This is a pre‐copy edited, author-produced PDF

of an article accepted for publication in

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

following peer review

The definitive publisher‐authenticated version appears in

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1088856

Backward Yakudoku: An attempt to implement CLT at a Japanese

high school

Gene Thompson and Mayuno Yanagita

How can Japanese teachers of English (JTEs) go about introducing more

communicative activities suitable for their contexts? This paper discusses an

attempt by a high school teacher to implement communicative language

teaching (CLT) in her classes while responding to institutional pressure to use

yakudoku (a traditional grammar translation methodology) and focus on test

and exam preparation. The article explains how the teacher, working with a

mentor, rearranged the format of her classes to encourage more interactive

activities, with translation activities used as review to prepare students for tests.

This paper introduces the changes made over two cycles of the project, and

suggests implications from the project which could be tested in other contexts,

such as using outside mentors to help teachers to innovate, and focusing

training experiences on getting teachers to experiment with CLT in their

contexts.

Keywords: Communicative methodologies, Teacher training, Action research,

EFL

Introduction

Adapting teaching practice to more communicative language teaching (CLT) oriented

approaches has been an on-going issue for local teachers in Japan (Nishino 2008,

2012; Nishino and Watanabe 2008; Sakui 2004, 2007) and in other countries across

Asia (Li 1998). Humphries and Burns (2015) suggest that teacher beliefs, poor

understanding about CLT, and a lack of on-going support are key barriers that prevent

teachers from implementing CLT. In high schools, there are similar contextual and

individual factors: An examination focus that encourages yakudoku (a traditional

grammar translation methodology used in Japan) (Gorsuch 2001; Nishino 2012;

Underwood 2012), a reluctance to innovate by teachers (Cook 2009; Sato and

Kleinsasser 2004; Underwood 2012), the influence of low teacher English proficiency

(Nishino 2012), and a poor understanding of CLT and how to implement it (Nishino

2008; Sakui 2004, 2007).

In an investigation of Japanese high school teachers’ divergent beliefs and

practices, Nishino (2011, 132) suggested that “context-appropriate communicative

methodologies should be developed by the teachers themselves”. What might these

methodologies look like and what process do teachers go through as they attempt to

develop an appropriate methodology for their context? Studies in Japan (Mutoh et al.

2009; Sato and Hirano 2014; Sato and Takahashi 2008) and overseas (Yuan and Lee

2015) have suggested that collaborative action research projects have helped teachers

initiate curriculum change and influence teacher development.

This article introduces a participatory action research project by the

researchers to develop and introduce CLT into high school English lessons at a

Japanese high school. Meaning-focused comprehension tasks, communicative

activities, and projects were used alongside translation to contextualize the approach

to the teaching situation of the teacher. This article uses the teachers’ reflections from

the project to introduce the changes made to classes, and discusses some implications

from the project that could be considered by others attempting to encourage more

communicative language teaching in their contexts.

Contextual Factors which hinder CLT

Gorsuch (2001) argued that the university exam entrance system in Japan encourages

a narrow view of language that focuses on the linguistic features of English, and

Butler (2011) suggested that teachers prefer yakudoku, compared to more CLT

focused activities, because grammar translation is considered more appropriate for

preparing students for reading and grammar focused tests. However, this perception is

now being challenged: Underwood (2012) argued that university entrance exams in

Japan have changed their content to be more focused on listening and comprehension,

rather than translation skills, but that many teachers’ may be unaware of those

changes. Nishino’s (2012) path analysis of Japanese teacher beliefs and practices

suggested that changes to the test content may have affected teacher beliefs positively

(i.e. encouraged CLT), while traditional attitudes towards the test affected them

negatively (i.e. discouraged CLT). Accordingly, both teacher beliefs about language

learning and teacher knowledge about university examinations are factors that

influence teacher practice.

Secondly, the impact of collaboration within schools can be a factor inhibiting

innovation. Underwood (2012) explained the importance of ‘group think’ for

continuing the ‘status quo’ practice at Japanese high schools, while Sato and

Kleinasser (2004) showed that collaboration only reinforced the existing familiar

practices of teaching, rather than leading to innovation. Regarding innovation, Cook

(2009) found that colleague resistance was a major obstacle to methodology change,

with the influence of yakudoku a key factor in limiting the introduction of more

communicative language teaching.

