7/30/2019 01434632.2012

1/13

This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)]On: 29 March 2012, At: 03:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Moving towards effective English

language teaching in Japan: issues and

challengesMitsuyo Sakamoto a

aDepartment of English Studies, Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan

Available online: 16 Mar 2012

To cite this article: Mitsuyo Sakamoto (2012): Moving towards effective English languageteaching in Japan: issues and challenges, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,

DOI:10.1080/01434632.2012.661437

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.661437

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.661437http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.661437http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

7/30/2019 01434632.2012

2/13

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

Mitsuyo Sakamoto*

Department of English Studies, Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan

Compared with other countries in Asia, Japan is far behind in terms ofintroducing and delivering bilingual education, let alone effective immersionprogrammes. In order to make its citizens more bilingual, Japan has beenintroducing innovative measures including the implementation of the teaching of

English in elementary education and a new curriculum guideline requirement ofusing English exclusively in all high school English classes. However, theseinnovations are met with opposition and obstacles. Before Japan can introduceeffective bilingual and immersion programmes comparable to those in Europe,North America and other Asian countries, it is crucial that Japan addresses theseconcerns. At the same time, other linguistic resources unique to Japan are beingneglected. To elaborate and explore the above issues, this article focuses on publicEnglish education and ethnic bilingual schools in Japan.

Keywords: Japan; English education; bilingualism; ethnic schools

Introduction

In this globalised world, English enjoys the prestigious status as the worlds linguafranca, an indispensable communicative tool to effectively take part in economic,

social and political discourse (Phillipson 1992, 2009). Japan no doubt espouses this

belief and aspires to heighten its English profile. However, the reality is that Japan

currently ranks 29th of the 30 Asian countries in Test of English as a Foreign

Language (TOEFL) scores (ETS 2009). This failure reflects Japans lag in terms of its

effectiveness in English language education compared with other Asian countries,

including China and Korea. This article documents ways in which Japan is currently

coping with this undesirable reality and explores challenges that lie ahead in delivering

effective English programmes in order to become a bilingual (e.g. JapaneseEnglish)

nation.This article focuses on public English education in elementary, junior high and

senior high schools as well as ethnic bilingual schools in Japan. Specifically, it

discusses the following major obstacles that Japan faces in moving towards more

effective English teaching:

The Japanese education system lacks teachers who can sustain a bilingual orimmersive1 (i.e. all-English) teaching environment.

*Email: mitsuy-s@sophia.ac.jp

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

2012, 112, iFirst article

ISSN 0143-4632 print/ISSN 1747-7557 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.661437

http://www.tandfonline.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.661437http://www.tandfonline.com/http://www.tandfonline.com/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.661437

7/30/2019 01434632.2012

3/13

The Japanese education system also lacks sufficient teacher training/certification forimmersive English language teaching.

There is ambivalence/resistance on the part of the public in devoting efforts andfunding on English education.

There is a lack of empirical studies that report on the benefits of bilingual/immersion programmes in Japan.

Bilingual and immersion schools are few in number and are designed as elitistprogrammes that target only Japanese nationals; the current bilingual programmesneglect the linguistic and social capitals (Bourdieu 1991) of non-Japanese children.

Ethnic schools, because they are designated as miscellaneous institutions,contribute to the discontinuity of minority childrens bilingual development.

To emphasise, Japans challenges in fostering a strong bilingual nation are largely

twofold. First, Japans ill-preparedness in terms of training English language teacherswho are equipped to deliver effective and all-English teaching. This ill-preparedness,

together with unawareness of the benefits of bilingual education, is fuelling the public

unease with regard to the emphasis on English language teaching in schools, especially

at the elementary level. Second, its inability to capitalise on the multicultural base

offered by minority children attending ethnic schools is stagnating the globalisation

and internationalisation that Japan so desperately aspires for.

Theoretical framework

Cummins (2001) has long been advocating bilingual education, noting its effective-ness in promoting both the first language (L1) and the second language (L2).

According to his linguistic interdependence hypothesis, the two languages share a

common underlying proficiency that gives rise to both L1 and L2 academic language

development. Supporting this hypothesis are numerous studies that report on the

positive correlations found between L1 and L2 learning (e.g. Ramirez 1992;

Ricciardelli 1992, 1993; Thomas and Collier 1997; Verhoeven 1991, 1994). For

example, Thomas and Collier (1997) report on the analyses of 42,317 students who

studied between 1982 and 1996. They discovered that the students who academically

succeeded were those in the two-way developmental bilingual education programmes

where L1 and L2 are used in equal proportions, and those who performed the worstwere those who were placed in English as a Second Language (ESL) pullout

programmes. Ricciardelli (1992, 1993) reports on ItalianEnglish bilingual children

compared with monolingual English speakers in Australia and monolingual Italian

speakers in Italy. The results at both sites indicate how bilingual children

outperformed the other groups on creative thinking, metalinguistic awareness and

verbal/non-verbal abilities. Similarly, Verhoeven (1991, 1994) reports on the Turkish-

Dutch bilingual programmes, endorsing how instruction in L1 does lead to better

literacy results in L1 with no retardation of literacy results in L2 . . . literacy skills

being developed in one language strongly predict corresponding skills in another

language (Verhoeven 1991, 72).

