This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] On: 29 March 2012, At: 03:43 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Moving towards effective English language teaching in Japan: issues and challenges
Mitsuyo Sakamoto
a a

Department of English Studies, Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan

Available online: 16 Mar 2012

To cite this article: Mitsuyo Sakamoto (2012): Moving towards effective English language teaching in Japan: issues and challenges, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, DOI:10.1080/01434632.2012.661437 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.661437

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 2012, 1 12, iFirst article

Moving towards effective English language teaching in Japan: issues and challenges
Mitsuyo Sakamoto*
Department of English Studies, Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan Compared with other countries in Asia, Japan is far behind in terms of introducing and delivering bilingual education, let alone effective immersion programmes. In order to make its citizens more bilingual, Japan has been introducing innovative measures including the implementation of the teaching of English in elementary education and a new curriculum guideline requirement of using English exclusively in all high school English classes. However, these innovations are met with opposition and obstacles. Before Japan can introduce effective bilingual and immersion programmes comparable to those in Europe, North America and other Asian countries, it is crucial that Japan addresses these concerns. At the same time, other linguistic resources unique to Japan are being neglected. To elaborate and explore the above issues, this article focuses on public English education and ethnic bilingual schools in Japan. Keywords: Japan; English education; bilingualism; ethnic schools

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:43 29 March 2012

Introduction In this globalised world, English enjoys the prestigious status as the worlds lingua franca, an indispensable communicative tool to effectively take part in economic, social and political discourse (Phillipson 1992, 2009). Japan no doubt espouses this belief and aspires to heighten its English profile. However, the reality is that Japan currently ranks 29th of the 30 Asian countries in Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores (ETS 2009). This failure reflects Japans lag in terms of its effectiveness in English language education compared with other Asian countries, including China and Korea. This article documents ways in which Japan is currently coping with this undesirable reality and explores challenges that lie ahead in delivering effective English programmes in order to become a bilingual (e.g. JapaneseEnglish) nation. This article focuses on public English education in elementary, junior high and senior high schools as well as ethnic bilingual schools in Japan. Specifically, it discusses the following major obstacles that Japan faces in moving towards more effective English teaching:

The Japanese education system lacks teachers who can sustain a bilingual or immersive1 (i.e. all-English) teaching environment.

*Email: mitsuy-s@sophia.ac.jp
ISSN 0143-4632 print/ISSN 1747-7557 online # 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.661437 http://www.tandfonline.com

M. Sakamoto
The Japanese education system also lacks sufficient teacher training/certification for immersive English language teaching. There is ambivalence/resistance on the part of the public in devoting efforts and funding on English education. There is a lack of empirical studies that report on the benefits of bilingual/ immersion programmes in Japan. Bilingual and immersion schools are few in number and are designed as elitist programmes that target only Japanese nationals; the current bilingual programmes neglect the linguistic and social capitals (Bourdieu 1991) of non-Japanese children. Ethnic schools, because they are designated as miscellaneous institutions, contribute to the discontinuity of minority childrens bilingual development.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:43 29 March 2012

To emphasise, Japans challenges in fostering a strong bilingual nation are largely twofold. First, Japans ill-preparedness in terms of training English language teachers who are equipped to deliver effective and all-English teaching. This ill-preparedness, together with unawareness of the benefits of bilingual education, is fuelling the public unease with regard to the emphasis on English language teaching in schools, especially at the elementary level. Second, its inability to capitalise on the multicultural base offered by minority children attending ethnic schools is stagnating the globalisation and internationalisation that Japan so desperately aspires for.

