clt in practice

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): Practical UnderstandingsAuthor(s): Kazuyoshi Sato and Robert C. KleinsasserReviewed work(s):Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 83, No. 4 (Winter, 1999), pp. 494-517Published by: Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language TeachersAssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/330522 .Accessed: 23/10/2012 02:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley-Blackwell and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmlta

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmlta

http://www.jstor.org/stable/330522?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Communicative Language Teaching

(CLT): Practical Understandings

KAZUYOSHI SATO Centre for Language Teaching and Research The University of Queensland Brisbane QLD 4072 Australia Email: yoshis@usiwakamaru. or.jp

ROBERT C. KLEINSASSER Centre for Language Teaching and Research The University of Queensland Brisbane QLD 4072 Australia Email: robertk@lingua. arts. uq. edu. au

The aim of this article is to report on a study that documented the views and practices of communicative language teaching (CLT) by Japanese second language inservice teachers.

Compared to theoretical developments of CLT (e.g., see Savignon, 1991), little is known about what second language teachers actually understand by CLT and how they implement CLT in classrooms. Using multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and sur-

veys, the article reports how teachers defined CLT and implemented it in their classrooms. The study identified how teachers actually dealt with CLT in their classrooms teaching Japa- nese. It is interesting to note that their views and actions dealt little with the academic literature pertaining to CLT or their education (be it preservice or inservice) in learning about CLT. Instead, teachers resorted to their personal ideas and experiences, solidifying their notions of foreign language (L2) teaching in further pursuing their evolving conceptions of CLT.

EVER SINCE HYMES (1971) DISCUSSED THE idea of communicative competence and Canale and Swain (1980) considered its implications for

language teaching, communicative language teaching (CLT) (Savignon, 1991) has achieved

prominence. Conference papers, articles, and books abound that support and promote CLT. In the main, scholars advance CLT by exploring its

meaning and use in classrooms. Writers consider various facets and mutations of CLT, providing valuable codification of CLT elements (e.g., Berns, 1990; Brown, 1994; Howatt, 1984; Little- wood, 1981; Mitchell, 1988; Richards & Rodgers, 1986; Savignon, 1983, 1997; Savignon & Berns, 1984, 1987; Schulz & Bartz, 1975). Even within the expanding literature concerning CLT, however, its meaning for practitioners receives scant attention.

In this research project, we document second

language (Japanese) teachers' CLT using their

perspectives.1 To set the stage for this investiga-

The Modern Language Journal, 83, iv, (1999) 0026-7902/99/494-517 $1.50/0 ?1999 The Modern LanguageJournal

tion, we begin by defining CLT by using various sources from academia and government policy to

highlight some of the numerous views from these

particular perspectives. We further include an Australian context to help define CLT from a

policy perspective, while also allowing such information to situate our study. We then explore the relevance of teacher beliefs, knowledge, and

practices. Here we review CLT investigations and

highlight the complexity of understanding rela-

tionships among beliefs, knowledge, and practices. Inherent in such a presentation is the need to explore change. This we do briefly, with the discussion culminating in offering the research

questions. Our intent here is to argue for a theoretical base from language teachers' perspectives. We next outline the research methodology for the project. This combined information positions the presentation of our findings, followed by a discussion of issues.

COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

Savignon (1983, 1997) suggested that a classroom model of communicative competence in-

Kazuyoshi Sato and Robert C. Kleinsasser

cludes Canale and Swain's (1980, later refined in Canale, 1983) four components that are grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. She further proposed five components of a communicative curriculum that include lan-

guage arts, language for a purpose, personal second language (L2) use, theater arts, and beyond the classroom (Savignon, 1983, 1997). These elements together help support both theoretical and practical foundations for CLT. Yet, it is clear that Savignon (1997) did not rely on these as the sole arbitrator of CLT. In particular, with regard to the four competences she concluded,

Whatever the relative importance of the various components at any given level of overall proficiency, one must keep in mind the interactive nature of their relationships. The whole of communicative competence is always something other than the simple sum of its parts. (p. 50)

The same could also be said about the five curriculum components. Moreover, Savignon (1991) cast an even wider net over what influences and

challenges the promotion of CLT:

CLT thus can be seen to derive from a multidiscipli- nary perspective that includes, at least, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociology, and educational research. The focus has been the elaboration and implementation of program and methodologies that promote the development of functional language ability through learner participation in communicative events. Central to CLT is the understanding of language learning as both an educational and politi- cal issue. (p. 265)

To be sure, there are other conceptualizations of communicative competence and CLT. For instance, Bachman (1990) charted a theoretical framework for communicative language ability that includes knowledge structures, strategic competence, psychophysiological mechanisms, context of situation, and language competence. Language competence is further divided into or- ganizational competence (grammatical and tex- tual competences) and pragmatic competence (illocutionary and sociolinguistic competences). Brown (1994) proposed a definition of CLT to include the following issues: (a) "Classroom goals are focused on all of the components of communicative competence"; (b) "Language techniques are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes"; (c) "Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlying communicative techniques"; and (d) "students ultimately have to use the language, productively

495

and receptively" (Brown, 1994, p. 245, italics original). Richards and Rogers (1986) concluded that

Communicative Language Teaching is best considered an approach rather than a method. Thus although a reasonable degree of theoretical consis- tency can be discerned at the levels of language and learning theory, at the levels of design and procedure there is much greater room for individual interpretation and variation than most methods permit. (p. 83)

These perspectives, among others, offer possibilities of what CLT is, and their various authors give ideas of what can transpire in a L2 classroom. Yet, not all views of CLT are necessarily the domain of academicians. As will be discussed next, national and state initiatives give an additional view of CLT.

To understand CLT in Australia better, we offer an overview of this country's recent (second) language initiatives. The past 20 years in Australia have been supportive of and exciting for the teaching of foreign languages or Languages Other Than English (LOTE), as they are pres- ently called. Clyne, Jenkins, Chen, Tsokalidou, and Wallner (1995) overviewed the latest initial push regarding languages in Australia. They reported that in 1976 the Committee on the Teach- ing of Migrant Languages in Schools (CTMLS) recommended that, starting in their primary years, children be given opportunities to learn other languages and understand other cultures. They further relayed that a Senate report (1984) on national language policy advocated principles such as competence in English, maintenance and development of languages other than English, and opportunities for learning L2s. This report eventually led to the National Policy on Lan- guages (Lo Bianco, 1987) "which actually recommended implementation strategies and government spending in innovative areas which were accepted by the federal government" (Clyne et al., 1995, p. 6).

The development of students' communicative skills in L2s was emphasized around the same time. The Australian Language Levels (ALL) Proj- ect responded to the Senate (1984) and Lo Bi- anco (1987) policies on languages and developed curriculum ideas for the teaching of L2. Austra- lian Language Levels (ALL) Guidelines (Scarino, Vale, McKay, & Clark, 1988) were published and subsequently Pocket ALL (Vale, Scarino, & McKay, 1991) was published as a handy teacher's guide. These guidelines included topics such as the eight principles of language learning, the goals of language learning, the table of language use, devel-

496

oping modules for a syllabus, resources, and assessment. Each state followed ALL Guidelines and

developed and wrote language syllabi. The Queensland Department of Education (1989), for instance, promoted the five ALL goals for lan-

guage learning: a communication goal, a so- ciocultural goal, a learning-how-to-learn goal, a

language and cultural awareness goal, and a

knowledge goal. Among these goals, emphasis was

placed upon communication: "Language-learning programs are aimed at the development of communicative competency in a particular lan-

guage" (p. v). As a result, various LOTE syllabi followed these general guidelines. The Japanese Senior Syllabus, for example, referred to the primary objective by stating that "by the end of Year 12, learners should be able to communicate in standard Japanese" (Board of Senior School Sec-

ondary Studies, 1995, p. 4). In addition, the six assessment criteria tasks that LOTE teachers were to implement included:

1. Assess the students' ability to communicate in the language.

2. Use authentic texts. 3. Give students the opportunity to speak and

write from their own experience. 4. Call for unrehearsed responses from the stu-

dent. 5. Allow students' responses to be matched to

criteria and standards. 6. Provide informative feedback to students to

allow them to manage their own learning. (Board of Senior Secondary School Studies, 1996, p. 1, italics original)

These criteria follow the ALL Guidelines (Scarino et al., 1988). In short, over the past 2 decades the

promotion of LOTE learning and the development of LOTE students' communicative skills have been promoted vigorously in national and state policy documents. LOTE teachers in schools

during the past decade have received either train-

ing or inservices in CLT because of the national and state initiatives to develop students' communicative abilities in LOTE. There is little insight, however, into how LOTE (Japanese) teachers

perceive these views and implement these ideas. There is also a dearth of information concerning how LOTE teachers perceive the views of the academicians. LOTE teachers' beliefs, knowl-

edge, and practice of CLT remain somewhat of a

mystery in the CLT literature. Yet, as we will see next, it is precisely teachers' beliefs, knowledge, and practice that need to be reviewed in order to understand better just how CLT is understood by

The Modern LanguageJournal 83 (1999)

LOTE teachers in L2 learning and teaching environments.

SKETCHING A THEORETICAL BASE

We highlight the importance of teacher beliefs in this project, for as Pajares (1992) acknowl-

edged in his synthesis of 35 empirical educational

investigations, "All teachers hold beliefs, however defined and labeled, about their work, their students, their subject matter, and their roles and

responsibilities" (p. 314). However, a variety of

conceptions of educational beliefs appears in the literature.2 Citing Nespor's (1987) influential work, Pajares suggested that "beliefs are far more influential than knowledge in determining how individuals organize and define tasks and problems and are stronger predictors of behavior" (p. 311). Pajares promoted 16 "fundamental assumptions that may reasonably be made when initiat-

ing a study of teachers' educational beliefs" (p. 324). These assumptions include, among others, the notions that (a) beliefs are formed early and tend to self-perpetuate; (b) some beliefs are more incontrovertible than others; (c) beliefs about

teaching are well established by the time a student gets to college; (d) changes in beliefs during adulthood are rare; (e) beliefs are instrumental in defining tasks and selecting the cognitive tools with which to interpret, plan, and make decisions

regarding such tasks; (f) individuals' beliefs

strongly affect their behavior; and (g) knowledge and beliefs are inextricably intertwined (for com-

plete discussion of all 16 assumptions, see Pajares, 1992, pp. 324-326).

The tenuous relationship between beliefs and

knowledge creates a possible tension. Although Pajares (1992) readily admitted that it is difficult to distinguish knowledge from beliefs, he argued Nespor's (1987) point "that beliefs have stronger affective and evaluative components than knowl-

edge and that affect typically operates inde-

pendently of the cognition associated with knowl-

edge" (p. 309). Richardson (1996) seemingly agreed that although the distinction between beliefs and knowledge remains fuzzy, beliefs influence teaching practice more directly than knowl-

edge and that the "relationship between beliefs and actions is interactive" (p. 104). Moreover, Richardson (1994) assigned the teacher the role of one who mediates ideas, constructs meaning and knowledge, and acts upon those construc- tions. She maintained that, in order to understand how teachers make sense of teaching and

learning, one should focus on teachers' beliefs and practices. (Such a view appears to contrast


slightly with the view that teachers' decision-mak-

ing is based upon knowledge and skills [e.g., Shulman, 1986, 1987]).

