a comparative study of english language education, part 2

西南女学院大学紀要 Vol.14, 2010

− 129 −

原　著

A Comparative Study of English Language Education, Part 2: Japan

LinaMaksymuk，　MalcolmSwanson，　L.DennisWoolbright

︿Abstract﹀　Thispaper is the second in a series that examinesEnglish languageeducation indifferentcountries.WhilethepreviouspaperexploredtheUkrainiansystemofeducation,thispaperlooksattheJapanesesystem,discussingthecurrentsituationanditsbackgroundwithinaculturalcontext.　EnglishlanguageeducationinJapanhaslongbeencriticizedforitsfocusongrammar,translation,and textbookstudy,while failing to instill instudentsasenseof thecultureandvitalityof thelanguage.Thishasresultedinperceptionsofweaknessinstudents’abilitiestoactivelyuseEnglish,andhasconsequently led tomovements toreformthesystem.However, suchcriticismstendtoignoreboth thecultural elementsbehind thecurrent system, and the successes of innovativeeducatorsandprogramsalreadyinplace.　Thispaperexplores these issues andconcludes that,while the current systemof languageeducationisflawed,itwouldbebettertoadaptwhatisalreadyinplacetofitthisJapaneseculturalcontextthantoadoptasystemthatmightwellworkelsewhere,butwhichcouldfailhere.

Keywords：comparative study, Japan, English language education

DepartmentofEnglishFacultyofHumanities,SeinanJoGakuinUniversity

　The famousmetaphorof the cultural iceberg(Hall&Hall, 1990;Oxford, 1996) indicatesthatmanyaspectsofculture−suchascertainbeliefs,perceptions,andvalues−arebelowthesurfaceofconsciousness (as inthesubmergedpartofan iceberg).Otheraspectsofculture,suchasclothingandTV-watchinghabits,arein the conscious area (above thewaterline).These less conscious cultural aspects ofteninfluencehowpeoplelearnlanguages.ResearchbyYang (1992) suggests thatcultureclearlyincludes beliefs, perceptions, and valueswhich affect language learning, includinggeneral learning styles−visual, auditory,hands-on; intuitive, sensing; global, analytic (seeReid, 1995); and specif ic learning strategies−theparticularbehaviorsandsteps learnersusetoimprove their learning, suchasnote-taking,findingconversationpartners, andanalyzing

words.Oxford,Hollaway,andHorton-Murillo(1992,p.441)emphasize,“Althoughculture isnotthesingledeterminant,andalthoughmanyother influences intervene,cultureoftendoesplayasignificantroleinthelearningstyles[andstrategies]... adoptedbymanyparticipants intheculture.”　Thus, in the foreign or second languageclassroom, activities andcultural influencescannot be separated fromwhat is learned.Language learning is fully situatedwithinagivenculturalcontext.Thestudentbecomesenculturated−apprenticed into a particularlearningculturethatinmanywaysreflectsthegeneral culture throughclassroomactivitiesandthroughthemodelingandcoachingoftheteacherandmanyothers (Lave,1988;Rogoff&Lave,1984).Rather than just the teacher/learnerdyad, there exists “a richlydiverse

brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

https://core.ac.uk/display/233568792?utm_source=pdf&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=pdf-decoration-v1

− 130 −

field of essential actors and,with it, otherformsofrelationshipsofparticipation” (Lave&Wenger,1991,p.56). Inthisview, learningis never amereprocess of transmission ortransfer, but is insteadnothing less than aprocessoftransformation.　Culture tends to influence thedevelopmentof overall learning style, and learning stylehelpstodeterminespecificchoicesoflearningstrategies (Oxford,1990b).Thepresentstudy,conducted in twoparts, aims at describingthe learning strategiesof Japanese languagelearners as comparedwithUkrainianswhohave different cultural and educationalbackgrounds (Swanson , Maksymuk, &Woolbright,2008).

Comparison criteria

　This study focused on specific areasof inst i tut ions , groups, materials , andmethodologiesforcomparison.1.Host institutions: From public to privatelanguage institutesoruniversities,aswellasthewholeeducationalenvironment, includinggovernmental ministries or institutionsresponsible for language education in eachcountry.2.Peer and cultural reference groups: Students,colleagues, families,andotherrelatedgroups.Also,attitudesandexpectationsbroughttotheclassroom, socio-economic status, preferredlearning styles, learner independence andmotivation, teacher-learnerrolesandmodels,anddesiredoutcomes.3.Materials, content, and methodologies:What istaught,whatmaterialsareused,andhowitistaught.

Education in Japan

The Paradox of Language Education　Japan already has the highest literacyrate in theworld, but alongwith its rapid

economic growth and consumerwealth hascome the desire to be better educated. Inits goal to improve internationalism in thenextgeneration, theMinistry ofEducation,Culture, Sports, Science, andTechnology(MEXT), formulatedtheAction Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities inMarch 2003,whichhasamongitsmajorpillars“improvingthe teachingability ofEnglish teachers andupgrading the teaching system.”Based onthis actionplan,MEXThas implemented avarietyofpolicies, including thedesignationofSuper English Language High Schools,whichconductpractical researchanddevelopmentcontributing to the future improvement ofEnglish languageeducation, improvementofthequalityofEnglish languageteachers,andsupport for English language activities inelementaryschools.　Paradoxically,thereappearstobeanalmostforeign languagemalaise among studentsas reflected in their fear to speak, addingweight to the infamous“I’mpooratEnglish”syndrome.Moreover, students oftendisplaywhatMcVeigh (2001) has referred to as anapatheticattitude,whichmanifests itself inaloss of academic interest once studentspassthrough academic gates and enterEnglishlanguageclassrooms.　The Japanese repu ta t i on f or be ingun succe s s f u l ESL l e a rner s h a s b e enacknowledgedbyboth Japanese and foreignlanguage educators and scholars (includingIke,1995;Matsumoto,1994;Miller,1982;andOta,1994).Matsumoto,forexample,statedthatEnglish education in Japan is troublesome.It is a sourceofmuchcriticism,blame, anddebate.AlthoughEnglish teachershavebeendoing their utmost to improve and respondtocriticism,studentattitudesandproficiencyremain negative and crit icism has notdiminished.　Whetherrightorwrong, the judgementofinferiorquality isoftenattributedto thefactthat teaching is basically oriented towardhelping studentspasscollegeanduniversity


− 131 −

entrance examinations,with their focus ongrammar and text translation, instead oftowardpromotingoralcommunication.　According to McVeigh, a lot can beexplained by the roles people play in thissociety.The distinction between two sidesof the individual (manifestations of expressedor intimate, andperformed or theatricalisedselves) ismore explicitlydistinguished andkeenly felt in Japanese society.This is dueto the strong collectivist ethos created bycorporationstomakededicatedworkers.ManyJapanesestudents, then,bringwiththemintotheclassroomarathertheatricalisedself.Thisresults frombeing socialized to perform astudentroleintendedtopleasetheeducationalauthoritiesand,morespecifically,topasstests.Ultimately, the idea is for them to becomediligentworkers,andanythingassociatedwithanexpressedself,likeopinions,personalviews,orspontaneity,whilenotwhollyabsent fromthe Japanese educational experience, is notencouraged.Ratherthanjustbeingthemselvesandmakingmistakesas they learn, studentsareimplicitlytaughttoplayaroledesignedtopleasetheteacher.

