Challenging Government Policy on English Language Teaching in Japan: A Collaborative Action Research Approach

1. Challenging government policy on English language teaching in Japan from bottom-up through collaborative action research Tamiko Kondo York St John University, UK CARN Breakfast Café | 29 October 2015 | York St John University CARN Conference | 6-8 November 2015 | Braga, Portugal With Ichiro Tanei, Miyoko Ogawa, Yoshimi Masuda and Takahiro Nishikawa, Kobe, JAPAN

2. 1. What are my concerns? (1) MEXT (2013) - The goal of JHS students / A1 to A2 in CEFR… - The goal of HS students / B1 to B2 in CEFR, a score of more than 57 in the TOEFL iBT test… NOT appropriate, from a plurilithic perspective on English(Hall and Wicaksono, 2015) English language is ‘variable, hybrid, and dynamic’ MEXT policy on the assessment of ‘communication abilities’ 2) MEXT’s intention to introduce the TOEFL test into university entrance exams

3. 1. What are my concerns? (2) • MEXT (2013) • The level of minimum requirement for English teachers / a score of morethan 80 in the TOEFL iBT test… (Holliday, 2005, p.6) (Canagarajah, 2006, p.229) 3) MEXT’s policy on English teachers’ English proficiency 4) MEXT’s ‘cascade’ design teacher education programs for LEEPs organized by the British Council

4. 2. Research question • How do I challenge political and social ideology • on English language teaching and English teacher • education in Japan through collaborative action • research, by transforming my communicative • competence into communicative action?

5. 3.My initial action Co-construction of a theoretical framework of communicative competence social-discursive context English language education context (Kondo, 2015a)

6. 4. Setting up methodology • As a linguist, • Attending to real-life discourses in the process of theorizing the AR methodology Action research methodology for this study Literature review

7. AR methodology for this study Three theoretical frameworks for this research

8. Theoretical framework 1 • Why Collaboration?It empowers us to… • 1). Reflect ourselves critically through ‘synchronous and asynchronous’ reflections • (Ioannidou-Koutseliniand Patsalidou, 2015, p.128) • ‘I have another look at the interview summary you sent me like this, which leads to my thoughtful reflection’ (Teacher D, 2015a) ‘I can see the course of what I am thinking and what I want to do [in the interview summary]’ (Teacher C, 2015b) • 2). Bridge the gap between reified group’s theory and each member’s thinking • ‘Through sharing [ideas] with other teachers, I could come across new ways of thinking, which shifted my focus to creativity. Well, I appreciate this teachers’ horizontal connection’ (Teacher B, 2015a) (Wenger, 1998, pp.55-71)

9. Theoretical framework 2 • Why Reflective practice? It empowers us to… • 1). Become flexible enough to reshape our thinking to make sense of it • ‘I noticed something wrong by seeing myself reflected in a mirror [my mentee who is trying to learn by copying my practice].’ ‘Each [four] reflective practice stimulated me in different ways’ (Teacher D, 2015b & 2015a) ‘amoeba’ Our professional practice = (Edy, 2000, pp.49-50) • 2). Interpret ‘situated meanings’ of our experience ‘Well, uh I think my students changed because I myself changed after all, in my opinion basically it is not that easy to change other people’ (Teacher A, 2014b). ‘actual practices & experiences’ (Gee, 2005, p.53) • 3). Reflect on our practice reflexively ‘We cannot measure [the students’] willingness, if I mark wrong, he might be losing his willingness. That is what the government is trying to do now, right?’ (Teacher D, 2014b) (Elliott, 1991, p.38)

10. Theoretical framework 3 • Whya values-oriented perspective? • AR is ‘value laden’. AR process Action researchers are ‘trying to live in the direction of the values’ (McNiff and Whitehead, 2011, pp.27-28) ‘Learn from the differences’ (Matsuda and Matsuda, 2001, p.118) ‘Democratic form of public discussion’ (Carr and Kemmis, 1986, p.142) Additional language education context English use with ‘influences of one’s own values & identities’ (Canagarajah, 2014, p.18) ‘Expertise’ is fairer than ‘nativeness’ (Rampton, 1990, p.109) ‘I have talked with more non-native English speakers (…) We cannot say a language is valueless because very few people speak it in the world’ (Teacher D, 2015b) critical applied linguistic approach • Value of (English) teachers’ professional development according to their local needs and context

