Academiccornerteacherdevelopmentinjapan checked

Global Lessons from Teacher Development in Japan

Dominic Edsall, Ritsumeikan Primary School, Kyoto, Japan

Abstract This paper explores teacher development in Japan against the background of global trends through the case study of two Japanese teachers of English. Examining local practices in Japan, this paper attempts to draw global lessons and identify barriers to teacher development.

Keywords:​ teacher development, teacher education, Japan, EFL, TESOL

Introduction Teacher development has differed greatly depending on the target students, with modern foreign language teachers following different preparatory courses from both EFL and ESL teachers (Freeman, 2009). Developments in EFL and ESL combined to form one discipline, the Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)(Freeman, 2009). In the case of second language teacher development in Japan, there is an overlapping interface between the fields of TESOL and English as a Modern Foreign language and the influences of both can be seen in the policy and reality of second language teacher development in Japan. This paper will attempt to outline current policy in Japan and how it matches current thinking and trends in teacher development globally. To examine this further, case studies of two Japanese teachers are presented and their experiences examined against such policies and trends.

The Scope & Direction of Teacher Development From the 1990s, the scope of Second Language Teacher Development moved from not just meaning what teachers need to learn, but also to meaning how teachers actually learn to teach (Freeman, 2009). The learning processes that teaching courses focused on and their conceptual frames were broadened from just the processes found in teacher­training situations to those found during the wider socialization of individuals as they developed as professionals (Freeman, 2009). The dimensions of scope have thus been recast as a model with three axes of substance, engagement and influence (Freeman, 2009). Substance combines the content, processes and learning with settings and environments both physical and social, while engagement runs from

imitation to social participation and conveys whether learning processes are implicit or explicit, and influence covers the area between replicable knowledge or behaviours and shaping student learning (Freeman, 2009). While this model allows us to separate traditional practices, such as “sitting with Nellie” and student study groups, from more process­orientated approaches, it seems somewhat confusing as it attempts to force six different factors into a 3­dimensional model, with the acquisition of content as part of a professional identity in direct opposition with the simple learning of knowledge and skills, for example; whereas, a dynamic systems model approach, such as that used in models of cognition and motivation, where each factor interacts dynamically may be more accurate. However, as a simplification it allows teacher development to be more readily defined and different approaches to be more easily compared.

One of the key elements that has defined the scope of teacher development has been the realization that teacher cognition plays an important part in the learning process (Borg, 2009: 163), which would appear to support the engagement axis of Freeman’s model. Borg (2009) argues that ignoring the thinking and beliefs of teachers, whether at the pre­service, practicum or in­service stages will negatively hinder the ability of teachers to internalize new material. Thus, it could be argued, how well teacher development addresses teacher cognition affects how effective that development will be.

Teacher cognition is also important in developing expertise as expertise can be seen as being very much related to the cognitive processes of the mind (Tsui, 2003: 14). Such cognitive processes can be seen in that expertise is developed when teachers attempt to address challenges and do so by going beyond their current level of knowledge and working at the edge of their competence; thus, non­experts only attempt to solve problems that are within their current abilities and that do not stretch themselves (citing Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Tsui, 2003: 272). Therefore, the scope of teacher development should not only include what is learnt and how it is learnt, but also how teachers are to think about teaching and learning itself, even if many current teacher education courses do not include such a focus.

Current Global Trends in Teaching Practice In order to understand teacher development in Japan, it is worth putting practices in Japan into the context of how teaching practices are developing globally and what current trends are. With continued globalization, we might expect to see a significant amount of interaction between practices in Japan and the inner circle countries (See for example Seargeant, 2009; Yano,

2009). Two of the most important practices in English language teacher development are Communicative Language Teaching, which remains the target teaching method for so much of teacher development around the world (Kamhi­Stein, 2009), and Reflection.

Communicative Language Teaching Communicative Language Teaching or CLT has been developed concurrently in Europe and North America with the same central theoretical concept of “communicative competence” and the idea that learners should develop skills that allow them to do certain things with the language. CLT is relevant to any discussion of language teacher development because of its influence upon the theories of language learning, language teaching and the rejection of older form­focused styles of teaching, such as grammar­translation, from the 1970s onwards (G. Cook, 2010: 26).