Ethnocentrism, cultural traits and beliefs　Obviously, theproblemsmentioned abovearenotonlyofadministrativecharacter,butalsotheculturalandtraditionalsetsofvaluesthatdeterminetheirattitudestowardlearningandteaching.　The uniqueness or distinctiveness thatcharacterizes Japanese-style ethnocentrismseemstobe limited toa feeling that there issomethingpositiveaboutbeingJapanese, or,attheveryleast,thatbeingJapaneseisafocalpointfromwhichallthingsaretobeviewedorinterpreted.Thismanifests itself indifferentways.The Japanese scholar,Watanabe, (ascited in Ike,1995) stated that thepurposeoflearningEnglish shouldalsoberegardedasanopportunity tobringout therealizationofthevalueof the learner’smother tongueandculture.Thisstatementmayillustrateanethno-

specific feature, characterized by viewingeverything throughJapaneseeyes.Thus, thepurpose of learningEnglish is viewed, notonlyasgaininganothermeansofexpressingthemselves,butalsoasgaininganothermeansbywhich the Japanese can appreciate theirmotherlanguageandculture,andnurturethevaluesheldinJapanesesociety.　Perfect grammatical accuracy is oftenthe objective of language learning and,consequently, learnersavoidparticipating inclasses soas to avoidanychanceofmakingmistakes.According tovanWolferen (1990,p.379),atendencytowardsperfectionismcanbesaidtobeacharacteristicofJapanesecultureingeneral.ThisisbelievedtostemfromearlyShintoinfluencesthatincludebeliefsabouttheperfectibilityofhumanbeings.　In a culture that views questions ofclarificationasameansofshowingdisapproval,and perhaps also of implying that there isconfrontation between co-participants, it isunderstandable that Japanese learners shyaway fromanythingother thanmonosyllabicresponsestotheirteacher’sdisplayquestions.　Students arenot only apprehensive aboutmakingmistakes inpublic.Theymayalsobeconcernedabout standingoutandappearingto showoff their abilities.While obviouslyrelated, these are distinctmotivations.AsMcVeigh (2001) notes, wanting to avoidstandingoutcannotbethesolereasonstudentsrefusetospeakinclasswhenaskedto,becauseby remaining silent they stand out just asmuch as if they had spoken. It should alsobe noted, however, that a student’s silencewill be evaluateddifferently byhis or herpeers than theirmistakes, and additionally,silencerequiresnoeffort,whilespeakingdoes.Immodestpeoplearegenerallyviewedas lesslikeable,andstudentswhowanttobelikedbytheirpeers tend tounderstateorevendenytheir capabilities (Kudo&Numazaki, 2003).Studentsarecaught inadoublebind: if theymake amistake, they risk ridicule; if theyanswercorrectly, theyrisksocialrejection.It


− 132 −

is smallwonder thatmanyprefer toremainsilent.　Japanesehavebeenreportedtoholdvariousbeliefsormythicalunderstandingsconcerningtheir language learningabilities.AccordingtoMiller (1982), there isawidespreadbeliefamongtheJapanesethatthedistinctivenessandsincerityof their language, largelysupportedbykotodama, or the “spiritof the language”,makes them assume that their language isexceptionallydifficult to learn.According tothisbelief,notonly is the languagecomplexandintricate,butalsoitissospiritualthatnooneexcepttheJapanesecantrulyunderstandit. Another interesting theory is that theJapanesebrain functionsneurologically in adifferentmannerthanthoseofotherpeoples;itisspeciallyadaptedtotheJapaneselanguageand emotions (Tsunoda, 1978) and not toany other language.Thesemyths are oftenusedasanexcuse forwhy the JapaneseareunsuccessfulinlearningEnglish(Miller,1982)

Motivation　Considerable research has been done intheareasofstudentattitudesandmotivation.Gardner and Lambert ’ s (1972 , p . 132 )pioneering research categorized learner’smotivation into two types: instrumental,whichstresses “thepracticalvalueandadvantagesof learninganew language,” and integrative,whichstresses“asincereandpersonalinterestin thepeopleandculturerepresentedby theothergroup”.　In addition to Gardner and Lambert’sintegrative and instrumental classifications,Cooper and Fishman (1977) added a thirdtypeofmotivation they termeddevelopmental.Developmentalmotivationreferstomotivationrelating topersonaldevelopmentorpersonalsatisfaction.This includes suchactivities aswatchingmoviesandreadingbooksinEnglish.This kind ofmotivation involves a positiveorientationtowardsthetargetculture,butnotinvolvingintegrationwiththisculture.

　In a Japanese setting, previous researchsuggests thatmotivationprior touniversityentrance mot ivat ion i s predominate lyinstrumental.Morrow (1987) andLoCastro(1996) both found that for junior and highschool students in Japan, the purpose ofstudyingEnglish is strongly instrumental　namelypassingauniversity entranceexam.However,whathappenstostudentmotivationonce this goal has been achieved?BerwickandRoss (1989)studiedagroupofninety1st-yearstudents inacompulsoryEnglishcourseat a Japanese university.The instrumentalmotivation possessed prior towriting theentrance examdiminished once it hadbeenpassed.Although some students remainedenthusiastic,many attended classes solelybecause theywere compulsory, a situationdescribedasamotivationalwasteland.Theystate instrumentalmotivation peaks in thelastyearofhighschool,afterwhich,“thereislittletosustainthiskindofmotivation,sothestudentappearsinthefreshmenclassroomsasakindof timid,exam-wornsurvivorwithnoapparentacademicpurpose”(p.206).　Despite Dörnyei’s (1994) findings thatintegrativemotivationwill be inhibited ina foreign language-learning environment,and thatmotivationwill be predominatelyinstrumental, research amongst Japanesefreshmen contradicts this.Widdows andVoller (1991) andKobayashi,Redekop, andPorter (1992) found that in a universityenvironment,motivation　if it exists at all　tends tobe integrative. Students in thesestudiesweremost interested in speaking,listening,and learningaboutforeigncultures.The researchers suggested the rejection ofinstrumentalgoals tobe symptomaticof thestudents’ boredomwith their high schools’exam-focused, grammar-orientatedEnglishclasses.Benson(1991)alsofoundthatalthoughtherewasnotacleardifferencebetweenlevelsofthedifferentmotivationtypes,as“integrativeand personal reasons for learning werepreferredoverinstrumentalones”(p.34).