Personal Factors which hinder CLT

The relationship between teachers’ English proficiency, knowledge about English,

and pedagogical knowledge are factors which have been noted as problems in Japan.

Studies have suggested that teacher English proficiency is a contributing factor that

hinders CLT (Nishino 2012). Teacher knowledge about CLT and how to implement it

has been discussed in a number of studies in Japan (Nishino 2008; Sakui 2004, 2007)

and South Korea (Li 1998). Li (1998) identified 16 difficulties for teachers trying to

implement CLT related to training, experience, materials development, and

knowledge of CLT. In a study of 30 Japanese Junior high school and senior high

school teachers, Sakui (2004, 160) explained that “teachers’ understanding of CLT is

more semantic than conceptual”, where “their definitions lacked the coherence of a

methodology incorporating goals, planning, and tasks”. It therefore appears clear that

teacher knowledge of and knowledge about language teaching is a factor which

affects the implementation of CLT.

Recent studies (Freeman et al. 2015) have approached this issue by focusing

on the use of English by teachers in their classrooms from an ESP perspective,

locating teacher English usage within a situational context as ‘English-for-teaching’.

This reflects recognition of the complexity of the roles that teachers fulfil, and the

importance of ‘knowledge-for-teaching’ (Freeman et al. 2015) or ‘Pedagogic Content

Knowledge’ (PCK), which Shulman (1986, 9) defined as a “dimension of subject

matter knowledge for teaching”, that is, the knowledge and means used by teachers to

make a subject more easily comprehensible for learners. Edge (1988) used the terms

‘language user’, ‘language analyst’, and ‘language teacher’ to introduce an integrative

approach for considering teacher knowledge and training. The three terms relate to

different aspects of teacher knowledge: language improvement (i.e. language user),

applied linguistics knowledge (i.e., analyst of English), and methodology (i.e.,

language teacher). This approach is adopted in this article to discuss teacher

knowledge and awareness.

University and School Collaboration

As explained above, the role of colleagues and collaboration has been shown to

hinder change in Japan in some contexts, but there are examples where on-going

collaboration and outside consultation have helped initiate positive change (Mutoh et

al., 2009; Sato & Takahashi, 2008). Specifically, collaborative action research

projects between universities and schools have been shown to be effective for teacher

development (Yuan and Lee 2015) and innovation through mutual learning (Day and

Hadfield 2004). Sato and Takahashi (2008) explained how high school teachers

consulted with an outside university professor for successful curriculum change in a

collaborative action research project. Sato and Hirano (2014, 139), in a similar

project, suggested that “teachers can put theory into practice successfully... if they

receive continuous teacher learning opportunities and advice from a mentor”.

Accordingly, the research suggests that collaboration is a means of breaking down

resistance to CLT and helping to encourage innovation.

The Study

Day and Hadfield (2004) explained how a collaborative action research project grew

out of a professional relationship between an advisor and tutors who shared similar

values about education and learning. In this study, the project developed when one of

the researchers ‘M’ (a second-year Japanese high school teacher of English [JTE])

approached ‘G’ (a university lecturer and past teacher) with a request to meet and

discuss language teaching. M was struggling to find ways to encourage her students to

use English more in her classes, and her goal was to develop a more interactive

approach to lessons. After discussing M’s context, we agreed to start the action

research project reported in this article.

We designed the project as a ‘practical’ action research project (Carr and

Kemmis 1986), in which G worked with M as a critical friend, consultant, and

collaborator. We used a cyclical approach to problem solving, applying the ‘Action

Research Spiral’ (Zuber-Skerritt 2001) where planning, action, observation and

evaluation, were followed by critical and self-critical reflection in feedback meetings

and written exchanges between M and G. These resulted in revised plans, followed by

action, reflection, and feedback. Two cycles (representing three months, four chapters

of the text, and two unit tests) are discussed in this article.