The influence of CLT can be still be seen today in teaching activities and teaching materials with the sociolinguistic and linguistic goals of CLT firmly embedded in more modern methods, the post­method approach and approaches to materials development (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010: 5; 2011: x; Widdowson, 2003: 22­23). The influence of CLT can also be seen in internationally recognized teaching qualifications, such as Cambridge University’s Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults (CELTA), where student teachers are assessed against several standards including “ensuring … a communicative focus in materials, tasks and activities” and “providing … a communicative focus for language” (“Syllabus and Assessment Guidelines,” 2012: 15)

More specifically, CLT is an obvious influence on the policy of the Japanese Government’s curriculum for English language teaching in Junior and Senior High schools with priority given to effective communication over linguistic accuracy (Sakui, 2004). Thus, CLT seems to have had a larger impact upon recent English teaching in Japan, as there seems not to be such an obvious influence on official policy from other important movements, such as the reflective turn.

Reflection The term, “reflective practice” and the axiom that being reflective assists teacher development throughout a teaching career has come to be accepted widely amongst language teachers (Burton, 2009:298). The definition of reflective practice is actually somewhat unclear; however, it is “characterized by the notion and meaning of thoughtful action” (Burton, 2009: 300).

While the strategies for implementing reflective practice vary immensely and it is difficult to show what teachers do when being reflective, it has become key to teacher learner processes while taking into account contextual and interpersonal factors (Burton, 2009: 302­304).

Although there is evidence that reflection has yet to be completely accepted by all teacher educators in Japan (Kojima, 2008), there is also evidence that reflective practice has been applied to teacher development in Japan with studies identifying various barriers to implementing or inducing reflective practice amongst student teachers (Endo, 2011; Kojima, 2008; Kumazawa, 2011; Nagamine, 2011; Naoe, 2008; Saito, 2010). Saito (2010) identifies several instances of how personal and cultural barriers hinder reflective practice through their impact on teacher cognition and identity, while Nagamine (2011) suggests that the length of teaching practicum in Japan, as dictated by the Japanese government, is too short to overcome these problems and that new teachers should continue to receive both pre­ and in­service support in developing their own reflective practice. The impact of Japanese government policy can also be seen in arguments within the Japanese academic community for increased reflective practice, with Kojima (2008) arguing that reflection amongst teachers and student teachers is critical to implementing policies aimed at encouraging student autonomy. In other words, the role of reflection in teacher development is mediated by government policy and its interpretation by teacher educators in Japan.

Teacher Development & Educational Policy in Japan National Policy and Local Policy The teaching of English as a foreign language has been mandated in Japan since the Meiji restoration of 1868 when Japan’s modernization required the rapid decoding of Western ideas and technology (Seargeant, 2009: 48­49). Currently, implementation of EFL policy is determined by the Education Department of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology (MEXT), known by its Japanese name, the Monbusho (MEXT, 2006). EFL policy development falls under the auspices of the International Education Bureau of the Monbusho who state that “enhancing education to deepen international understanding and teach foreign languages” is one of their goals (MEXT, n.d.). The Monbusho also states that the objective of foreign language activities is not only to foster an understanding of those languages, but also to improve the communication abilities of children and that children should learn the importance of verbal communication (Japanese Government Improvement of Academic Abilities, 2010). Thus,

at the policy level, English is seen more as a pedagogical tool for developing communicative abilities than as a tool for everyday use within Japan.

The Monbusho also implements policies relating to teacher development within Japan and states that enhancing the quality, ability and enthusiasm of teachers is key to successful education and has set itself the goal of increasing teacher numbers nationwide (Japanese Government Improvement of Academic Abilities, 2010). However, the Monbusho presents a somewhat downbeat picture of education in Japan with teacher to student ratios that are much higher than OECD averages and surveys of teachers suggesting that they are overworked and increasingly likely to take sick leave due to mental illness (MEXT, 2009). Against this background, they note that teacher training in Japan needs to be improved at all stages, including prolonging the period of teaching practice from the current average of 4 weeks to levels seen in the US, UK, Finland and Germany of up to 32 weeks, as well as improving professional development (MEXT, 2009).

