Commonalities in EPD

A similar pattern of teachers’ perceptions as to the view of ‘improving students’

communication skills’ can be seen in the comments of all three JTEs reflecting their belief that communication abilities are a very important factor. However, the positive perception of each teacher toward the communicative goal in the COS varies to some degree. TC articulates the significance of developing students’ communication skills:

Many Japanese students still don’t have an ability of speaking English and communicate through English. Still we are far behind the international standard. (TAN-1)

TC seems to clearly understand why MEXT emphasizes communicative competence in English. She recognizes that communicative skills are crucial factors to keeping up with a global society, which is the main rationale that MEXT puts forth in the new COS. Having this perception has motivated TC to be highly engaged during the interventions.

As for the TETE policy, EPD is evident among the three JTEs. On the one hand, as shown in the HPM CCA analysis (see Table 8.2), the teachers are not sure what it means to TETE. However, all of the teachers also had some positive perceptions of the policy.

This commonality was also observed in Takegami’s (2015) survey with 30 JTEs about their perception of the TETE policy. In that study, most of the teachers recognize the advantages of TETE because it provides students with a foreign language environment conducive to learning English. The JTEs appreciate students’ exposure to English since they think TETE has the potential of increasing students motivation for learning English including listening and speaking. These positive teachers’ perceptions for TETE policy are noteworthy for teacher development.

The other teacher common perception is that they all have been aware of their lack of teacher training and the pedagogical knowledge of how they should implement the new policy in their actual classes. In each case, the JTEs consistently observed the reasons that are preventing them for making changes are due to their lack of professional skills to do so.

However, a positive outcome was that they were willing to seek the proper development if appropriate opportunities arose. Having a perceived awareness for the need to improve has implications for teacher development in the case of all three JTEs.

Teaching Behaviors

Three commonalities of teacher behavior emerge in the JTEs regarding grammar translation (GT) and yakudoku; behaviors of teachers talk, and students’ talk and participation. GT and its uses in Japan were defined in Chapter 2 (see section 2.2.2) and are further addressed in the following. Ellis defines grammar translation, “It is a traditional teaching approach involving the presentation of grammatical rules, the study of lists of vocabulary, and translation exercises. It emphasizes reading rather than the ability to communicate in a language” (2014, p.338). In the environment of learning English as a foreign language in Japan, some see the nature of language learning in a structural approach (Richards & Rodgers, 2001) and believe GT may be the accessible way to learn for Japanese learners. Narita (2001) claims that grammatical knowledge is a priority when the grammatical systems between L1 and L2 are significant since unlearned grammatical features are hard to predict for learners. Following Narita, Otsu explains the importance of using time for an accuracy first, fluency second approach by teaching grammar intentionally and gaining the essential knowledge of English for preparing the time when students need to use English (2013).

However, as this study has shown too much of an emphasis on GT with L1 use bears a conflict between the teacher and actual conditions of the classroom. As is seen in the classroom observations (TA TB TC / COFN-1), students easily get bored with grammar translation and students were just putting their heads down looking at their notebooks. By overemphasizing structure over content in a yakudoku method, which is like focusing on the trees before the forest, students lose the focus of an activity. Even when the JTEs asked grammatical questions for comprehension of structures from the textbook soon after they explained the exact point of grammar earnestly with using power point, the answers from students were similarly observed in TA and TC’s class as students said,

“Doko desuka? (Which part are you talking about ?)” These outcomes, showing lack of attention and confusion from students disappoint teachers of course. The inattention of their students makes it obvious to them to know what problems lie under the grammar translation and yakudoku methods in L1. Having this awareness led to an EPD state, which further induces the JTEs during the interventions to make changes in their teaching and begin to take steps to find solutions to know what they can do to improve instruction within the limited teaching environment at school. Another factor is that teachers are not sure about what English to use and when they are supposed to use it as mentioned in

HPM. However, they notice that CRE, such as giving directions in English is limited regarding the development of communication skills. TC exclaimed “No, not at all.”

(TAN-1) when she was asked whether directions or classroom management English phrases coming from the teacher to the students in a one directional, non-interactive manner is sufficient enough input to help students develop their communication abilities.

