Following global trends, Tahira’s (2012) summary of MEXT guidelines shows that from the 1970s onwards, a communicative approach was desirable. In 1989 the guidelines stated that developing students’ communicative ability in English was the central purpose of English education in Japan. The development of the communicative approach was born from the work of sociolinguists in the 1970s, and the notion of “communicative competence”.
The concept of “communicative competence” was developed by the sociolinguist Dell Hymes (1967, 1972). In contrast to Chomsky, Hymes claimed that language was not just concerned with usage, but also how to use the language appropriately in a variety of situations and circumstances. He believed that social interaction was much more important than mastery of language structure. Hymes’ theory posits that a competent speaker needs to understand not only grammatical rules, but also:
• The social and cultural rules which apply to the context or situation in which language is used
• The relationships between the interactants • The purpose of the communication
• The topic
• How to speak or write strategically to achieve a purpose
The main aim of teaching in this approach therefore is seen as enabling students to use language appropriately in social contexts. McDonough and Shaw (1993) categorize the approach as having the following main features:
• Spoken and written language is important • Language is viewed within its social context
• Language learners need to develop knowledge of the social context in order to develop appropriate language use
• Course content is based on student needs
• The teacher acts as a facilitator to arrange language learning opportunities • Teaching is learner-centred
• Fluency is important as well as accuracy
From these definitions, we again see a tension between what has happened previously and what is now expected of teachers. Many Japanese teachers in the 1980s and 1990s would have undergone study and assessment within a system of grammar translation, or the
audiolingual method, when they themselves were students; and thus they are highly resistant to new ideas. Richards and Lockhart (1996) explain that teachers’ beliefs about learning are often based on their own experience as language learners. Coupled with the assessment procedures that are still the target of much learning, it is almost inevitable that the communicative approach would face problems in Japan.
2.3.4.1 Problems with communicative language teaching
MEXT guidelines have followed global trends, from an audiolingual approach whereby grammar was ignored and tasks were orally based, to a grammar translation approach where written language was seen as vital. McDonough and Shaw (1993) claim that in the early days of the communicative approach, teachers tended to abandon grammar in favour of using language in real-life settings. McDonough and Shaw (1993) explain that communicative language teaching has led to:
• An avoidance of grammar teaching • Inadequately preparing students for tasks • A sharp decline in accuracy
• A devaluing of the teacher as a source of knowledge in relation to language teaching • Shy or introverted students being placed at a disadvantage
McDonough and Shaw (1993) describe the design of communicative materials as
polarizing function versus grammar, as if they were somehow in opposition. Yamaoka (2010) claims that the increased emphasis on fluency over accuracy in English teaching in Japanese schools has led to a general decline in the level of English proficiency in students,
particularly in the level of accuracy of students’ written work. These problems, however, do not appear to fully explain the lack of success of the communicative approach in Japan, as many of the above arguments continue to contradict the reality of the situation in Japanese classrooms. The school exam system tends to measure accuracy rather than fluency. Therefore, a decline in accuracy coupled with a corresponding improvement in students’ fluency would be reflected in exam results only as a decline in accuracy. Any improvement in fluency would not be detected. If the exam system measures a decrease in accuracy but not an increase in fluency, this does not necessarily mean the standard of English is declining.
In contrast, MEXT guidelines as recent as 2012 call for more emphasis on oral skills. Tahira (2012) claims that the implementation of communicative language teaching has happened at a “sluggish pace” (p. 5). MEXT (2010) in its own studies has found that the majority of English classes are conducted in Japanese, with the majority of student output being also in Japanese.
One reason for this is that the communicative language approach is not a “method”, but rather a “methodology”. Brown (2007) describes this methodology as having varied
interpretations and manifestations, with the ambiguity regarding definitions leading to varied teacher perceptions of what constitutes communicative activities. One reason why this situation may be exacerbated is that the MEXT guidelines are often vague and difficult to understand. According to Fennely and Luxton (2011), the MEXT guidelines are routinely misunderstood, and the researchers highlight an urgent necessity for clear and unambiguous definitions of teaching activities and procedures that are to be followed. They call for teacher training, arguing that current provisions are inadequate for addressing the aims and objectives of the MEXT guidelines. It is small wonder that teachers who have themselves experienced a grammar translation system of education may feel more comfortable within this framework.
Added to this is the continued presence of an examination system that appears contrary to the MEXT stated guidelines for language use. The primary form of assessment that has the most profound effect on English language teaching in Japan is the high school and university entrance exams. Section 2.3.5 will present the integration of assessment into these different approaches to English language education in Japan, as in many cases
assessment dictates entirely the motivations, aims and objectives behind different approaches to language education.