Under a new system introduced in 2008/2009, teachers can be certificated for a period of 10 years jointly by both universities and local boards of education according to the type of school (elementary, junior high, senior high etc.) in which they intend to teach (MEXT, 2011). For universities, this means a specific number of credits in educational topic areas, but there is no specification beyond the fact that the course credits are within specified educational topic areas; university independence and autonomy are enshrined in the Basic Act on Education (2006), meaning that it is within the discretion of each university to decide if an individual course follows the Monbusho guidelines. Having been certificated either by a university or a local board of education, teachers are then required to pass a local hiring examination set by the board of education for the area where the teacher wishes to work, with successful teachers being ranked according to their scores in order to determine who is actually employed as a teacher in that area (MEXT, 2011). This means that success in the exams does not necessarily lead to employment and any teacher who is employed is assigned to a school by the board of education based on their scores.

Thus, the context of teacher development in Japan is further complicated by the role of the 65 local Boards of Education formed under the Local Autonomy Law 1947 (Matsufuji, 2011), who directly hire teachers and place them in schools. Although members are appointed rather than elected and central government retains overall control and responsibility, these boards have a

filtering effect upon central government policy in being able to determine, amongst other things, the specific minimum requirements for teachers in a particular municipality or prefecture through these hiring examinations (Iwata, 2004; MEXT, 2011).

Curricula in Japan The Monbusho holds responsibility for disseminating the English language curriculum through an official course of study and approving textbooks designed to convey that curriculum (MEXT, 2006; Sakui, 2004; Wada, 2002). However, Sakui (2004) notes that there is a “parallel curriculum” dictated by the content of university entrance exams and delivered in a style much more influenced by the personal experiences of the individual teacher than by government policy. This leaves teachers attempting to juggle government requirements with the requirements of their students or “wearing two pairs of shoes” (Sakui, 2004). Consequentially, a number of teachers simply use the government­approved textbook to teach their students how to pass examinations, with one teacher in Sakui’s (2004) study switching completely to teacher­fronted lessons in order to finish the exam syllabus in time.

Given the inadequate amount of supervision possible during the mandatory two­week teaching practicum (Nagamine, 2011), the influence of student teachers’ prior experience of teaching (Saito, 2010), and the statutorily protected independence of universities (MEXT, 2006); the ability of the government to also influence teacher development curricula is greatly reduced.

Thus, although the Monbusho has responsibility for implementing policy as regards teacher development and the curricula followed, the reality varies enormously across Japan and is open to other influences, including local pressures for students to achieve academic success.

Wash­back and Other Influences on Teacher Development Washback Sato (2002: 56) suggests that there is a “hidden goal” of examination success in English language education in Japan that takes precedence over communicative competence and that there is little discussion of governmental goals for English teachers. As previously discussed, Sakui (2004) is in agreement and suggests that there is a “parallel curriculum” for examinations.

Such a focus on examination success is one dimension of washback, which continues to be a much discussed topic in teaching as well as in TESOL (Alderson & Hamp­Lyons, 1996; Alderson & Wall, 1993; Bailey, 1996; Cheng, Watanabe, & Curtis, 2004; Watanabe, 2003). Marchessau

(2006: 172) even goes as far as to suggest that the washback effects of teachers focusing purely on student test­taking abilities and pass rates in high stakes university entrance exams may be the most serious barrier to improving English education in Japan; that educating teachers and other staff about current theories and practices in SLA and TEFL may actually aggravate the situation if washback is not addressed more in the future. Marchessau’s argument is that teachers will actively resist or even reject attempts at further development of their skills if the pressure on teachers to prepare students for exams is not reduced. His suggestion being that it is impossible to expect teachers to teach their students how to use English when the only recognized goal is for students to pass exams that are biased towards reading comprehension and grammar­translation.

School Culture and Teacher Socialization Watanabe (2003) interviewed teachers and other staff at several schools in Tokyo and Osaka and reported that the explicit focus of at least one school was not only increasing the students’ English ability, but also increasing the number of students accepted into prestigious universities.

