The Importation of English to Japan and the English Conversation School’s Contribution to Internationalization and Language Teaching Pedagogy
Damian Rivers, Japan
Damian J. Rivers has worked in Japan for a number of years and has a research interest in social issues associated with language development. www.eapstudy.com
Menu
Outline
Introduction
The native-English speaker teacher
English language conversation schools
Conclusion
References
With reference to the tuition of communicative English language skills, the Japanese government has continued to rely upon and sponsor programmes which promote the native-English speaker teacher (NEST) as the innate authority of English language teaching. This short paper presents a brief history of the English language within Japan and discusses the current approaches to English language tuition from the perspective of three of the major English conversation schools. I illustrate that within institutional systems infested within false beliefs and discriminatory employment practices, the position of the NEST should be reconsidered in order to allow for new explorations in language teaching from an international perspective to be discovered and utilized.
As early as the 18th century powerful nations such as Russia and Britain had attempted to break the seclusion policy of Tokugawa Japan. However, the U.S were the first to succeed when the visit of American Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry, on a presidential mission to deliver a personal letter from the American president Millard Fillmore asking the Japanese for the establishment of a commercial trade relationship between the two countries, triggered the opening of Japan. The 1854 signing of the ‘Treaty of Kanagawa’ effectively ended Japan's 200 year policy of seclusion. In acknowledgment of Commodore Perry’s achievements he was sent a collective memorial by the American merchants at Canton September 1854 on his return trip to the U.S. which read:
You have conquered the obstinate will of man and, by overturning the cherished policy of an empire, have brought an estranged but culturated people into the family of nations. You have done this without violence, and the world has looked on with admiration to see the barriers of prejudice fall before the flag of our country without the firing of a shot.
Although there was no military conflict at the time, the threat of violence and intimidation played a significant role in the Japanese submission to the demands of its Western intruders. The hurried signing of the treaty was done partly out of fear of saying no to the U.S who possessed superior military power and technology. As Buruma (2003) notes:
There was Perry with his four black ships of evil, thundering an ominous salute at the Japanese coast by firing his canon. And there were the Japanese, lined up on the shore, armed with swords and old-fashioned muskets.
During the subsequent Meiji period, the Japanese rapidly developed a fixation with matching their Western counterparts in military technology, manufacturing methods and academic knowledge. This period saw capitalism and industrialization within Japan boom as numerous Western style factories were established. This expansive rapid development was achieved with the assistance of many foreign consultants who were invited to Japan by the government to help transfer western knowledge to the Japanese. The majority of such information was conveyed in English. At this time access to the world's vast and rapidly developing knowledge base could only be obtained through the use of the English language and thus it held a highly respected status in Japan as did the NESTs who spoke it. These early foreign visitors could be found working as teachers of subject specific material or working as university lecturers. The lack of native-Japanese English language teachers with sufficient abilities and knowledge required for the task provided the main motivation behind the over 3000 NEST invitations. However, growing in statue the Japanese renegotiated the terms of the ‘Treaty of Kanagawa’ believing it was unilaterally in favor of the U.S. After the successful renegotiation, the Japanese government selected a number of Japanese students to go to Western countries to learn about foreign technologies and education. Upon their return in 1883 the need for the foreign English teachers decreased and many were asked to return to their country of origin. The prestigious Tokyo University stopped teaching in English and Japanese became the primary language by which Japanese people could learn about the world. After a period of relative stability known as the Taisho era, further actions against the English intrusion were taken in 1931 when the anti-foreign ideology promoted under Emperor Hirohito took hold. The number of English lessons within Japanese schools was decreased for the first time (Imura, 2003), then in 1942 all remaining U.K and U.S lecturers within Japanese universities were dismissed.
Davies (2003) refers to the concept of the native-speaker as both myth and reality. Assuming that the native-speaker does exist Nayar (1998) argues that "the concept of the native speaker, particularly for a language with such a trans-national and trans-ethnic profile as English, creates some insidious pragmatic problems" (p.28). One such problem applicable to Japan is the confusion of language and cultural identity with academic and linguistic excellence. Within the Japan the NEST is very much in existence and is often considered the benchmark for comparing one’s own language skills to. They provide a knowledge and authority of the language which many believe non-native English speaker teachers (NNESTs) are unable to. Despite this, there is very little evidence available to support the idea that native-speakers are more ‘masterful’ or ‘perfect’ in their command of the language when compared to their non-native counterparts. Medgyes (1996) conducted a research survey of both NESs and NNESs working as English teachers to determine the success of both groups. The conclusions were that both the NESs and NNESs had an equal chance of English teacher success. Medgyes also points out that the only area in which NNESs were less effective than NESs was also in an area which worked in their favour - English language proficiency. Since the NNESs would have studied the language much in the same way as their students, the NNESs has an advantage over the NESs. The NNESs were better able to empathize and show deeper sensitivity to student needs and problems as they themselves were the products of an extensive language learning process. They also served as good learner models and motivators for the students to achieve a higher level of English proficiency.