Each cycle involved the generation and analysis of both qualitative and

quantitative data. Materials, meeting notes, emails, written reflections, and test scores

were collected. M designed materials that she sent to G for comment and analysis,

which G returned by email with comments. We met four times for ‘working sessions’

to discuss materials and lessons: twice during the planning stages, once after the first

cycle, and once after the second cycle. At our meetings, M reflected about her classes

and G’s role was Socratic, asking many ‘why’ questions, answering questions, and

providing social persuasion. Meetings were recorded and transcribed, and after each

meeting M summarized her ideas after each meeting in four individual written

reflections: (1) M’s evaluation of the situation before the project, (2) objectives for

the first cycle, (3) evaluation of the first cycle, and (4) a reflection about the second

cycle and project. We received permission from M’s school principal to work on the

project and permission to analyse student test score data for her classes versus other

classes.

This article uses M’s four reflections from the project, emails, and

transcriptions from the working meetings to locate the context of M’s situation in

relation to other studies about CLT implementation in Japan, introduces the changes

made to M’s classes and the reflective process M went through, and discusses some

implications from the project that could be considered by others in similar contexts.

The article also presents quantitative data (i.e., test scores of students), which was

collected to ensure that M’s classes did at least as well as other classes on their unit

tests.

We adopted a reflective rationality view of problem solving (Altrichter, Posch,

and Somekh 1993), which views complex problems as requiring specific solutions

that should be developed in collaboration with the practitioner inside the teaching

context. As a result, the actions taken in this project will not necessarily be able to be

successfully applied to other contexts; but we present our project here to provide an

example of practice from one context that could be tested by others (Altrichter, Posch,

and Somekh 1993) attempting to implement CLT.

The context in relation to other studies

M’s context reflected a number of factors hindering the implementation of CLT.

English lessons were focused on exam preparation with 40 students (on average) in

each class. Her school used yakudoku as a status-quo methodology in English classes,

which was reinforced via shared meetings, shared materials, and shared tests. In her

first reflection, M explained, “yakudoku was essential” at her school; it was preferred

by the other teachers for preparing students for translation and grammar focused tests

and university exams. Innovation was discouraged by other teachers (although

encouraged by her principal). M’s context reflects findings from other studies, such as

Underwood (2012), and Sato and Kleinasser (2004), where the school culture

reinforced traditional approaches, led by senior teachers. Novice teachers such as M

were expected to acculturate to existing practice (Sato and Kleinsasser 2004).

Individually, how well did M understand CLT as an approach, and integrate it

into teaching methodologies appropriately for her context? With experience living

abroad, a Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) score of over

900, and a graduate degree in applied linguistics from an overseas university, M

appeared a proficient ‘language user’ and ‘language analyst’ (Edge, 1988). Due to her

experience studying applied linguistics overseas, M could analyse her situation

effectively and discuss the theoretical aspects of her context. In her first reflection, M

wrote about the problem with the way English was taught at her school. She explained

that the content of lessons was too narrow; they were too focused on form with

students only interacting with the materials as translation activities (not semantically

or pragmatically). M continued, adding that her students are “passive in my English

class... they always wait for answers from me without thinking by themselves”. She

wrote that she wanted to encourage her students to use English more in class, focus

more on communication, and develop their ability to use English with purpose.

However, M was a novice ‘language teacher’ (Edge, 1988) with few

experiences implementing CLT. She had low confidence to introduce CLT, few

enactive ‘mastery experiences’ (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2007) using

communicative teaching with students (due to the institutional pressure to use

yakudoku). Furthermore, she did not find the ‘vicarious experiences’ (Tschannen-

Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2007) of observing lessons useful for applying to her

context. In an email to G, she wrote “I'm super ultra confused about what

communicative teaching is” and added “Yesterday, I had a teaching training for new

teachers, which was to observe two classes and have a discussion. What (the)

supervisor says[sic] didn't really make sense to me”. This suggested that for M, the

issue was not about language proficiency or knowledge, but about how she could put

into operation ideas about language learning she had learned to be important in her

graduate studies.

