Job Discussion Forums

[martinphipps]

I am writing a book about teaching English in Asia, but my experience only relates to Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines. Tell me about teaching English in Japan. I have some specific questions.

Do you work with a local teacher? Is she in the classroom with you or does she teach the same class at a different time? Is he or she considered your boss or your equal or does this depend on how much experience you have?

When in Japan, do people expect you to learn the local language or are they surprised whenever you use Japanese at all? Are you forbidden by your school owners from using Japanese in class? Do the students seem to expect you to understand Japanese and get frustrated when you don't understand Japanese?

Do most people work in private cram schools or in government sponsored public schools? Do they provide you with textbooks and a syllabus or is that entirely up to the teachers? Do you get in trouble for using Japanese in class or by not playing enough games or are teaching methods left up to the teacher to decide?

If it isn't you who makes the decision as to how to teach your class then who's decision is it? Your co-teacher? Your supervisor? The owner of the school?

What is the biggest problem that Japanese students have? How does the local language affect the way they speak English? Are there any words they especially have trouble pronouncing? Do students have trouble adapting to the fact that English uses a different alphabet or do they pick it up fairly quickly?

Thank you.

Martin Phipps,
Assistant Professor,
Department of Applied Foreign Languages,
Chungtai Institute pf Health Sciences and Technology,
Taichong, Taiwan

[AgentMulderUK]

If we tell you anything, do we get our names in the book

[Glenski]

What exactly is the difference between your book and the many others out there that tell the same thing? No offense, but this is somewhat key in selling it.

To answer your questions, however,

[martinphipps]

Yes, I know about David Paul's book _Teaching English to Children in Asia_ but I don't agree with the idea that Child-Centered methodology is necessarily the way to go in Asia because for most Asian countries the level of English is very low and they need to spend more time on basics like the alphabet and phonics before they can be expected to learn on their own. Besides, David Paul's book doesn't deal with specific issues relating to Asian counties: nor does he discuss Asian countries separately and ask if the same methods can be used throughout the region. In other words, he really doesn't even address in his book any of the questions I asked about in my post.

As for people getting credit, the answer is that you would, of course, have to provide some information about yourself, at the very least your name, if you wanted me to quote you directly. A lot of people on these forums post anonymously. But the questions I asked are, I think, very straightforward and not essay type questions so I doubt if I would be quoting anyone from here. Indeed, if I get a response that is very different from others and is even criticised by others then I would regard such an answer as simply a minority opinion and not something worth quoting.

Martin

[Nismo]

[JimDunlop2]

That's a tall order. If you are indeed researching a book on the subject, and don't intend on actually teaching here yourself for any considerable length of time, my main recommendation would be the following.

Book a flight and trip to Japan. Arrange to meet with various teachers of English in different venues. Interview them and ask them the questions you've asked here.

- a native-speaking teacher from one of the "Big 4"
- a Japanese-speaking grammar teacher from one of the above
- one of each of the above that works for a small eikaiwa
- a "juku" teacher
- several ALT or JETS that work in both public and private elementary, junior and senior high schools (this is where you will find the most variety in experience)
- a university-level English professor

Better yet, would be to interview several members of each of the above...

I, for one, would not mind in the least setting up an appointment with you to discuss your questions. But, IMO, there's little point in getting into much detail in this manner.

The "shotgun" approach of asking a VERY general question on an Internet forum will yield questionable results at best. I apologize if I sound rude, but as an assistant professor, of all people, you should know that. Your questions, as specific as they may seem, will find dozens of different answers, each differing with individual situations.

Given the info you've provided to date, Glenski has pretty much provided the best answer as far as I can see. Otherwise, asking us to tell you about teaching in Japan is lot like asking a Canadian what the people are like in Toronto. Unless you have a statistical, methodological approach, you are only dealing in hunches, individual case studies and broad-sweeping stereotypes.

[martinphipps]

[JimDunlop2]

The Big Four generally refers to: NOVA, GEOS, AEON and Berlitz. Sometimes ECC is also listed in the "Big Four" instead of Berlitz.

