Elementary School EFL Education in Japan

Yukawa, Takanashi, Koyama 1

August 18-20 Asia TEFL2006

SeinanGakuinUniversity

Japan

Elementary school EFL education in Japan:

Teachers’ conceptions of instructional goals and assessment of their attainment

YUKAWA, Emiko

College of Letters, RitsumeikanUniversity

TAKANASHI, Tsuneo

KOYAMA, Tetsuharu

Department of English, KyotoNotreDameUniversity

E-mail: / /

Purpose:

(1)RQ1: teachers' conceptions of their concrete instructional goals

RQ1A:goals related to motivation & attitude

RQ1B:goals related to English proficiency

RQ1C:relationship between EA and intercultural understanding (IU)

RQ1D:goals related to intercultural understanding

And their relationship with the teachers’ working environment (public/private schools), function (HR/English subject teacher), age, EA initiative, training

(2)RQ2: their views of what their students have achieved so far

And their relationship with the school type (public/private) and total hours of instruction

Table 1. Ratio of the schools which offered English activities

Academic year 2003 / Academic year 2005
3rd grade / 48.8 % / 86.6 %
4th grade / 49.6 % / 87.3 %
5th grade / 51.5 % / 88.5 %
6th grade / 54.1 % / 90.3 %
Average of the 4 grades:
51.0 % / Ratio of the schools which offered E.A. in total: 93.6 %

Source: Survey by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (MEXT)

retrieved on July 27th, 2006)

Table 2. Total instructional hours per year (6th graders)

Academic year 2003 / Academic year 2005
0 hours / 43.9 % / 2.9%
1~11 hours / 35.3 % / 53.0 %
12~22 hours / 13.0 % / 26.5 %
23~35 hours / 6.6 % / 14.1 %
36~70 hours / 1.0 % / 3.3 %
71 hours or more / 0.1 % / 0.2 %

Table 3. Demographic information of the participants

Type of School / Public
Private / 66
34
total / 100
Type of Instructor / English
Homeroom / 48
52
total / 100
Age / -30
30-40
40-50
50- / 18
20
34
16
total / 88
Teaching Experience (1)
(Inside School: year) / 0-1
1-3
3-5
5 - / 7
32
27
30
total / 96
Teaching Experience (2)
(Outside School) / 0-2
1-3
3-5
5 - / 34
18
8
26
total / 86
Experience in Teaching Plan
Development (Yes/No) / Yes
No / 86
13
total / 99
Experience in Curriculum
Development (Yes/No) / Yes
No / 47
50
total / 97

Table 3. Demographic information of the participants (continued)

English Proficiency Level / Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Rank 4
Rank 5 / 20
15
25
21
19
total / 100
Educational Background (1):
English Education
(Multiple answer) / Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Rank 4
Rank 5 / 43
33
13
40
12
total / 141
Educational Background (2):
International Education
(Multiple answer) / Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Rank 4
Rank 5 / 43
20
35
8
12
total / 118

Table 4. Mean ratings on expected goals related to motivation and attitude (Q8)

Item / M / (SD)
Item 1 (enjoy English sound and pronunciation;
participate in English activities) / 1.92 / (.83)
Item 2 (actively approach foreign guests) / 2.01 / (.80)
Item 3 (try to use the vocabulary and expressions
in and outside the classroom) / 2.28 / (.96)
Item 4 (show an eagerness to learn more
vocabulary and expressions) / 2.24 / (.89)
Item 5 (try to look for other opportunities to use,
experience and study English outside the school) / 2.46 / (.89)
Total (Item 1– Item 5) / 2.18 / (.66)

Note: Rated on 5-point scales (1 = Strongly think this should be nurtured;

5 = Do not think this should be nurtured at all)

Table 5. Association between the mean ratings(Q8) and each variable

Variable / Significanceof
Association / N / M / (SD) / Statistical Test
Type of School / × / Public
Private / 65
34 / 2.24
2.07 / (.66)
(.65) / t = 1.21
Type of Instructor / ○ / English
HR / 48
51 / 1.88
2.47 / (.60)
(.57) / t = 5.02**
Age / × / -30
30-40
40-50
50- / 18
19
34
16 / 2.14
2.00
2.24
2.50 / (.70)
(.74)
(.61)
(.53) / F=1.77
(η２=.06)
Experience in
Teaching Plan Development / ○ / Yes
No / 85
13 / 2.11
2.58 / (.66)
(.43) / t = 2.50*
Experience in
Curriculum Development / × / Yes
No / 46
50 / 2.05
2.27 / (.63)
(.67) / t = 1.65
Educational Background:
(1) English Education / × / 94 / rs = -.15
Educational Background:
(2) International Education / ○ / 97 / rs = -.24*

Note. * = p<.05; ** = p<.01; rs = Spearman rank order correlation

Table 6a. Mean ratings on expected goals related to English proficiency (Q9): Top four items

Item / M / (SD) / Ranking
Item 1 (accustomed to English sound and pronunciation) / 1.91 / (.75) / 1
Item 3 (can express colors, food, numbers, days of the
week, sports, names of foreign countries) / 2.05 / (.79) / 2
Item 7 (can understand and enjoy simpleEnglish story books) / 2.24 / (.96) / 3
Item 2 (can greet ALTs or foreign quests and hold
a simple conversation) / 2.32 / (.94) / 4

Note: Rated on 5-point scales (1 = Strongly think this should be nurtured;

5 = Do not think this should be nurtured at all)

Table 6b. Mean ratings on expected goals related to English proficiency (Q9):Next four items