Similarly, TA expressed her uncertainty of English use by saying that “there must be ways to use expressions that are spoken by native teachers, so I want to find a way to use English in the class”(TAN-1). This shows at least they have acknowledged that they want to use English in ways that provide effective input, which have implications later in the ROP matrix for introducing productive questioning techniques, such as asking more guiding questions to assist student performance (Tharp and Gallimore,1989). The other similar pattern that corresponds to teaching behavior is seen in students’ talk. As TB and TC mentioned that their students’ use of English is ‘almost zero’ (TC, TAN-1) and ‘Even when I ask them in easy English, they usually answer in Japanese’ (TB, TC, TAN-1). As a result of an overreliance on GT and yakudoku, students are so familiar with the use of L1 to learn L2 that they respond accordingly in their native language. The teachers’

frustrations, with limited responses in English of students, also indicate an EPD with their own limited uses of English that are creating the situation. This existing factor in their teaching can be used to motivate the JTEs to make changes in their instruction as will later be seen in the ROP matrix.

Frictional Forces

In the EPD category, the forces of friction are considered as the initiative force to set out to inspire change. The frictional forces examined here are not linear, but rather complicated in the way of internal and external influences on the JTEs. These complicated internal and external frictional forces will and can play an irreplaceable role for their teacher development and its process.

The internal force emerges from the JTEs’ experience as learners. As already mentioned in HPM, all of the teachers’ experiences when they were learners were far from the ones that focused on developing students’ communicative skills nor were they aligned with TETE, which by lacking the experience with the former has had a contributing negating impact on the latter. However, these experiences, at least, represent a frictional force to push the JTEs out of an HPM state. The JTEs tried to avoid the same

static approaches since they knew that GT and yakudoku do not work for the purpose of cultivating communication skills. Participation in this study allowed the JTEs to become reflective practitioners. Consequently, the internal force rooted in the above reflective insight about teaching, which is contrasted through their own experience as a learner, stimulated them to move from a static place.

Another commonality of frictional force is the external force of students’ positive attitude of being involved in the class, which produced lively outcomes. The fortuitous outcomes from students may by and large, convince the teachers that their students are paying attention to what teachers are saying and what the class is doing. Actually, when the teachers started to join this study, they each preferred to choose a class for observation that was somewhat active. The teachers’ preference of active classes over classes where students are lacking in enthusiasm and participation reflect a learning environment where we can expect interactions between teacher and student and students and students to motivate teachers to be positive to make changes in their teaching approaches that may contribute to creating a lively language-learning environment. On the other hand, a passivity factor concerning learner behavior is seen as deriving from Asian students, who are lacking in involvement in classroom interaction influenced by teachers’ preference of knowledge transmission style (Ellis & Shintani 2014). However, what has emerged in this study is that Asian students’ personalities are not the cause for their passive behavior, but teaching styles are a cause (Cheng, 2000; Littlewood, 2000). If teachers are provided an impetus, a frictional force to question what they are doing, then they will start to move in their teacher development to create classes that are active.

The other frictional force is seen in the effective use of textbooks and all teachers express this conflicted external force of wanting to use teaching materials more effectively. The textbooks are teaching materials to expose the students to the cultures and people and events in a global world with written forms of the targeted language.

However, how to use textbooks effectively for conveying the contents from textbook are highly influenced by teachers’ planning, decisions and their competence. If teachers merely follow the textbooks or rely heavily on them as the three JTEs in this study did, then the textbooks can cause TETE limitations. For example, Ellis and Shintani describe textbooks in particular to East Asia region as, “Language textbooks published in China and Japan, where the rubrics for activities are generally in the L1 and where translations equivalents for L2 words are frequently provided” (2014, p.228). For the JTEs, the

contrasts may lie in using the textbook for meeting the curriculum communicative and TETE goals or focusing on the more specific goal, which is part of the hidden curriculum and not stated in the COS, such as getting good scores on the tests or passing the entrance exams. As the textbooks used by three teachers are according to Ellis ‘contrived materials’

meaning “…the materials consisting of input that have been specially designed for L2 learners to teach language”(2014, p.164), the teachers face the challenges to change the approaches to following the textbook by finding ways in their professional development to make the ‘contrived material’ more meaningful in order to expose students to opportunities to develop their communicative skills and in doing so will be able to implement the TETE policy in their classroom.