11. 5. My understanding for communicative action ‘Recognition work’ = trying to make others recognize my identity and my activity (Gee, 2005, p.29) Combination & integration of ‘language, actions, interactions, ways of thinking, believing, valuing…’ (Gee, 2005, p.21) ‘Comprehensibility, authenticity, truthfulness and appropriateness’ (Habermas 1976, cited in McNiff 2014, pp.108-109) communicative action • social actions we take in order to reach intersubjective agreements while developing our communicative competence and Discourses, with the aim to make a difference in our context

12. 6. My communicative actions • Giving Japanese English teachers a chance to think for themselves about their professional development and changing Englishes through; - questionnaires (October 2014 & August 2015) - a co-organized workshop (Wicaksono & Kondo, 20 December 2014, Japan) • Communicating my Discourses to the whole junior high school English teachers in Kobe through their annual journal 2015 • Communicating my Discourses to the British Council • BAAL Conference (3-5 September 2015, Aston University, UK) • Talks with British Council Tokyo (9 December 2015, Japan)

13. 7. My findings 3). My understanding for teachers’ professional development inspired by Krainer(1998, cited in Llinares and Krainer, 2006)and Zehetmeieret al. (2015) 1). Impact & gaps in the British Council’s teacher education programs ‘Teacher learning and language teaching cannot be separated from the socio-cultural environments in which it occurs’ (Johnson and Freeman, 2001, p.59) 2). Effectiveness of a person-centred dialogic form of teacher education & teachers’ collaborative learning ‘… teachers should not be left alone doing their self-reflection and self-evaluation’ (Poon, 2008, p.55) • (Kondo, 2015b)

14. 8. Potential implications • Contributing to the development of a new knowledge base of English teacher education in Japan • Contributing to the further studies on communicative competence • Suggesting the way of strengthening ‘the position of practicing teachers’ own voices’ in action research (Burns, 1999, p.13) • Suggesting the way of incorporating linguistic approach into educational action research

15. References Burns, A. 1999. Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burns, A. 2010. Action research. In: Paltridge, B. and Phakiti, A. eds. Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, pp.80-97. Canagarajah, S. 2006. Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives: testing English as an international language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(3), pp.229-242. Canagarajah, A. S. 2014. Theorizing a competence for translingual practice at the contact zone. In: May, S. ed. The multilingual turn: implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. New York: Routledge, pp.78-102. Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. 1986. Becoming critical: education, knowledge and action research. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Edy, M. 2000. Understanding professional development. In: Brechin, A. et al. eds. Critical practice in health and social care. London: The Open University, pp. 48-69. Elliott, J. 1991. Action research for educational change. Buckingham: Open University Press. Gee, J. P. 2005. An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Hall, C. J. and Wicaksono, R. 2015. Changing Englishes: an interactive course for teachers. [Online]. [Accessed 25 March 2015]. Available from: http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/changing-englishes/changing-englishes.aspx Holliday, A. 2005. The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ioannidou-Koutselini, M. and Patsalidou, F. 2015. Engaging school teachers and school principals in an action research in-service development as a means of pedagogical self-awareness. Educational Action Research, 23(2), pp.124-139

16. References Johnston, K. E. and Freeman, D. 2001. Teacher learning in second language teacher education: a socially-situated perspective. Rev. Brasileira de LinguīsticaAplicada, 1(1), pp.53-69. Llinares, S. and Krainer, K. 2006. Mathematics (student) teachers and teacher educators as learners. In: Gutiérrez, A. and Boero, P. eds. Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp.429-459. Matsuda, A. and Matsuda, P.K. 2001. Autonomy and collaboration in teacher education: journal sharing among native and nonnative English-speaking teachers. The CATESOL Journal, 13(1), pp.109-121. McNiff, J. 2014. Writing and doing action research. London: Sage Publications. McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. 2011. All you need to know about action research. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications. Poon, Y. K. A. 2008. How action research can complement formal language teacher education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17(1), pp.43-62. Rampton, B. 1990. Displacing the ‘native speaker’: expertise, affiliation and inheritance. In: Harris, R and Rampton, B eds. The language, ethnicity and race reader. 2003. London: Routledge, pp.107-111. The Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. 2013. Gurōbarukanitaiōsihitaeigokyōikukaikakujisshikeikaku. [Online]. Japan: The Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. [Accessed 13 August 2014]. Available from: http://www.mext.go.jp/ Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zehetmeier, S. et al. 2015. Researching the impact of teacher professional development programmes based on action research, constructivism, and systems theory. Educational Action Research, 23(2), pp.162-177.

17. Thank you for listening. Tamiko Kondo | 金藤多美子 t.kondo@yorksj.ac.uk