Exploring Language Teacher Efficacy in Japan

Gene Thompson

• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781788925419
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Teaching Language Arts
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This book examines language teacher efficacy beliefs, focusing on the individual and collective beliefs of Japanese high school teachers. It discusses personal and collective dimensions of language teacher efficacy related to personal second language (L2) capability, instructional L2 efficacy and collective capability towards collaboration. The book provides a detailed discussion about the ways in which these beliefs develop and situates the findings within the wider field of teacher efficacy research. It helps further understanding of factors that may influence teacher self-efficacy and suggests new directions for research to explore in future studies. It will appeal to postgraduates and researchers with an interest in language teacher cognition, the psychology of language teaching and those in the wider fields of self-efficacy, teacher efficacy and teacher agency. It is also of use to those with an interest in the high school English education system in Japan, as well as researchers investigating similar contexts.

1 Introduction

Teachers are people; they make choices about the courses of action they pursue in trying to influence student achievement. They have agency. By proactively carrying out and reflecting on actions they take, they not only react to environmental forces, but also have the capacity to exercise control and effect change by setting goals and regulating their teaching behaviours (Bandura, 1991). They work with students, as part of teams, and within the confines of classrooms using the technology and resources available to them. As such, they are crucial contributors to what happens in their classrooms (Bandura, 1997), and in many cases, may be the strongest outside influence on the success of their students (Hattie, 2003). The beliefs and practices of teachers have therefore become a key area of research activity.

Teacher efficacy refers to the confidence that teachers have in their capability to organise and carry out educational activities to influence student learning. The application of teacher efficacy to the language teaching field began during the early 2000s (e.g. Chacon, 2005) and has now reached a point at which reviews of language teacher efficacy (LTE) research are being released (e.g. Hoang, 2018; Wyatt, 2018b). This book introduces the reader to this developing field, with a focus on the LTE beliefs of Japanese high school teachers of English (JTEs).

This book helps readers to locate LTE within its theoretical framework (Chapter 2), explains key findings from LTE research (Chapter 3) and outlines approaches to investigate LTE beliefs (Chapter 4). It then introduces an efficacy scale developed specifically for language teachers (Chapter 5), and highlights the multidimensional nature of LTE beliefs (Chapter 6), before focusing on personal and collective domains of efficacy related to perceived second language (L2) capability (Chapter 7), instructional L2 efficacy (Chapter 8) and language teacher beliefs about collaborative capability (Chapter 9). It finishes by discussing how LTE beliefs can be developed (Chapter 10) and highlights areas for future study (Chapter 11).

This chapter introduces the background to the study, highlighting key difficulties of policy and methodology change within (and beyond) Japan, before discussing the rationale for studying LTE beliefs towards such challenges. Although this chapter focuses on language education reform efforts (and research) from the Japanese context, it also attempts to show how such movements reflect wider trends in the language teaching field.

1.1 Background of the Study

English has become a global language of business, science and education. Foreign language – and specifically English – skill has become a commodity that enables transnational mobility for individuals with sufficient ability (Cameron, 2012). As a result, in many countries where English is used as a foreign language (such as Japan), policies have been introduced during the past 30 years with the specific purpose of encouraging the development of foreign language ‘communicative’ ability in students (e.g. see Hato, 2005; Kirkpatrick & Bui, 2016; Nunan, 2003).

These policies have generally emphasised oral communication in response to a perceived need for ‘communicative’ skills during this period of globalisation (Cameron, 2002), often due to requests from business groups, such as the Japan Business Federation (2000), who bemoaned the lack of English language ability in Japan. At the same time, there was a shift within language teaching towards communicative language teaching (CLT), an approach that focuses on meaning and authentic language use during language instruction (Richards, 2006; Richards & Schmidt, 2002). CLT was derived from L2 acquisition research that emphasised the negotiation of meaning as a crucial aspect of language development (Canale & Swain, 1980; Hymes, 1972; Krashen, 1981), resulting in a change in teaching methodology and policy.

Primarily, reform efforts have been introduced as part of new (and revised) national curricula. For example, policies emphasising the teaching of CLT were introduced in China, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam (see Butler, 2011; Nunan, 2003). Beyond Asia, similar efforts have been implemented in countries across Africa, South America and in the Indian subcontinent (see Diallo, 2014; Kamhi-Stein et al., 2017; Obaidul Hamid, 2010). Within Japan, curriculum guidelines are known as the Course of Study (COS). New guidelines for secondary schools were introduced in the late 1990s (Ministry of Education, 1999) with further reforms in the early 2000s by the amalgamated Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2002), referred to using the acronym ‘MEXT’ in this book. These reforms specifically emphasised the importance of CLT as a means of developing the foreign language communicative ability of Japanese.