− 133 −

　Motivationiscomplexandconsistsofvarioussubscales, and thus it is often difficult todetermineanover-ridingmotivational factor.Thelackofanysinglefactor,however,maybeevidenceofthedifficultymanyteachersreportinmotivating JapaneseEFL learners.Reid’s(1990) study indicated Japanese languagelearners’ lackofpredominant learningstylessupported the implication that Japaneselearnersmaynot be so easilymotivated tolearnforeignlanguages.　In a recent study on foreign languagelearners (Tani-Fukuchi&Sakamoto, 2005),even relatively short overseas experiencesof less than amonth seemed to enhancemotivationanddifferent learningstyles.Forexample,overseasexperience impacted theirJapanese identity,andnativespeaker teacherexperienceandoverseasexperience impactedbothlearnerstyleandmotivation.　In a cross-national study comparing 11nations, Littlewood (2001) reported thatJapanese students in foreign languageclassrooms scored slightly under themeanfor all countries in their attitudes towardsworking ingroups,questionedthe traditionalauthority structure of the classroom, andsaw themselvesasactiveparticipants in thelearningprocess.TheseresultsarecontrarytomanywidelyheldassumptionsofJapaneselearners, and differ from those of someemotionalandculturalstudiesthatreportmoreinterdependentorsociallyengagingemotionsinJapanese (Kitayama,Markus,&Kurokawa,2000;Kitayama,Misquita,&Karasawa,2003).On a large scale, however, this researchsuggests that the learning contextmakes averyimportantdifference.

System of education　After the defeat of Japan in 1945 by theallied forces, the education systemof Japanwasinruinsandaforeignsystemofeducationwas introducedduringtheperiodofmilitaryoccupationby theUnitedStates. In1946 theUnitedStatesEducationMissionmadeaneffort

todemocratize Japanese education.Prior toWorldWar II,highereducationwasusuallylimited to the elite.After thewar, a 6-3-3gradestructurewas introducedthatextendedcompulsoryschoolingtonineyears.TheUnitedStatesEducationMissionreplacedtheprewarhigh-secondaryschoolwithhighschools.Thenationalisticmoralscoursewasreplacedwithsocial studies, and local schoolboardswereintroduced.Toofferhighereducationtomorestudents, university or junior college statuswasgranted tomanytechnical institutesandnormaloradvancedsecondaryschools.　Afterregaining itsnational sovereignty in1952, Japanbegantorevertback toJapaneseideas about educat ion and educat ionaladministration.At that time, theMinistryofEducation regained its power and schoolboardswereappointed insteadof elected.Acourseofmoral educationwasreinstated inthe curriculum.Thepostwar recovery andeconomicgrowthcausedanincreaseddemandforhighereducation,whichinturncausedanincreaseinthecostofeducation.　Evenwith themany educational changesthathavetakenplace inJapansince1945, theeducation systemstill reflects the ideas thatlearning and education are important andshouldbetakenseriously,andthatmoralandcharacterdevelopment is theforemostgoal ineducation.　Settings of English language educationin Japan can be divided into six types　secondary schools (junior and senior highschools),universities,privatelanguageschools,juku (private“cram”schools),companies,andclassesforchildren.　InJapan,all childrenstartprimaryschoolat the age of six, and juniorhigh school atthe age of 12.Primary school lasts for sixyearsand juniorhighschool for three.Bothare compulsory, and almost all studentscompletejuniorhigh.Manychildrenalsogotokindergartenforone,two,oreventhreeyearsbeforeprimaryschool.More than95%ofalljuniorhighstudentsgoontoseniorhighschool


− 134 −

for threeyearsat theageof15.Seniorhighschool isnot free,butpublic schoolsarenotveryexpensive.More thanhalfof theseniorhigh school graduates go to university ortechnicalcollegewhentheyare18yearsold.Manystudents spendoneoreven twoyearsafterhighschooltryingtopassentranceexamstogooduniversities,studyingatapreparatoryschoolorathome.Universityeducation lastsforfouryears.Japaneseeducationisbecomingmore flexible these days, but the length ofeducationand theagesof students areveryrigid,andthereareextremelyfewexceptions(Kitao&Kitao,1995).　Universities are ranked according to theaveragehensachi (standarddeviationscores)oftheapplicantswhohaveappliedtouniversity.All this information is published and readbyprospective studentswho then carefullyconsider theirownhensachiandtheirchancesof successfullypassingacertainuniversity’sexamination.Thisparticulartypeofevaluationofhighereducationalinstitutionshasbuiltandsolidifiedthepyramidofuniversities.　A lingering problem is the “escalatorsystem,” or automatic progress, inwhichstudents are given credit for courses eventhoughtheircompetencydoesn’tmeritit.　In his study,McVeigh (2002) states thatthe education-examination system shattersknowledge into a vast number of unrelatedbits and pieces of information useful onlyfor filling inexamsheetsandproving to theauthorities that onehaspersevered throughtheordealof ingesting largeamountsofdata.Inotherwords, for thosewishing tobecomebureaucrats, it isveryappropriate training.But for thosewithout such ambitions, theeducationalexperiencebecomesnotjustboring,but distressing. Education in Japanworks“providedone thinksof it as anenormouslyelaborated, very expensive intelligencetesting systemwith some educational spin-off, rather than theotherwayround” (Dore,1976,pp.489).MoskandNakata (1992,p.52)write,“IngeneralJapaneseeducation ismore

ofa screening, sortingdevicedifferentiatingstudentsbymotivationand learningcapacityratherthanbywhattheyactuallyknow.”　Another important factor here is theadministrative guidance. In the currentatmosphere, although each university isin charge of its own curriculum, itmustbe approvedbyMEXT, and there are stillperceptions of graft and cronyism in thesystem.　InMcVeigh’s view, the fact thatMEXTsets the educational standards, regulatesaccreditation, and monitors operationse n c ou r ag e s bu r e au c r a t i z a t i o n wh i l ediscouraging innovation and improvement.Given the social atmosphere created byJapan’s capitalist developmental state, theoverridinggoal of education is employment,not learning. Indeed,manyemployersdonotexpectuniversitiestoteachstudentssincetheyoftenexpect to traingraduates in company-run programs, and some corporations arewaryofnewemployeeswithtoomuchoutsideknowledgeandattitude(McVeigh,2001).

Curriculum planning

　English is offered as an elective foreignlanguagecourse in juniorhighschool, seniorhighschool,andatuniversity.Onlyacoupleofyearsagohaveprimary schoolsbegun toofferEnglishclasses,andsecondaryschoolsdonotofferforeignlanguagesotherthanEnglish.Therefore,comparativelyfewprimaryschoolstudents takeEnglish classes,while almostall junior and senior high school students(more than 99%) takeEnglish classes.MostuniversitieshaveanEnglish sectionaspartof theirentranceexaminations, so it isverydifficult togo toauniversitywithouthavingtakenEnglishclassesinsecondaryschool.　Most universities have a department oflanguageswhichemphasizesEnglishclasses.Non-Englishmajorshave to take two to fourEnglishclassesinthefirsttwoyears,butthis


− 135 −

isgraduallybecoming less stringent.On theotherhand,moreuniversitiesareemphasizingoralEnglish classes, though themajority ofEnglish classes are still traditional readingclasses.　MEXT is still clearly in charge ofwhathappenswitheducation in Japan. In2002, itissued a newgoal forEnglish education inJapanese schools. In their plan to cultivate“JapanesewithEnglishabilities,”MEXTstatedthat:

“For children living in the 21stcentury, it is essential for them toacquire communication abilities inEnglish as a common internationallanguage.Inaddition,Englishabilitiesareimportantintermsoflinkingourcountrywith the rest of theworld,obtaining theworld’sunderstandingandtrust,enhancingourinternationalpresenceand furtherdevelopingournation. …Throughinstruction,basicandpracticalcommunicationabilitieswill be acquired so that the entirepubliccanconductdailyconversationandexchangeinformationinEnglish”(MEXT,2003,pp.1-2).