Within Japan the explicit favouring of NESTs over NNESTs affects the attitudes of local non-native teachers and in turn, their students. Many Japanese students hold the opinion that they need English primarily for the purpose of international communication with the ultimate proficiency goal being to sound as much like a NES as possible. This also positions them to regard NNESTs as being deficient. Suzuki (1999) suggests an alternative to such a situation by stating that Japanese-English language learners should be encouraged to use the English language in a manner which has distinct Japanese characteristics. Such a suggestion is more conducive with the view of English as an international or world language and supports the views of Swales (1993) who argues that "it no longer makes any sense to differentiate between the native speaker and the non-native speaker" (p.284).
Today, over 50 years since the end of WWII, the Japanese have successfully attained one of their early objectives - to lead the world in technological advancements. Whilst this rapid increase in technological ability is admirable, less admirable is the fact that since the Meiji period views on the advancement and spread of the English language within Japan have been restricted to, and reliant upon the same relatively unproven methodologies. During the past decade the Japanese relationship with the attainment of English language skills has enjoyed a renewed boom period during which time the number of students actively seeking some form of English instruction has increased dramatically. This increased demand for English language skills has once again opened up Japan to an influx of NESTs who come to take up so-called ‘teaching’ positions which are often limited in duration. It has also supported the rise in the number of establishments offering English language services commonly known as eikaiwa schools (English conversation schools). For example, institutions such as the NOVA group (720 branches), GEOS (510 branches) and AEON (300 branches) can all be found within the majority of Japanese cities, often located within busy station or shopping areas for maximum convenience. Despite their prevalence, the quality of the product which these businesses deliver is questionable. The consistent poor performances of the Japanese in English have been highlighted through the average scores on international tests such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), which in 2005 Japan ranked the lowest among all other Asian nations with the exception of North Korea. Although such tests are by no means an accurate measure of communicative abilities, they do illustrate the differences in Japanese test behaviors when compared to other Asian countries.
Within many of the above mentioned English language institutions, the assumed nature of the foreigner - Japanese dynamic, similar to the actual teaching methodologies employed, is reflective of that from the Meiji era. Specifically, the dominant viewpoint is that foreign language instructors are not here to be full-time residents of Japan, but to merely provide a function to satisfy a Japanese requirement. It was, and still is expected, that after a NEST fulfils the terms of his/her limited contract he/she will return to their country of origin. Such discriminatory employment practices are partly designed to enforce the ideological view that Japan is home for the Japanese but no more than a working holiday for the foreign teachers. It may then seem somewhat ironic that such practices are commonly labeled as examples of internationalization. The biggest post-Meiji importation of foreigners to Japan has been through the JET programme which began in 1987. The program is promoted on the official website as a program that "aims to promote internationalization in Japan's local communities by helping to improve foreign language education and developing international exchange at the community level." For the foreigner teachers at least, internationalization it would appear has an expiration date and a return air ticket included (see McConnell, 2000 for a comprehensive exploration of the JET programme).
In addition to programs such as JET, many new NESTs who come to Japan are employed by one of the three previously highlighted English conversation schools (NOVA, AEON, GEOS) as the entry requirements are minimal and the schools are keen to accept fresh, unacculturated English speakers. However, these are not companies that most people find themselves wanting to work for beyond a one-year contract. The teacher turn over rate is typically very high, the Japan Times (February 24, 2004) reports that the teacher turn over rate at NOVA is often as high as 70% a year. The NOVA company website currently states that:
People from all around the world gather at Nova, and communicate. Through Nova, they are able to come into contact with many other cultures, and, having equipped themselves with a high level of cross-cultural education and understanding, are active in many fields throughout the world. We at Nova feel it is our mission to produce people who are able to overcome the restraints of nationality and race, and comprehend other cultures and languages.