The fact that phonics is not taught is a complex problem. Conisder that: despite Japan's consistantly scoring lowest in English ability on standardized proficiency exams among Asian countries, the Japanese government still has been unable to adequately make-up for the shortcomings.

In elementary schools, children will often not have any English language education whatsoever. In the area where I work as a Jr. High School teacher, I make regular 1-day visits to a number of elementary schools. Each school gets about 5 visits a year. That's IT!

Whenever governments and BoEs discuss making English a regular subject in the curriculum, they get faced by a very BIG and UGLY demon that rears its head. No one is qualified to teach the children on a F/T basis!

When students finally get to jr. high, English is taught 3x a week. Usually, 1 of the 3 classes is a "conversation" class taught by a native speaker, and the other two are grammar classes taught by a Japanese-speaker. Phonics is not taught, because there is no time for it. We MUST adhere to the textbook curriculum, as it's sufficiently demanding as not to allow time for any deviation. Even in my conversation classes, I make sure I draw on the model grammar and examples used in the text. Otherwise, the students fall behind very quickly. In 1st grade of jr. high we start by teaching the alphabet, because over 1/2 the class doesn't know it. About midway through the year, students are STILL confused when they write Bs and Ds, Ms and Ws, as well as any other letters that either look or sound alike. By 2nd grade jr. high, my students STILL don't know proper Hepburn romanization, and I find myself correcting dumb mistakes to their own names, like: Syotaro instead of Shotaro, or Motizuki instead of Mochizuki.

Finally, niether the native-speaking teachers nor the Japanese teachers know enough about phonics as such to be able to teach it confidently and effectively.

But again, that is a LONG treatise to get into.

JD

[JimDunlop2]

Adendum: When I say Hepburn romanization, I refer to the Modified Hepburn System of Romanization, which is the standard method used in common Japanese texts, signs, academia, business, etc...

The alternative methods are: Nihon-shiki, Kunrei-shiki (Monbusho) and JSL.

Some students still learn kunrei-shiki in elementary school... Which gives them a working knowledge of English alphabet letters, but the phonics are counter-intuitive.

As well, phonics is generally neglected because Japanese people tend to "Japanize" foreign words. They spell them out using the "katakana" alphabet, hence making the word Japanese. This way, they can gloss over the whole phonics issue by making simple English -- Japanese katakana translations. Eg. transmission = to-ra-n-zu-mi-sho(syo)-n.

The biggest problem with this, of course, is assuming that there is a 1:1 equivalence between English and Japanese phonemes, which there is not. This gives rise to Japlish or Engrish... I am always telling my students that "terebi" is not an English word, but "TV" is.

[martinphipps]

Thanks.

I just realised: what is the difference between an "eikaiwa" and a "juku"? In Korea, there are some schools that focus on conversation and some that focus on grammar but they are all called "hogwan".

I have an except ready for you guys if you want to know where I am coming from. Basicly, I want to know if everything I say about Korea and Taiwan also applies to Japan.