Regardless of theoretical stance, empirical studies consistently reveal the difficulties of promoting knowledge and skills that challenge or contradict currently held beliefs and practices (see, e.g., the reviews by Richardson, 1996, and Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). In L2 teacher studies in general, there is definitely a tendency for those studied to rely on their pre- conceived beliefs, and there appears to be little alteration in traditionally (form focus, teacher- led) held images of L2 teaching (see, e.g, Johnson, 1994; Lamb, 1995; Neustupny, 1981). Nonetheless, studies that specifically single out

typical CLT also reveal glimpses of links among beliefs, knowledge, and practices. On the one hand, a few studies show little change in teacher beliefs, knowledge, or practice, whereas, on the other hand, a few studies reveal the possibility for

change in teacher beliefs, knowledge, or practice. Thus, these studies provide evidence that the

challenges found in L2 teaching literature are little different from the controversy in the wider

teaching literature. The extent to which teachers can or will actually change is an issue within teacher education, regardless of discipline.

For example, Thompson (1996) discovered four misconceptions that were common among his colleagues concerning the meaning of CLT: (a) not teaching grammar, (b) teaching only speaking, (c) completing pair work (i.e., role play), and (d) expecting too much from teachers. Thompson mentioned that a surprisingly large number of teachers invoke erroneous reasoning for criticizing or rejecting CLT. He concluded that the future development of CLT depended upon correcting these misconceptions. Fox (1993) surveyed first-year French graduate teaching assistants at 20 universities in the U.S. and analyzed their responses according to the definitions of communicative competence (CC) set forth by Canale and Swain (1980). She reported that teaching assistants did not conceptualize language according to this particular model of CC. Instead, the participants relied on grammar at the expense of communicative activities. She concluded that their beliefs about language teaching and learning should be exposed so that they could develop their beliefs and knowledge about CLT.

Even teachers committed to CLT often seem to show a very superficial adherence to CLT principles. As Nunan (1987) discovered, although the teachers in his study had goals for communicative

497

classrooms, they offered students few opportunities for genuine communicative language use in the class sessions that he recorded. Although the lesson plans of these teachers might have con- formed to the sorts of communicative principles advocated in the CLT literature, the actual patterns of classroom interaction resembled traditional patterns rather than what he identified as genuine interaction. Karavas-Doukas (1996) re-

ported similar findings in the responses of 14 Greek teachers of English to an attitude survey and in the observations she made of their classrooms. She found that the survey results leaned toward agreement with CLT principles, but when she observed the classroom teaching environments, "classroom practices (with very few excep- tions) deviated considerably from the principles of the communicative approach" (p. 193). Al- though she acknowledged that there were glimpses of communicative approaches, the teachers in her sample favored traditional ones. In this case, traditional meant, "Most lessons were teacher-fronted and exhibited an explicit focus on form" (p. 193).

As indicated earlier, not all of the news is bleak. Okazaki (1996) completed a longitudinal study using surveys to find out whether preservice teachers changed their beliefs concerning CLT after a 1-year methodology course. She concluded that although beliefs of preservice teachers were not easily swayed, some of them were influenced in the desired direction by what Wen- den (1991) called persuasive communication, which aims at changing participants' beliefs by reflective teaching. For example, she reported that the teachers' emphasis increased on such items as the learner's role and decreased on such items as pronunciation and error corrections. Ku- maravadivelu (1993) studied two teachers whom he identified as "'believers' in the CLT move- ment" (p. 14), and who both had masters degrees in ESL. With one teacher he promoted the effec- tiveness of five macrostrategies for successful CLT (see also Kumaravadivelu, 1992). He then transcribed the two teachers' classes and concluded that the episodes showed "different kinds of classroom input and interaction" (p. 18). One group was motivated, enthusiastic, and active. The same group in the second session was less motivated, less enthusiastic, and much less active. Although he identified session one as a speaking class, and session two as a grammar class, he believed that the use of the macrostrategies given to the teacher in session one "contributed to this re- markable variation in the communicative nature of the two episodes" (p. 18). Regardless of the

498

theoretical and practical problems of such a study, Kumaravadivelu (1993) claimed effective- ness for strategy training with regard to teachers' uses of CLT. In a study concerning L2 teaching in more general terms, Freeman (1993) maintained that four foreign language teachers (citing two illustrations) changed their ideas about teaching when they were introduced to the discourse of current professional issues and notions.

In summary, the controversy in the teacher

change literature about teachers' beliefs and

practices continues. As Richardson (1996) commented:

Perhaps the greatest controversy in the teacher change literature relates to the difficulty in changing beliefs and practices. For some scholars, beliefs are thought to be extremely difficult, if not impossible to change. This apparent difficulty is often used as an explanation of the sense that teachers are recalcitrant and do not like to change. Another group of scholars and educators, however, are optimistic that teachers and teacher education students can change and, in fact, often do change their beliefs and practices, and that programs can help them do so in significant and worthwhile directions. (p. 110)

Such a comment may be a bit shortsighted, if not overgeneralized. Many of the studies cited above neither integrate information from a vari-

ety of data sources nor give a complete picture of the interaction among beliefs, knowledge, and

practice. Some relied on scales or interviews alone, others completed only observations, while still others tried surveys and observations but omitted interviews. Most of the studies concern-

ing CLT mentioned the fact that multiple data sources would eventually help address the limitations of the work already completed. Moreover, many of the L2 teacher studies concerning CLT seemed to rely on the extent to which the practice of CLT notions adhered to CLT principles as

put forth in the professional literature. Richard- son (1990) pointed out in more global terms the difficulties educational change issues bring to classrooms:

It is important, however, to note that change, research- based or otherwise, is defined in this literature as teachers doing something that others are suggesting they do. Thus, the change is deemed as good or appropriate, and resistance is viewed as bad or inap- propriate. Even the recent work that is more sensitive to teachers' norms and beliefs fails to question the reforms themselves (Donmoyer, 1987). Further, the constant changes that teachers make when meeting the changing needs of the students in the classroom or trying out ideas that they hear from other teachers is not recognized in these formulations. A critical


feature in this literature is that someone outside the classroom decides what changes teachers will make. (p. 11, italics original)

It is interesting to note that Nunan (1987) and Kamaravadivelu (1992, 1993, 1994) offered evidence (from "someone outside the classroom") that highlighted this specific issue within the L2

teaching profession. For instance, Nunan identified strategies, such as using referential questions that could be used to increase the opportunities for genuine communication, and Kumaravadi- velu increased from 5 to 10 the number of

macrostrategies that might now come to influence the ideas of a principled communicative

approach (see Celce-Murcia, Dornyei, & Thur- rell, 1997). However, neither of the authors ex-

plained how the teachers adapted the referential

questions or macrostrategies into situation-specific problems or how the teachers developed their beliefs, knowledge, and practice with regard to CLT. In other words, the authors seemed to have ignored the teachers' actual developmental processes and stages, or else they neglected to uncover and document how the teachers actually dealt with an innovation such as CLT.

In short, these studies, reviews, and narratives

portray the complexity of the issues pertaining to beliefs, knowledge, and practices and focus on the

interplay among them. Despite the theoretical de-

velopments and policy acceptance of CLT for numerous L2 learning environments, many questions linger concerning how teachers think about and use CLT in classrooms. It seems worthwhile to

investigate further the perspectives of L2 teachers, that is, how they view, learn about, and implement CLT. In addition, within the Australian context of teachingJapanese in high schools, there is little known about inservice LOTE teachers' perspectives about CLT. These teachers of Japanese in Australia have identified such problems in their

teaching as articulation, low proficiency level, and lack of quality inservices, good materials, and school support (Kawagoe, 1989; Koide, 1976). Nonetheless these inservice LOTE (Japanese) teachers have not been studied in any great depth, especially regarding their ideas about CLT and practice. This omission triggers several broader questions: How is teachers' knowledge about CLT developed or understood in light of the fact that national and state directives urge the

acquisition of communicative LOTE abilities? How are teachers implementing CLT ideas at the classroom level? How do teachers actually teach in

language classrooms in a country and state that

promote communicative competence? These un-


answered questions guided this investigation and promoted the analysis undertaken for this article. Our overall goal was to uncover teachers' beliefs and knowledge about CLT in connection with their practices in an Australian context-a goal overlooked and understudied by both researchers and policy-makers. The following questions provided focus:

1. What are Japanese LOTE teachers' beliefs and knowledge about (communicative) language teaching?

2. How do they implement CLT in their classrooms?

3. How are their beliefs and knowledge about (communicative) language teaching acquired and developed?

OVERVIEW, PARTICIPANTS, DATA COLLECTION, AND DATA ANALYSIS

In order to reveal teachers' beliefs, knowledge, and practices about CLT, we employed triangulation that included qualitative and quantitative data sources (or multiple data sources) of LOTE teachers' perspectives. Mathison (1988) argued that "the use of any single method, just like the view of any single individual, will necessarily be subjective and therefore biased" (p. 14). There- fore, she valued triangulation where one constructs meaningful explanations from multiple data sources-sources that may appear inconsis- tent or contradictory rather than cohering around a single proposition. This use of multiple sources is especially important in exploring beliefs, practices, and mandates. Pajares (1992) reminded researchers of the dimensions in re- searching beliefs:

It is also clear that, if reasonable inferences about beliefs require assessments of what individuals say, intend, and do, then teachers' verbal expressions, predispositions to action, and teaching behaviors must all be included in assessments of beliefs. Not to do so calls into question the validity of the findings and the value of the study. Traditional belief invento- ries provide limited information with which to make inferences, and it is at this step in the measurement process that understanding the context-specific nature of beliefs becomes critical. (p. 327)

Participants

Ten state (public) school teachers ofJapanese (including 9 native Australian English speakers and 1 native Japanese speaker) in 10 different state high schools in a large Australian metropoli- tan area participated in this study (9 female and

499

1 male). Three teachers had less than 3 years experience teaching Japanese, 3 teachers had 3 to 6 years teaching experience, 2 teachers had 6 to 10 years teaching experience, and 2 teachers had 10 to 13 years teaching experience.3 Their professional preparation also varied. Four teachers (including the nativeJapanese speaker) completed a Postgraduate Diploma in Education-a 1-year course-and 1 holds a Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics. Three teachers holding the Postgraduate Diploma in Education degree majored in Japanese for their undergraduate studies, while the native Japanese speaker majored in French. The rest of the teachers started to teach Japanese without any formal academic preparation in Japanese LOTE teaching. Their majors variously represented the disciplines of biology, commerce, economics, English, and music. Some of the teachers finished short-term inservice programs on Japanese language and LOTE instruction after they had already begun teaching. Among the 9 native Australian English speakers, 7 teachers experienced living in Japan for 1 to 2 years, 1 teacher stayed for 6 years, and 1 teacher made four trips to Japan, lasting 2 to 3 weeks per visit. In other words, most of the teachers who did not receive formal academic preparation had experiences overseas in the target language culture before they began teaching Japanese. In addition, 8 of the 10 teachers also taught such other subjects as English (3), mathematics (1), social sciences (1), history and social education (1), music (1), and sports (table tennis, 1). Pseudo- nyms for the 10 teachers are used throughout the data presentation (see Table 1).