Results

Changes made to lessons

At the first working meeting, M explained how classes worked at her school prior to

the project: students would translate sections of the narrative or expository reading

from the English textbook into Japanese prior to class, then in-class time involved the

teacher providing feedback and reviewing the translations, with the class mediated in

Japanese. Students then completed practice activities involving translation from

English to Japanese and Japanese to English at the end of the textbook chapter. At the

end of two chapters, students took end of unit tests that focused primarily on

translation, vocabulary, and grammar. The yakudoku process of M’s classes prior to

the project (and for other classes during the project) is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Classes prior to the project

How to teach more communicatively and prepare students for tests?

In her first reflection, M suggested that there were few opportunities for students to

use the language, her classes were large (40 students), and that they had little

opportunity to interact with the meaning of texts. She explained,

All they needed was a textbook and a notebook. Students were supposed to write

one part on their notebook and translate each sentence… and what they were

doing in a class was to listen to (maybe only hear) a teacher’s explanation and

write down what was written on the blackboard.

Accordingly, the first cycle of the project focused on encouraging more interaction

with texts and interaction between students. However, the end of unit tests were

strongly focused on translation, therefore the second focus of the first cycle was to

reconsider the role of translation in M’s lessons. In our first working meeting, M

explained that her students were very comfortable with translation activities, and

needed translation practice to prepare for tests.

However, M explained in her first reflection that working on translating texts

before class was not helping her students to interact with the text or use English text

for any purpose; they only focused on translating each sentence discretely. She wrote,

“I found it very strange that students did not understand the content well even though

they worked on translating one whole part before a class...What was the point of

doing it before a class?”

After extensive discussion in our second working meeting, M decided to

reverse the yakudoku process in her classes. She used translation activities for review,

rather than as preparation for class. M designed worksheets for each lesson with

comprehension activities and tasks such as reading comprehension quizzes, paired

vocabulary review, and summarizing activities, which she sent to G for review. In her

second reflection, M explained her purpose,

I wanted to... provide students (with) chances to think and figure out by

themselves. ‘Interaction’ was the key point. Interaction with a text, interaction

with a friend, interaction with a question, and interaction with a teacher were

what I expected students to do

In class, M wanted her students to approach ‘new’ texts, demonstrate some

understanding of the text as a whole, and work through comprehension activities in

English before translating the test. In the materials she developed, M created

opportunities for students to use English to complete tasks (i.e., using pair work).

Students interacted with the more formal linguistic aspects of language in translation

activities, to review and prepare for the unit tests.

M’s reversed yakudoku lesson format is shown in Figure 2, which shows that

her classes worked from a top down approach, from global to detailed activities, with

grammar activities and translation for review. M continued to use Japanese as the

primary language of instruction during the grammar focus section of the lesson, but

used English as the primary language for the remainder of the lesson.

Figure 2. Reversed yakudoku lesson pattern

Refining the approach to lessons

In her third reflection, M evaluated the first cycle and discussed some of the problems

for students with approaching ‘new’ texts. She explained that her system of

introducing materials to students needed review. She wrote,

First, if the contents were not familiar to students, or if sentences in the text were

too complicated, they tended to give up reading and choose answers randomly or

without enough thinking… If there were unfamiliar words in a text, it was hard

for them to follow the content and work on exercises

M refined three areas for the second cycle. In her materials, she added context

activities prior to the introduction of new texts in order to contextualize the content,

activate schema, and motivate students. She put a greater focus on vocabulary study,

and introduced simplified versions of the input text for initial activities and

vocabulary review. She then moved to the main text for reading comprehension. She

wrote that she would focus on challenging students to use dictionaries more, and

challenge students to understanding words in context. Overall, the pattern became

more complex as M reflected upon her (perceived) successes and failures. She

attempted to find teaching strategies to scaffold the content and vocabulary more. She

added more complex tasks such as final projects (prior to the unit tests), which

involved her students presenting short presentations. Her revised lesson pattern for

cycle two is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Revised Lesson Pattern

In summary, the changes made to M’s classes showed a rearrangement of learning

from a micro-macro focus (yakudoku) to a macro-micro focus. She added interviews,

presentations, and summaries to challenge students to use English, and used

translation as a review of the materials learned in class, and as preparation for tests.