In terms of empirical studies involving Japanese learners, Sasaki (1996) reportson the strong positive relationship found between L2 proficiency and L1 cognitive

abilities among 160 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students in Japan. Noting

2 M. Sakamoto

7/30/2019 01434632.2012

4/13

this positive interdependence between L1 and L2 development, Cummins and

Danesi (1990, 75) further claim that attainment of L1 while promoting L2 is a

feasible, and indeed a desirable option in language learning:

. . . multilingual abilities that children acquire . . . represent human resources that haveenormous value to the nations economic and diplomatic endeavours.

For Cummins and Danesi (1990), multilingual abilities are desirable and feasible

to acquire. Given the research findings (e.g. Ricciardelli 1992, 1993; Verhoeven 1991,

1994), languages could be acquired additively, where L2 learning not only adds onto

but enhances L1 learning as well. In turn, multilinguality of a nation can bring about

social, economic and political benefits. Therefore, according to Cummins and Danesi

(1990), any nation that relinquishes its opportunities to pursue bilingualism (if not

multilingualism) is wasting its national resources.

Bourdieu (1991, 56) claims that linguistic and cultural knowledge can transcend

as being linguistic and cultural capitals that help individuals to attain legitimatecommunity membership and participate actively in the formal markets. Indeed,

Peirce (1995) notes how language learning is a form of an investment that one can

make.

In order to acquire this legitimate membership in the international forum, Japan

is striving to uplift its international profile. This primarily includes the internatio-

nalisation of Japanese individuals (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science

and Technology [MEXT n.d.a.]), and English language learning is understood as

comprising a large part of its internationalisation process. Indeed, English language

is often associated with notions of power (Honey 1997; Crystal 1997), English

dominating and overtaking other languages (e.g. linguistic imperialism [Phillipson1992, 2009] and ecology of language [Mulhauser 1996]). In this sense, English is

ascribed an instrumental role that allows the Japanese to attain competitiveness in

the global market.

Given the assumption that English is a tool, the interest of English educators,

researchers and policymakers in Japan is to improve the quality of English language

education. This has led to the preponderance of studies in how to effectively teach

English while ignoring the development of other languages in Japan.

Background

Japan is said to be dwindling in terms of its population. Nevertheless, of approximately

130 million Japanese nationals, currently there are as many as 1,605,912 kindergar-

teners, 6,993,376 elementary grade students, 3,558,166 junior high school students and

3,368,693 senior high school students, adding up to 15,526,147 students nationwide. In

addition, there are 129,985 students attending schools under the miscellaneous

category, which houses all private ethnic schools (i.e. schools that offer linguistic and

cultural instruction in an ethnic first language [L1] other than Japanese) (MEXT

2010a). Currently, the largest Asian population in Japan is Koreans (1,835,377)

followed by mainland Chinese (1,236,250) (See Table 1).

It is evident that there is a substantial presence of non-English speakers in Japan,

especially Asians, including Chinese and Koreans. Japanese junior high schools arerequired to teach a foreign language; however, most junior and senior high schools

choose to teach English, not Korean or Chinese. This reflects Japans attitude

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 3

7/30/2019 01434632.2012

5/13

towards English, ascribing it socio-economic prestige as well as desired ideology

(Seargeant 2009). Since the Second World War, Japan has implemented English as a

school subject beginning in middle school (i.e. Grade 7) (National Institute for

Educational Policy Research 2002), and in 2002 a foreign language officially became

a mandatory subject (MEXT n.d.a.). While the government does not specify what

this foreign language is, and it is up to the individual schools discretion to decide

what they would offer, English is the choice most schools make.

While in recent years the trend in English language teaching has shifted to

communicative language teaching that focuses on the conveyance of meaning instead

of teaching the mechanics of language, the majority of teaching still resorts to the

traditional direct grammar method. This has been largely due to the washback effect,

that is, the influence of testing on teaching and learning (see Alderson and Wall 1993;

Cheng et al. 2004) deriving from the entrance examinations required in pursuing

studies in high school and university. As a result, Japanese students are often

described as being competent in literacy skills but severely lacking English oral and

aural skills.

