9.0 Introduction
In this chapter the research questions of the study will be addressed. The findings listed at the end of the previous chapter, conceptualized as themes from the CCA, will be used to address the questions. The themes emerged in a bottom-up process and are grounded in the data taken from the single case studies of the three JTEs. Next, a discussion on the implications of the findings will focus on how outcomes in this study can be used to inform teacher development. The discussion will lead to broader implications in teacher development for the purposes of meeting the MEXT TETE policy.
9.1 Addressing research questions
In Chapter 1, three research questions were listed. The first question was framed to elicit the JTEs’ perceptions of the TETE policy. This question is aimed at exploring the JTEs’
teacher thinking. Gaining insights into their thoughts, beliefs, attitudes and therefore perceptions regarding their instructional practices provide better understandings of why they do what they do in the classroom. Inquiring what they do in the classroom is the purpose of second research question. This question is aimed at documenting the practices of the JTEs to better understand their practices as well as their classroom realities by identifying any constraints that might prevent them from carrying out the TETE curriculum policy goals and the related communicative goal. Finally, the third question was formed as a means to take action in the research by using the data collected from the three JTEs to see how their professional development can be enhanced to advance their teaching practices.
9.1.1 Research question 1: How is the new national curriculum TETE reform policy perceived by the JTEs in this study?
The following three themes address the first research question. These themes are grounded in data that emerged from the HPM and EPD categories.
Theme 1: JTEs have conflicting views on TETE policy because it doesn’t meet their reality
Although the JTEs seemingly understand the reason for TETE as a means to provide effective input, where students are exposed to the target language, they are conflicted over the TETE policy. TC ultimately states that the TETE policy is likely perceived as
‘an armchair plan’, made by those who are far removed from the JTEs’ classroom realities, sitting at their desks making policy from that position. Thus, static frictional forces are imminent for why the TETE policy in the COS is not being carried out by the JTEs. There are several interrelated realities that impact on the JTEs’ perceptions (and behaviors) for planning and teaching lessons that heavily rely on L1 use with a teacher-centered approach using a lot of time for explanations (see Figure 9.1): the need to use L1 to teach grammatical structures and vocabulary translations; preparing students for tests that are not aimed at evaluating communicative abilities; textbooks that do not in their view reflect the TETE policy, and a lack skills in supplementing the material to introduce more English communication activities.
Figure 9.1 JTEs perceived realities for blocking implementation of TETE policy
In the above figure, the COS is juxtaposed between policy made at the instructional level and implementation at the classroom levels. At the institutional level, the above triangle shows interconnections between the TETE policy and the stated communicative goals in
Hidden Curriculum
Text Test
Communication goals TETE
L2 used Teaching
L1 used Teaching
COS
the COS, which are aimed at increasing use of L2 in instruction. However, there is a gap in implementing these COS features because the JTEs perceive that the institutional policies do not reflect what they do and are expected to do at the local classroom level, which is shown in the lower inverted triangle. The JTEs follow textbooks that they believe focus more on target sentences requiring translations and are not conducive to introducing communicative activities and TETE as they broken arrows show in the figure.
Focusing on target structures over understanding content, and translating those structures and vocabulary are implicitly aligned with preparing their students for tests. Tests are a crucial part of the hidden curriculum (Gorsuch, 2000) as Rohlens was cited in the study by saying they …are the dark engine driving high school culture” (1983, p.317, see Chapter 8, section 8.2.1.2). Throughout the study the JTEs felt they lacked the skills to supplement the textbook with communicative type activities. Moreover, they were conflicted because students needed accuracy training or least they placed a heavy priority on explaining grammar and introducing vocabulary, which they believed needed L1. In taking a teaching approach that mainly uses explanations in L1, the JTEs were implicitly influenced by preparing students for tests, which evaluate grammatical knowledge, reading and vocabulary skills as the broken arrows show in the figure.
The JTEs wonder how they can change their instruction to mostly TETE when they face the reality of teaching vocabulary through translation and grammatical structures, which they believed must be a priority and that it should be done in L1. For example, they most repeatedly indicated conflicting beliefs about TETE over the role of L1 to teach grammar, and expressing the limitations of English use when they teach grammar.
Generally, teaching the grammar of a target language reflects a strongly held belief among JTEs that it should be carried out in L1 with a lot of explanation. This is an issue for teacher development. The GT method might be efficient when needed such as checking the students’ understanding the meaning of English passages and the construction of English sentences. However, there are various studies suggesting that grammar can be taught communicatively in L2 (Brandl, 2007; Celce-Murcia, Dornyei &
Thurrel, 1998; Glasgow & Paller, 2013, Larsen-Freeman, 2001).
It should be made clear that in this study, there is no outcome to form a basis to claim that JTEs solely use English. There are some advantageous occasions when using the students’ L1. Harmer articulates the benefit of using students’ L1, “Where teacher and students share the same L1, it would be foolish to deny its existence and potential value”
(2007, p.39). He states the benefit of L1 use such as for confirming students understanding of the teacher’s instruction in L2 and for explaining complicated instruction where students need individual help or encouragement “[T]o help them to see the connection and differences between the L1 and the L2 and teacher’s use of the L1 may help them to understand things that they are finding difficult to grasp” (Harmer, 2007, p.39). However, using L1 does not mean explaining everything through grammar translation because “students translate in their head anyway” (Harmer, p.39). Likewise, Harbord (1992) notes that “translation/transfer is a natural phenomenon and an inevitable part of second language acquisition even where no formal classroom learning occurs.
Learners will inevitably (and even unconsciously) attempt to equate a target language structure or lexical item with its closest or most common correlate in the mother tongue, regardless of whether or not the teacher offers or ‘permits’ translation” (p.351).
Consequently, research does not fully support the claim and beliefs held by the JTEs that grammar and translation are highly needed in L1. However, what is needed is target language input. Harmer (2007) states (also see Willis, 1982 in Chapter 2):
An English–language classroom should have English in it, and as far as possible, there should be an English environment in the room, where English is heard and used as much of the time as possible. (p.38)
The comment above points out the value of L2 and seemingly includes the teacher as the best provider of comprehensive input. However, the JTEs in this study are apprehensive that students might be confused and fail to understand English instruction due to their low proficiency level of English, consequently they posit that Japanese is required to explain the target language and to teach grammar. And accordingly, these perceptions are coming from their beliefs formed by the high school culture that students need to get sufficient scores on the test, where they believe that traditional grammar translation and accuracy focused questions are needed to be given. However, a recent noteworthy change in 2014 is MEXT’s announcement in the ‘Improvement of English proficiency evaluation and entrance examination at high schools and universities’ in reform item 3’, we can predict the shift of the test as follows:
High schools and universities will assess and analyze students' English proficiency and learning status in terms of the four language skills and utilize the