Themainpartsofthe2003-2008implementationplaninclude:ａ．Urgingeducationboards tohireEnglish

teacherswith the equivalent of STEPsemi-first level,TOEFL 550 points, orTOEIC730points,

ｂ．continuingtheJETprogram,withthegoalofhaving11,500foreignassistantlanguageteachers in elementary and secondaryschoolclassrooms,

ｃ．atargetof1,000full-timeforeignEnglishlanguageinstructorsinsecondaryschools,

ｄ．intensive training for 60,000 Englishteachers, including 100 teachers inoverseastrainingfor6-12monthsand200teachersfor2months,

ｅ．partialscholarshipsfor10,000highschoolstudents to study overseas annually, as

wellasforasmallernumberofuniversitystudents,

ｆ．establishment of 100 Super EnglishLanguageHighSchools,

ｇ．establishmentofsisterschoolsandforeignexchanges,and

ｈ．dissemination of handbooks of effectiveinstructionexamplesandresearchresultsfrom Super English Language HighSchools by the InformationCenter forEducationalResources of theNationalInstitute forEducationalPolicyResearch(MEXT,2002).

　Nevertheless, inspiteofMEXT’semphasison thedevelopmentofspeakingand listeningskills,thereisevidencethatJapanesestudentsremainreluctant to speakEnglish inclasses(Matsuura, Chiba, &Hilderbrandt, 2001,Kurihara,2008).　Sato (2002)didayearlongqualitativestudyof19highschoolEnglish teachers.He foundthatdespite teachers’ awareness of thenewgoals andguidelines issuedby theMinistryofEducation,allof theteachers in thisstudycontinued to teachEnglish in the traditionalmanner,emphasizinggrammarandtranslationwithoutattempting todevelop theirstudents’communicativeskills.　Anotherdifficultyinthecurriculumplanningis thecommonargumentthat teachersshouldsimply teach their specialty.This approachto teaching is perhaps one reasonwhy thegrammar translation approach to teachingremains somewhat resistant to attempts ateducational reform (Blight, 2002).Anotherconsequence isareluctance to interferewithwhatgoesonbehindclosedclassroomdoors.The result, inmany language programs,maybeaveneeroforganizationprovidedbya curriculumwith no underlying basis, aseach teacher is left todoessentiallyas theyplease.Gatton (1999) noted “this superficialcollectionoftitles”andarguedthatthecurrentincreasinglycompetitiveenvironmentinJapanhasestablishedacontext inwhichmeaningful


− 136 −

reform ispossible.Kelly (1998)andGossmanandCisar (1997) alsonoted the influence ofdemographics in encouraging universitiesto coordinate their languageprograms. It isdifficult togauge towhatextentrealreformhasbeencarriedout inJapaneseuniversitiesbutHadley(1999),McVeigh(2001),Hood(2001),andPrichard(2006)allsuggestthereisstillalongwaytogo.

Approaches and methodologyHistorically speaking, it seems that thegrammar- trans lat ion method has beeninherited from theMeijiRestorationperiod.TheJapanesegovernmentinthosedayssoughtto introduceWesternthoughtandcivilizationthroughenormousquantities of translations,not tomentionoriginalworks.Suchanoriginof grammar-translation to foreign languagelearningandteaching isstillreflected in thepedagogicprinciples of the syllabusdesignandconsequentlyalsointeachingmethodsandmaterialsemployed inEnglishclassesof thepresent-dayJapan.　Even though there has been an effort tointroduceamorecommunicativeapproach toteachingEnglishinJapan,ithasstillbeentooeasy for teachers to revert to thegrammartranslation approach. Consequently,mostJapanesewhoarefluentinEnglisharesoasaresultofhavinghadsomeexperienceoflivingor studying abroad, and not through theirdomesticlanguageeducation.　Since the introductionof the1989Course of Study, it hasbeenwidely claimed thatOralCommunication(OC)classeshavenotproducedtheintendedoutcome,asdocumentedinBrown&Wada,1998;Gorsuch,2000,2001;LoCastro,1996;Oka&Yoshida,1997;Pacek,1996;Sato,2002; andWada, 2002.LoCastro (1996)notedthe popularity of the grammar-translationmethod in class, bywhich the teachergoesover sentence-by-sentence translations andstudentspracticechoralreadingthesentencesaloud. Gorsuch (2000, 2001) used a surveymethod in order to examine how national,

school,andclassroomvariablesarerelatedtoteachers’approvalofcommunicativeactivities.The results documented the centrality ofcollege entrance exams　grammar-orientedexams dictate the instructional focus andshape teachers’classroompractices inJapan.Due to institutional and social traditions,most teachers’ preference for grammar-based instruction was found to be hardto change, even after they had completedtrainingprogramsoncommunicativemethods,as documented inPacek’s (1996) interviewstudy.Furthermore,English textbookswerealsofoundtoprovideonlypartialsupport forthedevelopmentofcommunicativeability inJapaneseEnglish education.McGroarty andTaguchi (2005) foundthatmostexercisesthatappearedinOCtextbooksweremechanicalandstructured,includedsimplecomprehensionandproductionofinformation,anddidnotprovidemorecognitivelycomplex languageactivities,suchasnegotiationofmeaning.　Another studybyTaguchi (2005)revealedthat teacherswere in an awkwardposition,caughtbetweentheobjectivesof thenationalcurriculumandtheconstraintsthatdiscourageactivepracticeinthecommunicativeapproach.Thestrongconstraintswere largelyexternal,coming from the education system, suchas college entrance exams.Althoughmanyhaverecentlycome toutilizecommunicativemethodologies and tasks with lower-agegroupsandclassesdesignedfornon-universitystudents, thereality is thatas students startto prepare foruniversity exams, almost allcommunicativeclassesaredropped,with theuniversity-trackstudentsbeingputonasteadydietofgrammarlessonsinpreparationfortheexams(Kitao&Kitao,1995).　Taguchi (2005) also reports that teacher-relatedfactors,suchastheirlackofexpertiseand experience indesigning communicativeactivities,were also principal obstacles inimplementingOCclasses.Thus,thewashbackeffectoftheexamsonthecontentofteachingwas evident, as shown by the inclusion of


− 137 −

grammarexercises inOCclasses,butnotonthe teachingmethodology itself,because themethodologyused in teaching spoken skillswasessentially the sameas the oneused intraditionalEnglishclasses.Teachersdidnotseemtounderstandhowtousespeakingandlisteningexercisesinacommunicativemannerandconsequentlyrevertedtotheirtraditionalmethods (e.g., going overvocabulary items,roterepetition,etc.).　These findings suggest that difficulty inimplementing thecommunicativeapproach isnotentirelyattributedto theexams,andthatsimplychangingtheexamsmaynotguaranteethesuccessful inclusionof thecommunicativeapproach.Educational reformmustconsiderfactors related to the practitioners of theinnovation, and promote changes in theirattitudes, personal beliefs, and experiences(Taguchi, 2005).AsFullan (1998) states, inorder for innovations to have the desiredimpact, practitioners need to undergo theprocess of re-evaluating their traditionalbehaviorsandbeliefs.

