Investigating Japanese students’ communicative English learning experiences
Harry E. Creagen
Takushoku University Hokkaido Junior College
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
Questionnaire Response Mean Traditional Communicative
Section Mean Mean
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
Response % Traditional Items Experienced Communicative Items Experienced
100 0 0
90 3 3
80 4 2
70 2 2
60 6 2
50 2 1
40 2 4
30 0 3
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