Theoretical framework Cummins (2001) has long been advocating bilingual education, noting its effectiveness in promoting both the first language (L1) and the second language (L2). According to his linguistic interdependence hypothesis, the two languages share a common underlying proficiency that gives rise to both L1 and L2 academic language development. Supporting this hypothesis are numerous studies that report on the positive correlations found between L1 and L2 learning (e.g. Ramirez 1992; Ricciardelli 1992, 1993; Thomas and Collier 1997; Verhoeven 1991, 1994). For example, Thomas and Collier (1997) report on the analyses of 42,317 students who studied between 1982 and 1996. They discovered that the students who academically succeeded were those in the two-way developmental bilingual education programmes where L1 and L2 are used in equal proportions, and those who performed the worst were those who were placed in English as a Second Language (ESL) pullout programmes. Ricciardelli (1992, 1993) reports on Italian English bilingual children compared with monolingual English speakers in Australia and monolingual Italian speakers in Italy. The results at both sites indicate how bilingual children outperformed the other groups on creative thinking, metalinguistic awareness and verbal/non-verbal abilities. Similarly, Verhoeven (1991, 1994) reports on the TurkishDutch bilingual programmes, endorsing how instruction in L1 does lead to better literacy results in L1 with no retardation of literacy results in L2 . . . literacy skills being developed in one language strongly predict corresponding skills in another language (Verhoeven 1991, 72). In terms of empirical studies involving Japanese learners, Sasaki (1996) reports on the strong positive relationship found between L2 proficiency and L1 cognitive abilities among 160 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students in Japan. Noting

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

this positive interdependence between L1 and L2 development, Cummins and Danesi (1990, 75) further claim that attainment of L1 while promoting L2 is a feasible, and indeed a desirable option in language learning:
. . . multilingual abilities that children acquire . . . represent human resources that have enormous value to the nations economic and diplomatic endeavours.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:43 29 March 2012

For Cummins and Danesi (1990), multilingual abilities are desirable and feasible to acquire. Given the research findings (e.g. Ricciardelli 1992, 1993; Verhoeven 1991, 1994), languages could be acquired additively, where L2 learning not only adds onto but enhances L1 learning as well. In turn, multilinguality of a nation can bring about social, economic and political benefits. Therefore, according to Cummins and Danesi (1990), any nation that relinquishes its opportunities to pursue bilingualism (if not multilingualism) is wasting its national resources. Bourdieu (1991, 56) claims that linguistic and cultural knowledge can transcend as being linguistic and cultural capitals that help individuals to attain legitimate community membership and participate actively in the formal markets. Indeed, Peirce (1995) notes how language learning is a form of an investment that one can make. In order to acquire this legitimate membership in the international forum, Japan is striving to uplift its international profile. This primarily includes the internationalisation of Japanese individuals (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [MEXT n.d.a.]), and English language learning is understood as comprising a large part of its internationalisation process. Indeed, English language is often associated with notions of power (Honey 1997; Crystal 1997), English dominating and overtaking other languages (e.g. linguistic imperialism [Phillipson 1992, 2009] and ecology of language [Mu user 1996]). In this sense, English is lha ascribed an instrumental role that allows the Japanese to attain competitiveness in the global market. Given the assumption that English is a tool, the interest of English educators, researchers and policymakers in Japan is to improve the quality of English language education. This has led to the preponderance of studies in how to effectively teach English while ignoring the development of other languages in Japan.

Background Japan is said to be dwindling in terms of its population. Nevertheless, of approximately 130 million Japanese nationals, currently there are as many as 1,605,912 kindergarteners, 6,993,376 elementary grade students, 3,558,166 junior high school students and 3,368,693 senior high school students, adding up to 15,526,147 students nationwide. In addition, there are 129,985 students attending schools under the miscellaneous category, which houses all private ethnic schools (i.e. schools that offer linguistic and cultural instruction in an ethnic first language [L1] other than Japanese) (MEXT 2010a). Currently, the largest Asian population in Japan is Koreans (1,835,377) followed by mainland Chinese (1,236,250) (See Table 1). It is evident that there is a substantial presence of non-English speakers in Japan, especially Asians, including Chinese and Koreans. Japanese junior high schools are required to teach a foreign language; however, most junior and senior high schools choose to teach English, not Korean or Chinese. This reflects Japans attitude

M. Sakamoto
Non-Japanese residing in Japan in 2010. Number and percentage of non-Japanese population residing in Japan in 2010 687,156 (32.2) 565,989 (26.5) 230,552 (10.8) 210,181 (9.8) 54,636 (2.6) 50,667 (2.4) 334,970 (15.7) 2,134,151

Table 1.