Although many of the teachers in his study paid attention to skills that they perceived to be important for university entrance examinations, only 25% of those perceived skills were actually evident in such examination papers. Also, many of the teachers in the study preferentially used techniques they thought would maintain student attention and classroom management both in regular lessons and exam­preparation lessons, with 72% of regular lessons being teacher­centered as opposed to 65% of exam­preparation lessons (Watanabe, 2003: 136­137).

Thus, the priority in teaching was maintaining control of the classroom and not specifically student learning, since teachers were only able to relinquish more control when lessons were specifically focused on exam preparation where students would be under social pressure to perform.

This supports Sato (2002) who has reported that teachers who have good classroom management and control of the class are more highly valued. School culture would, therefore, seem to have important mediating effects upon the goals of and attitudes towards teacher development with teachers more motivated to teach test­taking skills than English language skills. Sato (2002) goes on to highlight a lack of collaboration between staff members who felt that they had little time to discuss pedagogical issues or develop curricula, which would have a negative impact upon teacher development. New teachers in his study also felt uncertain about asking questions of their more experienced peers and felt that maintaining pace with the rest of

the group was the main priority (Sato, 2002). Thus, it would seem that school culture and processes of teacher socialization within that culture can be a major barrier to both change within and even induction into the community of practice of the school, affecting both the substance and level of engagement in teacher development (see Freeman, 2009).

EFL Teacher Development in Japan: Two Case Studies In an attempt to further understand teacher development in Japan, two teachers were surveyed via email exchanges in a narrative case study approach (Duff, 2008; 2012). The teachers were asked a series of questions relating to their own experience of teacher development in Japan and encouraged to give narrative answers to the questions. Follow­up questions attempted to draw further on specific areas, including reflective practice and a comparison between their experiences in Japan and modern approaches to TESOL and teacher development as exemplified by CELTA (“Syllabus and Assessment Guidelines,” 2012) for which each teacher was supplied with a copy of the CELTA syllabus and asked to comment. As noted previously, teacher development courses in Japan can vary a lot between universities as they respond to the local requirements of each board of education (Iwata, 2004; MEXT, 2009), whereas the CELTA course is typical of courses that have been centrally standardized across different teacher­development providers (Brandt, 2007), and thus provides a starting point from which to compare practices in Japan.

“Yuka” Yuka is a Japanese woman in her early thirties. She majored in Italian studies at university, with a minor in English. Yuka also took some education subjects in addition to her main course requirements. After completing her undergraduate degree in 2005, Yuka received teaching license certification from the board of education of a large municipality. However, she had to sit an employment exam for a different board of education before she was offered a teaching position. She taught for nearly 5 years at a state­run Senior High school in the second municipality. At this point in her career, she decided to study further at a university in the UK, where she is currently studying at the postgraduate level.

“Taro” Taro is a Japanese man in his early thirties. He majored in Education at university, specializing in English language teaching and graduating in 2001. Taro initially started working at a private school before taking a board of education hiring exam in 2008. After this, he went back to

university to study education at the postgraduate level, during which he had the chance to study in Australia on an exchange program. After completing his graduate course of study, he entered a state­run Senior High school in 2011 as an English teacher.

Experiences of Pre­Service Teacher Development At university, Yuka took an additional course of subjects focused on English language education alongside her major subject area. This course included a range of topics related to education, such as testing, child language acquisition, phonology and language skills, as well as a number of topics that are not as directly related to education, such as Shakespeare’s The Tempest and the History of American Literature. Taro had a slightly different experience as the major focus of his degree was English Education, and more of his courses were directly related to teaching and predominantly covered areas related to education, linguistics and language acquisition. Yuka stated that she thought the contents varied a lot between universities because “Japanese university lecturers usually teach their own research interests”.

When asked to compare his experiences of Japanese practices with those covered by the CELTA syllabus, Taro reported that he had covered the CELTA syllabus during his postgraduate exchange trip to Australia and that his undergraduate course at university in Japan was more concerned with different teaching methodologies, suggesting that he covered a wider variety of teaching methods than the communicative methods he had seen in the CELTA course.