Student unit test scores

The performance of M’s classes and other teachers classes on the (primarily

translation focused) unit tests were recorded for the two units prior to the project, and

for the two cycles of the project discussed in this article. Test scores were investigated

to confirm that using M’s revised teaching methodology would not disadvantage her

students, in comparison to other students in the cohort, on the translation focused unit

tests.

Four Unit test score cycles were investigated; two taken prior to the project

beginning (referred to as Unit test 2 and Unit test 3), and two taken after the project

began (referred to as Unit test 4 and Unit test 5). Histograms and Q-Q plots for M’s

classes and other classes were checked to confirm the data were parametric. The

distributions showed no problematic shape, and Q-Q plots suggested that the variables

were normally distributed. Accordingly, independent samples t-Tests were used to

compare the unit test scores for students from M’s two classes (n = 80) with other

classes (n = 201). The results are shown in Table 2.

Table 1. Comparing the performance of M’s students with other students before and

during the project

Cohort of students 95% CI for Mean

Difference

M’s students Other students M SD n M SD n t df

Unit Test 2 52.53 13.1 80 55.34 14.2 201 -.80, 6.44 1.53 279 Unit Test 3 41.59 16.8 80 44.96 16.5 201 -.93, 7.68 1.54 279 Unit Test 4 65.16 16.5 80 61.40 17.7 201 -8.29, .76 -1.63 279 Unit Test 5 53.69 17.5 80 54.04 19.2 201 -4.51, 5.22 1.43 279

For Unit Test 2 and Unit Test 3, M’s students had performed approximately 3 points

lower on average in comparison to students from other classes. However,

independent-samples t-tests showed no significant difference between M’s and other

class students for both tests. Accordingly, these results suggested that prior to the

project, M’s students were not performing at a significantly different level to other

students.

For Unit test 4, which corresponded to the first cycle of the project, M’s

students performed higher on average in comparison to the other students for the first

time in the year. Her students averaged approximately four points higher than students

in other classes, which was an exciting result. However, an independent samples t-

Test showed that the mean for M’s classes (M = 65.16, SD = 16.5) was not

significantly different to other classes (M = 61.40, SD = 17.7); t(279) = -1.63, p =.10,

α = .05.

For unit test 5, M’s classes averaged slightly lower than other classes. An

independent-samples t-test failed to reveal a statistically significant difference

between the mean Unit test scores for M’s students (M = 53.69, SD = 17.5) compared

to other class students (M = 54.04, SD = 19.2); t(279) = 1.43, p =.89, α = .05. The

results suggested there were no significant differences between the performance of

M’s students in comparison to students from other classes during the project.

Discussion

The quantitative results did not show that a more interactive and communicative

lesson style led to improved performance by M’s students’ on unit tests in comparison

to other students learning via yakudoku. However, we viewed the test results

positively. Butler (2011) suggested that teachers might be against using CLT in Asian

contexts due to time limitations in mastering reading and grammar skills for test

preparation. The results of this study suggest that using a more communicative

approach did not hinder student performance on grammar and translation-focused

tests. Some may debate to what extent the activities introduced in M’s classes

constituted CLT (as discussed by Butler 2011), but we argue that the approach taken

in M’s situation used a combination of communicative and form-focused activities

effectively for M’s context. The test results were essential for M’s confidence to

continue developing her different teaching methodology, because her students were

performing at least as well on unit tests as others students from classes using

yakudoku.

Experimenting with communicative teaching

After two cycles of the project, M wrote in her final reflection “I... found

myself feeling more confident about my teaching”. She wrote about how she had been

able to develop her understanding of CLT by introducing and refining activities for

her students. Firstly, she talked about the importance of support. She explained,

Before working with G, I was always not sure if what I was doing in a class was

meaningful for students or not. No matter how hard I explained... I would not get

satisfied or get a good response from students... I think I did not know what I

wanted to do and what I needed to do

Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2007) suggest that novice teachers have fewer

mastery experiences to draw upon. A key implication from our study was that M

benefited with support from an experienced mentor who was experienced with CLT.