In order to address this imbalance in language competence, MEXT implemented

several measures (MEXT 2002), including the introduction and implementation of

Super English High Schools (SELHi)2 (MEXT n.d.b.) and the hiring of Assistant

Language Teachers (ALTs) who are native English language speakers (MEXT

2010b). In addition, the government introduced English language instruction in all

Japanese elementary schools, starting from Grade 5 in April 2011 (MEXT 2009).

However, the Japanese Governments endeavours to promote English teaching

are not without controversy. For example, in elementary school, English language is

not designated as a school subject but rather an activity, implying more or less an

add-on, peripheral status. For these English activities, students are not assigned any

grades. Furthermore, the implementation of English teaching at the elementary level

is made without substantial in-service and pre-service training of elementary

schoolteachers during their teacher training in university. Moreover, unlike the

North American system where students are trained in the education faculty after

receiving a post-secondary undergraduate degree, teacher training in Japan is offered

concurrently with other subjects during undergraduate years, therefore making it

difficult for the pre-service candidates to concentrate on their teaching-related

subjects.Much like North American elementary schoolteachers, Japanese elementary

teachers are responsible for teaching all subjects, including Japanese, mathematics

Table 1. Non-Japanese residing in Japan in 2010.

Nationality Number and percentage of non-Japanese population residing in Japan in 2010

Chinese 687,156 (32.2)Koreans 565,989 (26.5)

Brazilians 230,552 (10.8)Filipinos 210,181 (9.8)Peruvians 54,636 (2.6)Americans 50,667 (2.4)Other 334,970 (15.7)Total 2,134,151

Adopted from Japanese Ministry of Justice (2011).

4 M. Sakamoto

7/30/2019 01434632.2012

6/13

and science, all of which are taught in Japanese. However, they are not trained in

English language teaching, and it might be years since they last received any English

language instruction. Unlike junior high and senior high school English teachers who

have received specific training in English language teaching, the onus of English

teaching is unfairly placed on elementary schoolteachers.

The introduction of English to elementary education: the public, the teacher and the

student perspectives

The introduction of English to elementary education in Japan has stirred

controversies among Japanese nationals at large. Some parents, teachers, researchers

and policy-makers have been reacting adversely to the implementation of elementary

English education (e.g. Otsu 2006; Torikai 2006). The concerns include the

imperialistic nature that the English language entails; the ill-preparedness of teacher

training and curriculum of English; and the increasing importance of teaching other

subjects, especially the Japanese language (Fujiwara 2005).Benesse (2010) conducted a cross-sectional study to investigate the preparedness

on the part of elementary schoolteachers. A survey was conducted among 2326

classroom teachers, asking about their sentiments towards English language

education. About 68.1% of the teachers report how they are not confident in

delivering English instruction, while only 1.6% report to be very confident. The

teachers lack of confidence in their own English proficiency amounts to the burden

they feel in conducting English classes; 62.1% of 2315 teachers report that they feel

overwhelmed in teaching English while only 4.3% express their ease in offering

English classes. Of the challenges faced by these teachers, they list lack of preparation

time as the most serious problem (57.9%), followed by the lack of time to meet withthe ALT (39.7%) and the lack of English skills on the part of the teacher (33.6%).

Similarly, it is found that only 1.4% of junior high school English teachers report

that they use English exclusively. In contrast, 39.4% claim that they use English 50%

of the time, 43.3% claim to use it for 30% of the time and 2.7% said that they hardly

ever use English in class (Benesse 2009b). These figures do not necessarily undermine

teachers beliefs in communicative language teaching. In fact, 77% of teachers noted

that English should be taught as a means for communication purposes. However, at

the same time, only 35.1% of the teachers claimed to practice active communicative

English teaching in class (Benesse 2009b).

These results demonstrated how elementary schoolteachers as well as junior highschool teachers of English felt about themselves and their English teaching. This

reality may subsequently affect high school English language programmes, consider-

ing that the Japanese Government has announced an implementation of new

curriculum guidelines (i.e. New Course of Study, MEXT 2002) for junior and senior

high schools effective in 2013. While the new guideline for high school will not be

implemented until 2013, and hence currently there is no research conducted that

investigates the impact of the new guideline on junior and senior high school English

teachers per se, it is already stirring controversies, especially in terms of the

governments mandate on conducting all English classes in high school entirely in

English. Given that the current English teachers are those who have undergone the

traditional grammar-based English curriculum in Japan, they lack confidence interms of their English oral and aural skills. The Japanese Government s task should

be to alleviate this reluctance and fear on the part of these teachers, and call for

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 5

7/30/2019 01434632.2012

7/13

effective training programmes for both in-service and pre-service teachers of English

at all levels elementary school in particular.