Meanwhile Yuka noted some other striking differences in the approach of the CELTA course compared to her university course, stating “I was not concerned very much with the purpose of listening, as the purpose was always to get right answers in the exam” (Yuka).

Yuka also noted that there was a big difference in the assumed role of the teacher between that expressed in the CELTA syllabus and the role expected of student teachers on her course and during the practicum: “In the Japanese classroom, teachers’ role is the authority to give knowledge to students, so I was told to maintain a quiet class, except when students practiced reading aloud the textbooks. I also learned how to make myself heard to the students in the end of the classroom, when I was explaining something … I did not consider much about the learners’ differences.” (Yuka) Thus, it would seem that, at least in Yuka’s case, teacher development in Japan focuses on how teachers can convey information to the students as efficiently as possible.

Both Yuka and Taro took the mandatory teaching practicum, and both suggest that it did not improve their teaching that significantly. Yuka commenting on her practicum supervisor stated that “I do not remember his advice well, but I guess that his advice was mainly on classroom control”, while Taro noted that his supervisor for the practicum rarely observed his teaching.

While both Yuka and Taro felt that the required practicum was mainly focused on classroom management skills, Taro noted that during his postgraduate course there was an increased level of supervision during additional teaching practice and that the focus had shifted to a focus on student learning. Thus, it seems that the minimum teaching practicum serves more as a sink­or­swim test of a student teacher’s classroom management and that student learning only becomes a focus when there is additional time available.

Experiences of Teaching and In­Service Teacher Development “I started working at my new school, and the flood of paper and books are furiously attacking me…” (Taro) Taro identified the huge amount of preparation required as one of the most challenging aspects of being a new teacher, whereas Yuka identified a lack of guidance from her more senior peers stating that “they just show their classes, and do not give clear instructions to novice teachers”.

She also notes that the teacher she served her “apprenticeship” with was due to retire shortly and knew nothing of more modern teaching methods: “The advice I got from him was mainly on the position to stand in the classroom, or voice volume or effective explanation of grammar … he taught English by ‘yakudoku’ (Grammar­Translation Method). He did not force me to imitate him, but I tried to imitate him in the end, because he was my model.” (Yuka) Yuka reports that she felt pressure to copy her supervisor in the first year of teaching, even though his methods were at odds with those methods suggested by her university lecturers and other teachers in the school: “ I felt obliged to save my supervisor’s face” (Yuka).

In contradiction, Taro reports that his teaching at both a private and a state high school has been focused on student participation and communicative competence, although he admits that he has had to write a lot of supplementary teaching material to balance the linguistic competence demanded by exams with the communicative focus of the government­approved textbook.

Another contrast between the teaching experience of Yuka and Taro is the way in which they were hired as teachers and the hiring process that they went through. In Yuka’s case, she was hired by the Board of Education (BoE) in a large city in Central Japan, while Taro was hired first by a private school, and then by the BoE in a large city in Western Japan. Comparing the hiring processes of the boards of education, significant differences can be seen in that the selection process for Taro was much more stringent with group discussions in English and numerous written exams and tests as well as a demonstration lesson and interview. In comparison, Yuka completed similar written exams and tests, but was only required to read a passage in English aloud, complete a minimum number of sit­ups and was not required to give a demonstration lesson. Yuka was not able to explain why the BoE dictated that a minimum number of sit­ups was relevant to teaching English.

One similarity between the cases of Yuka and Taro was the regular, weekly in­service seminars that they received as novice teachers, but this contrasted with the very limited opportunities to collaborate with other staff, which were limited to an annual study group meeting and lesson demonstration. Although Taro noted that there was a lot of “learning on the job”, that reflective practice was encouraged, and that this has helped him develop as a teacher; Yuka reported that she felt lost and somewhat adrift with no room for growth or development after 5 years of teaching, which led her to decide to study full­time at the postgraduate level in the UK. This suggests that through the support that Taro received, he has been able to internalize the substance of his teacher development and engage with it, while Yuka has not been able to engage with it in the same way.