Interview

As researchers, we developed an open-ended interview protocol. After an initial pilot interview, we made several modifications. For example, background questions were separated from the major interview questions so that the interview could focus on specific questions (e.g., understandings of CLT, use of the textbook, the role of grammar, communicative activities, and teacher development). Ultimately, we developed and refined 20 questions following Spradley's (1979) descriptive questions so that the respondent would display "perspectives and moral forms" (p. 107). A standardized protocol was established to focus on certain issues following Spradley's recommendations. Twelve major questions were then agreed upon, and two more pilot interviews were conducted to test their efficiency. The final interview protocol was completed, with minor

The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999)

TABLE 1 Participants in the Study, Including Their Participation in the Three Data Collection Strategies

Name Years Degrees(s) Study Interview Survey Observation Teaching Area(s)

Sean 1.5 BA, PGD Japanese and Asian Studies Yes Yes No Margaret 5 BA Economics Yes Yes Yes Tracey 5 BA, PGD Japanese and Linguistics Yes Yes No Joan 6.5 BA History and English Yes Yes Yes Alicia 13 Diploma of Commerce Yes Yes Yes

Education Debra 13 BA, PGD Japanese and History Yes No Yes Jane 4 BA, MA English and Applied Yes Yes Yes

Linguistics Laura 8 BA Music Yes Yes Yes Tamara 2.5 BS Biology Yes Yes Yes Yumiko .75 BA, PGD French Literature and Yes Yes Yes

Japanese Note. Pseudonyms are used throughout the article. PGD=Postgraduate Diploma in Education (apanese), for Yumiko a Postgraduate Diploma in Education (French).

modifications of wording. All 10 interviews were transcribed for descriptive data and analyzed. Each interview (10 total) was conducted in En-

glish except for the interview with the nativeJapa- nese speaking teacher, which was recorded and transcribed in Japanese and subsequently trans- lated into English by one of the researchers. These transcribed interviews provided descriptive data for analysis.

Observations

Classroom observations followed the interviews. The researcher was usually seated at the back of the classroom and occasionally moved around the class. Field notes taken on site documented the progression and procedures of each lesson. Adhering to Silverman's (1993) warning to avoid early generalizations, we focused on what was observable: setting, participants, events, acts, and gestures (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). In addition, immediately following the observations, we reviewed and expanded all notes to include further information and detail (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Spradley, 1979). The observations of Japa- nese class lessons were completed two to three times in each of eight of the Japanese language classrooms. Two teachers requested not to be observed. Furthermore, 2 other teachers wanted to use the native Japanese researcher as a native informant, so in these classrooms it was not possible to observe a typical class session. However, the interactions in these particular classes were

recorded as participant observations. In the other classrooms our notes were made as ob- server only. A total of 20 classroom observations offered evidence about Japanese language instruction.

Survey

To add a dimension not tapped in the previously explained data sources, we adapted the

Foreign Language Attitude Survey for Teachers (FLAST; for a full description see Savignon, 1983). Specifically, the responses to the survey uncovered teachers' individual differences and overall general attitude. Nine of the 10 teachers returned the questionnaires. Their Likert-scaled

responses were analyzed using descriptive statis- tics and the computer program StatView (1993). Although Savignon warned that FLAST was not meant to be scored, she also proposed that

the answers teachers give will depend on their inter-

pretation of the questions as well as on their second

language learning and teaching experiences. A com-

parison of responses, however, will reveal the differences in attitude among teachers working together, presumably toward similar goals. (p. 122)

It was precisely these differences of interpretation among a group of professional language teachers and the comparison of these differences with in-

terview and observation data that, we believed, could further reveal and better delineate teachers' attitudes toward CLT. Responses were nu-

merically coded and those items receiving a mean

500


of 3.6 or higher were those with which teachers agreed (the closer to 5, the more strongly teachers agreed with it). Those items receiving a mean of 2.4 or lower were those with which teachers disagreed. Items falling between 2.4 and 3.6 were those with which teachers neither agreed nor disagreed, perhaps giving evidence of some uncer- tainty among the participants as a group.

Analysis

In the main, qualitative inductive approaches were used to analyze the data for this article (for complete introductory discussion see Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). In this instance, data were pe- rused and trends, categories, and classifications were developed using the constant comparative method, suggested by Glaser and Strauss (1967), and other similar procedure descriptions or analysis suggestions from more recent publications (e.g., Foss & Kleinsasser, 1996; Kleinsasser, 1993). Themes that emerged from the various data sources were identified, compared, and developed into the analysis presented below for the L2 profession. In addition, the act of writing itself was also part of the analysis. As Krathwohl (1993) suggested,

Writing enforces a discipline that helps articulate half-formed ideas. Something happens between the formation of an idea and its appearance on paper, a latency that somehow results in the clarification and untangling of our thinking. Writing helps bring un- conscious processing to light as articulated synthe- sized statements. (p. 81)

Glesne and Peshkin (1992) reminded that: "The act of writing also stimulates new thoughts, new connections. Writing is rewarding in that it creates the product, the housing for the meaning that you and others have made of your research adventure. Writing is about constructing a text" (p. 151). Moreover, the researchers sought to develop this particular presentation so that readers could enter into the events studied and vicari- ously participate in creating text (Eisner, 1991). Instead of talking about qualitative data, here it is actually presented.4

CLT: PRACTICAL UNDERSTANDINGS

In this section, we bring together data from interviews, surveys, and observations to describe teachers' beliefs, knowledge, and practices-their understandings-of CLT. In the first part, we outline the salient issues they conveyed in the interviews and responded to on their sur-

501

veys, while also offering a glimpse of what actually happened in Japanese language teachers' classrooms. Their conceptions of CLT serve as a cata- lyst to promote their understandings. We hope to show that the challenges they face help clarify, in part, why they understand CLT the way they do. In the second part, we uncover where these teachers think they learned about CLT. We acknowledge how teachers situate their own understandings about CLT (and L2 teaching, in general). The three data sources help articulate how these LOTE teachers view (communicative) language teaching as an evolving enterprise, a phenomenon that continually challenges them in their hourly, daily, monthly, and yearly L2 teaching and learning experiences.

Toward a Definition of (Practical) CLT

The teachers gave few complete descriptions about what CLT was and held varying, even fragmented, views. Yet, these fragmented views can be explained by the challenges these teachers faced. The 10 participants revealed their beliefs about CLT in broad terms and many concurred that CLT was neither fully articulated nor necessarily an integral part of their instructional repertoires.

WhatJapanese Language Teachers Said, Responded, and Did

One teacher eloquently overviewed the notion that CLT was not yet established, giving valuable insight into many of the teachers' feelings. A sen- timent that CLT was a "work in progress" fore- shadowed evolving understandings of CLT by the participants in this study. When asked, "How do you define CLT?" she replied:

It's a difficult question. Well, I suppose the definition of [a] CLT method has not been established yet. There are some varieties such as task-based ... some rigid scholars suggest not [even] using English in a class. So, I am at a loss what CLT is. I think language teaching should be related to students' experiences and interests which create natural situations for them to speak. I suppose it is important, but I don't know whether it is communicative or not. (Yumiko)

Four main conceptions about CLT were discussed by the teachers: (a) CLT is learning to communicate in the L2, (b) CLT uses mainly speaking and listening, (c) CLT involves little grammar instruction, (d) CLT uses (time-consuming) activities. How teachers talked about and defined their notions of CLT were developed through these four main conceptions that were

502

revealed through LOTE (Japanese) teachers'

voices, responses, and actions.

CLTIs Learning to Communicate in the L2. Almost all teachers globally defined CLT as learning to communicate with other people using the L2. A few specifically added to that definition the idea of using language for real purposes. Participants relayed their sentiments as the following teachers did.

I would hope that I would, ought to teach students how to communicate both orally and in a written form so that I would expect them to hold a conversation at the best of their ability. (Debra) It's teaching language that can be used by students in real life, in real life-like situations. It's used for real

purposes. There must be some need to communicate in order to be able to challenge the students to use

language communicatively. (Joan)

Learning to communicate was an important attribute of CLT, and, through the survey, these teachers agreed that the students' motivation to continue language study was directly related to their success in actually learning to speak the

language. They also suggested that students did not have to answer a question posed in Japanese with a complete sentence and strongly agreed that one could not teach language without cul-

ture, while concurring that cultural information should be given in the L2 as much as possible. These teachers were clearly aware that simulated real-life situations should be used to teach conversational skills, yet were ultimately realistic in

agreeing that most language classes did not provide enough opportunity for the development of such conversational skills. It is clear that teachers saw the value in what CLT offered; nonetheless, their scepticism about attaining communicative skills surfaced. The participants neither agreed nor disagreed that the ability to speak a language was innate; therefore, they believed that everyone capable of speaking a first language should be

capable of learning to speak a L2. Although there was the potential for communication in their

classrooms, the teachers were unsure about the extent to which they had the time to promote it and whether or not all students were capable of

learning it. Three challenges created further tensions for

teachers in promoting communication in the L2. These included subject matter articulation, lack of institutional support, and their own lack of

proficiency in the L2. (These three issues have

plagued the language professions in both Austra- lia and the U.S. [e.g., Ariew, 1982; Australian Lan-

guage and Literacy Council, 1996; Kawagoe,


1989; Koide, 1976; Lange, 1982] and became particularly highlighted when foreign language or LOTE instruction spread to primary schools

[Clyne, 1977; Heining-Boynton, 1990]). The teachers relayed their frustrations when discuss-

ing these problems with (communicative) lan-

guage teaching. As Japanese language teaching and learning

became popular (and required) in primary schools, these high school teachers faced articulation problems. Alicia described how the teachers did not necessarily welcome previous lan-

guage learning experiences by their students in

primary schools. Tracey maintained that LOTE

teaching needed to be accepted and supported within the school and wider community, and Yu- miko yearned for collegiality.

I think the most difficult thing is [the] students com-

ing from [the] primary school. Some of them maybe have 3 years, and some of them maybe have 1 year in

primary school, some of them have nothing. Then, they're coming to Year 8. And it's very difficult to have the mixed classes. Then, when you're getting to Year 9, you have students who are coming to doJapa- nese in Year 9, who have no Japanese, who have various experiences [and you start] all over again. (Alicia) Another issue is at the moment, we're in [a] real transition period in the community with acceptance and nonacceptance of LOTE teaching as valuable. Some people value it, some people don't value it at all. And some of the people in the community don't value it, or colleagues [within the school don't value it either]. So that's very difficult until we have a culture of, no, not a culture of, uh, a mindset, where

having a second language is valuable. That's the be-

ginning and the end. Learning all languages is valuable. That's it. So you learn it all through primary [school], secondary [school]. It's exactly the same, science, English, math you do it. It's just part of what

you do. But we are not there yet. So until we get to that point, this transition is very difficult. We have an

opposition from others. (Tracey) I also feel it's difficult to receive support from the school just because I'm not Australian. I think it's true. We don't usually communicate with other col-

leagues. We talk to each other only within close friends. Though it's not related to language teaching directly, I think it is a problem. (Yumiko)

On the survey the LOTE teachers as a group neither agreed nor disagreed that they needed to be fluent themselves to begin to teach communi-

catively. Nonetheless, during the interviews, the teachers commented on their own (inadequate) language proficiency; however, many reported that they tried to use the L2 as much as possible. Tamara felt insecure about her language profi-


ciency. Joan responded that, as she became more confident with her L2 proficiency and ability to meet students' needs, she moved further away from the textbook. Tamara was not afraid to be honest. Joan decided to go back to university to finish her 3rd year of Japanese study.

Also, my ability to speak Japanese. Sometimes I feel like my language is not sufficient to challenge the students, to push them. I don't think I give them enough listening experience, because I am insecure of my ownJapanese. (Tamara) In terms of the daily use of textbook, I am surprised to find that I am moving further and further away from [the] use of the regular textbook. Every year level has one, but I find as I become more confident with my language, and as I become more confident to meet the needs or interest of the students and different topics, I want real Japanese language, not the textbook. (oan)

The teachers reported that CLT meant learn-

ing to communicate in the L2. The interview and

survey data showed how they coped with what this meant to them. The challenges, however, seemed sometimes to outweigh the benefits of making communication in the L2 a reality. Nonetheless, the first conception served as a general reminder about the global purpose of CLT. This focus on communication led to the second conception that these teachers think writing and reading are not as prevalent (important) as listening and

speaking.