Nationality Chinese Koreans Brazilians Filipinos Peruvians Americans Other Total

Adopted from Japanese Ministry of Justice (2011).

towards English, ascribing it socio-economic prestige as well as desired ideology (Seargeant 2009). Since the Second World War, Japan has implemented English as a school subject beginning in middle school (i.e. Grade 7) (National Institute for Educational Policy Research 2002), and in 2002 a foreign language officially became a mandatory subject (MEXT n.d.a.). While the government does not specify what this foreign language is, and it is up to the individual schools discretion to decide what they would offer, English is the choice most schools make. While in recent years the trend in English language teaching has shifted to communicative language teaching that focuses on the conveyance of meaning instead of teaching the mechanics of language, the majority of teaching still resorts to the traditional direct grammar method. This has been largely due to the washback effect, that is, the influence of testing on teaching and learning (see Alderson and Wall 1993; Cheng et al. 2004) deriving from the entrance examinations required in pursuing studies in high school and university. As a result, Japanese students are often described as being competent in literacy skills but severely lacking English oral and aural skills. In order to address this imbalance in language competence, MEXT implemented several measures (MEXT 2002), including the introduction and implementation of Super English High Schools (SELHi)2 (MEXT n.d.b.) and the hiring of Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs) who are native English language speakers (MEXT 2010b). In addition, the government introduced English language instruction in all Japanese elementary schools, starting from Grade 5 in April 2011 (MEXT 2009). However, the Japanese Governments endeavours to promote English teaching are not without controversy. For example, in elementary school, English language is not designated as a school subject but rather an activity, implying more or less an add-on, peripheral status. For these English activities, students are not assigned any grades. Furthermore, the implementation of English teaching at the elementary level is made without substantial in-service and pre-service training of elementary schoolteachers during their teacher training in university. Moreover, unlike the North American system where students are trained in the education faculty after receiving a post-secondary undergraduate degree, teacher training in Japan is offered concurrently with other subjects during undergraduate years, therefore making it difficult for the pre-service candidates to concentrate on their teaching-related subjects. Much like North American elementary schoolteachers, Japanese elementary teachers are responsible for teaching all subjects, including Japanese, mathematics

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:43 29 March 2012

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

and science, all of which are taught in Japanese. However, they are not trained in English language teaching, and it might be years since they last received any English language instruction. Unlike junior high and senior high school English teachers who have received specific training in English language teaching, the onus of English teaching is unfairly placed on elementary schoolteachers. The introduction of English to elementary education: the public, the teacher and the student perspectives The introduction of English to elementary education in Japan has stirred controversies among Japanese nationals at large. Some parents, teachers, researchers and policy-makers have been reacting adversely to the implementation of elementary English education (e.g. Otsu 2006; Torikai 2006). The concerns include the imperialistic nature that the English language entails; the ill-preparedness of teacher training and curriculum of English; and the increasing importance of teaching other subjects, especially the Japanese language (Fujiwara 2005). Benesse (2010) conducted a cross-sectional study to investigate the preparedness on the part of elementary schoolteachers. A survey was conducted among 2326 classroom teachers, asking about their sentiments towards English language education. About 68.1% of the teachers report how they are not confident in delivering English instruction, while only 1.6% report to be very confident. The teachers lack of confidence in their own English proficiency amounts to the burden they feel in conducting English classes; 62.1% of 2315 teachers report that they feel overwhelmed in teaching English while only 4.3% express their ease in offering English classes. Of the challenges faced by these teachers, they list lack of preparation time as the most serious problem (57.9%), followed by the lack of time to meet with the ALT (39.7%) and the lack of English skills on the part of the teacher (33.6%). Similarly, it is found that only 1.4% of junior high school English teachers report that they use English exclusively. In contrast, 39.4% claim that they use English 50% of the time, 43.3% claim to use it for 30% of the time and 2.7% said that they hardly ever use English in class (Benesse 2009b). These figures do not necessarily undermine teachers beliefs in communicative language teaching. In fact, 77% of teachers noted that English should be taught as a means for communication purposes. However, at the same time, only 35.1% of the teachers claimed to practice active communicative English teaching in class (Benesse 2009b). These results demonstrated how elementary schoolteachers as well as junior high school teachers of English felt about themselves and their English teaching. This reality may subsequently affect high school English language programmes, considering that the Japanese Government has announced an implementation of new curriculum guidelines (i.e. New Course of Study, MEXT 2002) for junior and senior high schools effective in 2013. While the new guideline for high school will not be implemented until 2013, and hence currently there is no research conducted that investigates the impact of the new guideline on junior and senior high school English teachers per se, it is already stirring controversies, especially in terms of the governments mandate on conducting all English classes in high school entirely in English. Given that the current English teachers are those who have undergone the traditional grammar-based English curriculum in Japan, they lack confidence in terms of their English oral and aural skills. The Japanese Governments task should be to alleviate this reluctance and fear on the part of these teachers, and call for