Discussion The cases of Yuka and Taro present different views on teacher development in Japan. Taking Freeman’s (2009: 16) model of the scope of teacher development, we can see that the experiences of Yuka and Taro would fit on very different points within the model. Yuka’s initial university course focused on replicable knowledge and behaviors, as evidenced in the teaching of classroom management skills, and the simple transference of knowledge in the linguistic knowledge needed to pass exams, for example. This matches Freeman’s mapping of conventional teacher development; however, her later experiences of the teaching practicum and in­service training better match Freeman’s mapping of apprenticeship models of teacher development. Taro’s experience of teacher development would also move around within the space of Freeman’s model with his later experiences, particularly during his postgraduate

course, showing how social and intellectual scaffolds have allowed him to fully participate as a professional (see Freeman, 2009: 17). Contrast this with the case of Yuka, who was not encouraged to develop expertise through working at the limit of her abilities (citing Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; see Tsui, 2003: 272) and was encouraged to simply transmit information efficiently following the same learned routines. Given the possible frustration caused by such a lack of support for student learning and the demand for academic success, it might be unsurprising that Yuka chose to quit her teaching job and become a postgraduate student.

One question remains regarding when Yuka and Taro underwent their teacher development and whether Yuka’s experience represents an example of older practices in Japan. Yuka’s experiences relate to the period between 2004 and 2009, while Taro’s experiences relate to the overlapping period between 2001 and 2011; however, Taro took a local BoE’s hiring exams in 2008 coinciding with changes to the teacher licensing system (MEXT, 2011), while Yuka took a BoE’s hiring exams in 2005. Therefore, it might be possible that the differences in these exams and their experiences overall signal that a positive change has taken place within teacher development in Japan. However, the independence of university courses and the lack of oversight give rise to the possibility of large inconsistencies and a lack of coherence. Taro stated that he was still under pressure to balance the demands of university exams and government policy and there seems to be debate about how to change the impact of washback effects.

Conclusion Teacher development in Japan is a complex subject with national government policy competing with the influence of universities, university exams and local boards of education. There is some evidence that, following global trends, teacher development may be moving towards a more process­orientated system where teachers develop their professional identities through social participation. However, barriers remain, such as social and academic pressures on teachers as well as the variable quality of pre­ and in­service development. Given the lack of coherence that has been discussed and continued washback effects, both pre­ and in­service teacher development are possibly some of the biggest barriers to student learning in Japan.

References Alderson, C. J., & Hamp­Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: a study of washback.

Language Testing​ , 13(3), 280–297. doi:10.1177/026553229601300304

Alderson, C. J., & Wall, D. (1993). Does Washback Exist? ​ Applied Linguistics​ , 14(2), 115–129. doi:10.1093/applin/14.2.115 Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: a review of the washback concept in language testing. ​ Language Testing​ , 13(3), 257–279. doi:10.1177/026553229601300303 Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.

Borg, S. (2009). Language Teacher Cognition. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), ​ The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education ​ (pp. 163–171). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brandt, C. (2007). Allowing for Learning: A Critical Issue for Certificate Course Tutors. ​ English Language

Teacher

Development​ ,

10,

1–9.

Retrieved

from

http://elted.net/issues/volume­10/Brandt.pdf Burton, J. (2009). Reflective Practice. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 298–301). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cheng, L., Watanabe, Y. J., & Curtis, A. (2004). Washback in language testing. research contexts and methods (p. 237). Routledge.

Cook, G. (2010). Translation in Language Teaching (1st ed. p. 177). Oxford University Press.

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics (p. 233). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Duff, P. A. (2012). How to Carry Out Case Study Research. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Research Methods in Second Language Acquistion: A Practical Guide. Chichester: Wiley­Blackwell.

Endo, Y. (2011). Teacher Trainees' Autonomous Development Through Reflection. In D. Gardner (Ed.), Fostering Autonomy in Language Learning. Gaziantep: Zirve University.

Freeman, D. (2009). The Scope of Second Language Teacher Education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education (pp.

11–19). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Iwata, Y. (2004). Recent Trends on Teacher Education Reform in Japan (pp. 1–11). Presented at

the

ICT

on

Teacher

Education,

Beijing,

China.