CLT Uses Mainly Speaking and Listening. A second trend from the data revealed that several teachers viewed CLT as focusing extensively on

speaking and listening skills. The following quotes represented this general view.

The goal of the teaching is that at the end of learning the language, people can actually talk in the language with the native speakers understand [ing] what they're saying and be [ing] able to communicate their ideas rather than just being able to read and write. (Margaret) My understanding of CLT is that you teach so that [the] students hear it and so that they speak it. I would try where it's possible to teach something new by actually speaking. [...] I think writing needs a little explanation to teach the pattern and get them to write the pattern. [. . .] And perhaps because I learned Japanese as an adult and learned it communicatively, I didn't learn a lot of writing at the time. Writing was the neglected skill. So I suppose I've been very aware of CLT. (Alicia)

At the completion of her interview, Alicia revealed again that she learnedJapanese communi-

catively in speaking and listening, but not in writ-

503

ing. In short, her L2 learning experiences seemed to have formed a belief that CLT used

only speaking and listening. The survey results reinforced the significance

of speaking and listening skills, or at least suggested that there might be an order to how skills were learned. The teachers agreed that the instruction of such skills preceded the teaching of

reading and writing, that L2 acquisition was most successful when based on an oral approach, and that students could still be successful in learning to communicate in a L2 even if they did not read well. The teachers did not attribute weak oral

competence to a lack of objective means in teach-

ing it. Nonetheless, assessment of students' lan-

guage abilities caused some concern. The LOTE teachers found that assessment

tasks that were focused on the four skills offered another slight obstacle. It is interesting to note that the LOTE teachers emphasized that CLT meant speaking and listening; however, the government guidelines for communicative assessment included all four skills, each seemingly given equal weighting. The teachers' concerns dealt with the number of tests and the lack of cohesion among the skill examinations.

And we have four tests at the end of each semester, reading, writing, listening, and speaking. And the middle of each semester, we have two tests. In the middle of [the] first semester, if we test reading and writing, then, in the middle of [the] second semester, we test speaking and listening. So by the end of the year we've tested four skills, three times. (Margaret) Well, according to the senior curriculum, I am required to give them a certain number of tests in what they call the four macro skills-reading, writing, speaking, and listening. They all have to be separate tests. So I have to give them one of each kind of tests each term. I basicallyjust give them tests, you know. I will have a passage written in Japanese on a topic that we've studied. And they have to read it and they have questions in English and they have to answer in En- glish. So it's just as a comprehensive test. Listening, well, I'll have [a] passage in Japanese. I'll read it and then they'll have questions in English. So they don't see it. Theyjust think they read it. Then, they have to answer in English. And speaking, I just give them some topics to talk about and they have to talk. (Role play or interview?) Oh, both. So, that's how I evalu- ate, just standard, four micro skills tests. I'm not particularly looking for communicative skills as such, but just as four micro skills, which is the prescribed way of testing. (Sean)

The tension between CLT and skills became

apparent. The teachers saw two completely different issues and proceeded with what they perceived they had to do in their classrooms for their

504

students. It is interesting to note that many of them did not see, or present, how the competing conceptions could be reconciled. They allowed their understanding of skills (through policy) to

outweigh their promotion of CLT (especially in

using speaking and listening). Items from the

survey further revealed that the group thought that dialogue memorization was an effective tech-

nique in the process of learning a L2 but dis-

agreed over the belief that mastering L2 grammar was a prerequisite to developing oral communication skills. This disagreement could be why some teachers saw these other skills (read-

ing and writing) as a means to focus on grammar. These issues and challenges only seemed to rein- force the third conception about the role of

grammar in CLT.

CLT Involves Little Grammar Instruction. Quite a few teachers understood CLT as not involving grammar, or any type of language structure. Al-

though some teachers did not directly mention

grammar usage, many alluded to the problem of

how, if at all, to include it.

Another issue in LOTE learning and teaching is that "Is communicative teaching good?" Because people have taken it so far to the point of the banning of

grammar teaching or of the banning of drilling, of the banning of all little parts. You have to do at some

points, to learn Hiragana [apanese syllabary], you have to write out over and over after practice. But in communicative language, you think, "I can't do it. It's not communicative." So that's the burden. ... So when I [was] first teaching grammar, it had very little, very little place. We did lots of talking, lots of reading and writing and listening, but not so much grammar. Which is the mistake of, I think, part of the flow in communicative teaching. I almost expected that students would pick it up. They would somehow work it out without me saying "'wo' is the object.... It would work if you guess. Sometimes I still do that.

(Tracey) It's using Japanese whenever possible in the classroom. But I'm not particularly a communicative lan-

guage teacher, because I love teaching grammar.... While I like some aspects of it, I very much dislike some ... aspects of it... while I was studying inJapan, I had a teacher who was studying [the] communicative method. And she believed that she did not ex-

plain grammatical points in the text. She believed you should get to understand them from the atmosphere. And that was very frustrating as a student. So that's

why I don't like it so much, because I love to understand the grammar. And I think many of the best students do. And students we have doing Japanese are often very analytical thinkers. AndJapanese to me is a little bit like math. And students thought of it like math. So sometimes it's possible to have a little expla-


nation. So that's why I like [a] combination of both systems. (Jane)

Debra was in a dilemma, because she was not allowed to offer a grammar test according to the

government's guidelines of communicative assessment.

I think that [the] writing test is the main worry. It is the big worry, because it takes us a lot of time. Actu-

ally this is the big problem with CLT, because our tests have to be communicative, too. So we can't have a grammar test. We can't have a test where you have to do multiple choice. No, we can't. We can't do it at all. So what we have to do is trying authentic material for students to read. (Debra)

The participants were challenged over what to do with grammar in their learning environments. Most teachers did not discuss the role of grammar in CLT because they thought grammar was not part of CLT. Neither did they understand

completely the guidelines for not allowing grammar to be included in their testing. Yet they re-

layed difficulties in teaching it when it came to

discussing what went on with language teaching in their classrooms. Although some did not know the role of grammar in CLT as revealed in the definitions above, others blamed English teachers for not teaching grammar or felt it difficult to

present grammar in an interesting way, or both.

Uh, these are difficult questions. What's the role of

grammar? Uh, I think grammar is important so that

meaning is not lost, but I try not to correct the students' grammar too much, when they speak, because I don't want to inhibit them. I don't think it is [a] very important thing. I treat it as a building block, and then, hopefully that will make students practice whatever language they've learned before. And if there are many minor mistakes on grammar, I don't fix them up on it. Yeah, I can't answer that question very well. (Tamara) For a number of years now, they haven't really been

teaching even in English very much. I found a lot of

my students at high school don't really know much about the technical aspects of English language. So it was discouraged for some years. The teaching of En-

glish grammar was discouraged. So a lot of the students have gone through the high school system not

really learning English grammar. So then, you know, I think it's unfortunate. So it's hard to teach them

Japanese grammar if they don't understand English grammar. (Sean)

The conundrum of grammar's place within CLT (or language teaching in general, for that

matter) was further highlighted in the survey results. As a group, these teachers were uncertain about the importance of having students learn rules of grammar (they neither agreed nor dis-


agreed) but were adamant that the grammar- translation approach to L2 learning was not effective in developing oral communication skills. On the one hand, these LOTE teachers accepted that student responses in the L2 did not have to be

linguistically accurate. They further agreed that when a student made syntactical errors, the errors should be accepted as a natural and inevita- ble part of language acquisition and that ideas can be exchanged spontaneously in a foreign lan-

guage without having linguistic accuracy. On the other hand, the LOTE teachers agreed that if first

language (L1) teachers taught grammar the way they should, it would be easier for them to teach a L2. The participants further agreed that when the foreign language structure differed from that of the LI, sometimes extensive repetitions, sim-

ple and varied, were needed to form the new habit. They agreed that pattern practice was an effective learning technique and that the estab- lishment of new language habits required extensive, well-planned practice on a limited body of

vocabulary and sentence patterns. It is interesting to note that puzzlement over

issues surrounding grammar also manifested itself within another challenge teachers had with

learning styles. Most teachers acknowledged that

they had to be aware of students' learning styles, especially different styles between year levels.

They tended to agree with the survey item that all students, regardless of previous academic success and preparation, should be encouraged and

given the opportunity to study a foreign lan-

guage. Nonetheless, learning styles offered an additional focus that some felt was not at all part of CLT. Moreover, here teachers related that some students wanted a grammar focus.

All Grade 11 and 12 want to study in a formal way. So even though I introduce a communicative activity, they don't want to get involved in it. They are more interested in grammatical explanations. But, for example, Grade 10 get along well with me. They really like interesting topics and start to speak. So I feel more comfortable with juniors. Seniors seem to have acquired a formal way of studying like Japanese students .. .This is where the difficulty lies, I feel. (Yu- miko) Uh, Year 8, they learn patterns. We teach them, you know, 'This is the pattern." If you want to say, I like French and I like math, and I hate science. Then, we teach them to say, ". . . ga suki," ". . . ga kirai desu." Then, we give them a list of subjects. And we get them to talk. So they can express their own feeling inJapa- nese. We did the same things with sports and hobbies and families.... And then, if we are doing something like [the topic of] restaurant, then, we give them a dialogue. We get them to learn the basic dialogue.

505

Then, we give them ... extra things they can add to it. Then, they must learn and present it in a class. Do role-play or so. And in Year 9 [it is] similar, but there's more freedom. By the time you get to Year 12, just talk. (Laura)

WhatJapanese Language Teachers Did: Traditional Practices. Regardless of the role grammar had ac-

cording to the individual teachers or what teachers said about accommodating learning styles, many findings from classroom observations con- founded the information given by the teachers in their interviews and on their surveys. Grammar was more central in their language teaching than these LOTE teachers admitted. The teachers were more didactic in their instruction than they related and less concerned with individuals than with the class as a group entity. Whether or not

they were teaching communicatively, grammar was a central focus in the observed classrooms. For example, although most teachers said that

they used role-play, games, simulations, and so

on, classes observed for this study were heavily teacher-fronted, grammar was presented without

any context clues, and there were few interactions seen among students in the classrooms (this de- scribes what we mean by "traditional practices"). Most Japanese teachers used English extensively to explain grammatical points and give instruc- tions; L2 communicative use and speaking in the L2 by students, in particular, were not as prevalent as one might assume from listening to the interviews or reading the survey results. TheJapa- nese teachers readily allowed students to answer in English. A few teachers tried to integrate culture into their lessons. In short, most teachers

displayed traditional practice tendencies. The following selected examples typically portrayed what was seen in the Japanese language classrooms.

For instance, Tamara started her lesson for Year 12 with a Kanji (Chinese characters) quiz.

At the beginning, she handed out quiz sheets to everyone. She gave students 10 minutes to complete the

quiz. While students were working on the quiz, she wrote grammatical points on the board. After the

quiz, she started to explain the grammar (passive form) by using English sentences as examples. Then, she explained it with Japanese sentences. While she explained verb conjugations, students wrote them down in their notebooks. After that, she showed verb cards and made students say passive forms. It was like drills. Then, she asked students to open the textbooks, and they did exercises that transformed active sentences into passive ones. She called on each student individually and let him or her answer. Finally, she asked students to create their own sentences by

506

using passive forms. After a few minutes, the bell rang. (Observation of Tamara)

This was her lesson. There was little interaction between the teacher and the students, and little

among the students. Moreover, this lesson provided little evidence of attention to varying learn-

ing styles. Grammar points were explained de-

ductively without any context clues and were followed by mechanical exercises in textbooks.

