A, B and C (see Table 1) and a frequency distribution (see Table 2)
were calculated.
Table 1: Mean
Response Rates expressed as Percentages
A:
Experienced Yes 53% 69% 43%
No 47%
31% 57%
B:
Preferred Like 35% 33% 37%
Neutral 42%
42% 42%
Dislike 23% 25%
21%
C: Interested
Yes 42% 37% 45%
No 58% 63% 55%
Table 2: Frequency
Distribution of Percentages for Activities Experienced
100 0
0
90
3 3
80
4 2
70 2
2
60
6 2
50
2 1
40
2 4
20
1 4
10
0
5
0 0
4
Discussion
An overview of the
collected data (see Table 1 and Appendix) showed that all activities in the
questionnaire had been experienced by at least some respondents. This ranged
from a low of 2% for done English projects, to a high of 97% for
been tested on what you have learned. Traditional activities, with a mean
of 69%, were experienced by more respondents than communicative activities,
with a mean of 43%. For preferences, a mean of 35% liked the ‘experienced’
items and 23% did not. Almost half, a mean of 42% were neutral in preference,
perhaps deferring to their teachers to provide effective instruction. These
results were consistent for the separate traditional and communicative means.
The interest in untried communicative activities was higher than that for
traditional activities, but still a relatively low 45%.
Among the 20
traditional items on the questionnaire (see Table 2 and Appendix),
‘experienced’ items were found with greater frequency in the 60%-90% range.
Items common to traditional English instruction in Japan, were widely
experienced by respondents.
% experienced
-#3.
studied grammar rules and translation
94
-#5.
practiced writing exam answers within a specified time
limit 68
-#13.
listened to teachers' lectures
60
-#14.
been tested on what you have learned
97
-#16.
received handouts written in
Japanese 85
-#18.
read aloud in class
94
The results for the 30
communicative items on the questionnaire (see Table 2 and Appendix) showed
that ‘experienced’ items were found across a wider range, from 0% - 90%, most
in the 0% - 40% range. Some characteristic items indicating low exposure were
as follows:
% experienced
-#16.
been taught English by teachers using only English
43
-#19.
participated in pair
work
33
-#28.
participated in
role-playing
12
Most had experienced,
but showed little preference for, items regarded as receptive:
%
experienced % preferred
-#8.
listened to others using English in class
92 37
-#21.
done listening activities 90
43
Production items were
experienced by fewer students, again, with little preference.
%
experienced % preferred
-#1.
taken part in free English discussion
5 0
-#2.
done supervised independent study
20 44
-#3
given individual oral presentations 50
32
-#13.
accepted peer feedback of my work in clas
18 39
-#14.
done English projects 2 0
Overall, preference
for communicative activities varied according to the item, with most items
being of interest to less than half of those who had not experienced them.
Conclusion
Mombukagakusho
established a requirement for communicative competence in English with its new
national standard, and this research has indicated a need for requisite
curriculums. Considering the elapsed time since the Ministry’s recommendations
and their implementation, the experiences of the wide range of participants in
this study are still solidly traditional. Although many students have
experienced communicative activities, it is not the common experience, and
without a communicative approach framework, English learners in Japan may not
be empowered to use English expressively.
Questionnaires often
raise additional issues inviting investigation or clarification. This type of
study would be well served by follow-up interviews for depth and clarity of
information. For example, some activities, such as pair work or videos, may
be seen as overlapping between the traditional and communicative, but in fact,
are different depending on utilization. The instrument also requires
translation, error correction, and fine-tuning, such as more precise wording
for some items and deleting unnecessary items.
Despite the
limitations, a good sense of the activities that students were exposed to in
their study of English prior to leaving high school was illustrated by the
questionnaire. There are indications of a need for educators at all levels of
education in Japan, to implement even the most basic of communicative
activities into English curriculums. This researcher did use the findings of
the present study, particularly for activity
selection, in designing a tested communicative approach curriculum for first
year tertiary level students (Creagen, 2002). While this study may not fairly
indicate success or failure of Mombukagakusho’s educational reforms, at the
very least it can raise the awareness of individual teachers to the wider
range of activities available for their students in a communicative
language-learning context.
References
Brown, H. D. (2001).
Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy
(2nd
ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Celce-Murcia, M.
(2001). Language teaching approaches: An overview. In M. Celce-
Murcia, (Ed.),
Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.)
(pp. 3-11).
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Creagen, H. E. (2002).
Aural/oral communication: A communicative approach-based
curriculum for
Japanese first year university students encompassing research,
design,
implementation and outcome.
Unpublished master?fs
practicum,
Heidelberg
College, Tiffin, Ohio.
Doyle, H. (1994).
Some foreign language teaching problems in Japan are not new. The
Language Teacher,
18, 4,
14-18.
Evanoff, R. (1993).
Making a career of university teaching in Japan. In P. Wadden,
(Ed.), A
handbook for teaching English at Japanese colleges and universities
(pp. 15-26). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Gorsuch, G. J. (1998).
Yakudoku EFL instruction in two Japanese high school
classrooms: An
exploratory study. JALT Journal, 20, 1, 6-32.
Lamie, J. M. (2000).
Teachers of English in Japan: Professional development and training at
a crossroads.
JALT Journal, 22, 1, 27-45.
Matsuura, H., Chiba,
R., & Hilderbrandt, P. (2001). Beliefs about learning and
teaching
communicative English in Japan. JALT Journal, 23, 1, 69-89.
Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (1994). Handbook for
team-teaching.
Tokyo:
Gyosei Corporation.
Murphey, T. (2001).
Nonmeritorious features of the entrance exam system in Japan.
The Language
Teacher,
25, 10, 37-39.
Nunan, D. (1989).
Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. C. &
Rogers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching:
A description and
analysis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shimahara, N.K.
(1998). The Japanese model of professional development: Teaching
as craft.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 451-462.
Spratt, M. (1999). How
good are we at knowing what learners like? System, 27, 141-
155.
Appendix
Questionnaire Results
In my
English classes, I have ?c
Section A
Section B Section C
Experienced
Preferred Interested
Yes/No Yes/Neutral/No Yes/No
Traditional 20 Items:
1.
watched and listened to video
60 / 40 78 /
22 / 0 70 / 30
2.
read texts for language analysis
23 / 77
14 / 51 / 35 34 / 66
3.
studied grammar rules and translation
94 / 6 21 / 42 /
37 33 / 67
4.
received oral / written exam feedback from the teacher as a class
50 / 50 28 / 49 / 23
33 / 67
5.
practiced writing exam answers within a specified time limit
68 / 32 10 / 35 / 55 26 /
74
6.
been taught English by teachers using only Japanese
42 / 58 36 / 43 / 21 27 /
73
7.
worked to find information on my own in class
62 /
38 44 / 52 / 4 51 / 49
8.
used the language laboratory
48 / 52 69 / 28 /
3 61 / 39
9.
done formal, assessed tests
57 / 43
22 / 34 / 44 32 / 68
10.
read textbooks and handouts
silently
83 / 17 23 / 39 / 38 15 / 85
11.
done written exercises
85 / 15 15 / 41 / 44 22 /
78
12.
done informal/non-assessed tests
61 / 39 26 / 44 /
30 23 / 77
13.
listened to teachers' lecture
60 /
40 37 / 45 / 18 38 / 62
14.
been tested on what you have
learned
97 / 3 25 / 41 / 34 20 / 80
15.
checked my own written
work
69 / 31 23 / 56 / 21 36 / 64
16.
received handouts written in
Japanese
85 / 15 43 / 48 / 9 39 / 61
17.
listened to English audio
tapes
77 / 23 47 / 40 / 13 62 / 38
18.
read aloud in class
94 /
6 39 / 40 / 21 50 / 50
19.
participated in oral pronunciation exercises
78 / 22 42 / 44 / 14
51 / 49
20.
done homework to prepare for
class
84 / 16 18 / 47 / 35 19 / 81
Communicative 30 Items:
1.
taken part in free English discussion
5 / 95 0 / 63 /
37 42 / 58
2.
done supervised independent study
20 / 80 44 / 34 / 22
50 / 50
3.
given individual oral presentations
50 / 50
32 / 39 / 29 34 / 66
4.
participated in language
games
37 / 63 56 / 32 / 12 60 / 40
5.
been taught by a non-Japanese
teacher
88 / 12 62 / 30 / 8 90 / 10
6.
worked in small group
46 / 54 56 / 36 /
8 52 / 48
7.
written short passages (less than one page)
in class as small group work
18 / 82
45 / 24 / 31 38 / 62
8.
listened to others using English in
class 92 /
8 37 / 53 / 10 42 / 58
9.
done question and answer practice
87 / 13 36 / 47 /
17 70 / 30
10.
spoken to classmates during English class
69 / 31 50 / 40 / 10
58 / 42
11.
listened to classmates' oral presentations
79 / 21 41 / 50 /
9 53 / 47
12.
written assignments (letters, diaries) outside of class
48 / 52 35 / 37 / 28
30 / 70
13.
accepted peer feedback of my work in class
18 / 82 39 / 46 / 15
44 / 56
14.
done English projects
2 / 98 0 / 67 /
33 40 / 60
15.
listened/understood the teacher giving classroom instructions
74 / 26 23 / 62 / 15
48 / 52
16.
been taught English by teachers using only English
43 / 57 45 / 37 / 18 59
/ 41
17.
given a speech in English during
class 67
/ 33 13 / 33 / 54 24 / 76
18.
written short passages (less than one page) individually in class
44 / 56 16 / 38 / 46 27 / 73
19.
participated in pair work
33 / 67
31 / 44 / 25 38 / 62
20.
received oral/written feedback from the teacher individually
38 / 62 33 / 38 / 29
40 / 60
21.
done listening activities
90 / 10 3 / 37 / 20 69 /
31
22.
evaluated my classmates' work
28 / 72 16 / 42 /
42 21 / 79
23.
taken my own notes of material studied in class
96 / 4 45 / 45 / 10
33 / 67
24.
received oral/written feedback from the teacher in small groups
16 / 84 40 / 28 / 32
35 / 65
25.
worked in big groups (from six to ten students)
15 / 85 54 / 33 / 13
39 / 61
26.
read authentic materials, such as newspapers or magazines
28 / 72 59 / 25 / 16 56 / 44
27.
given group oral presentations
21 / 79 24 / 49 / 27 31 / 69
28.
participated in role-playing
12 /
88 42 / 53 / 5 40 / 60
29.
watched myself on video
6 / 94 33 / 45 / 22
19 / 81
30.
used the internet to study alone
5 / 95 50 / 50 /
0 61 / 39