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:43 29 March 2012

M. Sakamoto

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:43 29 March 2012

effective training programmes for both in-service and pre-service teachers of English at all levels elementary school in particular. As for the students attitudes towards English, Yoshida et al. (2011) have conducted a longitudinal study that investigates the differences between the children who have begun English in elementary grades as opposed to others who started in Grade 7. The findings suggest that students who begin their English education early report that they like English. Yet, a closer look reveals that motivation and positive attitude towards English do not necessarily translate into English learning. Yoshida et al. (2011) attribute this to the fact that English teaching prior to junior high school is fundamentally different in nature compared with that after elementary school. That is, there is a lack of cohesiveness between elementary and junior high school English education, the former being meaning-focused and the latter form-focused. Yoshida et al.s findings are supported by a similar study conducted by Benesse (2009a). It is reported that prior to entering junior high school, 45% of the students report liking English (Benesse 2009a). Ironically, once formal teaching begins, 57.7% report that they dislike English (Benesse 2009a). In fact, according to junior high school students, among the nine school subjects in junior high school, English ranks second from the bottom in terms of students favourite subjects (Benesse 2009a). A closer look reveals how the learners express difficulties in attaining English productive skills (i.e. speaking and writing) as opposed to receptive skills. Furthermore, the students list grammar as the aspect they dislike the most. However, academic literacy skills, or what Cummins (2001) describes as Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency, show gradual improvement over the three years in junior high school as students receive English instruction as a foreign language subject. This is in disproportion to the reported decline in motivation to learn English for Japanese youths in Japan. This reflects how English classes in Japan have adapted so that they address questions that appear on high school, and subsequently university, entrance exams. Japan has a six-year elementary, three-year junior high school and three-year senior high school system. While some private schools offer continuous education up to or even including university, public schools do not. This in turn signifies the importance of passing entrance exams in order to climb the academic ladder. Suggestions for English education reform in Japan The systematic teaching of English as a school subject and the significant weight English knowledge has on entrance exams give rise to the teaching according to examinations (Cheng et al. 2004). English language learning is described as more communicative and enjoyable when the learners are younger, but the language quickly turns into a school subject that demands grammatical accuracy and extensive vocabulary knowledge (Benesse 2009b). Furthermore, the English language teaching in junior high schools quickly transforms into a grammar-oriented, translation-based approach that is remote from the English teaching widely practiced in elementary school. In order to fundamentally reform Japanese English education, the entrance exams must first change. The grammar and translation-based approach led to the nurturing of Japanese who can read and write English but are ill-equipped at oral and aural communicative skills. In order to address this, Japanese universities are moving towards a more communicative-oriented approach in their teaching and