Testing and grading

　To prepare for their entrance exams,Japanese students spendmonths and yearsworking industriously inschool,athome,andinjukusinakindoflanguagetestinghysteria(Brown, 1993).Thewholeprocess is knownas shaken jigoku, or examination hell. BecausemostJapanesebelievethatthesuccessoftheirchildrenhingesonpassingtheseexaminations,familiesdevoteasurprisingproportionoftheirresources towardassisting their children inexampreparation, andchildrendevote longhoursdayafterdaytostudy.　However,manyJapanesearenotcompletelyhappywith thecurrentexamination system.Tsukada (1991)explainsways inwhich theseexaminations have undesirable effects oncurriculum,on foreign language instruction,on family life, and on children’s emotional,

physical,andintellectualdevelopment.　The types of questions in the Englishuniversitytestsareinmostcasesthosewithintheframeworkof“sentencegrammar”:fillingin theblanks fromthesuitablewordsgiven;paraphrasing;identificationofthegrammaticalfunctionsoftheinfinitives;sentence-buildingbyarranginggivenwords;putting intoJapanesea fewEnglish sentenceswhich are part ofa largerparagraph; distinguishingwhetherthereisanythinggrammaticallywrongornotin eachgiven sentence, etc.Oller calls thiskindoftesta“discretepointtest”whichis“onethatattempts to focusattentionononepointofgrammaratatime.”AsRomainesuggests,theproblemwithadiscretepoint test is thatit is obviouslybasedon theassumption thatit ispossibletoseparateanalyticallydifferentaspects of language competence withoutreferencetothecontextusage.　In short, those kinds of questions areobviously aimed atmeasuring howmuchgrammatical competence the students haveachieved during their learning, and thelearningprocessbasically impliesmemorizingthevocabulary and constructions simply asusage,butdecontextualizedfromtheactualuseoflanguage.　MEXT annually evaluates the entranceexaminationpapersusedbyeachuniversityfor thepurpose of improving thequality ofthe exams.Nevertheless, in actualpractice,adisproportionateemphasishasbeenplacedon scholastic examinations and the adverseeffectsof thisare felt throughout theentireeducationalsystem(Nakata,1990).　There is, however, a slightly differentview on the testing system.Mulvey (2001)questions the applicability of terms suchas“examhell”and“language-testinghysteria”totheexperiencesofthemajorityofthestudentpopulation.Analysis of current admissiontrends suggests that, especially for low-andmid-tieruniversities,successfuladmissionisnolongeradifficultprospectrequiringhysterical(Brown,1993)expendituresoftimeandfamily


− 138 −

resources. 25 years ago, the large numberof applicantsvis-à-vis the limitednumberofspaces availablegave Japan’suniversities awell-earnedreputation forexclusivity.Now,nearly80%oftest-takerspasstheexaminationsand successfully enter university (MEXT,1999).　Furthermore, though almostunmentionedin articles written in English, there hasbeenawell-documenteddecrease inaveragetest scores over the last tenyears. Studiessponsoredby theAsahi Shinbun (2001) andMEXT (2000), for example, indicate a sharpdecline inmedian academic abilityvis-à-vistest-relatedskillareasamongevensuccessfuluniversityentrants,withmanyofthefreshmenevaluated lackingminimal skills innot onlyEnglish,but alsomathematics, the sciences,andtheJapaneselanguage.Astudyconductedby theDaigakuShingikai (2000) found thatanumberofuniversitieshavebegunacceptingstudentswith extremely low examinationresults,atrendwhichthreatenstoexacerbatethe issueof thedecliningacademicstandardsof university entrants.Not discounting thenumerous problems documented in theadmissionprocess,Mulvey(2001)doessuggestthe need for a reassessment of the role ofentranceexamsandtheirinfluenceonJapanesesocietytoday.

Professional teachers’ training

　Allsecondaryschool teachersarerequiredtohave a teachingcertificate, and theyareemployedbasedonanexaminationbyboardsofeducationforpublicschools.Universityfacultymembersarenotrequiredtohavea teachingcertificate,but theyshouldhavehigher-levelacademicqualifications,whichintheorymeansadoctorate,amastersdegree,oritsequivalent,plus someuniversity teachingandresearchexperience. For research experience, it ispublications thatcountmost.Many languageteachershave fewerqualifications,but they

stillhaveanMAandanumberofpublications.　Universitieshiremanypart-time languageteachers.Fornative speakers ofEnglish, itispossible to findthiskindof jobwithoutanMAor anypublications, but it has becomemore difficult in recent years because ofan increasingnumber of teachers applyingfor part-time jobswho do haveMAs. ForJapaneseteachers,anMAisamust,andsomepublicationsareusuallyrequired.　With the introductionof theALTor JETprogram, thousandsofyoungWesternpeoplehavecometoJapantotrytoteachEnglishtoJapanesestudents.Unfortunately, theseyoungpeoplehave little orno trainingas teachersandevenlesstraininginJapaneselanguageorculturethatoftenmakesforadifficult, ifnotimpossible,learningsituation.　Admittedlymost Japanese teachers ofEnglish,regardlessofwhich level theyteach,usually use Japanese when they explaingrammatical points or give directions tostudents.Thoseteachershavenotbeentrainedsufficientlytoacquiresufficientcommunicativeability since theyusuallymajor inEnglishandAmericanliteraturetaught intranslation-typesettings,andmayoptionally learnsomeEnglishlinguisticstheoryintheiruniversities.This seems to be one of the reasonswhymost Japanese teachers ofEnglish are, notunexpectedly,communicativelyincompetent.　AsLokon (2005) states, to teach languagecommunicatively, teachers need to set upsituationswherestudentsperceiveagenuineneed to exchange ideas, share information,solveproblems,ordoothermeaningful tasksusingthetarget language inanauthenticandcontextualized interactionwithothers.Thisis difficult to accomplish in amonolingualeducational setting that is geared towardmastery of test-taking skills. To achieveMEXT’sstatedgoals, teachersneedtorefinewhat itmeans to be an excellent teacher.Unfortunately, it is still commonlybelievedthatgoodteachersarethosewhocanmaintainclassroomorder,workhardforschoolevents


− 139 −

andunionaffairs,andcankeeppacewithotherteachers.Sato’s(2002)yearlongstudyrevealed:

“Those who were busy workinghard forhomerooms, school events,extracurricularactivities, andunionaffairs appeared to bemorehighlyregarded as teachers. Evaluationscentered on teachers’ ability tomanagestudents,keeporder,andgetthings done, as opposed to actuallyteach.‘Thisistheschoolatmosphere’,towhich everyonewas expected toconform.”(p.52-53)

　Murphey andSasaki (1998) list twomainreasonswhyJapaneseteachersshyawayfromEnglish:　1.Fear: It’s scary fornon-native speakingteacherstospeakthetargetlanguageinclass,especiallywhenonebelievesthat“youmustbeperfect”(Horwitz,1996).　2.Lackofstudentcomprehension:Studentscan’t understand spokenEnglish and thuswould not learn and be frustrated. Thisbelief isat theheartof teaching.WhatmanyJapaneseteachersdonotrealize is that thereareways tomake their teaching inEnglishcomprehensibleandways tomake itpossibletolearnmoreEnglishthroughactualuse.　InJapan,would-be teachersgraduate fromuniversitiesafteronlyafewrequiredcoursesinpedagogy (all ofwhichareusually taughtin Japanese) and twoweeksof training inaschool, and then they are expected to be ateacher　aperfectone (orat least theythinktheymustbeperfect).Notsurprisingly,manyavoidusingEnglishatall.Afterall,mostoftheirteachersneverdid,sowhyshouldthey?