One could make the assumption based upon this information that NOVA was an undiscriminating employer who valued and appreciated the cultural varieties that shape the English language in a modern international arena. However, whilst Nova claims to have "overcome the restraints of nationality and race", it remains a fact that it employs primarily NESTs only, often defined by physical appearance rather than linguistic ability. Over recent years the NOVA group has been the target of a number of law-suits claiming violations of human rights and general unprofessional business practices both against the employee and the customer (Nova's ban on dating violates rights, The Japan Times, March 1, 2003; Court slams Nova's shady business practices, The Mainichi Shimbun, July 14, 2004; NOVA not enrolling foreign instructors on social insurance, The Asahi Shimbun, March 3, 2005; Nova to pay teacher over demotion, The Japan Times, December 11, 2005; Court rules English language school Nova billed student illegally, The Mainichi Shimbun, January 31, 2006). Likewise, rival company, AEON have also been accused of cheating its employees out of paid holiday entitlement (National Union Voice, October 2004, Vol 1, No 18) and violating the regulations set forth by the Labour Standards Law. On the AEON website it states:
AEON recruits from several English speaking countries around the world, as we realize that diversity is essential to the well-rounded education of our students. The greater the spectrum of individuality to which we can expose our students, the greater their understanding of foreign cultures will be. We are eager to meet with any qualified applicant.
Like with NOVA, the promise of cultural exposure is somewhat shaded by other more rigid regulations. In order to be considered as a qualified applicant at AEON, one must hold a "masterful command of the English language". The classification of language ability can be interpreted as highly misleading and something of an anomaly. How many people can claim to have a mastery of the English language? What exactly constitutes as a masterful command? How can such a school measure an applicant's mastery of English? Such problematic promotions of the NESTs status can also be found on the GEOS website where they state that:
Teaching English in Japan with GEOS is an opportunity of a lifetime. GEOS Corp. is a global network of more than 500 schools in Japan and 47 worldwide, committed to furthering international communication through language education. Since a perfect command of English is required, only applicants who have completed their entire education in English (from elementary school through to university) will be considered.
The use of the term ‘perfect command’ provides an accurate reflection of the value that is placed upon education by such establishments. For a major educational chain specializing in language tuition to use the term with obvious disregard for its implications is at the very least questionable in its motives. Who makes the judgment that persons all round ability in a language is perfect? Is anybody qualified to pass judgment on the perfection of another human being’s language ability? In addition to NOVA and AEON, GEOS has also had experience with employees claiming poor business practices. In 1999 GEOS was taken to court by 14 of its managers over unpaid overtime with the main plaintiff claiming that she was working a 72-hour week under constant pressure to increase sales at her school.
Whilst they are by no means alone, English conversation schools such as NOVA, AEON and GEOS must take some responsibility for the poor performance in English of the Japanese people. These schools provide many students with a reference models on what the teacher-student dynamic should be and as such are acting to enforce a number of false beliefs concerning language learning processes and how the various actors within such processes can expect to be treated and positioned. The high staff turnover rates, questionable teaching methodologies often based on convenience (e.g. all instructors should speak English only), contradictory literature, and the numerous claims of poor practice can only hinder the quest of those Japanese people who have invested large amounts of money in their search for a higher degree of proficiency in the English language.
AEON Group. Application requirements. Retrieved September 26, 2006 from www.aeonet.com/application/index.html
Buruma, I. (2003). Inventing Japan 1853-1964. New York: Modern Library.
Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
GEOS Group. Frequently asked questions. Retrieved September 26, 2006 from www.geoscareer.com/faqs.html
Imura, M. (2003). English education in Japan during the past 200 years. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
McConnell, D.L. (2000). Importing diversity: Inside Japan's JET program. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Medgyes, P. (1996). Native or non-native: Who's worth more? In T. Hedge & N. Whitney (Eds.), Power, pedagogy & practice (pp. 31-42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nayar, P.B. (1994). Whose English is it? TESL-EJ, 1(1), F-1. Retrieved October 16, 2006 from www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL- EJ/ej01/f.1.html
NOVA Group. Corporate concept and vision. Retrieved September 26, 2006 from www.nova.ne.jp/english/corporation/01visions/visions.html
Suzuki, T. (1999). Nihonjin wa naze eigo ga dekinai ka [Why can't Japanese speak English?]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Swales, J. (1993). The English language and its teachers: thoughts past, present and future. ELT Journal 47(4), 283-291
Please check the Skills of Teacher Training course at Pilgrims website.
|