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:43 29 March 2012

testing. For example, Sophia University in collaboration with the Society for Testing English Proficiency has introduced a new set of English examinations that takes a very different approach from those that have been used widely over the years. The new examination, called Test of English for Academic Purposes (TEAP) (Sophia University n.d.), has been devised to meet the Japanese needs in teaching and learning English and is intended to replace the traditional grammar and translationbased examinations. TEAP addresses all four language skills to holistically measure the learners English proficiency. This change has been long overdue, as the traditional tests have placed emphasis on only reading, grammar and translation skills. This led to the washback effect that schools concentrate their efforts only on these skills. Given the paradigm shift, publishers are also redesigning their textbooks to make them more communicatively oriented. By 2013, a new set of high school textbooks for the new school subject Communication English will be released. English immersion/bilingual schools in Japan While the Japanese public schools are striving to shift their efforts in delivering communicative English programmes, there are immersion and bilingual schools in Japan that exclusively or extensively use English for instruction. The oldest and most prominent bilingual school approved by MEXT is Katoh Gakuen located in Shizuoka Prefecture. The school began its English immersion programme in April 1992 and now offers classes entirely in English in earlier grades and transiting to a bilingual programme from Grades 7 to 12. While the school uses some pre-fabricated materials that are available from publishers, many of their teaching materials in elementary school are designed by the teachers themselves. The school adopts an early immersion model in elementary school, and the programme shifts to a bilingual programme in junior high school. For example, in the junior high school division, Japanese, history, politics, music and physical education are taught in Japanese, whereas English, geography, science and homeroom are conducted in English. Mathematics enjoys classes offered in both Japanese and English but it is primarily taught in the L2. Review classes, conducted in Japanese to assure comprehension, are offered for science and geography in Grades 7 9 (Katoh Gakuen Gyoshu High School and Middle School n.d., 5). Elementary school children transfer from one classroom to another, as each classroom physically represents the language that is used. The elementary division of Katoh Gakuen does not have a so-called staff room for the teachers. Teachers have their own classroom which the children visit. As one class in Japanese ends, the children hurry off to the next class that is conducted in English. While it started with a humble beginning of just 28 students, the programme now has more than 570 students (Katoh Gakuen n.d.). The school has attracted media attention as well as interests from Japanese parents, researchers and policy-makers, but there are no empirical findings yet that account for these bilingual childrens L1 and L2 proficiency in bilingual schools, such as Katoh Gakuen, in comparison with monolingual children elsewhere in the Japanese school system. Unlike international schools (e.g. American schools where instruction is also entirely in English) that are not certified by the Japanese Government, Katoh Gakuen is an authorised school that is given full privileges like other Japanese schools. Hence, the graduates of Katoh Gakuen enjoy the same rights as other students when it comes to applying to secondary and post-secondary institutions.

M. Sakamoto

The goal of the school is to educate Japanese who are versed in both L1 (Japanese) and L2 (English) as well as Japanese and Western cultures. In this sense, the school is geared towards nurturing a Japanese elite with English abilities (MEXT 2002). Given the success of Katoh Gakuen, similar schools across the nation are emerging, including Gunma International Academy in Ota-city, Gunma Prefecture. Despite their popularity, these schools are difficult to operate and sustain, especially retaining bilingual teachers as they tend to relocate after a few years of teaching in Japan (personal communication with the director of Educational Foundation of Ota Kokusai Gakuen, December 2010; with the assistant director of Katoh Gakuen, September 2011). Bi/trilingual ethnic schools in Japan

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:43 29 March 2012

While the Japanese Government is making efforts to improve English learning on the part of Japanese youths, they are neglecting another source of English speakers in Japan: foreign children studying in ethnic schools. According to Cummins (2001), additive language learning is a feasible and desirable educational option to pursue. The ethnic schools are realising this option, implementing bilingual (e.g. JapaneseChinese) or trilingual (e.g. Japanese Chinese English) instructions. There are numerous ethnic schools in Japan that operate under an independent schooling system. They are not protected under the Japanese Education Law Act One that designates Japanese schools as the only full-fledged schools. Ethnic schools, despite their efforts in delivering effective bilingual (i.e. L1 and Japanese [L2]) if not trilingual (i.e. L1, Japanese [L2] and English [L3]) instruction, are discriminated against as schools in the miscellaneous category not supervised by the Japanese Government. This is despite the fact that Japanese nationals do attend these schools. As a result of their lack of legitimacy in the Japanese education system, many parents opt to re-enrol their children in a Japanese institution once the children complete elementary schooling (Sugimura and Sakamoto 2009). This way, their children become, to a certain extent, bi/trilinguals earlier on and are still ensured of pursuing academic careers, continuing onto Japanese middle- and high school and then to a credible Japanese university. This, however, in turn translates into the termination of successful bi- and trilingual education upon completion of the elementary school (Sakamoto 2009). In contrast, the so-called international schools (e.g. American schools) that reflect Western languages and ideologies were, while also designated as miscellaneous, treated differently by MEXT compared with Asian ethnic schools (Sano 2011). For example, the graduates of international schools have a wider range of universities to apply to, while Asian ethnic schools are not given such special provisions. That is, the graduates of Asian ethnic schools are not deemed to have completed proper schooling and hence are not deemed to be on a par with other Japanese graduates. This discrimination translates to disqualification on the part of ethnic school graduates to sit for the Japanese universities entrance exams and compete with other Japanese students. In Japanese society, of many foreign languages, English is designated as having the most social prestige. This is why Japanese returnees from English-speaking countries often enjoy higher social status and academic mobility compared with monolingual Japanese speakers. This linguistic divide contributes to the emergence of a social hierarchy based on language knowledge, thus making English skills the only desirable foreign language