Conclusion

　Language teaching isacomplexsocialandculturalactivity,anditisextremelyimportantforeducators tounderstandthesocio-culturalcontextinwhichlanguageteachingissituated.

Holliday(2001)warnsofthedangerofnaivelyacceptingBANA (British,Australasian, andNorthAmerican) practice as superior, anduncriticallyadopting theethnocentricnormsinherentinWesternEnglishlanguageteachingmethodologies,withoutproperresearch intotheireffectiveness.Todosoentails theriskof “tissue rejection” (Holliday, 2001)whichmeans that“evenwell-intentionedcurriculuminnovationsmay fail to take root in theirhost institution” (p.232).Thepurposeof thispaperhas, therefore,beentoexamineEnglishlanguage education in two very differentcontexts in an attempt to identify theirweaknessesandstrengths.　Thecornerstonefor thecomparisonof twoeducationalsystemsisobvious:bothJapanandUkraine arenotEnglish-speakingcountries,and both, realizing the needs of amodernworld, have put strong emphasis on theimprovementofEnglishskills.Moreover,thesetwocountrieshaveanothersimilarhistoricalprecondition: though at different times, thesocio-politicalregimeplacedbothcountries incertain isolation.Yet,bothJapanandUkraineare integrating into theglobalcommunity intheirownways.　After thecollapseof theSovietUnionandthe IronCurtain, theUkrainianeconomywasinruinsand thesocio-political situationveryunstable.Therefore, Ukraine directed itseffortstoopeningitsbordersandmindstotheWest, tryingtoprove itsnewstatusandwinacclaimfromtheglobalsociety.After18years,however, it is still in aperiodof transition,andpoorlivingstandards,unemployment,andinsufficient financingof thestateeducationalinstitutionsaresomeoftheproblemsthatleaveUkraine farbelow the standardsestablishedby theEuropeanUnion.Nevertheless, suchasituation increasedevenmore themotivationofEnglish language learners inUkraine, asknowledgeofEnglish today isnot justasignofintelligence,butapracticalmeansofaccesstoaWesternstyleoflife　agoodjob,stability,andwell-being.


− 140 −

　Japan,however,enjoyspoliticalstabilityandeconomic independence.English isoneof thestrategicprioritiesofthecountry,andMEXTis implementing avariety ofpolicies aimedatan improvement in thequalityofEnglisheducation, providing all necessary supportto educational establishments. Despite alltheseefforts,Japaneseeducation isaparadox:students sacrifice their youth to intenselyprepare forall-importantuniversityentranceexaminations,only tosuddenly loseacademicinterestoncetheypassthroughtheuniversitygates.Whataccounts forthis?Therearetwopossibleexplanations.　1. Culture of conformity　While Western s tudents are act ive ,egalitarianparticipants ina learningprocessthat involvesopennegotiation,Asianstudentsseemtobemoreaccustomedtoenvironmentsinwhich they play amore passive role asrecipients of knowledge transmittedby theteacher.They feelmore comfortablewhentheyareburiedwithin agroupand trynotto attract toomuchattention to themselves.Naturallyitcontrastswithwhatisexpectedinacommunicationclassroom.Studentsseemtoconstructadichotomousunderstandingof thelanguagelearningexperience:learningfortesttakingisboringbutimportant,whilelearningforcommunicationisfunbutunimportant.

2. Japan’s exam-centred education　Tomakethe transition fromexam-orientedlanguage teaching to amorecommunicativeapproachtolanguageteaching,itisimperativethat teachers are supported and rewardedfor experimentation in innovative teachingpractices, which requires teachers to begreat risk-takers.School cultures andbeliefsystems thatrewardconformityandsuccessin entrance examinations are not going toencourage teachers to risk teaching innewways.　Highschoolstudents’beliefsandmotivationsare also tied to this preoccupation with

entranceexaminations.Expandingthescopeoftheseentranceexamsisunlikelytotransformstudent understanding of their languagelearningexperiences or increasemotivationto learn. In fact, itmaymake the situationworseifstudentsperceivethattheyhavetodoevenmoredrillsandpracticestopassthenewentranceexam.　As longas teachersandstudentscontinueto measure the ir success in terms o funiversityentranceexaminationscores, theyare not going tomake the necessary leapin value change.Tomake this change invalues, teachersneed tohave thenecessaryinstitutionalsupport fromprincipals,parents,policymakers,students,andfromeachotherinordertoexperimentand innovate.Theyneedacollaborativeandsupportiveschoolculturethat rewards risk-takers and encouragescriticalreflectionon theirown thinkingandteachingpractices.Theyneedtheopportunitytomake instructionaldecisionsand feel thattheyareempoweredtomakethosedecisions.　In addit ion, companies should beginexaminingwhat students actually studiedat university rather thanwhat ranking auniversity haswhen judging themerits ofparticularjobinterviewees.　TheJapaneseschoolingsystem, in spiteofitsseriousproblemsatthehighereducationallevel,doeshavecertain strengths since it isgenerallyable to turnoutgoodworkerswithbasic skill sets.However,asMcVeigh (2001)states,wewant togobeyond just thebasics,andwould like to see our studentsdomorethan justmuddle through.Education is,afterall,notaboutmasteringasetamountoffacts,butaboutbeingchallengedtodobetter.　Moreover,itisimportanttorememberthat,likeallgreatcivilizations,Japandidandstilldoes possess an idea that education can beutilizedby the individual for self-cultivationand self-improvement, and that schoolingdoesnotalwayshave tobe forsomeoneelse,whether for the company or the nationalstate, but this ideal is gradually becoming


− 141 −

submerged.Thechallenge,therefore,istofindways toreviveandstrengthenamotivating,more individual-oriented, less job-oriented,viewoflearning.　Thecrucial significanceofcultural factorsshouldnotbedisregardedwhen introducingnew strategies into the educational system.Understanding thedifficulty ofmaintainingthedelicatebalancebetween the social andthepedagogic isvital in order todevelopapedagogymoreappropriatetolocalconditions,as“no teachingapproachwillworkunless itis acceptedbyboth teachers and students”(Tudor,1996,p.278).