As for the students attitudes towards English, Yoshida et al. (2011) have

conducted a longitudinal study that investigates the differences between the children

who have begun English in elementary grades as opposed to others who started in

Grade 7. The findings suggest that students who begin their English education early

report that they like English. Yet, a closer look reveals that motivation and positive

attitude towards English do not necessarily translate into English learning. Yoshida

et al. (2011) attribute this to the fact that English teaching prior to junior high school is

fundamentally different in nature compared with that after elementary school. That is,

there is a lack of cohesiveness between elementary and junior high school English

education, the former being meaning-focused and the latter form-focused.

Yoshida et al.s findings are supported by a similar study conducted by Benesse

(2009a). It is reported that prior to entering junior high school, 45% of the students

report liking English (Benesse 2009a). Ironically, once formal teaching begins, 57.7%

report that they dislike English (Benesse 2009a). In fact, according to junior highschool students, among the nine school subjects in junior high school, English ranks

second from the bottom in terms of students favourite subjects (Benesse 2009a). A

closer look reveals how the learners express difficulties in attaining English

productive skills (i.e. speaking and writing) as opposed to receptive skills.

Furthermore, the students list grammar as the aspect they dislike the most. However,

academic literacy skills, or what Cummins (2001) describes as Cognitive Academic

Language Proficiency, show gradual improvement over the three years in junior high

school as students receive English instruction as a foreign language subject. This is in

disproportion to the reported decline in motivation to learn English for Japanese

youths in Japan.This reflects how English classes in Japan have adapted so that they address

questions that appear on high school, and subsequently university, entrance exams.

Japan has a six-year elementary, three-year junior high school and three-year senior

high school system. While some private schools offer continuous education up to or

even including university, public schools do not. This in turn signifies the importance

of passing entrance exams in order to climb the academic ladder.

Suggestions for English education reform in Japan

The systematic teaching of English as a school subject and the significant weightEnglish knowledge has on entrance exams give rise to the teaching according to

examinations (Cheng et al. 2004). English language learning is described as more

communicative and enjoyable when the learners are younger, but the language

quickly turns into a school subject that demands grammatical accuracy and extensive

vocabulary knowledge (Benesse 2009b). Furthermore, the English language teaching

in junior high schools quickly transforms into a grammar-oriented, translation-based

approach that is remote from the English teaching widely practiced in elementary

school.

In order to fundamentally reform Japanese English education, the entrance

exams must first change. The grammar and translation-based approach led to the

nurturing of Japanese who can read and write English but are ill-equipped at oraland aural communicative skills. In order to address this, Japanese universities are

moving towards a more communicative-oriented approach in their teaching and

6 M. Sakamoto

7/30/2019 01434632.2012

8/13

testing. For example, Sophia University in collaboration with the Society for Testing

English Proficiency has introduced a new set of English examinations that takes a

very different approach from those that have been used widely over the years. The

new examination, called Test of English for Academic Purposes (TEAP) (Sophia

University n.d.), has been devised to meet the Japanese needs in teaching and

learning English and is intended to replace the traditional grammar and translation-

based examinations. TEAP addresses all four language skills to holistically measure

the learners English proficiency. This change has been long overdue, as the

traditional tests have placed emphasis on only reading, grammar and translation

skills. This led to the washback effect that schools concentrate their efforts only on

these skills. Given the paradigm shift, publishers are also redesigning their textbooks

to make them more communicatively oriented. By 2013, a new set of high school

textbooks for the new school subject Communication English will be released.

English immersion/bilingual schools in JapanWhile the Japanese public schools are striving to shift their efforts in delivering

communicative English programmes, there are immersion and bilingual schools in

Japan that exclusively or extensively use English for instruction. The oldest and most

prominent bilingual school approved by MEXT is Katoh Gakuen located in

Shizuoka Prefecture. The school began its English immersion programme in April

1992 and now offers classes entirely in English in earlier grades and transiting to a

bilingual programme from Grades 7 to 12. While the school uses some pre-fabricated

materials that are available from publishers, many of their teaching materials in

elementary school are designed by the teachers themselves. The school adopts an

early immersion model in elementary school, and the programme shifts to a bilingualprogramme in junior high school. For example, in the junior high school division,

Japanese, history, politics, music and physical education are taught in Japanese,

whereas English, geography, science and homeroom are conducted in English.

Mathematics enjoys classes offered in both Japanese and English but it is primarily

taught in the L2. Review classes, conducted in Japanese to assure comprehension, are

offered for science and geography in Grades 79 (Katoh Gakuen Gyoshu High

School and Middle School n.d., 5).