Yumiko is a native Japanese teacher. She just started teaching in the academic year after she finished her Postgraduate Diploma of Education. The following is her Year 12 lesson. She said in her interview that communicative activities did not work for Years 11 and 12, because these students liked a more formal way of study, especially grammatical explanations.

She spent most of her lesson speaking Japanese. First, she gave an example to introduce a new sentence pattern in context. She kept on giving other

examples in Japanese. Each student was checking the new function with the handout the teacher had

given them previously. Then, after several examples, she asked yes-no questions to students. But students answered in English. Sometimes students asked

questions in English about the content of the topic or examples. There were no interactions among students. Then, she started to give another example to introduce another grammatical point. They re-

peated the same process. Finally, she introduced three new Kanji words. She wrote them on the blackboard and she made sure of the meaning of each word by asking individual students. Students answered in English. There were no exercises with

Kanji in sentences. The lesson stopped here. (Ob- servation of Yumiko)

This native-speaking Japanese teacher took

pride in her approach to introducing grammar in contexts. In her interview, she stated, "I often use

many examples in Japanese to explain a new word. I keep on saying it until students can guess what it is. I like it that way." Nevertheless, students answered in English during this lesson. No interaction among students could be seen, and it needs to be remembered that this teacher mentioned that she relied little on communicative activities because "they don't want to get involved in it." At this stage, she seemed to give up even

trying to get them involved. She believed that certain students' learning styles outweighed us-

ing communicative activities.

Margaret did a lesson for Year 10. Although she

attempted to use role-play, it was in reality a dia-

logue memorization. Overall, she relied heavily on traditional practices.


Students came in the classroom in a line. First, she reviewed the grammar structure (potential form) on the blackboard. She asked a yes-no question to individual students. Then, she reviewed Kanji using cards. Students read several cards, each time the teacher showed the card to them several times. After that, she told the students to open the textbook. They did translation exercises. She asked individual students to answer them. Then, she asked two students to read the short model conversation. She asked another pair to read it. She gave the students five minutes to practice the skit in pairs. After that, she asked for volunteers. Students were shy. So she asked two

pairs to perform the skit without looking at the textbook. The rest of the class helped the performers when they got stuck. The bell rang, and she told the students that they would practice the skit more next time. (Observation of Margaret)

Margaret related in her interview that she had

difficulty motivating Year 8 and 9 students and

managing their discipline. Although she stated that "in Year 10 and 11 and 12 by the students who have chosen to do the subject, my teaching method is totally different. I do lots of questionnaires, lots of games, and lot of more discussion,

role-play ... ," she actually relied here on traditional practices. As our interview, survey, and observation data coalesced, it became clear that tensions abounded over grammar instruction,

learning styles, and CLT. The challenges of meet-

ing students' needs continued to give focus to the teachers' daily instruction, while their idea of CLT as minimal grammar instruction was mud- dled in the quagmire of what they did or thought they had to do.

CLT Uses (Time-Consuming) Activities. The final

conception evidenced in the interview data was that CLT used activities that must be fun, and almost all teachers admitted that preparing such

jovial activities was time intensive. Although the

survey showed that teachers disagreed with the statement that a good foreign language teacher did not need audiovisuals to build an effective

program, they agreed that if language teachers used all the audiovisual equipment, materials, and techniques the experts say they should, there would be no time for eating and sleeping, much less teaching. TheseJapanese teachers also nearly agreed (mean 3.4) that individualizing instruction was really not feasible in L2 classes (which, in a surprising way, ties in with their issues regarding their reports of learning styles). Tracey commented that teachers felt they were failing if the class did not include fun elements, and Sean discussed how he coped with the issue.


It's from CLT or I'm not sure where it comes from. But there is an understanding that as LOTE teachers we must have our classes, [they] must be fun, they must be entertaining, and so [we] play lots of games and kill ourselves trying to entertain our students. If they are not, if it is not entertaining, we feel like we're failing. And students also [say], 'That's boring, Miss." And you think, of course, everything has some bor-

ing, bad, some not interesting parts, right? So that's another part. (Tracey) My understanding of communicative teaching is, I

suppose, teaching in a way rather than just learn [ing] grammar or translat[ing] from one language to another. It involves using learning activities where the students are actually engaged in communicating with other people, of course, usually within [a] class

group.... In that way, I suppose, they are supposed to learn how to use the language more easily than just to try [the] grammatical translation [way] to learn-

ing.... But I have not really used them very much. Well, it's time-consuming. Of course, it's so much easier to use [a] textbook. I mean it would be nicer if it was a textbook with a lot of communicative learning activities in it. To be always making every week, for

every lesson, to make activities in it, it's very time-con-

suming and [I] just wonder, I don't have that much time to spend on it. Because I have other subjects and another class to teach, too. (Sean)

Quite a few participants said they occasionally used CLT activities in classrooms. Alicia described her use of a fun activity.

So you can use group activities or pair activities, interviews, they can be interviewing. For instance, another thing the Year 10 just learned is to say when is your birthday. So they have to go around and ask 10 people that question.... So that's communication. They can go around and ask. This school is very interesting. Hardly anybody was born in [suburb]. So I use activities like that as often as I can. And then also for listening, for instance, today, with one of my Year 10 classes, I was pretending to be their phone answering machine. I'm the answering machine. So they had to take notes. So I pretended to be the person. So I made suggestions. (Alicia)

Almost all teachers reported they needed more time to prepare materials for CLT activities, which related directly to the fact that these teachers perceived there existed a lack of good materials including textbooks for communicative lan-

guage instruction.

We don't use the textbook everyday. My Grade 8, they have no textbook. Next year we'll have one, but this year we don't, because the textbook was not communicative. It was too boring. For Grade 9 we have Is- shoni just for the first time this year. So I use this perhaps half of the time. So after four lessons maybe I'll use it for part of the lessons. And then, we'll use this to practice. And they can use this for a homework

507

exercise. But I don't teach from the textbook, usually I teach something new, before they look at the textbook. So we need more time to prepare our own materials. It's quite hard. It's not like Japan where

they use, everybody uses the same, and same day, same page.... I think I need time to prepare the resources for the students. I think that's really important. To make flash cards, to make the lesson interesting, we need to have really more time. (Debra) The time to reflect as a teacher. [... ] And I teach 27 out of 35 lessons a week. [... ] I might have three or four lessons a week at most of my own preparation and correction time. What I would really love is the luxury of something like a position, a head of Depart- ment, where you have [a] half time table, half teach-

ing, half managing, where you would have time to look at resource materials available and slowly and carefully put together a course. (Joan)

Another major challenge to CLT and its activities was discipline. Margaret revealed in her interview that discipline was the priority and that there was little room for her to use communicative activities in Grade 8 classes. Jane also used a similar

technique to "settle students down."

But unfortunately a lot of our students, lots of students I am teaching at high school at Year 8, they are forced to studyJapanese. So they have very negative attitudes. So if I speak to them in Japanese in the classroom, they switch off from what they want to know. So all of the time I have to speak in English anyway. And they are quite badly behaved students anyway. So the way that I teach Japanese is not really communicative. It's more like I've got to keep these kids quiet, more behaved for 35 minutes. And the main idea is not that I'm teaching at all. The main idea is discipline. (Margaret) Nearly everyday I give them a little quiz to start with the lesson, quite often. And it might be grammar or vocabulary or Kanji or something. Almost everyday, particularly with Grade 8, it settles them down. If they write something, they can concentrate on it. (Jane)

Although LOTE teachers agreed that language learning should be fun, they disagreed that L2

acquisition was not and probably never would be relevant to the average Australian student. But

they neither agreed nor disagreed as a group that one of their problems in teaching a L2 was that

they tried to make learning fun and games. Some teachers agreed, others disagreed, and there was no consensus.

Yet, student motivation and LOTE teachers' concerns about it appeared throughout the interviews. As seen in previous quotations and discussions, these teachers struggled to motivate their students. This particular issue gained momentum when the teachers admitted to their difficulties with subject matter articulation, grammar in-

508

struction, acknowledgment of individual learn-

ing styles, and questionable assessment items. Stu- dent motivation also affected the decision on whether or not to try out CLT.Jane expressed her

difficulty in motivating students who, especially in Grade 8, had to take the subject. Note further that she again highlighted and integrally related the issue of learning styles.

The most critical issue at the junior level is that because they are not streamed academically, we have [a] very wide range of ability from very good to very poor [students in the] language class we have today. And so we must teach "Hiragana." But some students can't master that. So they are already dropping behind. So

by the end of the year, there's a very wide gap. And those students who are very poor become very resent- ful. And it's very hard to maintain the interest level of

everyone, when there's such a wide gap. So that's one of the most critical issues. And I don't know what the answer is, we should stream or what we should do. But that also subtracts from CLT, because, of course, they can't understand. They're slower learners. So they can't write, they can't stand what is happening as well as the better students. So that's one of the most critical issues. (Jane)

Tamara revisited the value of learning another

language:

And also I think it important that students see a value in learning another language, because if they don't see it as just another subject that they have to do, I don't think we're going to have a right attitude to

learning about cultures. And if they are not interested in culture, then, it's also going to make it difficult for them to pick up the language. (Tamara)

Debra lamented the fact that students lacked

motivation because they did not particularly care

for discrete-point learning:

I think sometimes, [students] lack the motivation to

really study a language, the skills of the language. For

example, I can teach them some new words or new

Kanji, but students find it very hard to learn. The students must realize that they need to study. And, of course, if they had a trip toJapan, that would be good motivation for them. (Debra)

Debra did encourage students in Years 11 and

12 to involve themselves in theJapanese language

by watching TV programs and reading. These

activities would, she felt, encourage the students

to be motivated to learn in her advanced classes.

And I'm trying to build up the materials that we have at school so that students can be interested in the

subject. So, for example, if we have students in class, who are interested in sports, they can read some

sporting magazine, so [we] watch the baseball or Sumo on TV. Or if the students are interested in


music, then, they can read a music magazine or watch the video clip, or [sing] some Japanese songs or

something like that. And that makes them more interested. (Debra)

CLT activities appeared, at first glance, to influence student motivation, but this was not neces-

sarily the case. Instead, their focus on form and student discipline made these teachers shy away from CLT activities, or relegate them to the more advanced language learners. Moreover, it appeared that the lack of availability of CLT activities (or time to create them) caused these teachers practically to ignore them. Time was not what these teachers had, so CLT activities were not a

priority. This low priority was apparent in the

scarcity of CLT activities (of any kind) seen dur-

ing observations.

What Japanese Language Teachers Did: Innovative Practices. It was obvious that the teachers believed that CLT activities created too much work for

them, because few participants were observed to use such activities in the classroom. In contrast to their use of the traditional practices mentioned

previously, only a few teachers used student-student interactions or made students use the lan-

guage for real purposes. Of these, two teachers also attempted to use Japanese to a greater extent

than the other teachers did. As mentioned above, Alicia reported using some innovative ideas. Her lesson for Year 9 gave further insight into her

practices.