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

skills to acquire in Japan. This is a serious waste of national resources in terms of a variety of languages (Cummins and Danesi 1990) not only for the Japanese but for the global community at large, as children who attend Chinese school, for example, are reported to be highly proficient in L1 (Chinese) and L2 (Japanese), as well as having a good command in L3 (English) (Sugimura and Sakamoto 2009). Sadly, these bilingual (i.e. Chinese Japanese) children opt to discontinue their heritage schooling, given the ascription of non-legitimate status by MEXT. In order to assure successful academic mobility, parents choose to transfer their children to a Japanese school, so that the children can proceed to higher education. As long as the ethnic schools are designated in the discriminatory category of miscellaneous, the discontinuity of bilingual schooling continues. Ethnic schools have been effective in inviting and hiring teachers from overseas and using textbooks devised in their home countries. This translates into efficient and effective language teaching where teachers can exclusively teach in the foreign language. In such an environment, children come to quickly learn L1 (e.g. Chinese), L2 (Japanese) and L3 (English). This systematic approach employed by ethnic schools in raising L1 L2 bilinguals appears to be successful when the children are younger. However, the pursuit of bilingual education in these schools is met by various obstacles, mostly political, halting the development of bilinguals in Japan in general. For example, the Tokyo Chinese School is not accredited by MEXT, which creates two major limitations: first, the students have fewer options for academic pursuits, as the graduates of the Tokyo Chinese School are not considered to have completed the curriculum set by MEXT. Second, they receive no financial aid from MEXT; hence, the school is operated with funds collected from various Chinese enterprises to subsidise students tuition fees. These limitations further amount to hegemonic practice on the part of the Japanese government, assigning particular social positions to these schools, thus negating social diversity and plurality in Japan (Sakamoto 2009, 42, 43). This discriminatory practice reflects a particular sociopolitical reality: the miscellaneous category of the school attracts students when they are younger, but later the students opt to enrol in Japanese junior and senior high schools to assure successful academic pursuit into post-secondary education. As they get older, the majority of students choose to switch to a Japanese school that is accredited by MEXT. Those students who remain at the school are those whose Japanese (L2) is not yet at a par with other Japanese high school students. This discrete discriminatory practice on the part of the Japanese Government is wasting Japans cultural and linguistic capital (Bourdieu 1991; Cummins and Danesi 1990). Conclusion This paper provides a synthesis of some of the innovations in English language education that Japan has been implementing in order to raise its international profile over the recent years, focusing in particular on elementary English education and ethnic bi/trilingual schools. These innovative attempts are to begin English education earlier (i.e. Grade 5) and to require English teachers exclusively to use English in teaching. While these initiatives appear sensible, they are met with difficulties among the English educators as well as elementary schoolteachers who lack the confidence to actually deliver communicative-oriented English teaching. This lack of confidence is further exasperated by the lack of sufficient pre-service and in-service training in place for these teachers to offer effective English instruction. In addition, there is a