Elementary school children transfer from one classroom to another, as each

classroom physically represents the language that is used. The elementary division of

Katoh Gakuen does not have a so-called staff room for the teachers. Teachers havetheir own classroom which the children visit. As one class in Japanese ends, the

children hurry off to the next class that is conducted in English. While it started with a

humble beginning of just 28 students, the programme now has more than 570 students

(Katoh Gakuen n.d.). The school has attracted media attention as well as interests

from Japanese parents, researchers and policy-makers, but there are no empirical

findings yet that account for these bilingual childrens L1 and L2 proficiency in

bilingual schools, such as Katoh Gakuen, in comparison with monolingual children

elsewhere in the Japanese school system.

Unlike international schools (e.g. American schools where instruction is also

entirely in English) that are not certified by the Japanese Government, Katoh

Gakuen is an authorised school that is given full privileges like other Japaneseschools. Hence, the graduates of Katoh Gakuen enjoy the same rights as other

students when it comes to applying to secondary and post-secondary institutions.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7

7/30/2019 01434632.2012

9/13

The goal of the school is to educate Japanese who are versed in both L1 (Japanese)

and L2 (English) as well as Japanese and Western cultures. In this sense, the school is

geared towards nurturing a Japanese elite with English abilities (MEXT 2002).

Given the success of Katoh Gakuen, similar schools across the nation are emerging,

including Gunma International Academy in Ota-city, Gunma Prefecture. Despite

their popularity, these schools are difficult to operate and sustain, especially

retaining bilingual teachers as they tend to relocate after a few years of teaching

in Japan (personal communication with the director of Educational Foundation of

Ota Kokusai Gakuen, December 2010; with the assistant director of Katoh Gakuen,

September 2011).

Bi/trilingual ethnic schools in Japan

While the Japanese Government is making efforts to improve English learning on the

part of Japanese youths, they are neglecting another source of English speakers in

Japan: foreign children studying in ethnic schools. According to Cummins (2001),additive language learning is a feasible and desirable educational option to pursue.

The ethnic schools are realising this option, implementing bilingual (e.g. Japanese-

Chinese) or trilingual (e.g. JapaneseChineseEnglish) instructions.

There are numerous ethnic schools in Japan that operate under an independent

schooling system. They are not protected under the Japanese Education Law Act

One that designates Japanese schools as the only full-fledged schools. Ethnic schools,

despite their efforts in delivering effective bilingual (i.e. L1 and Japanese [L2]) if not

trilingual (i.e. L1, Japanese [L2] and English [L3]) instruction, are discriminated

against as schools in the miscellaneous category not supervised by the Japanese

Government. This is despite the fact that Japanese nationals do attend these schools.As a result of their lack of legitimacy in the Japanese education system, many parents

opt to re-enrol their children in a Japanese institution once the children complete

elementary schooling (Sugimura and Sakamoto 2009). This way, their children

become, to a certain extent, bi/trilinguals earlier on and are still ensured of pursuing

academic careers, continuing onto Japanese middle- and high school and then to a

credible Japanese university. This, however, in turn translates into the termination of

successful bi- and trilingual education upon completion of the elementary school

(Sakamoto 2009).

In contrast, the so-called international schools (e.g. American schools) that

reflect Western languages and ideologies were, while also designated as miscella-neous, treated differently by MEXT compared with Asian ethnic schools (Sano

2011). For example, the graduates of international schools have a wider range of

universities to apply to, while Asian ethnic schools are not given such special

provisions. That is, the graduates of Asian ethnic schools are not deemed to have

completed proper schooling and hence are not deemed to be on a par with other

Japanese graduates. This discrimination translates to disqualification on the part of

ethnic school graduates to sit for the Japanese universities entrance exams and

compete with other Japanese students. In Japanese society, of many foreign

languages, English is designated as having the most social prestige. This is why

Japanese returnees from English-speaking countries often enjoy higher social status

and academic mobility compared with monolingual Japanese speakers. Thislinguistic divide contributes to the emergence of a social hierarchy based on

language knowledge, thus making English skills the only desirable foreign language

8 M. Sakamoto

7/30/2019 01434632.2012

10/13

skills to acquire in Japan. This is a serious waste of national resources in terms of a

variety of languages (Cummins and Danesi 1990) not only for the Japanese but for

the global community at large, as children who attend Chinese school, for example,

are reported to be highly proficient in L1 (Chinese) and L2 (Japanese), as well as

having a good command in L3 (English) (Sugimura and Sakamoto 2009). Sadly,

these bilingual (i.e. Chinese

Japanese) children opt to discontinue their heritage

schooling, given the ascription of non-legitimate status by MEXT. In order to assure

successful academic mobility, parents choose to transfer their children to a Japanese

school, so that the children can proceed to higher education. As long as the ethnic

schools are designated in the discriminatory category of miscellaneous, the

discontinuity of bilingual schooling continues. Ethnic schools have been effective

in inviting and hiring teachers from overseas and using textbooks devised in their

home countries. This translates into efficient and effective language teaching where

teachers can exclusively teach in the foreign language. In such an environment,

children come to quickly learn L1 (e.g. Chinese), L2 (Japanese) and L3 (English).