Item / M / (SD) / Ranking
Item 4 (can explain simply about directions, their country,
school, family, themselves, etc.) / 2.45 / (.91) / 5
Item 5 (can recognize and use about 300Englishwords) / 2.65 / (1.07) / 6
Item 6 (can hold a simple conversation, using sentences
of approximately 7 words) / 3.09 / (1.08) / 7
Item 8 (can read simple story books by themselves) / 3.11 / (.99) / 8
Total / 2.47 / (.69)

Note: Rated on 5-point scales (1 = Strongly think this should be nurtured;

5 = Do not think this should be nurtured at all)

Table 7. Association between the mean ratings (Q9) and each variable

Variable / Significance of
Association / N / M / (SD) / Statistical Test
Type of School / ○ / Public
Private / 66
34 / 2.58
2.26 / (.66)
(.73) / t = 2.24*
Type of Instructor / ○ / English
HR / 48
52 / 2.14
2.78 / (.67)
(.57) / t = 5.22**
Age / × / -30
30-40
40-50
50- / 18
20
34
16 / 2.54
2.46
2.58
2.48 / (.63)
(.71)
(.61)
(.67) / F =.15
(η２=.01)
Experience in
Teaching Plan Development / ○ / Yes
No / 86
13 / 2.41
2.86 / (.70)
(.58) / t = 2.20*
Experience in
Curriculum Development / × / Yes
No / 47
50 / 2.39
2.54 / (.68)
(.72) / t = 1.08
Educational Background:
(1) English Education / × / 95 / rs = -.15
Educational Background:
(2) International Education / ○ / 98 / rs = -.24*

Note. * = p<.05; ** = p<.01; rs = Spearman rank order correlation

Table 8. Association between the mean ratings (Q10) and each variable

Variable / Significance of
Association / N / M / (SD) / Statistical Test
Type of School / × / Public
Private / 65
32 / 2.88
3.25 / (1.10)
(1.50) / t = 1.39
Type of Instructor / × / English
HR / 45
52 / 3.13
2.88 / (1.47)
(1.02) / t = .98
Age / × / -30
30-40
40-50
50- / 18
20
32
16 / 2.94
2.60
2.91
3.50 / (1.06)
(1.54)
(1.23)
(1.16) / F =1.54
(η２=.05)
Experience in
Teaching Plan Development / × / Yes
No / 83
13 / 2.96
3.31 / (1.31)
(.75) / t = .92
Experience in
Curriculum Development / × / Yes
No / 44
50 / 2.90
3.07 / (1.37)
(1.13) / t = .65
Educational Background:
(1) English Education / ○ / 92 / rs = .26*
Educational Background:
(2) International Education / × / 95 / rs = -.14

Note. * = p<.05; ** = p<.01; rs = Spearman rank order correlation

Table 9. Mean ratingson goals related to international understanding (Q11)

Item / N / M / (SD)
Item 1 (have the opportunity of meeting ALTs and other foreign
people) / 65 / 2.08 / (.97)
Item 2 (have the opportunity of meeting people fromminority
groups in Japan) / 63 / 2.44 / (.95)
Item 3 (have the opportunity of learning about foreign
lifestyles, languages and cultures) / 64 / 2.13 / (.79)
Item 4 (show an interest and positive attitude towards
learning other cultures and languages) / 65 / 2.05 / (.91)
Item 5 (compare other cultures and languages and
reconsider their own culture and language) / 66 / 2.18 / (1.07)
Total (Item 1 – Item 5) / 66 / 2.16 / (.66)

Note: Q11 was rated by the respondents who answered “1 = strongly think so,” “2 = I think so,” or “3 = I think so

to some extent” to Q10 “Do you think English education should be a part of International Understanding Education?”;Rated on 5-point scales (1 = Strongly think this should be nurtured;5 = Do not think this should be nurtured at all)

Table 10. Association between themean ratings (Q11) and each variable

Variable / Significance of
Association / N / M / (SD) / Statistical Test
Type of School / × / Public
Private / 48
18 / 2.15
2.17 / (.64)
(.72) / t = .10
Type of Instructor / ○ / English
HR / 28
38 / 1.91
2.34 / (.59)
(.65) / t = 2.75**
Age / × / -30
30-40
40-50
50- / 14
14
22
7 / 2.11
2.14
2.20
2.71 / (.57)
(.70)
(.59)
(.75) / F =1.58
(η２=.08)
Experience in
Teaching Plan Development / ○ / Yes
No / 59
7 / 2.06
2.91 / (.61)
(.67) / t = 3.46**
Experience in
Curriculum Development / × / Yes
No / 29
36 / 2.02
2.26 / (.67)
(.65) / t = 1.47
Educational Background:
(1) English Education / × / 62 / rs = -.17
Educational Background:
(2) International Education / × / 63 / rs = -.24

Note. * = p<.05; ** = p<.01; rs = Spearman rank order correlation

Table 11. Mean ratings on perceived achievement (Q12): (N>80)

Item / N / M / (SD) / Ranking
Item 6 (can express colors, food, numbers, days of the week, sports, names of foreign countries) / 95 / 2.03 / (.84) / 1
Item 1 (accustomed to English sound and pronunciation) / 95 / 2.13 / (.80) / 2
Item 10 (can understand and enjoysimple Englishstory books) / 81 / 2.52 / (1.07) / 3
Item 2 (can greet ALTs and foreign guests and hold a simple
conversation) / 82 / 2.60 / (.97) / 4
Item 7 (can explain simply about directions, their country, school,
family, themselves, etc.) / 82 / 2.66 / (1.07) / 5