References

Benson,M.J. (1991).AttitudesandmotivationtowardsEnglish:A survey of Japanesefreshmen.RELC Journal,22⑴.

Berwick,R.,&Ross,S.(1989).Motivationaftermatriculation:AreJapanese learnersstillaliveafterexaminationhell?JALT Journal, 11 ⑴.

Blight,R. (2002).Developmental reform stages in the Japanese national university curriculum.Curriculum Innovation, Testing andEvaluat ion: Proceedings of the 1stAnnual JALT Pan-SIG Conference.RetrievedAugust14,2009from<jalt.org/pansig/2002/HTML/Blight1.htm>.

Brown,C.M., &Wada,M. (1998).CurrentIssuesinHighSchoolEnglishinJapan:AnExploratoryStudy.Language, Culture and Curriculum,Vol.11,No.1.

Brown, J.,&Yamashita, S. (1995). Englishlanguage tests at Japaneseuniversities:What do we know about them? JALT Journal, 17 ⑴.

Brown,J.D. (1993).Language testinghysteriainJapan?The Language Teacher, 17 ⑿.

Brown,R.A. (2004).Learningconsequencesoffearofnegativeevaluationandmodestyfor JapaneseEFLstudents.The Language Teacher, 28 ⑴.

Burden,P. (2002).Across sectional studyofattitudes andmanifestations of apathyofuniversity students towards studyingEnglish.The Language Teacher, 26 ⑶.

Cooper,R.L.,&Fishman,J.A. (1977).Astudyoflanguageattitudes.InJ.A.Fishman,R.L.Cooper,&A.W.Conrad(Eds.),The spread of English.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

DaigakuShingikai. (2000).Daigakunyuushinokaizennit suite [Aboutreforming theentranceexams].Available:<www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/12/11/0011a13.htm>.

Daigaku yurugasu “2006 nenmondai” [Theuniversity-shaking“year2006problem”].(2001,January11).AsahiShinbun,p.19.

Dore,R. (1976).The diploma disease: Education, qualif ication and development. Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Dörnyei,Z. (1994).Motivationandmotivatingintheforeignlanguageclassroom.Modern Language Journal,78.

Dörnyei,Z. (1999).Groupdynamics inforeignlanguage learning and teaching. In J.Arnold (Ed.),Affect in language learning.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Dörnyei,Z. (2001).Motivational strategies in the language classroom.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Ellis,R. (1999).Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Fullan, M. (1998) . Linking change andassessment. InP.Rea-Dickins&K.P.Germaine (Eds.),Managing evaluation and innovation in language teaching: Building bridges.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Gardner,R.,&Lambert,W. (1972).Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

Gatton,W. (1999).RenewingELT in Japan:Thecrack in thericebowl.The Language Teacher 22 ⑻.

Gorsuch,G. (2000).EFLeducationalpoliciesand educational cultures: Influences onteachers’ approval of communicative


− 142 −

activities.TESOL Quarterly, 34,pp675-709.Gorsuch,G. (2001). JapaneseEFL teachers’

perceptionsofcommunicative,audiolingualandyakudokuactivities:Theplanversusthe reality. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 9⑽.

Gossman,D.,&Cisar,L. (1997).RenovatingrequiredEnglishclassesatKantoGakuenUniversity.The Language Teacher, 21⑶,pp30-35.

Hadley, G. (1999). Innovative curricula intertiaryELT:AJapanesecasestudy.ELT Journal, 53⑵,pp92-99.

Hall,E.T.,&Hall,M.R.(1990).Understanding c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s . Yarmouth , ME:InterculturalPress.

Holliday,A. (2001).Appropriate Methodology and Social Context.NY:CambridgeUniversityPress..

Hood,C. (2001). Is Japan’s education systemmeritocratic?The Language Teacher, 25⑽.

Horwitz, E. K. (1996). Even teachers getthe blues:Recognizing and alleviatinglanguage teacher’s feelings of foreignlanguageanxiety.Foreign Language Annals, 29.

Ike,M.(1995).AhistoricalreviewofEnglishinJapan(1600-1880).World Englishes, 14⑴.

Kelly,C.(1998).Adulteducation:DotrendsinAmericaforeshadowtrends inJapan?The Language Teacher 22⑷.

Kimura,K.,Nakata,Y.,&Okumura,T.(2001).Language learningmotivation of EFLlearnersinJapan.JALT Journal, 23⑴,pp47-68.

Kitao,K.,&Kitao,S.K.(1995).English teaching: Theory, research, practice.Tokyo:Eichosha.

Kitayama, S.,Markus,H.,&Kurokawa,M.(2000).Culture, emotion andwell-being:Good feelings in Japan and theUnitedStates.Cognition and Emotion, 14.

Kitayama,S.,Misquita,B.,&Karasawa,M.(2003).The emotional basis of independent and interdependent selves: Socially disengaging and engaging emotions in the US and Japan. Unpublishedmanuscript,KyotoUniversity.

Kobayashi,S.,Redekop,B.,&Porter,R.(1992).Motivationofcollegestudents.The Language Teacher, 16⑴.

Kudo,E.,&Numazaki,M.(2003).Explicitanddirectself-servingbias inJapan.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34⑸.

Lave,J. (1988).Cognition in Practice.NewYork:Cambridge..

Lave, J.,Wenger,E. (1991)Situated learning.NewYork:Cambridge..

Lewis,M.,&Hill, J. (1999).Practical techniques for language learning.Hove,UK:LanguageTeachingPublications.

Littlewood,W. (2001). Students’ attitudes toclassroom English learning: A cross-culturalstudy.Language Teaching Research, 5⑴.

Lo Castro, V. (1996) . English languageeducation in Japan. In C.Hywel (Ed.)Society and the language classroom.Cambridge:CambridgeLanguageTeachingLibrary.

Lokon,E. (2005).Will thenewCenterTestmakeEnglish language educationmorecommunicative inJapanesehighschools?The Language Teacher 29⑾.

Mackenzie,A. S. (2000).Content in language education: Looking at the future.Tokyo:JALTCUESIG.

Matsumoto,K. (1994). English instructionproblems inJapaneseschoolsandhighereducation.Journal of Pacific Communication, 5.

Matsuura,H.,Chiba,R.,&Hilderbrandt,P.(2001).BeliefsaboutlearningandteachingcommunicativeEnglish in Japan. JALT Journal, 23⑴.

McGroarty , M. , & Taguchi , N. (2005) .EvaluatingthecommunicativenessofEFLtextbooksforJapanesesecondaryschools.InC.Holten&J.Frodesen(Eds.),The power of context in language teaching and learning.Boston:Heinle&Heinle.

McVeigh, B. J. (2001). Higher education,apathy,andpostmeritocracy.The Language Teacher, 25⑽,.

McVeigh,B.J.(2002).Japanese higher education as myth.Armonk,NY:M.E.Sharpe.


− 143 −

MEXT. (1999).Daigakutou shingakushasuu. [Thenumberofsuccessfulentrantsto2-,4-yearuniversities].Available:<www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/toukei/r316/youran//hyo12042.pdf>.