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:43 29 March 2012

10

M. Sakamoto

strong public sentiment that offering English language instruction in early years is unwarranted and in fact undesirable (Otsu 2006; Torikai 2006). The teaching of English in elementary school is very much contested by the public at large. On the other hand, while English immersion and bilingual programmes and bi- and trilingual ethnic schools offer hope for successful English language training for Japanese students, their effectiveness is not empirically studied, resulting in a serious lack of research in the area. Bilingual and immersion programmes in Japan are still few in number, making it difficult for all to access. As is, Japanese bilingual and immersion programmes are inevitably elitist in nature, unable to cater to all children. On the other hand, bi/ trilingual ethnic schools successfully nurture bi/trilinguality of their minority children, but their efforts are met with obstacles, as the ethnic schools are not designated as official schools by the Japanese Government. This amounts to the parents discontinuing bi/trilingual studies at ethnic school in order to assure their childrens academic mobility. This translates into the abandonment of bilingual if not trilingual possibilities for the minorities residing in Japan a waste of national linguistic and cultural resources (Cummins and Danesi 1990) of rich linguistic and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1991). The Japanese Government does believe in additive language learning (Lambert 1975) where English could be added onto Japanese. However, their approach is naive, haphazard and disorganised as they rush and impose the teaching of English only with economic, political and cultural ambitions while dismissing the possibilities of what other languages and children of other nationalities could offer. Kramsch (2009) emphasises how the learning of other non-English languages can also lead to the construction of perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, aspirations, values through the use of symbolic forms (7) but Japans efforts focus only on English education per se for the Japanese. As is, Japans efforts in promoting English teaching and learning are entrenched in imperialistic and hegemonic discourse (Phillipson 1992, 2009). Japans naive assumption that English language knowledge alone would bring about an auspicious future for Japan is being translated into rushed implementation of immersive English language programmes in schools. In order to pursue effective English teaching, efforts are being made to espouse a more communicatively oriented language teaching approach (e.g. devising a new set of entrance examinations [Sophia University n.d.] and a new curriculum guideline [MEXT 2002]) that mandates more English instruction in class, but as is, without sufficient teacher training and without teacher confidence in using English, teachers are forced to introduce English unprepared; teachers are told to exclusively use English in class; and students are expected to become better English oral communicators. What Japan lacks is a precise vision and profound understanding as to what these endeavours entail in reality. Notes
1. An immersive programme does not refer to an immersion programme. Here, immersive programme refers to a foreign language class instructed entirely in English, whereas immersion programmes are those whose entire curriculum including language arts, mathematics and sciences are conducted entirely in L2. SELHi project funded 169 junior high and senior high schools nationwide from 2002 to 2009 for innovative English language teaching.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:43 29 March 2012

2.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development References

11

Alderson, J. C., and D. Wall. 1993. Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics 14: 115 29. Benesse. 2009a. Chugakko eigo ni kansuru kihon chosa (Kyoin chosa) [Basic research about English in junior high school (Teacher perspectives)]. Tokyo: Benesse. Benesse. 2009b. Chugakko eigo ni kansuru kihon chosa (Seito chosa) [Basic research about English in junior high school (Student perspectives)]. Tokyo: Benesse. Benesse. 2010. Shogakko eigo ni kansuru kihon chosa (Kyoin chosa) 2010 daijesuto [Basic research about English in elementary school (Teacher perspectives) 2010 digest]. Tokyo: Benesse. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cheng, L., Y. Watanabe, and A. Curtis. 2004. Washback in language testing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Crystal, D. 1997. English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. 2001. Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Ontario: CABE. Cummins, J., and M. Danesi. 1990. Heritage languages: The development and denial of Canadas linguistic resources. Toronto: Our Schools/Our Selves Education Foundation. ETS. 2009. Test and score data summary for TOEFL internet-based and paper-based tests. http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/test_score_data_summary_2009.pdf (accessed October 28, 2011). Fujiwara, M. 2005. Kokka no Hinkaku [The dignity of a state]. Tokyo: Shinchosha. Honey, J. 1997. Language is power: The story of standard English and its enemies. London: Faber and Faber. Katoh Gakuen. n.d. History of Katoh Gakuen (Katoh School). http://bi-lingual.com/school/ INFO/history.html/ (accessed October 28, 2011). Katoh Gakuen Gyoshu High School and Middle School. n.d. Gyoshu junior and senior high school prole. Shizuoka: Katoh Gakuen. Kramsch, C. 2009. The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lambert, W. E. 1975. Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In Education of immigrant students, ed. A. Wolfgang. Toronto: OISE. MEXT. 2002. Developing a strategic plan to cultivate Japanese With English Abilities: Plan to improve English and Japanese abilities. http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/ 020901.htm/ (accessed October 28, 2011). MEXT. 2009. Eigo kyoiku kaikaku sogo puran [English language education reform plan]. http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/hyouka/kekka/08100105/022.htm/ (accessed October 28, 2011). MEXT. 2010a. Shiritu gakkou no hatasu juuyou na yakuwari [Important roles played by private schools]. http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/shinkou/main5_a3.htm (accessed October 28, 2011). MEXT. 2010b. Gaikokugo shido joshu (ALT) no koyo/keiyaku keitai ni kansuru chosa ni tsuite [Hiring and contractual agreements with Assistant Language Teachers]. http://www. mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1295843.htm/ (accessed October 28, 2011). MEXT. n.d.a. Atarashii gakushu shido yoryo no omona pointo (Heisei 14-nen kara jisshi) [Major points regarding the new curriculum guideline (effective 2002)]. http://www.mext. go.jp/b_menu/shuppan/sonota/990301i.htm (accessed October 28, 2011). MEXT. n.d.b. Supa ingurisshu rangeji haisukuru SELHi ni tsuite [About super English high schools]. http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/082/shiryo/__icsFiles/ aeldle/2011/04/13/1302506_05.pdf (accessed October 28, 2011). Ministry of Justice Japan. 2011. Kokuseki (Shusshinchi) betsu gaikiiokujin tourokushasuu no suii [Trend in registered non-Japanese based on the country of origin (country of birth)]. http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000074950.pdf (accessed October 28, 2011). Mu user, P. 1996. Linguistic ecology: Language change and linguistic imperialism in the lha Pacic region. London: Routledge. National Institute for Educational Policy Research. 2002. Teacher training and certicate. Education in Japan. http://www.nier.go.jp/English/EducationInJapan/Education_in_Japan/ Education_in_Japan_les/201103TTCS (accessed October 28, 2011).