This systematic approach employed by ethnic schools in raising L1

L2 bilingualsappears to be successful when the children are younger. However, the pursuit of

bilingual education in these schools is met by various obstacles, mostly political,

halting the development of bilinguals in Japan in general.

For example, the Tokyo Chinese School is not accredited by MEXT, which

creates two major limitations: first, the students have fewer options for academic

pursuits, as the graduates of the Tokyo Chinese School are not considered to have

completed the curriculum set by MEXT. Second, they receive no financial aid from

MEXT; hence, the school is operated with funds collected from various Chinese

enterprises to subsidise students tuition fees. These limitations further amount to

hegemonic practice on the part of the Japanese government, assigning particularsocial positions to these schools, thus negating social diversity and plurality in Japan

(Sakamoto 2009, 42, 43). This discriminatory practice reflects a particular socio-

political reality: the miscellaneous category of the school attracts students when they

are younger, but later the students opt to enrol in Japanese junior and senior high

schools to assure successful academic pursuit into post-secondary education. As they

get older, the majority of students choose to switch to a Japanese school that is

accredited by MEXT. Those students who remain at the school are those whose

Japanese (L2) is not yet at a par with other Japanese high school students. This

discrete discriminatory practice on the part of the Japanese Government is wasting

Japans cultural and linguistic capital (Bourdieu 1991; Cummins and Danesi 1990).

Conclusion

This paper provides a synthesis of some of the innovations in English language

education that Japan has been implementing in order to raise its international profile

over the recent years, focusing in particular on elementary English education and

ethnic bi/trilingual schools. These innovative attempts are to begin English education

earlier (i.e. Grade 5) and to require English teachers exclusively to use English in

teaching. While these initiatives appear sensible, they are met with difficulties among

the English educators as well as elementary schoolteachers who lack the confidence

to actually deliver communicative-oriented English teaching. This lack of confidenceis further exasperated by the lack of sufficient pre-service and in-service training in

place for these teachers to offer effective English instruction. In addition, there is a

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9

7/30/2019 01434632.2012

11/13

strong public sentiment that offering English language instruction in early years is

unwarranted and in fact undesirable (Otsu 2006; Torikai 2006). The teaching of

English in elementary school is very much contested by the public at large. On the

other hand, while English immersion and bilingual programmes and bi- and tri-

lingual ethnic schools offer hope for successful English language training for

Japanese students, their effectiveness is not empirically studied, resulting in a serious

lack of research in the area.

Bilingual and immersion programmes in Japan are still few in number, making it

difficult for all to access. As is, Japanese bilingual and immersion programmes are

inevitably elitist in nature, unable to cater to all children. On the other hand, bi/

trilingual ethnic schools successfully nurture bi/trilinguality of their minority

children, but their efforts are met with obstacles, as the ethnic schools are not

designated as official schools by the Japanese Government. This amounts to the

parents discontinuing bi/trilingual studies at ethnic school in order to assure their

childrens academic mobility. This translates into the abandonment of bilingual if not

trilingual possibilities for the minorities residing in Japan a waste of national

linguistic and cultural resources (Cummins and Danesi 1990) of rich linguistic and

cultural capital (Bourdieu 1991).

The Japanese Government does believe in additive language learning (Lambert

1975) where English could be added onto Japanese. However, their approach is naive,

haphazard and disorganised as they rush and impose the teaching of English only

with economic, political and cultural ambitions while dismissing the possibilities of

what other languages and children of other nationalities could offer. Kramsch (2009)

emphasises how the learning of other non-English languages can also lead to the

construction of perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, aspirations, values through the use of

symbolic forms (7) but Japans efforts focus only on English education per se for the

Japanese. As is, Japans efforts in promoting English teaching and learning are

entrenched in imperialistic and hegemonic discourse (Phillipson 1992, 2009). Japans

naive assumption that English language knowledge alone would bring about an

auspicious future for Japan is being translated into rushed implementation of

immersive English language programmes in schools.

In order to pursue effective English teaching, efforts are being made to espouse a

more communicatively oriented language teaching approach (e.g. devising a new set

of entrance examinations [Sophia University n.d.] and a new curriculum guideline

[MEXT 2002]) that mandates more English instruction in class, but as is, without

sufficient teacher training and without teacher confidence in using English, teachers

are forced to introduce English unprepared; teachers are told to exclusively use

English in class; and students are expected to become better English oral

communicators. What Japan lacks is a precise vision and profound understanding

as to what these endeavours entail in reality.

