Yanagita, 2017); (3) a lack of knowledge about how to implement or adapt CLT to context-appropriate teaching practices (Sakui, 2004; Taguchi, 2002, 2005); (4) resistance to innovation (Cook, 2009; Sato & Kleinsasser, 2004; Underwood, 2012); and (5) poor pre-service and in-service teacher training (Kizuka, 2006; Lamie, 1998; Yonesaka, 1999).
These challenges are not limited to Japan. The difficulty of implementing CLT while attending to examination preparation appears to be broadly transferable to a range of teaching contexts (e.g. see Carless, 2007; Hatipoglu, 2016; Li, 1998). Collaborative action, whether that involves team teaching, text selection or group materials design (e.g. see Honigsfeld & Dove, 2012; Kamhi-Stein et al., 2017; Nunan, 1992), is another domain of activity common to many – if not most – language teaching contexts. Pre-service and in-service training experiences (e.g. see Diallo, 2014; Li & Baldauf, 2011; Obaidul Hamid, 2010), and a reliance on teacher-fronted instruction (e.g. see Li, 1998; Li & Baldauf, 2011; Orafi & Borg, 2009), are also commonly cited factors that have limited ‘communicative’ curriculum implementation in a variety of language teaching contexts across Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
Another effort to develop greater mutual ‘international’ understanding and English language skill improvement in Japan was the introduction of the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) programme in 1986, which involves having ‘native’-speaking (i.e. L1) non-Japanese work as assistant language teachers (ALTs) in English classes at elementary and secondary schools. These instructors work with Japanese teachers in the planning and implementation of lessons, that is, they are involved with collaborative materials design and team teaching. Similar programmes have been introduced in Hong Kong (where such teachers are known as native-speaking English teachers [NETs], see Carless & Walker, 2006; Nunan, 2003), and as part of the English Programme in Korea (EPIK) in South Korea (see Carless, 2006). The successes and difficulties of the JET and associated team teaching programmes represent a book in themselves, but generally speaking ALTs often perceive themselves to be sidelined. Team teaching represents a significant challenge for both the local Japanese and non-Japanese ALT teachers; communication difficulties and differences in the perception of each other’s role are two key problems (see Carless, 2006; Mahoney, 2004; Moote, 2003). These issues have been noted in other countries (e.g. in China, see Rao & Chen, 2019), and given that team teaching is now expanding beyond Asia (e.g. Chile, see Barahona, 2017) and may grow in use due to the integration of content and language learning (see Fan & Lo, 2015; MacDonald et al., 2012), team teaching – and the associated challenges of collaborative planning and instruction – may become of greater importance for language education researchers.
1.1.2 English as a medium of instruction
Historically, English classes at Japanese high schools have been mediated in Japanese. Reflecting the movement across Asia towards English medium instruction (see Hu & McKay, 2012), a new Course of Study (MEXT, 2011b) was announced in 2011 which mandated that from 2013, high school English classes should be conducted ‘primarily’ in English. The English translation of the MEXT (2011b: 3) curriculum guidelines stated, ‘when taking into consideration the characteristics of each English subject, classes, in principle, should be conducted in English’.
The announcement of the new guidelines led many to speculate that teachers would not or could not make such a shift in teaching practice. In a series of studies, Glasgow (2012, 2013, 2014) showed that JTEs themselves felt underprepared for the introduction of the new curriculum, and lacked ‘confidence’ in their ability to implement the guidelines. Specifically, teachers discussed a lack of confidence in their perceived L2 ability (Benesse Educational Research and Development Institute, 2011; Glasgow, 2014), and the MEXT itself recognised that only 24% of junior high school and 49% of senior high school teachers had attained the required English proficiency benchmark level (Commission on the Development of Foreign Language Proficiency, 2011). Quite simply, it seemed that many teachers just did not feel that they had sufficient L2 resources, or experiences, to use the L2 as a teaching language. Other research (Underwood, 2012) highlighted the social context of teacher practice, indicating that teacher intentions towards the implementation of the new curriculum were influenced by the teams that they worked with – where social pressure and school culture may lead teachers to reject making changes to their teaching practice.