1.1.1 Challenges to CLT implementation

Unsurprisingly, such reforms created a range of challenges for teachers and administrators, including significant gaps between classroom realities and policy intentions. Similar to the experience of other countries (e.g. Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Senegal, see Diallo, 2014; Mok-Cheung, 2001; Obaidul Hamid, 2010), change in teaching and assessment within Japan has not necessarily followed policy directives. A substantial body of teacher cognition research investigated Japanese teachers’ beliefs and practices during the 2000s (e.g. Kurihara & Samimy, 2007; Nishino, 2008; Nishino & Watanabe, 2008; Sakui, 2004; Taguchi, 2002) with a focus on the implementation of CLT at the high school level and the difficulties that teachers had in implementing communicative-focused language learning. A number of structural problems were shown to limit the integration of communicative teaching in Japanese and secondary school classrooms: (1) the continuing orientation on university entrance preparation in classes at the expense of communicative activities (Brown & Yamashita, 1995; Nishino, 2008; Underwood, 2012); (2) the continuation and reliance on teacher-fronted grammar-translation (yakudoku) teaching techniques (Gorsuch, 2001; Kikuchi & Browne, 2009; Thompson & Yanagita, 2017); (3) a lack of knowledge about how to implement or adapt CLT to context-appropriate teaching practices (Sakui, 2004; Taguchi, 2002, 2005); (4) resistance to innovation (Cook, 2009; Sato & Kleinsasser, 2004; Underwood, 2012); and (5) poor pre-service and in-service teacher training (Kizuka, 2006; Lamie, 1998; Yonesaka, 1999).

These challenges are not limited to Japan. The difficulty of implementing CLT while attending to examination preparation appears to be broadly transferable to a range of teaching contexts (e.g. see Carless, 2007; Hatipoglu, 2016; Li, 1998). Collaborative action, whether that involves team teaching, text selection or group materials design (e.g. see Honigsfeld & Dove, 2012; Kamhi-Stein et al., 2017; Nunan, 1992), is another domain of activity common to many – if not most – language teaching contexts. Pre-service and in-service training experiences (e.g. see Diallo, 2014; Li & Baldauf, 2011; Obaidul Hamid, 2010), and a reliance on teacher-fronted instruction (e.g. see Li, 1998; Li & Baldauf, 2011; Orafi & Borg, 2009), are also commonly cited factors that have limited ‘communicative’ curriculum implementation in a variety of language teaching contexts across Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Another effort to develop greater mutual ‘international’ understanding and English language skill improvement in Japan was the introduction of the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) programme in 1986, which involves having ‘native’-speaking (i.e. L1) non-Japanese work as assistant language teachers (ALTs) in English classes at elementary and secondary schools. These instructors work with Japanese teachers in the planning and implementation of lessons, that is, they are involved with collaborative materials design and team teaching. Similar programmes have been introduced in Hong Kong (where such teachers are known as native-speaking English teachers [NETs], see Carless & Walker, 2006; Nunan, 2003), and as part of the English Programme in Korea (EPIK) in South Korea (see Carless, 2006). The successes and difficulties of the JET and associated team teaching programmes represent a book in themselves, but generally speaking ALTs often perceive themselves to be sidelined. Team teaching represents a significant challenge for both the local Japanese and non-Japanese ALT teachers; communication difficulties and differences in the perception of each other’s role are two key problems (see Carless, 2006; Mahoney, 2004; Moote, 2003). These issues have been noted in other countries (e.g. in China, see Rao & Chen, 2019), and given that team teaching is now expanding beyond Asia (e.g. Chile, see Barahona, 2017) and may grow in use due to the integration of content and language learning (see Fan & Lo, 2015; MacDonald et al., 2012), team teaching – and the associated challenges of collaborative planning and instruction – may become of greater importance for language education researchers.

1.1.2 English as a medium of instruction

Historically, English classes at Japanese high schools have been mediated in Japanese. Reflecting the movement across Asia towards English medium instruction (see Hu & McKay, 2012), a new Course of Study (MEXT, 2011b) was announced in 2011 which mandated that from 2013, high school English classes should be conducted ‘primarily’ in English. The English translation of the MEXT (2011b: 3) curriculum guidelines stated, ‘when taking into consideration the characteristics of each English subject, classes, in principle, should be conducted in English’.