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:43 29 March 2012

12

M. Sakamoto

Otsu, Y. 2006. Nihon no eigokyoiku ni hitsuyo na koto: Shogakko eigo to eigokyoiku seisaku [Things that are important for Japanese English education: Elementary English education and English teaching policies]. Tokyo: Keio University Press. Peirce, B. N. 1995. Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly 29, no. 1: 9 31. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. 2009. Linguistic imperialism continued. New York: Routledge. Ramirez, J. D. 1992. Executive summary. Bilingual Research Journal 16: 1 62. Ricciardelli, L. 1992. Bilingualism and cognitive development in relation to threshold theory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 21: 301 16. Ricciardelli, L. 1993. An investigation of the cognitive development of Italian-English bilinguals and Italian monolinguals from Rome. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 14, no. 4: 345 6. Sakamoto, M. 2009. Identities, perceptions, expectations, concerns: Chinese students in Japan. In Nihon no gaikokujin gakko ni okeru tabunka/tagengo kyoiku no genjo to kadai [Current situation and challenges for multicultural/multilingual education in Japanese ethnic schools], ed. M. Sugimura and M. Sakamoto, 38 55. Joint Research Project Final Report. Tokyo: Sophia University. Sano, M. 2011. Nihon ni iru gaikoku no kodomo [Foreign children in Japan]. In Kokusai ido to kyoiku [International mobility and education], ed. H. Ehara, 97 113. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten. Sasaki, M. 1996. Second language prociency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence: Quantitative and qualitative analyses. New York: Peter Lang. Seargeant, P. 2009. The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the evolution of a global language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sophia University. n.d. TEAP no kaihatsu ni tsuite [About developing TEAP]. http://www. sophia.ac.jp/jpn/admissions/gakubu_ad/ad_gaiyou/catho_ad/teap (accessed October 28, 2011). Sugimura, M., and M. Sakamoto. 2009. Chinese schools and globalization: Current situation in Japan and Malaysia. In Nihon no gaikokujin gakko ni okeru tabunka/tagengo kyoiku no genjo to kadai [Current situation and challenges for multicultural/multilingual education in Japanese ethnic schools], ed. M. Sugimura and M. Sakamoto, 18 37. Joint Research Project Final Report. Tokyo: Sophia University. Thomas, W. P., and V. Collier. 1997. School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Torikai, K. 2006. Ayaushi! Shogakko eigo [Danger! Elementary English education]. Tokyo: Bungei Shunju. Verhoeven, L. 1991. Acquisition of biliteracy. In Reading in two languages, ed. J. H. Hulstijn and J. F. Matter Vol. 8, 61 74. Amsterdam: AILA. Verhoeven, L. 1994. Transfer in bilingual development: The linguistic interdependence hypothesis revisited. Language Learning 44: 381 415. Yoshida, K., H. Mori, T. Suzuki, M. Sakamoto, H. Toyoda, Y. Watanabe, and S. Izumi. 2011. Soki eigo gakushu no chuugakko eigo gakushu eno eikyo [Effects of early English language learning on junior high school English studies]. Tokyo: Sophia Linguistic Institute for International Communication/The Japan Institute for Educational Measurement.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:43 29 March 2012