First, she reviewed some Kanji numbers. She held cards and asked each student to read one. The student picked up the card. She told the student inJapa- nese to show the card to everyone. Others repeated the number. She tried several cards. All these words were related to the topic "restaurant." Then, she showed a Japanese tea cup, a sake cup, and other

things asking questions in Japanese. Students answered in Japanese. She checked homework. Those who did not do the homework stood up, and they were told to come back to the classroom during lunchtime to show the homework. Then, they did translation exercises from the textbook. After giving instruction for the next homework assignment, she

gave students 10 minutes to prepare for a role-play (at the Japanese restaurant) in groups of 3 to 4. One student was a waiter/waitress, and the others were cus- tomers. She walked around the class and sometimes answered students' questions. Then, four groups per- formed in front of the class. Three groups mainly followed the model dialogue, but the last group was in-

teresting because the students did not follow the model dialogue. They made the class laugh. She made some comments on their performance-"Well done" and a little tip about how to order at aJapanese restaurant. (Observation of Alicia)


Although she used role-play, she used it to practice grammatical patterns, and there were few

opportunities for genuine communication

among the students except in the last group's unexpected role-play. The overall focus for the class was to complete tasks from the book, not to negotiate meaning within the tasks.

Laura attempted to involve her students in free conversation during a Year 11 lesson.

First, she checked the homework and reviewed the key expressions which were related to the topic "illness." One key expression was reviewed briefly on the blackboard. Then, she introduced Kanji for some key words such as medicine, hospital, and illness by using mnemonics. Next, using handouts and pictures, she added some other expressions patients would often use. She asked students, "How would you say, when ... ?" Students answered in Japanese, picking up appropriate new expressions. After that, she gave the students 10 minutes to prepare for a role-play between a doctor and a patient. There were no model skits. She went around the class to help some students. But most students seemed comfortable and worked on their original skits. Then it was time to

perform. They did not hesitate at all. They all seemed to be used to role-play. Each of the five pairs per- formed in front of the class. (They really seemed to

enjoy it.) Finally, she gave some feedback about use- ful words and expressions to supplement the lesson. (Observation of Laura)

This observation data provided evidence that Year 11 students did get involved in a form of communicative activity. In fact, they enjoyed it. It is interesting to note that this teacher used a different practice for Year 8. In this instance she paid more attention to discipline.

All the students were outside the classroom. They entered in a line, one by one. Some said hello in

Japanese to me. Everyone was seated, but the class was still noisy. She said in a loud voice, 'Those who don't behave yourselves have no lunch time. It's your choice. So think about it." Then, she called the roll in Japanese. Students had to say '"Yes" in Japanese. She would not accept English, so some students had to repeat in Japanese. Then, she said, "If you behave yourself, I will take you to the basketball court and we'll have a game. Today's topic is 'asking directions."' First, she reviewed some key words. She used a quiz like "Bingo." Instead of saying "Bingo," the students said "Yatta" (I made it!). The students were familiar with the procedure and concentrated on it. All the words were related to the topic. They repeated this game three times. By that time they seemed to be comfortable with these words. Then, she gave the students a handout. It was a map with a school, bank, McDonald's, and so on. She started to use a new expression using the map. She gave a couple of examples. Some students asked, "Miss, what is it?" She said,

509

"Think, think about it." She encouraged students to

guess the meaning. After that, they practiced asking directions in pairs. They went outside to the basketball court to play games in pairs in Japanese. One of each pair was blindfolded and the other partner gave directions to the goal in Japanese. This game was a competition. The students were enthusiastic about it. (Observation of Laura)

This teacher used a range of activities according to grade levels. For Year 8, she used more physically related games such as the total physical response (TPR) through which students inter- preted Japanese. For Year 11, she allowed more free conversation. She also used Japanese for most of the lessons. Laura was originally a music teacher. This teacher's experiences in Ja- pan-learning history in Japan and teaching English-influenced her teaching. Her interview data also documented that she used different approaches with different grades. As she readily acknowledged, she had difficulties implementing communicative activities, especially when trying to incorporate grammar into her lesson. None- theless, her classroom teaching demonstrated that, as she related in her interview, it was her personal L2 learning and teaching experiences that tended to form her conceptions of (communicative) language teaching. (Such a perspective will be discussed more thoroughly in the section below on how teachers learned about CLT.)

Through interviews, observations, and surveys, the participants in this study revealed that they found CLT activities too time-consuming, and they reported numerous challenges to their teaching that, in essence, allowed them to avoid developing CLT techniques while also avoiding the consequences of their challenges and what this meant for their instruction.

Summary. The three data sources revealed four conceptions of these LOTE teachers' ideas about CLT as well as challenges that provided tensions that affected those conceptions. The observation data showed reluctance on the part of teachers to promote CLT and indicated that many teachers avoided (or at least challenged or mutated) the few conceptions of CLT that they held. The interview and survey data explained perhaps why teachers did and thought what they did. Al- though most teachers reported using communicative activities such as role-play, games, survey, group work, and simulations, unfortunately, these things were rarely observed. There were few observed student-student interactions in most of the classrooms. Only two teachers actually used role-play of any type, while most relied on tradi-

510

tional practices: teacher-fronted, repetition, translation, explicit grammar presentation, practice from the textbook, and little or no L2 use or culture integration. Their conceptions of CLT

appeared to have little chance for extensive devel-

opment. Furthermore, their L2 instructional be-

liefs, knowledge, and practices were rarely guided by their conceptions of CLT.

We examine next how these LOTE teachers

thought they learned about CLT and reveal how

they personally made sense of Japanese teaching and learning. The following section unravels just how teachers thought they developed their ideas about CLT.

HOWJAPANESE LANGUAGE TEACHERS LEARNED ABOUT CLT

As the teachers discussed their various ideas about CLT, they were also asked how they learned about CLT, how they came to hold these conceptions of CLT, and what their sources of learning were. Responses from the interviews showed that the teachers learned about CLT from a variety of

things that included personal L2 learning, personal L2 teaching (trial and error), teacher devel-

opment programs, inservices, and other teachers.

Although the teachers learned about CLT

through multiple avenues, personal L2 learning and teaching experiences seemed to have had the

greatest influence.

Personal L2 Learning

How teachers learned L2s as students seemed

to influence heavily their beliefs about language

teaching and, hence, their personal views about

CLT. In particular, those who learned L2 in real

situations had strong beliefs about how students

learn a L2.

In high school I learned French and I learned French not in a communicative way at all. I learned French rather like Japanese students in Japan learning En-

glish. So that was not very much help. When I learned

Japanese in university, I did so much, so much translation and that was not really communicative. I think, when I went out becoming a student teacher and I watched other teachers teach Japanese, and then, after that it's just talking to other teachers and just learning, keep learning. How I teach is very personal and I teach every class in a different way. (Debra) My own LOTE learning history affects, of course, how I learn. I think. That's effective for me. And I say my preferences. Oh, yeah, another thing is my beliefs about kids and how they learn. I feel that kids feel embarrassed, they don't want to keep trying, so I try not to embarrass them. Perhaps my error-correction


is less than it should be, because I don't want them to feel put down. So that impacts as well. (Tracey)

Personal L2 Teaching: The Significance of Trial and Error

The teachers also learned about CLT by teaching; that is, experience in actually teaching Japanese taught them about what they perceived as communicative possibilities. They described how they gained this knowledge through trial and error.

I learned about CLT when I became a teacher, because I don't have any language training. So, apart from experiences teaching English in Japan, I didn't have much language teaching methodology at all. So I think I've done a lot of learning in the last couple of years about how to write an assessment item. So that's real experience from the students rather than

something really theoretical. Yes, so trial and error. (Tamara) But also I think you learn by trial and error, trying something. And if it doesn't work, you change it so that it will be suitable in the situation. (Alicia) I think, initially when I started teaching, I did try to some extent to use [the] communicative language method, but I'm afraid of, [the lack of a] period of time, especially this year, when I have virtually no students with [a] higher motivation level to study Japanese. Maybe one or two at most. I'm afraid, I haven't put much energy into it in developing [a] communicative style in normal activities .... But I must admit, I suppose, when I did try to use that type of activity, students are more enthusiastic about studying. I think that's true. They attempted, particularly younger students, liked to play games rather than

engaging in formal lessons, you know. But again, you know, most of them are not really interested in learn-

ingJapanese anyway. So for them, they would rather

play anything, sorts of games than do any sorts of formal study, whether it will be Japanese or any other

subjects, you know. They are not, on the whole, aca-

demically oriented students in my class, very few, par- ticularlyJapanese classes. (Sean)

It became evident from the teachers' com-

ments that they perceived both the negative and

positive sides of trial and error learning and

teaching with CLT ideas and concepts. This am-

bivalence was further reinforced with interview and observation data; the teachers spoke about

the numerous challenges they faced and how

they found it more prudent to implement tradi-

tional practices over innovative ones.

Teacher Development, Inservice Programs, and Other Teachers

The teachers spoke about learning from these three sources. Nonetheless, the majority of the


LOTE teachers, most of the time, would always digress to how they relied upon themselves and their experiences as described above. They ac-

knowledged these sources, yet in the wider inter-

views, it appeared that their own beliefs filtered what these sources offered, and the context of their own teaching seemed to determine what

they would use from the sources. What they picked up is offered next.

The four LOTE (Japanese) teachers who received Postgraduate Diplomas of Education were

initially exposed to CLT in teacher development programs, and the others spoke of inservice involvement. (Note that because about half of the

participants had little to no LOTE teacher education involvement, inservices were one way of in-

creasing their knowledge).

Communicative language teaching was the style of

teaching that they favored at the University of [name], when I studied [the] Diploma of Education. So everything was supposed to be aimed at developing communicative language teaching skills. (Sean) I learned about CLT at a Postgraduate Diploma of Education course at the University of [name] last year. It was like a cram school. So I actually learned when I did my teaching practice at a high school. (Yumiko)

Teachers who attended a teacher development course gained some ideas about CLT but did not seem to have very thorough explanations of what CLT meant. The teachers who attended inservices related that they had difficulties finding the time necessary to implement the classroom activities that they learned there.

So I think most inservices are giving us techniques which are really encouraging students to use the language they know and encourage them to learn from each other. Yeah, they are not teacher-oriented. It's more group work-oriented and interaction. But every time I go to inservices, I think, "Oh, I should use this. I should use that." And then, sometimes when I get back to school, I just don't have the time to plan all those things. (Tamara)

One teacher lamented the fact that she could not go to a workshop while school was in session.

These days we can't go in school time. It's terrible. And it was so busy after school. So I haven't been to any workshops at all. There was one that I was invited to after school, but it was only discussing exam papers. It wasn't a workshop. From the [region], they haven't given any. There are some for beginning teachers, but not for experienced teachers. (Jane)

Regardless of their preservice backgrounds, the teachers found an additional source in other teachers. In particular, the majority said that

511

watching good and bad teachers and learning about their experiences was quite influential.