Retrieved

http://www.u­gakugei.ac.jp/~currict/about/iwata.info/20041023beijing.pdf

from

Kamhi­Stein, L. D. (2009). Teacher preparation and Nonative Engish­spekaing Educators. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kojima, H. (2008). Integration of Autonomy, Reflection, and Collaboration in Pre­ and In­Service EFL Teacher Education. OnCUE Journal, 2(3), 188–205.

Kumazawa, M. (2011). Vulnerability and resilience: Working lives and motivation of four novice EFL secondary school teachers in Japan. (C. Pearson Casanave, Ed.) (p. 383). Temple University. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/34/77/3477771.html Marchessau, G. (2006). The State of the JET Programme, Team Teaching and English Education in Japan. 鳴門教育大学研究紀要.

Matsufuji, Y. (2011). The Revision of the Postwar System of Local Autonomy (1952­1960). In Y. Kimura & T. Hatta (Eds.), Historical Development of Japanese Local Governance (Vol. 6, pp. 1–39). Council of Local Authorities for International Relations. Retrieved from http://www3.grips.ac.jp/~coslog/activity/01/05/file/Seiritsu­6_en.pdf MEXT

(2006).

Basic

Act

on

Education.

MEXT.

Retrieved

from

http://www.mext.go.jp/english/lawandplan/1303462.htm MEXT

2009

Education

White

Paper.

Government

of

Japan.

Retrieved

from

http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpab200901/1305844.htm MEXT. (2011). Teacher Training and Certificate System, 1–9.

MEXT (Ed.). (n.d.). International Education. MEXT. Retrieved April 8, 2012, from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/elsec/1303533.htm Nagamine, T. (2011). Facilitating Reflective Learning in an EFL Teacher Education Course: A Hybrid/Blended­Learning Approach. Bulletin of Kumamoto Prefectural University Humanities Department, 17, 15–37.

Naoe, T. (2008). The role of cooperative learning in the introductory stages of art teacher training programmes in Japan. International Journal of Education Through Art, 4(2).

Saito, M. (2010). Reflection and Development of Professional Belief: A Case Study of Five Preservice Teachers (pp. 1–49). Presented at the The Second East Asian International Conference on Teacher Education Research, Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/44666/1/saito.pdf Sakui, K. (2004). Wearing two pairs of shoes: language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 58(2), 155–163.

Sato, K. (2002). Practical Understandings of CLT. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching. New Haven: Yale Univ Press.

Seargeant, P. (2009). The Idea of English in Japan. Ideology and the Evolution of a Global Language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Tsui, A. (2003). Understanding Expertise in Teaching. Case Studies of Second Language Teachers (p. 308). Cambridge Univ Pr. Wada, M. (2002). Teacher Education for Cirricular Development in Japan. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching. New Haven: Yale Univ Press.

Watanabe, Y. (2003). Teacher factors mediating washback. In L. Cheng, Y. J. Watanabe, & A. Curtis (Eds.), Washback in language testing: research contexts and methods (1st ed.).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford Applied Linguistics (1st ed. p. 193). Oxford University Press.

Yano, Y. (2009). The Future of English: Beyond the Kachruvian Three Circle Model? In K. Murata & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian Contexts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

CELTA. (2011). CELTA. cambridgeesol.org, Syllabus and Assessment Guidelines. Cambridge.

Retrieved

January

6th

2015

from

https://celta.wikispaces.com/file/view/celta­syllabus­assessment­guidelines­2011.pdf/366 610644/celta­syllabus­assessment­guidelines­2011.pdf

***** Biography Dominic Edsall has taught English in Japan for more than 10 years to students of all ages from young learners to university students and adults. In addition to being a qualified science teacher in the UK, he completed an MA in TESOL with distinction at the Institute of Education, University of London in 2012. He currently teaches at Ritsumeikan University’s affiliated elementary school in Kyoto, Japan. His research interests include teacher education and development, student and teacher autonomy, self­access learning, motivation, CLIL and content­based approaches to SLA, EFL writing, academic writing, and extensive reading.