Notes

1. An immersive programme does not refer to an immersion programme. Here, immersiveprogramme refers to a foreign language class instructed entirely in English, whereas

immersion programmes are those whose entire curriculum including language arts,mathematics and sciences are conducted entirely in L2.2. SELHi project funded 169 junior high and senior high schools nationwide from 2002 to

2009 for innovative English language teaching.

10 M. Sakamoto

7/30/2019 01434632.2012

12/13

References

Alderson, J. C., and D. Wall. 1993. Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics 14: 11529.Benesse. 2009a. Chugakko eigo ni kansuru kihon chosa (Kyoin chosa) [Basic research about

English in junior high school (Teacher perspectives)]. Tokyo: Benesse.Benesse. 2009b. Chugakko eigo ni kansuru kihon chosa (Seito chosa) [Basic research about

English in junior high school (Student perspectives)]. Tokyo: Benesse.Benesse. 2010. Shogakko eigo ni kansuru kihon chosa (Kyoin chosa) 2010 daijesuto [Basic

research about English in elementary school (Teacher perspectives) 2010 digest]. Tokyo:Benesse.

Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Cheng, L., Y. Watanabe, and A. Curtis. 2004. Washback in language testing. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.Crystal, D. 1997. English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Cummins, J. 2001. Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society.

Ontario: CABE.Cummins, J., and M. Danesi. 1990. Heritage languages: The development and denial of

Canadas linguistic resources. Toronto: Our Schools/Our Selves Education Foundation.

ETS. 2009. Test and score data summary for TOEFL internet-based and paper-based tests.http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/test_score_data_summary_2009.pdf (accessedOctober 28, 2011).

Fujiwara, M. 2005. Kokka no Hinkaku [The dignity of a state]. Tokyo: Shinchosha.Honey, J. 1997. Language is power: The story of standard English and its enemies. London:

Faber and Faber.Katoh Gakuen. n.d. History of Katoh Gakuen (Katoh School). http://bi-lingual.com/school/

INFO/history.html/ (accessed October 28, 2011).Katoh Gakuen Gyoshu High School and Middle School. n.d. Gyoshu junior and senior high

school profile. Shizuoka: Katoh Gakuen.Kramsch, C. 2009. The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lambert, W. E. 1975. Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In Education

of immigrant students, ed. A. Wolfgang. Toronto: OISE.MEXT. 2002. Developing a strategic plan to cultivate Japanese With English Abilities: Plan

to improve English and Japanese abilities. http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm/ (accessed October 28, 2011).

MEXT. 2009. Eigo kyoiku kaikaku sogo puran [English language education reform plan].http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/hyouka/kekka/08100105/022.htm/ (accessed October 28,2011).

MEXT. 2010a. Shiritu gakkou no hatasu juuyou na yakuwari [Important roles played byprivate schools]. http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/shinkou/main5_a3.htm (accessedOctober 28, 2011).

MEXT. 2010b. Gaikokugo shido joshu (ALT) no koyo/keiyaku keitai ni kansuru chosa nitsuite [Hiring and contractual agreements with Assistant Language Teachers]. http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1295843.htm/ (accessed October 28, 2011).

MEXT. n.d.a. Atarashii gakushu shido yoryo no omona pointo (Heisei 14-nen kara jisshi)[Major points regarding the new curriculum guideline (effective 2002)]. http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shuppan/sonota/990301i.htm (accessed October 28, 2011).

MEXT. n.d.b. Supa ingurisshu rangeji haisukuru SELHi ni tsuite [About super Englishhigh schools]. http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/082/shiryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/13/1302506_05.pdf (accessed October 28, 2011).

Ministry of Justice Japan. 2011. Kokuseki (Shusshinchi) betsu gaikiiokujin tourokushasuu nosuii [Trend in registered non-Japanese based on the country of origin (country of birth)].http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000074950.pdf (accessed October 28, 2011).

Mulhauser, P. 1996. Linguistic ecology: Language change and linguistic imperialism in thePacific region. London: Routledge.

National Institute for Educational Policy Research. 2002. Teacher training and certificate.

Education in Japan. http://www.nier.go.jp/English/EducationInJapan/Education_in_Japan/Education_in_Japan_files/201103TTCS (accessed October 28, 2011).