I was teaching Japanese without having any training at all in teaching a foreign language. And the other teachers on the staff helped me. And I started to go to inservice trainings, seminars, and I enrolled in a course for 1 year at the University of [name]. It was supposed to be the course about how to teach Japa- nese, but it was also to upgradeJapanese language. A lot of it wasn't actually how to teach Japanese, but it was still a good course. (Is the teacher Ms. [name]?) Yes, she is a good teacher. Ms. [name] showed the model of communicative method in her teaching style. I was able to see what [a] communicative language teacher was supposed to be like. So I could see how I should be teaching. (Margaret) I think over the years, you see good teachers and you see bad teachers. And you develop your own methods according to what you see. So I learn more by example than I learn by reading a book. And of course, we must always adapt to the environment that we're teaching in. You know, that students in every school differ and you must adapt your methodology to suit the students where you are. (Jane)

Summary

The way that these teachers made sense of their L2 teaching and learning was based on their personal experiences; little that we found showed development of their approach within

any type of program or inservice. Although the teachers said they learned about CLT from others by attending teacher development programs and inservices and by watching other teachers, personal L2 learning and teaching experiences filtered through as the primary variables that nurtured their beliefs, knowledge, and practices in L2 teaching and learning. It is interesting to note that these personal experiences seemed to lead to more global beliefs about what they perceived as L2 teaching and learning, and those beliefs did not necessarily include CLT. In the final analysis, the teachers were reluctant to give much credibility to what other teachers or lec- turers said. In this study, our attention was focused on how these teachers developed their own personal understandings within their teach-

ing and learning situations and through their individual beliefs. There was a tendency for some teachers to rely on what they thought they saw some teachers in various classrooms do, and

they rarely indicated that they discussed ideas, notions, and perceptions concerning CLT with their colleagues or university classmates. The teachers in our group learned many lessons about L2 teaching from trial and error in their

512

teaching experiences. Their own classroom suc- cesses and failures influenced the development and efficacy of their use of CLT. The classroom

experiences of these LOTE teachers (in the roles of teacher or student, or both) revealed their beliefs about L2 teaching and learning in

general (and in many cases CLT played a minor

part, if any, within their L2 learning and teaching repertoires). In short, beliefs formed from

personal experiences monitored what the teachers knew and what teacher practice meant to these participants.

DISCUSSION5

A recent special issue of The Modern Language Journal entitled "How Language Teaching is Con- structed" provided an academic perspective on the topic (VanPatten, 1997). In the analysis presented here, an attempt was made to understand L2 teaching from the teachers' perspectives, especially with regard to CLT. Together, the data set

highlighted the beliefs, knowledge, and practices of these 10 Japanese LOTE teachers. We offered

glimpses into how these participants understood L2 learning, L2 teaching, and general teaching and learning notions. The interplay among the issues was complex, yet it was a complexity that these participants dealt with daily.

The beliefs, knowledge, and practices of these teachers created webs of tension that intensified the act of L2 teaching and learning for the participants in this study, regardless of the number of years of experience in teaching and (L2) teacher education background. Additionally, the information from this study provided evidence from the L2 community that supported Pajares's (1992) 16 fundamental assumptions about teachers' educational beliefs. The data here confirmed the tendencies reported in general education studies and described their manifestations, using information from the L2 teachers' interviews, observed classroom instruction, and completed sur-

veys. In the discussion that ensues we seek to give (partial) answers to our three research questions, discuss what was learned by investigating them, and develop questions concerning them and their answers. Finally, we offer ideas for future research.

What Are Japanese LOTE Teachers' Beliefs and Knowledge About (Communicative) Language Teaching?

By using three data sources, we learned that the teachers in our study held four conceptions


about CLT. They believed that CLT (a) emphasized communication in the L2, (b) relied heavily on speaking and listening skills, (c) involved little grammar teaching, and (d) used time-consuming activities. These conceptions were not static; however, numerous difficulties challenged them, and it was the difficulties that helped give meaning to and clarify the four conceptions. Through the difficulties, we learned to view CLT as a fluid

concept that the LOTE teachers were still devel-

oping, and we acknowledged the practical ramifi- cations of their use of CLT. The teachers knew CLT was part of their practice of L2 teaching within this Australian context. Nonetheless, the extent (or development) of CLT as part of their L2 instructional repertoires was related to their own perceived conceptions, understandings, and

challenges. The interview data highlighted the fact that the

teachers believed CLT was possible, even though it was evolving and time-consuming. The observation data revealed the teachers' reluctance to im-

plement either interactive or innovative practices, whereas the survey data showed that they had tendencies to use both CLT and traditional (form-focused, teacher-centred) teaching as-

pects. Together, all three data sets uncovered the

complexity teachers faced in defining their CLT

knowledge, sharing their CLT practice, and ten-

dering their CLT beliefs. Through this study we have learned that practice and theory for these L2 teachers created tensions that not only chal-

lenged their conceptions but also affected their actions in their learning environments. The data

analysis and presentation articulated what teachers thought and, as much as possible, we avoided

comparing their conceptions with other definitions, views, or policies. By so doing, we hope we have begun to create a practical database for CLT.

There are some further questions for future

study that need to be asked with regard to the answers to the first research question. How much time do teachers think it will take to complete the evolution of CLT? How do teachers consciously understand their fluid conceptions of CLT? How do they feel about their conceptions of CLT? To what extent do teachers want to implement CLT? How would reflection on these and other issues affect teachers' conceptions of CLT: their beliefs, knowledge, and practice? How do teachers think their beliefs about L2 teaching interact with their

conceptions of CLT? How would teachers react to

seeing or hearing their own ideas about CLT presented in narrative form? These and other questions provide ample fodder for eventual study.


How Do Japanese LOTE Teachers Implement CLT in Their Classrooms ?

We learned that these LOTE teachers implemented CLT sparingly in their classrooms. Al- though the participants said that they wanted to teach Japanese for communication and priori- tized speaking and listening over writing and reading, in their classrooms they explained the Japanese language in English and promoted discrete-point grammar and vocabulary learning at the expense of interactive, negotiated, and interpreting activities. They reported that they had little time to create activities that promoted the

acquisition ofJapanese. We learned that evolving CLT conceptions constrained and influenced L2 teaching and learning.

It is interesting to note that the teachers reported that CLT involved little grammar learning. Nonetheless, a major challenge mentioned by many of the teachers pertained specifically to grammar instruction. Just what was grammar's role? They said they did not know how to handle grammar in their classrooms, especially when, according to their perceptions, guidelines, scholars, or policy-makers suggested that grammar was not an integral CLT component. These teachers provided evidence that not only did they have difficulty ignoring grammar in what they perceived as CLT, but they had a further problem with how to teach it because most believed it was important for language learners. Regardless, in the classroom it was not unusual to see teachers presenting grammar explicitly, in English, and adhering to texts that were grammatically based.

Celce-Murcia (1991) acknowledged "that TESOL methodologists have not offered consistent advice to teachers about the role of grammar in language teaching over the past 25 years" (p. 462). LOTE methodologists may have a similar problem. Not only are there conflicting practical issues pertaining to grammar (highlighted by these LOTE teachers), but there are also conflicting theoretical issues in the literature as well (for discussions, see, e.g., Celce-Murcia, 1991; Larsen- Freeman, 1991). Finding a means for both practice and theory to work together and improve the learning and acquisition of L2s may be one challenge that practitioners and theoreticians can work on together. Nonetheless, the place of grammar within CLT needs some type of attention from the practical perspectives of these LOTE teachers.

Further questions promoted by the concerns in this section include, among others: To what extent do teachers think they implement CLT? How

513

would teachers classify various happenings (activities, strategies, techniques) in their classroom when videotaped? How would teachers complete a study to demonstrate how CLT is implemented? Do teachers find the challenges in promoting and implementing CLT too numerous to over- come? How can teachers explicitly detail their L2 instruction? How do teachers evolve from a grammar-oriented classroom to a communicatively oriented one? What CLT activities support language acquisition and learning from a teacher's perspective? How would teachers clarify the role of grammar in CLT if pressed?

How Are Japanese LOTE Teachers' Beliefs and Knowledge About (Communicative) Language Teaching Acquired and Developed?

We learned that the Japanese LOTE teachers in this research found out about CLT individually and personally. Although they stated that programs, inservices, and other teachers influenced their teaching, they readily offered evidence that it was their reliance on themselves that deter- mined to no small extent their understandings. Even when reporting that they watched other teachers or included other teachers as a learning source, they seldom described in any detail these conversations with their colleagues. In essence, they watched good and bad teachers and decided for themselves what good and bad practices were with regard to the particular observed strategy or activity. Challenges also played a role with teachers in acquiring and developing their CLT acu- men. The LOTE teachers' CLT beliefs, knowledge, and practices were not complete and continued developing, by the teachers' own ad- mission. They appeared willing to pursue their understandings of CLT. Just how they pursued it would be worthy of in-depth case studies that monitored them daily.

Individual, if not isolated, stances provided a gatekeeping element for what these L2 teachers learned and how they learned it. The analysis provided sufficient evidence to substantiate one of Pajares's (1992) fundamental assumptions that "beliefs are instrumental in defining tasks and selecting the cognitive tools with which to interpret, plan, and make decisions regarding such tasks; hence, they play a critical role in defining behavior and organizing knowledge and information" (p. 325). Participants in this study relied on themselves, and their descriptions and actions reflected their understandings not only about CLT but also about general L2 teaching as well. The LOTE teachers' instruction was guarded by

514

their beliefs and actions and guided by their perceived constraints and possibilities.

Richardson (1994) wrote, "Teachers make decisions on the basis of a personal sense of what works, but without examining the beliefs underlying a sense of 'working,' teachers may perpetuate practices based on questionable assumptions and beliefs" (p. 6). This leads us to some additional

questions that require perusal. Whose perspective of questionable assumptions and beliefs should guide a study? How would teachers feel about examining their beliefs? How would the

university handle teachers studying academicians' beliefs, knowledge, and practices concern-

ing CLT? Do teachers see a connection between how they acquired their (CLT or L2 learning and

teaching) beliefs and how they teach? How do teachers select what they learn from their experiences, from their preservice or inservice programs, from the literature? How do students perceive CLT in the classrooms of these LOTE

(Japanese) teachers?

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The issue of L2 teachers' beliefs, knowledge, and practice is complex. The nuances and sub-

tlety of how these notions interact is elusive, if not evasive. We attempt to highlight the L2 teachers'

perspective and offer a glimpse of CLT from practitioners' understandings. Floden (1997) suggested that

tensions among educational purposes are revealed as we attempt to reach practical accommodations. It is

helpful to see these difficulties clearly. We need, how-

ever, to build on these insights, pushing beyond merely saying that our work is hard. We need to

investigate particular promising approaches, and to

pursue analyses that show why things are hard, in the

hopes of gradual, but significant, improvement. (p. 283, italics original)

We hope that the current article provides not

only a view of practical accommodations, but

also a clear description of what is hard about

understanding and implementing CLT. Further

research that includes participants who represent more Japanese LOTE teachers, other LOTE

teachers, and various LOTE teachers in other countries will help show the difficulties of teach-

ing and learning, and theory and practice. In

addition, it will be important to investigate just how individual teachers interact with their varying challenges within particular contexts. Klein- sasser (1993) is one of the few researchers who studied just how differing school contexts influ-


ence L2 teachers' beliefs and practices. Further

inquiries need to continue uncovering, examin-

ing, and clearly articulating the multiple layers of understanding beliefs, knowledge, and practices. Moreover, other data sources and varying analyses will provide further insight into the interactions of beliefs, knowledge, and practice. Such multiplicity and diversity will allow for both

perceptual and conceptual information (see discussion in Kessels & Korthagen, 1996) that can

truly offer possibilities for significant, gradual improvement that is needed in L2 education at all levels. In revisiting some issues in his seminal

piece Schoolteacher, Lortie (1998) developed his claim "that considerably more research is needed on teachers and their work" (p. 161). We would only add that this includes research, in its various forms, on L2 teachers and their work as well.