As explained earlier in this article, the role of colleagues and collaboration has been

shown to be negative in some contexts, but there are examples where on-going

collaboration and outside consultation have helped initiate positive change (Mutoh et

al., 2009; Sato & Takahashi, 2008). Specifically, Sato and Takahashi (2008)

consulted with an outside university professor to help support a successful curriculum

change by high school teachers, and our experience also suggests the value of outside

consultants and university researchers as co-researchers or consultants for supporting

JTEs. Cooperative development within schools has been shown to help teachers (see

Mann 2005, for a review), and peer coaching has been shown to help develop

teachers’ independence and confidence (Goker 2006). However, given the contextual

situations faced by teachers such as M, and in other teachers in Japan (Cook 2009;

Sato and Kleinsasser 2004; Underwood 2012), we suggest that outside consultants

can help JTEs to develop their knowledge about and implementation of CLT. We

present our project as further evidence of the value of collaborative research for

curriculum development.

Secondly, teachers need experience experimenting with how to introduce CLT

in their contexts. CLT is an approach with a number of underlying assumptions, such

as an expanded role of the teacher as a facilitator, and a focus on student-centred

learning. At its heart is a view of language and language learning as a social activity.

As Sakui (2004) noted, integrating CLT into methodology has been a difficulty for

teachers in Japan, and some studies have suggested that it is almost impossible to

introduce CLT in Japan, with the various external and internal constraints facing

teachers (Humphries and Burns 2015). Our project suggests that context is essential.

In M’s context, observing other classes (i.e. vicarious experience) did not help her

identify strategies for teaching her students. We suggest that in-service training

programs in Japan focus on how to encourage teachers to experiment with CLT in

their contexts.

Research has indicated that teacher proficiency may be an issue hindering

CLT in Japan (Nishino 2011), and new approaches are focusing on how teachers use

English for teaching (Freeman et al. 2015). However, as Edge (1988) explained,

teachers may have problems as language users, language analysts, or language

teachers. Our project suggests that for some teachers, language knowledge and

language ability are not the issue, rather the issue is how to organize and teach

English communicatively. In her final reflection, M wrote about how experimenting

with CLT had affected her view of pedagogy. She explained that making her classes

more student-focused had provided her with more feedback. As her students were

working on worksheets, she could monitor more effectively, understand the problems

they had, when they needed help, and how she “should provide direction”. She

explained that

the amount of time for my explanation was reduced. On the contrary, the amount

of time for students working on tasks was increased. Even though students got

less explanation from me, it seemed that they learned and understood... better

She noted that “I often saw them helping each other in order to do the task”, and

continued “I got a teaching tip: the more students involve or interact in a class, the

better they learn, and it gives a teacher so much feedback”. She explained how she

used that feedback to improve her teaching,

I gave much thought to what I do in a lesson and it was just like I was having a

trial lesson in my mind. Thanks to these repeated in-my-mind practices, I was

well prepared before a class

and M explained that working on the project,

helped me set clear goals for each lesson... what I wanted to do and what I

expected students to do became much clear(sic) by planning exercises... Each

task had a different purpose and it enabled me to explain which skill students

were going to focus on.

Prior to the project, M was a very competent English user and English analyst (Edge

1988). Her experiences of experimenting with CLT, with reflective dialogical

communication about the project, helped her to connect her knowledge about English

and English learning, with a teaching approach and strategies to teach English.

Humphries and Burns (2015) suggested that “relevant training could focus on helping

teachers engage with the principles that underlie student-centred, exploratory

learning” (9). However, what are ‘relevant’ training experiences for JTEs? Sakui

(2004, 162) explained that “Teacher education, which encourages reflective practices,

can foster the clarification of teachers’ developing pedagogical theories and goals”.

Our experience suggests that an on-going project that emphasized reflective practice

was key for helping M to develop her understanding of CLT. By reflecting upon her

practice, M could identify areas where improvement was need, and through two

cycles, she could build confidence from experiences she perceived as successful and

reconsider and improve areas where she perceived her teaching practice could

improve. Testing her students’ performance was also important for reinforcing M’s

confidence to continue with the project. As Mutoh et al. (2009, 54) explained, a key

benefit of action research is that “repeating the cycle lets a teacher build on previously

gained insights and improvements, rather than lurching from one new idea to

another”.

