Language Teacher Training Approaches in Japan: What Are the Issues?

Abstract

In November of 2013 at a high school in Kanagawa prefecture, 19 students sit for an English test. The test is a mid-term test in a course called Writing, yet the students have not done any writing compositions in class, nor is there any writing on the test, despite MEXT guidelines calling for more emphasis on language production and a call for more communicative activities (MEXT, 2011c). Instead, during the 45 minutes of the test, the students attempt to answer a series of grammar-focused multiple choice test items. It is plainly a grammar test, and a difficult one at that. Later, the results reflect this. The basic class students manage an average of only 25%; another group, the advanced class, fares not really much better with an average of 46%. This scenario is not fiction, nor is it not all that uncommon, based on anecdotal evidence. At the same time, this event begs several questions. Why are grammar questions used for a writing class instead of writing questions? Why does the course itself not focus at all on developing English writing skills? Why is there such a focus on discrete grammar points on both the test and in teaching when it is so widely accepted in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) that this approach is only of nominal effectiveness? (Swan, 2006). Why are the four teachers in charge of this course ignoring both MEXT directives, and established SLA theory? On the surface, it seems to make no sense.