NOTES

1 The data for this article were originally collected for an MA thesis (Sato, 1997). Since that time, the data have gone through many extended analyses and the manuscript has gone through numerous revisions (by both the MA student and the thesis supervisor). We are grate- ful to Mary Roe and Donna Foss for their critical reflections and insights on earlier drafts. Yet the responsibility for the manuscript remains ours. We also wish to em-

phasize that this manuscript was written with the intent of sharing it with the L2 teacher education community. This is important to note, as Glesne and Peshkin (1992) reminded us that we need not only to consider the audience for whom we are writing, but also recognize that writing for a particular audience may create some limitations. Relying upon Van Maanen's (1988) work, they wrote, "how does the projected audience shape both the form and the substance of the researcher's

product? The researcher may use tables and charts with one audience, but not with another. Or the researcher

may use a disciplined-based language if writing for col-

leagues, but not for a more general group of people. Researchers tell different things in different ways to different people" (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992, p. 154).

For this manuscript, we chose narrative to present our

findings. We saw our task to articulate clearly the various issues for the L2 teacher education community so they could understand where we were situating ourselves with regard to the study, how we completed our study, and how we viewed our understandings of the findings and implications. We hope we have accomplished this

by writing in a way that includes the community's participation in actively reading the text and negotiating, interpreting, and expressing its many meanings.

2We are aware of the work of Clark and Peterson

(1986), who wrote one of the first reviews of this area of

scholarship. Yet, Pajares (1992) included this work, is


more recent, and integrated more thoroughly the work completed since the 1986 publication. We are also aware of the work of Carter (1990) and Elbaz (1991).

3 The analysis for this article scanned the data for tendencies of issues regarding teachers' years of experience. Overall, the findings appeared to be scattered throughout the data set regardless of years of experience, showing few tendencies that actually contrasted. This should not be surprising as Huberman's (1993) study of 160 secondary teachers found that teachers in varying stages of their teaching career mentioned similar tendencies related to their teaching careers. More- over Huberman reported some challenges when trying to predict various stages of job satisfaction: "In some of the statistical analyses conducted in the study but not reported in this text, we did arrive at reliable predictions of levels of satisfaction at the beginning of the career. We were able to situate the determining factors at mid- career, and to account for the reasons given by teachers who were approaching retirement. But we were not able to predict the intermediary phases of the career. This suggests that professional career journeys are not ade- quately linear, predictable or identical-are often, in fact unexplainable using the tools at our disposal" (pp. 263-265). Nonetheless, perhaps a secondary analysis of this data set using the ideas suggested by Kinginger (1997) may provide additional insight and more thorough understandings. This notwithstanding, the data offer evidence from teachers who are dealing daily with CLT issues and provide documentation of teachers' beliefs, knowledge, and practices.

4 We are concerned with some of the current writing being completed in L2 education regarding L2 teachers. Its lack of detail and rigor in (research) methodology and its tendency to talk about the data rather than presenting them are two areas that are particularly trou- blesome. We are mindful to acknowledge that we are reporting our data through our perspectives (see discussions, for example, in Eisner, 1991; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; and Wolcott, 1990), yet, we also wish to highlight the teachers' voices more completely in order to codify their perspectives (beliefs, knowledge, and practices). We wish the manuscript to represent the story and text we create by relying heavily on the teachers' data. To have the teachers explain what they meant in providing the data would require another further data analysis and writing of another manuscript. Only the teachers as the researchers working with the data could truly en- lighten us as to what they meant or why they said what they said (and then we would still have to be careful of the bias within that type of analysis and presentation). The approach we take here appears to differ from what some people within the L2 community do. We can only agree with Wolcott when he states, "Qualitative researchers seem particularly vulnerable to the tendency-and urge-to go beyond reporting what is and to use their studies as platforms for making pronounce- ments of what ought to be. A critical divide separates the realm of the observable from the realm of values about good and better. This is not simply the matter of a big leap. You cannot bridge the chasm between the descrip-

515

tive and the prescriptive without imposing someone's judgment, whether originating from the people in the setting ('What we really need around here . . .'), from expert opinion ('If these people knew what was good for them ...'), or from the researcher's own assessment ('I cannot help wondering whether.. .'). True, there is an evaluative dimension to all description, but the antidote is restraint" (pp. 55-56).

5 We approach the discussion and conclusion with trepidation, as does Wolcott (1990, p. 55). Yet, the profession still demands some type of closure, so we attempt it. We return to the three research questions that out- lined our narrative and follow Wolcott's advice to review "succinctly what has been attempted, what has been learned, and what new questions have been raised" (Wolcott, 1990, p. 56).

REFERENCES

Ariew, R. (1982). The textbook as curriculum. In T. V. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher (pp. 11-33). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.

Australian Language and Literacy Council. (1996). Lan- guage teachers: The pivot of policy. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service/National Board of Employment, Educa- tion and Training.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Berns, M. S. (1990). Contexts of competence: Social and cultural considerations in communicative language teaching. New York: Plenum Press.

Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. (1995). Japa- nese senior syllabus. Brisbane, QLD, Australia: BSSS.

Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. (1996). Com- municative assessment: Criteria & standards. Bris- bane, QLD, Australia: BSSS.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. InJ. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Carter, K. (1990). Teachers' knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York: Macmillan.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 439-480.

Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 141-152.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought

516

processes. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.

Clyne, M. (1977). Some experiences with primary school German in Melbourne-A first report. Ba-

bel, 13 (2), 3-9.

Clyne, M., Jenkins, C., Chen, I. Y, Tsokalidou, R., &

Wallner, T. (1995). Developing second language from primary school: Models and outcomes. Canberra, ACT, Australia: National Languages and Literacy Insti- tute of Australia.

Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools (CTMLS). (1976). Report of the Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools. Can-

berra, ACT, Australia: Australian Government

Printing Service.

Donmoyer, R. (1987). Why case studies? Reflections on Hord's and Hall's three images. Curriculum In-

quiry, 17, 91-102. Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry

and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan.

Elbaz, F. (1991). Research on teachers' knowledge: The evolution of a discourse.Journal of Curriculum Stud-

ies, 23, 1-19. Floden, R. E. (1997). Communication: Reflections and

implications. In D. M. Byrd & D.J. McIntyre (Eds.), Research on the education of our nation's teachers (pp. 277-284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Foss, D. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1996). Preservice ele-

mentary teachers' view of pedagogical and mathe- matical content knowledge. Teaching & Teacher

Education, 12 (4), 429-442. Fox, C. A. (1993). Communicative competence and be-

liefs about language among graduate teaching assistants in French. Modern Language Journal, 77, 313-324.

Freeman, D. (1993). Renaming experience/recon- structing practice: Developing new under-

standings of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Educa-

tion, 9 (5/6), 485-497. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded

theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Al- dine.

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers. New York: Longman.

Heining-Boynton, A. L. (1990). Using FLES history to

plan for the present and future. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 503-509.

Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Huberman, M. (1993). The lives of teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in

linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods (pp. 3-28). London: Academic Press.

Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teaching and TeacherEduca-

tion, 10, 439-452.


Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to in-

vestigate teachers' attitudes to the communicative

approach. ELTJournal, 50, 187-198.

Kawagoe, N. (1989). A report on Japanese language teaching in secondary schools in Queensland, Australia. Journal ofJapanese Language Teaching, 67, 118-127.

Kessels, J. P. A., & Korthagen, F. A. J. (1996). The rela-

tionship between theory and practice: Back to the classics. Educational Researcher, 25 (3), 17-22.

Kinginger, C. (1997). A discourse approach to the study of language educators' coherence systems. Modern

Language Journal, 81, 6-14. Kleinsasser, R. C. (1993). A tale of two technical cul-

tures: Foreign language teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 373-383.

Koide, F. (1976). First Australian seminar on Japanese language teaching. Journal of Japanese Language Teaching, 30, 13-37.

Krathwohl, D. R. (1993). Methods of educational and social science research. New York: Longman.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1992). Macrostrategies for the sec-

ond/foreign language teacher. Modern Language Journal, 76, 41-49.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). Maximizing learning potential in the communicative classroom. ELTJournal, 47, 12-21.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition:

(E)merging strategies for second/foreign lan-

guage teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 27-48. Lamb, M. (1995). The consequences of INSET. ELT

Journal, 49, 72-80.

Lange, D. L. (1982). The problem of articulation. In T. V. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, competence and the for-

eign language teacher (pp. 113-137). Skokie, IL: Na- tional Textbook Company.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Consensus and divergence on the content, role, and process of teaching grammar. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1991: Lin-

guistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art

(pp. 260-272). Washington, DC: Georgetown Uni-

versity Press. Littlewood, W. T. (1981). Communicative language teach-

ing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lo Bianco, J. (1987). National policy on languages. Can-

berra, ACT, Australia: Australian Government

Printing Services. Lortie, D. C. (1998). Unfinished work: Reflections on

Schoolteacher. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M.

Fullen, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 145-162). Nether-

lands, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Re-

searcher, 17 (12), 13-17. Mitchell, R. (1988). Communicative language teaching in

practice. London: Gower.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice teaching. Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328.

Neustupny, J. V. (1981). The analysis of foreign user situations and the teaching of Japanese: A sum-


mary. Journal of Japanese Language Teaching, 45, 105-106.

Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELTJournal, 41, 136-145.

Okazaki, H. (1996). Effects of a method course for preservice teachers on beliefs on language learning. Journal ofJapanese Language Teaching, 89, 25-38.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

Queensland Department of Education. (1989). In other words: A sourcebook for language other than English, senior primary/junior secondary. Brisbane, QLD, Australia: QDE, Curriculum Development Ser- vices.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 19 (7), 10-18.

Richardson, V. (1994). Conducting research on practice. Educational Researcher, 23 (5), 5-9.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102-119). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmil- lan.

Sato, K. (1997). Foreign language teacher education: Teach- ers'perceptions about communicative language teaching and their practices. Unpublished masters' thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley Longman.

Savignon, S.J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 261-277.

Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice (2nd ed.). Sydney, NSW, Aus- tralia: McGraw-Hill.

Savignon, S.J., & Berns, M. S. (Eds.). (1984). Initiatives in communicative language teaching. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Savignon, S.J., & Berns, M. S. (Eds.). (1987). Initiatives

517

in communicative language teaching II. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Scarino, A., Vale, D., McKay, P., & Clark,J. (1988). Aus- tralian Language Levels (ALL) guidelines. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Curriculum Development Centre.

Schulz, R., & Bartz, W. (1975). Free to communicate. In G. Jarvis (Ed.), Perspective: A new freedom (pp. 47-92). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.

Senate. (1984). National language policy. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Government Printing Ser- vice.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Founda- tions of the new reform. Harvard Educational Re- view, 57, 1-22.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text, and interaction. London: SAGE Publications.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

StatView. (1993). The solution for data analysis and presentation graphics [Computer software]. Berkeley, CA: Abacus Concepts, Inc.

Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50, 9-15.

Vale, D., Scarino, A., & McKay, P. (1991). Pocket ALL. Carlton, VIC, Australia: Curriculum Corporation.

Van Maanen,J. (1988). Tales of thefield: On writingethnog- raphy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

VanPatten, B. (Ed.). (1997). How language teaching is constructed [special issue]. Modern Language Jour- nal, 81.

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, 130-178.

Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Wolcott, H. F. (1990). Writingup qualitative research. New- bury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Web Site for ACTFL Research SIG

The ACTFL Special Interest Group for Research announces their new Web site: http://www.uiowa.edu/-actflsig/index.html

Look for paper sessions, poster sessions, and a business meeting at ACTFL Annual Meetings. Proposals for sessions are solicited.

clt in practice

Documents

mutations of clt

learningabout clt

language teachers perspectives

anteaching clt savignon

scholars advance clt

modern language journal

savignon berns

theselanguage teaching