Finally, we suggest that research examines the gap between the contexts

where teachers learn and teach. M has an MA in applied linguistics from an overseas

university. She has a lot of knowledge about language learning and teaching.

However, connecting that knowledge to her context was the key issue from our

project. For teacher education in contexts where radical change in teacher roles are

required, Wright (2010) discussed the possibility of moving teacher education

towards schools, rather than institution-based programmes, that is, away from

teachers learning about teaching in seminars about teaching, to learning about

teaching at their school, in their context. Mann (2005) suggested that there is value for

teachers working in distance education, because they can continue to test and

experiment with new theories in their contexts. From our experience, we note that

working with her students was a key aspect of the project for helping M to develop a

more student-centred and interactive approach to teaching. Accordingly, we suggest

that more personalized, school-based, contextualized training and learning

experiences for JTEs could be an effective way of helping teachers to develop

strategies to implement CLT, and that this approach could be tested in other contexts.

Concluding remarks

This collaborative action research project involved the authors, a novice Japanese

high school teacher who faced a number of difficulties that affected her capability to

implement CLT in her classroom, who worked collaboratively with a university

lecturer to work around a school culture resistant to change which strongly reinforced

yakudoku (Sato and Kleinsasser 2004). Nishino (2011) suggested that context-

appropriate methodologies need to developed by teachers in their contexts. We

present our study here, as one attempt. CLT is not a methodology where content,

syllabi, and teaching practices are clearly outlined (Richards 2006). As Sakui’s (2004)

study of Japanese teachers suggested, understanding that ‘approach’ in terms of a

methodology is a struggle for teachers, as it was for the high school teacher in this

project, and indeed it helped the university lecturer to understand some of the

difficulties for Japanese high school teachers. Our project suggests that more needs to

be done to help teachers not only understand CLT, but to experiment with CLT in

their context - while considering their students’ performance on tests. We suggest this

is important for helping JTEs build their own theoretical teaching constructs. By

developing and testing hypotheses about how to teach effectively in their contexts, by

experimenting with tasks, and by interpreting the reactions and performance of

students, the teacher in our study experimented with CLT and connected their

knowledge about language, and how it is learned, with context appropriate strategies

for implementation.

The complexities and constraints of the context in which M operated are no

doubt very different to others. In the project explained in this paper, one individual

was working within the existing testing system (focused on translation) to introduce

more communicative lessons. Accordingly the teaching changes outlined in this paper

utilized extensive translation activities to work towards grammar and translation

focused tests. We suggest that the project could inform others attempting to introduce

CLT in their contexts as one model of action. As Sato and Takahashi (2008)

explained, departmental and collaborative action by the full teaching team is essential

to change at the cohort level. However, this project has shown one teacher’s attempt,

with some outside support, to use her perceptions as a language user and language

analyst (Edge 1988) to review and develop a teaching approach for her classes in her

context. Teaching is also about learning, and we suggest that collaborative projects

with outside mentors can be an effective way to help teachers work towards

implementing CLT, that should be tested in more contexts. Humphries and Burns

(2015) recently titled their article about CLT in Japan ‘In reality it’s almost

impossible’; we hope that sharing our project and with more researchers trying to find

ways to implement CLT, we can help contribute towards knowledge that helps make

implementing CLT less impossible.

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

Notes on the contributors

Gene Thompson is an Assistant Professor in the College of Business at Rikkyo

University, Japan. He researches teacher cognitions, teacher training, and curriculum

design. He is currently undertaking his PhD research investigating Japanese high

school English teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching English.

Mayuno Yanagita teaches at a public high school in Ibaraki, Japan. She completed her

MA in TESOL from Macquarie University, Sydney. She is interested in how change

happens in real-word high school classrooms.

References

Altrichter, H, P Posch, and B Somekh. 1993. Teachers Investigate their Work: An Introduction to the Methods of Action Research. London: Routledge.

Butler, Y.G. 2011. "The Implementation of Communicative and Task-Based Language Teaching in the Asia-Pacific Region." Annual review of applied linguistics 31:36-57. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000122.

