INDIRECTLY SPEAKING / Facts for education policy critics

Mike Guest / Special to The Daily Yomiuri

The Education, Science and Technology Ministry is the object of widespread criticism for its handling of English-language education, but how much of that criticism is on target? How many carping teachers or jaded journalists have read, for example, "The Course of Study for Foreign Languages," an official ministry document?

Knee-jerk criticism of the ministry for the shortcomings in one's own classroom is the ultimate display of apathy. By absolving oneself of responsibility and placing the blame on distant, unassailable authorities, one has basically ruled out the impetus for improvement--resigning oneself to one's fate and tacitly legitimizing the politicos. Strange then that some should associate this ultimate shikata ga nai with "showing concern" or even as some sort of low-level activism. It is neither--and is in fact very much an affirmation of the status quo.

Of course government educational policy should be fair game to criticism but only after scrutiny from affected parties. Anything else is bar talk. Those who criticize the ministry without knowledge as to how the system operates or what English education policy actually is cannot effect positive change. Informed criticism is more effective criticism--much of which can be empowering for teachers.

One thing that is helpful to know (and something that should be stamped on every new foreign reporter's Japan-orientation kit) is that the ministry rarely imposes unilateral policies bound up in explicit rules. The most obvious misunderstanding of this sort is the annual "history textbook controversy" in which foreign readers are given the impression that there exists in Japan only one government-mandated textbook for each subject, when in fact several textbooks are approved with the final decision going to the local board of education--usually in conjunction with local teacher representatives.

Likewise, new English education policies are invariably expressed as flexible guidelines--certainly nothing of the "on Feb. 9 ALL middle school second year English students in Japan will learn relative pronouns at 10 a.m." variety. Interpretation and implementation of guidelines is left up to local educators, even individual teachers. No, you are not at the mercy of "the man."

"The Course of Study for Foreign Languages" (www.mext.go.jp/english/shotou/030301.htm) gives a concise outline of ministry guidelines and thereby offers an informed foundation for either praise or criticism.

Although it has faults, which I will outline, there is some progressive thinking involved. The most obvious is that policymakers are thoroughly aware of communicative functions of language and the need for languages to be taught in a manner that reflects this. The document is loaded with stated objectives such as "to develop students' basic practical communication abilities such as listening and speaking," "to enable them to understand the speaker's intentions," "to speak correctly about one's thoughts and feelings to the listener" and "to carry on a dialogue and to exchange views regarding what has been listened to or read."

For reading, one of the listed objectives is "to understand the writer's intentions in messages, letters, etc. and respond appropriately." For writing, one is "to write messages, letters, etc. that correctly transmit the writer's intentions to the reader."

As for tasks, "Communicative activities where, for example, students actually use language to share their feelings and thoughts with each other should be carried out."

In terms of lexis, the document shows an appreciation for teaching collocations and idiomatic set phrases.

So, it's not as if the ministry's minions are unaware of basic developments in foreign language teaching over the last 30 years. They are perfectly cognizant of the need for sociolinguistic and pragmatic awareness of language, the need to focus on meaning and the content that generates meaning. Criticism that the ministry is hostile or oblivious to such functions of language appears unwarranted.

So where are the weak spots?

Well first of all, the document simply asks too much of teachers. Teachers couldn't possibly address all that is proposed in such a short period, nor could students possibly absorb all that is suggested, which means that little will be recycled or learned at a deeper level. This also means that students are likely to develop an awareness of specific English forms only at the passive or latent levels, meaning language that cannot be readily retrieved, applied or transferred. The guidelines need to be trimmed.

Second, there are rather large sections devoted to grammatical structures that are expected to be taught (and learned--which of course is a very different thing) during the study period. The prominence and specificity of these sections suggests that many teachers will concentrate their efforts on these areas, reinforcing the unfortunate view that second language acquisition is basically an accumulation of discrete structural points, despite the guidelines' attempts to show otherwise. No one at the ministry is forcing teachers to adopt such a methodology, but making this unfortunate pedagogical choice is understandable.

The same holds true for the "suggested word" lists. Except in the case of concrete nouns, especially those found in discrete sets (such as the days of the week), word meaning and usage is best acquired by the words' repeated appearance in meaningful contexts that help give them shape. The taxonomic approach that the world list implies, however, is likely to lead to the sort of vocabulary teaching where English words are merely given a matching Japanese dictionary headword, after which it is assumed that the word has been "learned."

This is especially troubling since many of the most common English words are multifunctional, with wide applications and meaning ranges. Having students assume that, for example, "take" always equals "toru" is not conducive to the development of systematic or holistic English. Again, although the guidelines do not force teachers to utilize such a pedagogy, the 900-word mandate makes it easy for teachers to fall into this trap.

So, despite the document's attempts to foster the development of meaningful communication skills, it comes off as rather schizophrenic. It's as if everyone connected to the ministry had a go at inputting their own pedagogical priorities. In trying to be all things to all people it is likely to make teachers throw their hands up in confusion and focus only on the easily defined and managed discrete items. And if teachers take this tack we can expect student comprehension to be hiroku-asaku (wide and shallow).

While many of the intentions in the guidelines are honorable (yes, there is a place for discrete grammar and vocabulary item learning) it reminds me of an orchestra where each player's ideas are given equal prominence, resulting in an untamed cacophony that demands the services of a shrewd conductor or producer. And that's where the individual teacher--not a bureaucrat--comes in.

Guest is an associate professor of English at Miyazaki University. He can be reached at mikeguest59@yahoo.ca.