MEXT. (2002).Developing a strategic planto cultivate “JapaneseWith EnglishAbilities”:Plan to improveEnglish andJapanese abilities.RetrievedSeptember1, 2009 from<www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm>.

MEXT.(2003).RegardingtheEstablishmentofanActionPlantoCultivate“JapanesewithEnglishAbilities.”RetrievedSeptember1, 2009 from<www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/030702801.htm>.

Miller,R.A. (1982). Japan’s modern myth: The language and beyond.NewYork:Weatherhill.

Miller,T. (1995). Japanese learners’reactionsto communicativeEnglish lessons. JALT Journal, 17⑴.

Morrow,P.R., (1987).TheusersandusesofEnglishinJapan,World Englishes, 6.

Mosk, C., & Nakata Y. (1992). Educationand occupation: An enquiry into therelationshipbetweencollegespecializationand the labourmarket inpostwarJapan.Pacific Affairs, 65 ⑴.

Mulvey,B. (2001).Theroleand influenceofJapan’s university entrance exams:Areassessment.The Language Teacher 25⑺.

Murphey,T.,&Sasaki,T. (1998). JapaneseEnglishteachers’increasinguseofEnglish.The Language Teacher 22⑽.

Nakata,Y.(1990).Language acquisition and English education in Japan: A sociolinguistic approach.Kyoto:KoyoShobo.

Oka, H., & Yoshida, K. (1997). Has oralcommunicationchangedJapaneseEnglisheducation?The English Teachers' Magazine,46,8-12.

Ota, Y. (1994). The “decline” of Englishlanguage competence inmodern Japan.Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 5.

Oxford,R.L. (Ed.) (1996).Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural

perspectives.Oxford,R.L. (1989).Useof language learning

strategies:A synthesis of studieswithimplications forstrategytraining.System, 17,pp235-247.

Oxford, R.L. (1990a). Language learningstrategiesandbeyond:Alookatstrategiesin the context of styles. InS.S.Magnan(Ed.), Shifting the instructional focus to the lear ner (pp. 35-55). Middlebury, VT:NortheastConferenceontheTeachingofForeignLanguages.

Oxford,R.L.(1990b).Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.Boston:Heinle&Heinle.

Oxford, R.L., Hollaway,M.E., &Horton-Murillo, D. (1992). Language learnings t y l e s : r e s e a r c h a n d p r a c t i c a lc o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r t e a c h i n g t h emulticulturaltertiaryESL/EFLclassroom.System, 20⑷.

Pacek,D. (1996).Lessons tobe learnt fromnegativeevaluation.ELT Journal, 50.

Prichard,C. (2006).Determining thebalancebetweenteacherautonomyandcurriculumcoordination.The Language Teacher, 30⑹,pp9-14.

Reid, J. (1990).The dirty laundry of ESLsurveyresearch.TESOL Quarterly, 24⑶.

Reid, J. (1995).Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom.Boston:Heinle&Heinle.

Rogoff,B.&Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984).Everyday Cognition: Its development in social contexts.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Sakamoto,R. (2001).A preliminary study on the relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and communicative competence.BulletinofEnglishEducation,IwateUniversity.

Sato,K. (2002).Practical understandings ofcommunicative language teaching andteacher development. In S. J. Savignon(Ed.). Interpreting communicative language teaching. NewHaven:Yale UniversityPress.

Swanson,M.R.,Maksymuk,L.,&Woolbright,L.D. (2008).A Comparative Study of English


− 144 −

Language Education, Part 1: Ukraine.SeinanJoGakuinUniversityResearchBulletin.

Taguchi, N. (2005). The communicativeapproach in Japanese secondaryschools:Teachers’perceptions andpractice.The Language Teacher, 29⑶.

Takada,T. (2003).LearnercharacteristicsofearlystartersandlatestartersofEnglishlanguage learning:Anxiety,motivation,andaptitude.JALT Journal, 25⑴.

Tanaka,K.,&Ellis,R. (2003).Studyabroad,languageproficiency,and learnerbeliefsabout language learning. JALT Journal, 25⑴.

Tani-Fukuchi,N.(2001).Impact of foreign language learning on self-perception and acquisition of a second identity.KwanseiGakuinUniversityHumanitiesReview,5,71-96.

Tani-Fukuchi,N. (2005). Japanese learnerpsychology and assessment of affect inforeign language study. The Language Teacher, 29⑷.

Tani-Fukuchi, N., & Sakamoto, R. (2005).Affective dimensions of the foreignlanguage learner : Impl icat ions forpsychological learner development inJapan.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development.

Tsukada,M. (1991). Student perspectiveson juku, yobiko, and the examination


　　system. InB.Finkelstein,A.E. Imamura,&J.J.Tobin (Eds.),Transcending stereotypes: Discovering Japanese culture and education.Yarmouth,Maine:InterculturalPress.

Tsunoda,T.(1978).Thelefthemisphereofthebrain and the Japanese language. Japan Foundation Newsletter, 6⑴.

Tudor, I. (1996).Learner-centredness as language e d u c a t i o n . C ambr i dge : Cambr i dgeUniversityPress.

vanWolferen,K. (1990).The Enigma Of Japanese Power.VintageBooks.

Wada,M. (2002). Teacher education forcurricular innovation in Japan. In S. J.Savignon (Ed.). Interpreting communicative l a n g u a g e t e a c h i n g. New Haven: YaleUniversityPress.

Widows,S. andVoller,P. (1991).PANSI:Asurvey of the ELT needs of Japaneseuniversitystudents.Cross Currents, 18⑵.

Wierzbicka,A. (1999).Emotions across languages a n d c u l t u r e s : D i v e r s i t y a n d u n i v e r s a l s .Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Yang,N.D. (1992).Second language learners’beliefsabout language learningandtheiruse of learning strategies: a study ofcollege students ofEnglish inTaiwan.Unpublished doctoral dissertation.TheUniversityofTexas,Austin.

− 145 −

英語教育の比較研究（２）：日本

リナ・マクシムク*、マルコム・スワンソン**、L.デニス・ウールブライト**

︿要　旨﹀　本論は、諸国間の英語教育の比較研究シリーズの第２部である。昨年度発表した第１部では、ウクライナにおける教育制度を調査研究したが、本論では、日本の教育制度の現状と背景をその文化的文脈において考察する。　日本の英語教育は文法や和訳、そして教科書中心の学習に偏重しており、学生に英語の文化や言語としての有効性を浸透させ得ないでいると長年にわたって批判されてきた。結果として、学習者の積極的に英語を使おうとする能力を減退させることになったため、制度改革への運動が起こった。しかしながら、そのような運動においては、現行制度の文化的背景や既存の先進的な教育者や教育プログラムの成功を無視しがちである。　本論では、これらの問題を考察し、次のように結論づけている。すなわち、現行の教育制度には改善すべき点はあるものの、日本文化の文脈に適応するには、他文化で成功しているが日本では失敗の可能性もあるものを取り入れるよりは、既存の制度を維持するほうがよいと考えられる。

キーワード：比較、日本、英語教育

＊　　　西南女学院大学人文学部英語学科　講師＊＊　　西南女学院大学人文学部英語学科　教授


a comparative study of english language education, part 2

Documents