Carr, W, and S Kemmis. 1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Cook, M. 2009. "Factors inhibiting and facilitating Japanese teachers of English in adopting communicative language teaching methodologies." k@ta 11 (2):99-116.

Day, C, and M Hadfield. 2004. "Learning through networks: trust, partnerships and the power of action research." Educational Action Research 12 (4):575-86. doi: 10.1080/09650790400200269.

Edge, J. 1988. "Applying linguistics in English language teacher training for speakers of other languages." ELT Journal 42 (1):9-13.

Freeman, D, A Katz, P Garcia Gomez, and A Burns. 2015. "English-for-Teaching: rethinking teacher proficiency in the classroom." ELT Journal 69 (2):129-39. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccu074.

Goker, S.D. 2006. "Impact of Peer Coaching on Self-Efficacy and Instructional Skills in TEFL Teacher Education." System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics 34 (2):239-54.

Gorsuch, G. 2001. "Japanese EFL teachers’ perceptions of communicative, audiolingual and yakudoku activities: the plan versus the reality." Education Policy Analysis Archives [online] 9 (10):2-26.

Humphries, S, and A Burns. 2015. "‘In reality it’s almost impossible’: CLT-oriented curriculum change." ELT Journal. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccu081.

Li, D. 1998. "“It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea." TESOL Quarterly 32:677–703.

Mann, S. 2005. "The language teacher's development." Language Teaching 38

(03):103-18. doi: doi:10.1017/S0261444805002867. Mutoh, N, K Sato, A Hakamada, H Tsuji, and S Shintani. 2009. "Collaborative action

research: Teacher and curriculum development." In JALT2008 conference proceedings, edited by M Stoke. Tokyo: JALT.

Nishino, T. 2008. "Japanese Secondary School Teachers' Beliefs and Practices Regarding Communicative Language Teaching: An Exploratory Survey." JALT Journal 30 (1):27.

———. 2012. "Modeling Teacher Beliefs and Practices in Context: A Multimethods Approach." The Modern Language Journal 96 (3):380-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01364.x.

Nishino, T, and M Watanabe. 2008. "Communication-Oriented Policies Versus Classroom Realities in Japan." TESOL Quarterly 42 (1):133-8.

Nishino, T. 2011. "Japanese high school teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding Communicative Language Teaching.’." JALT Journal 33 (2):131-56.

Richards, J.C. 2006. Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sakui, K. 2004. "Wearing two pairs of shoes: language teaching in Japan." ELT Journal 58 (2):155-63.

———. 2007. "Classroom management in Japanese EFL classrooms." JALT Journal 29 (1):41-58.

Sato, K, and M Hirano. 2014. "School-wide collaborative action research for curriculum development." In JALT2013 Conference Proceedings, edited by N Sonoda and A Krause. Tokyo: JALT.

Sato, K, and K Takahashi. 2008. "Revitalizing a program for school-age learners through curricular innovation." In Revitalizing a program for school-age learners through curricular innovation, edited by D Hayes and J Sharkey, 205-37. Alexandria, VA: TESOL, Inc.

Sato, K, and R.C. Kleinsasser. 2004. "Beliefs, practices, and interactions of teachers in a Japanese high school English department." Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (8):797-816.

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

Tschannen-Moran, M, and A Woolfolk Hoy. 2007. "The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers." Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (6):944-56.

Underwood, P.R. 2012. "Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction of English grammar under national curriculum reforms: A Theory of Planned Behaviour perspective." Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (6):911-25. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.04.004.

Wright, T. 2010. "Second language teacher education: Review of recent research on practice." Language Teaching 43 (03):259-96.

Yuan, R, and I Lee. 2015. "Action research facilitated by university–school collaboration." ELT Journal 69 (1):1-10. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccu031.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. 2001. "Action Learning and Action Research: Paradigm, Praxis and Programs " In Effective Change Management through Action Research and Action Learning: Concepts, Perspectives, Processes and Applications, edited by S. Sankara, B. Dick and R. Passfield, 1-20. Lismore, Australia: Southern Cross University Press.