This shift towards L2-mediated L2 instruction in Japan is similar to reforms being implemented in other countries – with similar difficulties arising. Indonesia, Hong Kong, South Korea and Nepal (see Baldauf et al., 2011; Choi, 2015; Hamid et al., 2013) are examples of countries that are moving towards – or have implemented – English medium instruction during compulsory English language education. South Korea is one of the leaders in this movement and has been steadily introducing curriculum changes regarding the teaching of English as a foreign language (EFL; see Choi, 2015; Kim, 2008). Teachers have been required to use English as the primary teaching language since the mid-2000s, stimulating a significant amount of research about the impact of the policy on teachers (e.g. Choi, 2015; Kim, 2008; Shin, 2012). Research findings highlight the transferability of key challenges across contexts, as similar difficulties have been found in South Korea as those noted above for Japan. For example, teachers have had difficulty in adapting CLT to match the local context (Li, 1998), often because no specific methodology is prescribed in the guidelines beyond a mandate to employ a CLT approach (Choi & Andon, 2014). Similar concerns about a lack of L2 proficiency appear to limit the teaching behaviour of Korean teachers (Choi & Lee, 2016; Kim, 2008), while other research (Shin, 2012) has noted that teachers work primarily within teams – many of which may not support curriculum changes – leading to policies not being implemented.
1.1.3 Teacher beliefs and teaching practice
Throughout this process, a wide body of research about teacher cognitions – defined by Borg (2003: 81) as ‘what teachers know, believe and think’ – has been carried out. This is due to the generally accepted assumption that the beliefs of teachers are a key influence on their judgements of pedagogic practice and teaching behaviours (see Pajares, 1992). However, extant research of the relationship between teacher beliefs and practice from the wider field of education (e.g. Chen, 2008; Fang, 1996; Shi et al., 2014), within the smaller field of language teaching (e.g. Basturkmen, 2012; Basturkmen et al., 2004; Farrell & Bennis, 2013), and of language teachers in Japan (e.g. Sakui, 2004, 2007; Taguchi, 2002, 2005) has often revealed significant inconsistencies between teachers’ reported beliefs and behaviours.
With respect to CLT and the integration of the L2 into teaching practice, research from Japan (e.g. Nishino & Watanabe, 2008; Sakui, 2004; Taguchi, 2005) and other language teaching contexts (e.g. Hong Kong and Libya, see Mak, 2011; Orafi & Borg, 2009) has often shown a divergence between (generally) positive teacher beliefs about CLT or the integration of ‘communicative’ activities and teachers actual classroom practices, which are often teacher fronted with a focus on knowledge transmission. Conflicting beliefs and contextual influences often appear to account for these inconsistencies. For example, in a study of three EFL teachers in Libya, Orafi and Borg (2009) identified positive beliefs in two participants about pair work; however, due to negative perceptions of student capability, the teachers explained that they avoided such activities. As examinations assessed students’ receptive skills, teachers emphasised preparation via translation and knowledge transmission, rather than making use of opportunities for English usage. Similar patterns are noted by Basturkmen (2012), who reviewed the relationship between language teacher beliefs and practices, finding that contextual (e.g. examination pressure and colleague support) and personal (e.g. perceived L2 ability) factors often influenced the extent to which beliefs and practices were in alignment.
Teacher cognition research has highlighted key insights into the (sometimes conflicting) beliefs of language teachers, and has helped identify important personal and contextual challenges that may limit implementation. However, one limitation – particularly in Japan – has been linking teacher self-beliefs with their intentions and/or practice. This may be due to the decontextualised manner in which beliefs have been investigated. To illustrate, some studies have compared teacher beliefs about curriculum changes or teaching approaches and their perception of confidence towards implementation (e.g. Glasgow, 2014; Hamamoto, 2012), finding that positive attitudes towards such policies or approaches were often not aligned with (negative) teacher confidence to implement them.