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 11

http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/test_score_data_summary_2009.pdfhttp://bi-lingual.com/school/INFO/history.html/http://bi-lingual.com/school/INFO/history.html/http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm/http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm/http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/hyouka/kekka/08100105/022.htm/http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/shinkou/main5_a3.htmhttp://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1295843.htm/http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1295843.htm/http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shuppan/sonota/990301i.htmhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shuppan/sonota/990301i.htmhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/082/shiryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/13/1302506_05.pdfhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/082/shiryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/13/1302506_05.pdfhttp://www.moj.go.jp/content/000074950.pdfhttp://www.nier.go.jp/English/EducationInJapan/Education_in_Japan/Education_in_Japan_files/201103TTCShttp://www.nier.go.jp/English/EducationInJapan/Education_in_Japan/Education_in_Japan_files/201103TTCShttp://www.nier.go.jp/English/EducationInJapan/Education_in_Japan/Education_in_Japan_files/201103TTCShttp://www.nier.go.jp/English/EducationInJapan/Education_in_Japan/Education_in_Japan_files/201103TTCShttp://www.moj.go.jp/content/000074950.pdfhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/082/shiryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/13/1302506_05.pdfhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/082/shiryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/13/1302506_05.pdfhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shuppan/sonota/990301i.htmhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shuppan/sonota/990301i.htmhttp://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1295843.htm/http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1295843.htm/http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/shinkou/main5_a3.htmhttp://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/hyouka/kekka/08100105/022.htm/http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm/http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm/http://bi-lingual.com/school/INFO/history.html/http://bi-lingual.com/school/INFO/history.html/http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/test_score_data_summary_2009.pdf

7/30/2019 01434632.2012

13/13

Otsu, Y. 2006. Nihon no eigokyoiku ni hitsuyo na koto: Shogakko eigo to eigokyoiku seisaku[Things that are important for Japanese English education: Elementary English educationand English teaching policies]. Tokyo: Keio University Press.

Peirce, B. N. 1995. Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly 29,no. 1: 931.

Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Phillipson, R. 2009. Linguistic imperialism continued. New York: Routledge.Ramirez, J. D. 1992. Executive summary. Bilingual Research Journal 16: 162.Ricciardelli, L. 1992. Bilingualism and cognitive development in relation to threshold theory.

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 21: 30116.Ricciardelli, L. 1993. An investigation of the cognitive development of Italian-English

bilinguals and Italian monolinguals from Rome. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment 14, no. 4: 3456.

Sakamoto, M. 2009. Identities, perceptions, expectations, concerns: Chinese students in Japan.In Nihon no gaikokujin gakko ni okeru tabunka/tagengo kyoiku no genjo to kadai [Currentsituation and challenges for multicultural/multilingual education in Japanese ethnicschools], ed. M. Sugimura and M. Sakamoto, 3855. Joint Research Project FinalReport. Tokyo: Sophia University.

Sano, M. 2011. Nihon ni iru gaikoku no kodomo [Foreign children in Japan]. In Kokusai ido tokyoiku [International mobility and education], ed. H. Ehara, 97113. Tokyo: AkashiShoten.

Sasaki, M. 1996. Second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence:Quantitative and qualitative analyses. New York: Peter Lang.

Seargeant, P. 2009. The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the evolution of a global language.Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Sophia University. n.d. TEAP no kaihatsu ni tsuite [About developing TEAP]. http://www.sophia.ac.jp/jpn/admissions/gakubu_ad/ad_gaiyou/catho_ad/teap (accessed October 28,2011).

Sugimura, M., and M. Sakamoto. 2009. Chinese schools and globalization: Current situationin Japan and Malaysia. In Nihon no gaikokujin gakko ni okeru tabunka/tagengo kyoiku no

genjo to kadai [Current situation and challenges for multicultural/multilingual education inJapanese ethnic schools], ed. M. Sugimura and M. Sakamoto, 1837. Joint ResearchProject Final Report. Tokyo: Sophia University.

Thomas, W. P., and V. Collier. 1997. School effectiveness for language minority students.Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Torikai, K. 2006. Ayaushi! Shogakko eigo [Danger! Elementary English education]. Tokyo:Bungei Shunju.

Verhoeven, L. 1991. Acquisition of biliteracy. In Reading in two languages, ed. J. H. Hulstijnand J. F. Matter Vol. 8, 6174. Amsterdam: AILA.

Verhoeven, L. 1994. Transfer in bilingual development: The linguistic interdependencehypothesis revisited. Language Learning 44: 381415.

Yoshida, K., H. Mori, T. Suzuki, M. Sakamoto, H. Toyoda, Y. Watanabe, and S. Izumi. 2011.Soki eigo gakushu no chuugakko eigo gakushu eno eikyo [Effects of early English languagelearning on junior high school English studies]. Tokyo: Sophia Linguistic Institute forInternational Communication/The Japan Institute for Educational Measurement.

12 M. Sakamoto

http://www.sophia.ac.jp/jpn/admissions/gakubu_ad/ad_gaiyou/catho_ad/teaphttp://www.sophia.ac.jp/jpn/admissions/gakubu_ad/ad_gaiyou/catho_ad/teaphttp://www.sophia.ac.jp/jpn/admissions/gakubu_ad/ad_gaiyou/catho_ad/teaphttp://www.sophia.ac.jp/jpn/admissions/gakubu_ad/ad_gaiyou/catho_ad/teap