The announcement of the new guidelines led many to speculate that teachers would not or could not make such a shift in teaching practice. In a series of studies, Glasgow (2012, 2013, 2014) showed that JTEs themselves felt underprepared for the introduction of the new curriculum, and lacked ‘confidence’ in their ability to implement the guidelines. Specifically, teachers discussed a lack of confidence in their perceived L2 ability (Benesse Educational Research and Development Institute, 2011; Glasgow, 2014), and the MEXT itself recognised that only 24% of junior high school and 49% of senior high school teachers had attained the required English proficiency benchmark level (Commission on the Development of Foreign Language Proficiency, 2011). Quite simply, it seemed that many teachers just did not feel that they had sufficient L2 resources, or experiences, to use the L2 as a teaching language. Other research (Underwood, 2012) highlighted the social context of teacher practice, indicating that teacher intentions towards the implementation of the new curriculum were influenced by the teams that they worked with – where social pressure and school culture may lead teachers to reject making changes to their teaching practice.

This shift towards L2-mediated L2 instruction in Japan is similar to reforms being implemented in other countries – with similar difficulties arising. Indonesia, Hong Kong, South Korea and Nepal (see Baldauf et al., 2011; Choi, 2015; Hamid et al., 2013) are examples of countries that are moving towards – or have implemented – English medium instruction during compulsory English language education. South Korea is one of the leaders in this movement and has been steadily introducing curriculum changes regarding the teaching of English as a foreign language (EFL; see Choi, 2015; Kim, 2008). Teachers have been required to use English as the primary teaching language since the mid-2000s, stimulating a significant amount of research about the impact of the policy on teachers (e.g. Choi, 2015; Kim, 2008; Shin, 2012). Research findings highlight the transferability of key challenges across contexts, as similar difficulties have been found in South Korea as those noted above for Japan. For example, teachers have had difficulty in adapting CLT to match the local context (Li, 1998), often because no specific methodology is prescribed in the guidelines beyond a mandate to employ a CLT approach (Choi & Andon, 2014). Similar concerns about a lack of L2 proficiency appear to limit the teaching behaviour of Korean teachers (Choi & Lee, 2016; Kim, 2008), while other research (Shin, 2012) has noted that teachers work primarily within teams – many of which may not support curriculum changes – leading to policies not being implemented.

1.1.3 Teacher beliefs and teaching practice

Throughout this process, a wide body of research about teacher cognitions – defined by Borg (2003: 81) as ‘what teachers know, believe and think’ – has been carried out. This is due to the generally accepted assumption that the beliefs of teachers are a key influence on their judgements of pedagogic practice and teaching behaviours (see Pajares, 1992). However, extant research of the relationship between teacher beliefs and practice from the wider field of education (e.g. Chen, 2008; Fang, 1996; Shi et al., 2014), within the smaller field of language teaching (e.g. Basturkmen, 2012; Basturkmen et al., 2004; Farrell & Bennis, 2013), and of language teachers in Japan (e.g. Sakui, 2004, 2007; Taguchi, 2002, 2005) has often revealed significant inconsistencies between teachers’ reported beliefs and behaviours.

With respect to CLT and the integration of the L2 into teaching practice, research from Japan (e.g. Nishino & Watanabe, 2008; Sakui, 2004; Taguchi, 2005) and other language teaching contexts (e.g. Hong Kong and Libya, see Mak, 2011; Orafi & Borg, 2009) has often shown a divergence between (generally) positive teacher beliefs about CLT or the integration of ‘communicative’ activities and teachers actual classroom practices, which are often teacher fronted with a focus on knowledge transmission. Conflicting beliefs and contextual influences often appear to account for these inconsistencies. For example, in a study of three EFL teachers in Libya, Orafi and Borg (2009) identified positive beliefs in two participants about pair work; however, due to negative perceptions of student capability, the teachers explained that they avoided such activities. As examinations assessed students’ receptive skills, teachers emphasised preparation via translation and knowledge transmission, rather than making use of opportunities for English usage. Similar patterns are noted by Basturkmen (2012), who reviewed the relationship between language teacher beliefs and practices, finding that contextual (e.g. examination pressure and colleague suppo...