"If there is one thing that David Paul and I agree on, it is that students need consistency. I also agree with him when he says that both local and foreign teachers should be regarded as professionals.
"Unfortunately, this is not the way most cram schools in the region operate: typically the native speaker is not treated as a professional because he or she might have no teaching experience beyond that obtained in a TESOL course and may, in fact, be employed for the first time anywhere. In Korea and Taiwan, the minimum requirements required to obtain a working permit are either a two year university diploma and a TESOL certificate or a four year university degree. In many cases this is not enough. How does an art history or political science major apply his or her education to teaching kindergarten children? Even those who have obtained a TESOL certificate do so after only having had four hours of contact time with actual students, which is less teaching time than most of us put in every day. (Riddel, David, _Teaching English as a Foreign Language_, McGraw-Hill, 2001.)
"Obviously when cram schools hire foreign teachers with little or no teaching experience then it is understandable that they would want the foreign teachers to play a subordinate role to local teachers. If these schools actually wanted qualified foreign teachers then they should pay experienced teachers substancially more than first time teachers. The fact that first time teachers in Asia can expect to get paid almost the exact same amount as teachers with far more experience suggests that cram school owners in Asia don't consider experience to be an important factor when hiring people from overseas. Indeed, it is not unheard of for cram school owners to state a preference for younger teachers and even make a point of saying "no experience necessary" in their recruiting advertisements.
"There are several reasons why cram school owners might want younger, less experienced teachers. For one thing, inexperienced teachers are less likely to demand a higher salary than the school would be willing to pay. Similarly, if an experienced teacher does demand a higher salary, the school can decide not to renew his or her contract and hire a new teacher from overseas: the school might crunch the numbers and decide that the added expense of hiring a new teacher, possibly through a recruiting service, is more cost effective than paying an experienced teacher what she thinks she is worth. When this happens, it is clear that the cram school is more interested in running a business than it is in teaching its students.
"Another consideration is marketing: parents like to see young teachers; they think these young teachers will be very active and that the students will have a lot of fun. For older students, a younger teacher may even be sought by the school because they want someone handsome or beautiful who will then bring in more students. This is not entirely unreasonable: even young children might respond more favorably to a teacher they think is physically attractive, even if they aren�t yet thinking in those terms.
"Another important consideration is that an experienced teacher might demand autonomy in the way his or her class is taught, that the teacher who has been teaching for many years may not want to follow along with the way that the administration thinks classes should be conducted. This is an especially important consideration when dealing with older teachers: according to Confucian philosophy, the views of elders should be respected, so if the foreign teacher is older than the local teachers already teaching at the school then the administration may fear that the foreign teacher may expect the local teachers to do things his or her way and not the other way around.
"I don't blame local teachers for wanting more authority: local teachers are typically paid less than a third what foreign teachers make in Asia. To some extent, giving the local teachers more authority can make the local teachers feel better about themselves and, presumably, not come to resent the higher salaries paid to foreign teachers. Sometimes a cram school will have many local teachers and only a few foreign teachers and the foreign teachers will be expected to teach up to twice as many classes as the local teachers. This is very cost effective, especially if the foreign teacher's contract includes benefits like a free room with furniture. The result, however, is that the foreign teachers take on the responsibility to teach twice as many students as the local teachers and yet may have absolutely no authority whatsoever when it comes to deciding how these students should be taught.
"This approach by cram school administrators will only serve to heighten tensions between local and foreign teachers, especially if the cram school administrators inadvertantly set foreign and local teachers against one another by trying to lay blame when something goes wrong. Instead, cram school administrators should encourage foreign and local teachers to work together to solve whatever problems may arise.
"Ideally, foreign teachers and local teachers should work together to develop a common teaching strategy based on the needs of their students. If the foreign teacher is new to teaching or if the foreign teacher is new to the school and doesn't know the students, then the foreign teacher should follow the local teacher's lead, but if the foreign teacher has teaching experience and both the foreign taecher and local teacher are equally familiar with the students that are being taught, then the foreign teacher and local teacher should work together as a team to decide what is the best approach for the students. If the two of them together decide that a child-centered approach is appropriate for their particular students then so be it.
"Above all, there should not be the division of labour that is so common in Taiwan, unless it is because both teachers recognize that each of them have certain strengths and weaknesses: if the local teacher doesn't speak English very well then it may be necessary for the foreign teacher to spend all his time teaching conversation; if the foreign teacher doesn't have any experience teaching grammar and would prefer to just play games with the children then the local teacher may rightly feel it necessary to spend his or her classtime teaching grammar, often using the local language as a shortcut rather than getting the students to listen to English. In either case, one might very well wonder why the cram school in question chose to hire such unqualified teachers."

This should be seen as work in progress, of course.

Martin

[Nismo]

[JimDunlop2]

Thanks for the excerpt.

The difference between a "juku" and an "eikaiwa" are, as you say, cram school versus English conversation school. A juku doesn't necessarily even teach English... It is meant to prep students for entrance exams -- plain and simple. An eikaiwa definitely does not do that. Some eikaiwas may have exam prep as a secondary mandate, but the primary mandate is English conversation, usually with a native English speaker. There may or may not be a Japanese teacher involved. This is purely dependant on the school.

The school where I used to work before I started with the BoE, there were 5 classes of students essentially (aside from special classes like company classes or elementary school visits).

- babies
- kids' classes
- jr. high
- sr. high
- adult

Baby classes ALWAYS had two teachers (Japanese and native-speaker) AND the child's parent. 45 minutes.

Kids' classes at the lowest level (young age) had both teachers involved as well. 50 minutes.

Starting from about age 7 and 8 or so, (Gogo Loves English 3 or Let's Go 1), classes were split. 40 minutes alone with the native-speaker, then 40 minutes with the Japanese teacher. The native-speaker would usually teach the textbook as well as do any games/communicative activities, whereas the Japanese teacher would concentrate only on grammar, doing drills in the accompanying workbook, assigning and checking homework. Total: 80 minutes split 40/40.

jr. high school classes: native speaker only. 60 minutes
sr. high school classes: same
adult classes: same

As for your book, I thought your excerpt was interesting, and there is little I would be at odds with, even in a Japanese setting. From personal experience here in Japan though, the one thing I do question, is your premise of regarding the native-speaking teacher as a professional. Yes, all native English-speaking teachers demand an equal level of professionalism in their interactions with their local teacher peers, but to say that they should automatically be regarded as professionals is sketchy. IMO, being a "professional" and having professionalism are two very distinct and rather unrelated concepts.

My issues with native English-speakers being regarded as professionals:

1. Many "teachers" have done nothing to have earned the designation of a "professional." Just because I've sung in the shower since I was 4 doesn't make me a professional singer, much less a voice teacher. Most teachers here have absolutely no training, skills or education in pedagogy, and they get insulted when someone who HAS put in that time gets edgy and points that out to them. Sure, it IS most definitely possible to have a teacher who has not been formally trained in the field surpass the abilities of one who has, especially when you introduce experience. Someone who has been in classrooms for 10 years, even without setting foot in a TESOL program, much less the "education" department of a university, may well be a much better teacher than one who is green and fresh out of school with his brand new BEd. Let's be realistic, however. In Japan, that just isn't the case most of the time.

2. Many private schools don't WANT a professional. They want a clown. Or a comedian, or an entertainer... Or an edutainer... But not a teacher. This was made very clear to me in my last job. I had students quit the class because I occasionally gave them excercises that challenged their present level of English. Management basically told me to quit "teaching" because that's not why the students were there. I was told they were there mainly to socialize with others, share a common HOBBY, and spend an evening outside the home.

3. Many teachers, (on this forum too) don't WANT to be regarded as professionals. They are perfectly content being stand-up comedians, musicians and happy-go-lucky goofballs. When I worked for an eikaiwa, I definitely had co-workers who wouldn't even pick up the textbook all year long (though they were supposed to have completed it by the end of the year) and do nothing but "fun stuff" with their kids. Is there anything wrong with that? Not necessarily, but I would hardly designate that as being a professional.

This is all different than "professionalism." That should be present in all of the above situations, whether you are a uni. prof. or singing nursery rhymes to babies.

Anyway, I digress. Thanks again for the insight into your book.

[Akula the shark]

Some of the problems that students face have been covered, but one that really struck me was the fact that Junior-high and High school students are not taught the importance of culture. I have met quite a few Japanese who speak English well, but are basically culturally illiterate, meaning that native-English speakers living in Japan find them annoying and tend to avoid them.

[Tonester]

I'll agree with that, Gordon. I do find that some of the Japanese who are good at english act like they do in Japanese and that includes saying things that would be considered rude in our own culture. Imagine having one of them walk up to you and say things like "You're fat, you better lose weight" or "When are you going back to your country?"

Which is why I feel it is important to teach that these phrases are unacceptable when talking to an english speaker.

[Brooks]

yes Akula, I agree with you.
I was told to teach culture as well as English, and I agree.
I have students who go abroad and they need to learn about foreign cultures.

I learned that some Japanese English teachers only know about Japanese culture and kind of expect the foreign teachers to act Japanese, which is impossible and leads to friction.
One teacher that I work with anounced to his class one day last year that he hated Americans. At that time there were four Americans (including myself) at my school. One of my former students told me about this and it really bothered him.