Teachers Working Together module writer Peter J Collins:
After teaching English at secondary schools in Kenya, Taiwan, and Mexico, Peter received his MA in TEFL at the School for International Training in Vermont. He came to Japan in 1995, and in 1998 started at Tokai University’s Foreign Language Center. In 2004 joined Tokai’s Higher Research Institute of Educational Development, which supported and advised JTEs and ALTs at junior and senior high schools around the country. He has contributed to three MEXT-approved textbooks: empathy Oral Communication I and Magic Hat English I and II, and One World English for junior high. In 2014, Peter started at Tokai University’s International Education Center. His research interests include teacher collegiality, learner autonomy and ways to extend secondary textbook units with communication activities.
|
Affiliation
Tokai University
Site
Contents
1.0 Objectives
2.0 Recommended Reading
3.0 Introduction
4.0 Section One: Revisiting Assumptions about Team Teaching Pitfalls and Potential
4.1 Team Teaching: Policy and Practice
4.2 Perceptions of the NNS and NS
4.2.1 Traditional Perceptions
4.2.2 Updated Perceptions
4.2.3 Recognizing NNS and NS Strengths
4.3 Clarifying JTE-ALT-S Relationships
4.3.1 Revisiting JTE-ALT-S Relationships
4.3.2 English as Knowledge
4.3.3 English as a Communication Tool
4.3.4 Updating JTE-ALT-S Relationships
5.0 Section Two: JTE and ALT Roles in Extending a Textbook Unit
5.1 Setting a Communication Goal
5.2 Analyzing and Extending a Textbook Unit: A Checklist
6.0 Final Thoughts
7.0 References
2.0 Recommended Reading
3.0 Introduction
4.0 Section One: Revisiting Assumptions about Team Teaching Pitfalls and Potential
4.1 Team Teaching: Policy and Practice
4.2 Perceptions of the NNS and NS
4.2.1 Traditional Perceptions
4.2.2 Updated Perceptions
4.2.3 Recognizing NNS and NS Strengths
4.3 Clarifying JTE-ALT-S Relationships
4.3.1 Revisiting JTE-ALT-S Relationships
4.3.2 English as Knowledge
4.3.3 English as a Communication Tool
4.3.4 Updating JTE-ALT-S Relationships
5.0 Section Two: JTE and ALT Roles in Extending a Textbook Unit
5.1 Setting a Communication Goal
5.2 Analyzing and Extending a Textbook Unit: A Checklist
6.0 Final Thoughts
7.0 References
List of Figures
1: ALT as instructor, JTE as assistant
2: JTE as instructor, ALT as assistant
3: JTE and ALT as turn-takers
4: Activity Theory (Engeström, 1987)
5: English as knowledge (Suzuki, 2006)
6: English as a tool for communication (Suzuki, 2006)
7: JTE and ALT as models of a communicative relationship
8: ALT as informant, JTE as student supporter
9: ALT as learner, JTE as student supporter
10: JTE and ALT as facilitators of social practice with a community
11: Checking background knowledge
12: Noticing vocabulary
13: Noticing grammar
14: Understanding the unit goal
15: Key Expressions Worksheet for Unit 6: We Are the World, Part 1 (Ito et al, 2013)
16: Text Comprehension for Unit 6: We are the World, Part 1 (Ito et al, 2013)
17: Pattern Practice Worksheet for Unit 6: We are the World, Part 1 (Ito et al, 2013)
18: Pattern Practice Worksheet for Unit 6: We are the World, Part 1 (Ito et al, 2013)
20: Extra Reading Universal Worksheet for Unit 6: We Are the World, Part 1 (Ito et al, 2013)
2: JTE as instructor, ALT as assistant
3: JTE and ALT as turn-takers
4: Activity Theory (Engeström, 1987)
5: English as knowledge (Suzuki, 2006)
6: English as a tool for communication (Suzuki, 2006)
7: JTE and ALT as models of a communicative relationship
8: ALT as informant, JTE as student supporter
9: ALT as learner, JTE as student supporter
10: JTE and ALT as facilitators of social practice with a community
11: Checking background knowledge
12: Noticing vocabulary
13: Noticing grammar
14: Understanding the unit goal
15: Key Expressions Worksheet for Unit 6: We Are the World, Part 1 (Ito et al, 2013)
16: Text Comprehension for Unit 6: We are the World, Part 1 (Ito et al, 2013)
17: Pattern Practice Worksheet for Unit 6: We are the World, Part 1 (Ito et al, 2013)
18: Pattern Practice Worksheet for Unit 6: We are the World, Part 1 (Ito et al, 2013)
20: Extra Reading Universal Worksheet for Unit 6: We Are the World, Part 1 (Ito et al, 2013)
1.0 Objectives
This module is designed to help both JTEs and ALTs;
Note: Information in this module is transferable to all levels of education. When completing this module consider, in the reflection questions, how to apply the content to different levels of schooling; elementary, junior and high school. Add further comments and ideas on the Facebook group.
- Identify and think critically about traditional assumptions regarding the strengths, weaknesses, and roles of “native” and “non-native” English-speaking teachers.
- Recognize and develop relationships at the lesson planning, materials creation, teaching, and reflecting phases.
- Design and conduct communication activities that both extend four-skills textbook units and allow ALTs to contribute more meaningfully to four-skills classes.
Note: Information in this module is transferable to all levels of education. When completing this module consider, in the reflection questions, how to apply the content to different levels of schooling; elementary, junior and high school. Add further comments and ideas on the Facebook group.
See the dedicated tab for training in elementary schools here.
2.0 Recommended Reading
AJET, 2014. Assistant Language teachers as Solo Educators. Retrieved from
http://ajet.net/downloads/reports/2014/ALTs_as_Solo_Educators_JP.pdf - 日本語
https://ajet.net/downloads/reports/2014/ALTs_as_Solo_Educators_ENG.pdf - English
Brown, J. D. 2013 On the Way to Effective Team Teaching: A model of ICC development within the context of team teaching in Japan. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 33. Retrieved from https://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr33/brown.html
Birch, G. (2008). ALTs’ roles and duties: Official documents versus ALT self reports. Journal of
the Chubu English Language Education Society, 38, 101-108.
Gorsuch, G. (2002). Assistant Foreign Language Teachers in Japanese High Schools: Focus on the hosting of Japanese teachers. JALT Journal, 24. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/jj/articles/2645-assistant-foreign-language-teachers-japanese-high-schools-focus-hosting-japanese-te
Miyazato, K. (2013). Cross-cultural misunderstandings between JTEs and AETs. In N. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2012 Conference Proceedings, Tokyo: JALT.
Miyazato, K. (2009). Power-Sharing Between NS and NNS teachers: Linguistically Powerful AETs vs. Culturally Powerful JTEs. JALT Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/jj/2009a/art2.pdf
Miyazato, K. (2013). Cross-cultural misunderstandings between JTEs and AETs. In N. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2012 Conference Proceedings, Tokyo: JALT. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/proceedings/articles/3241-cross-cultural-misunderstandings-between-jtes-and-aets
http://ajet.net/downloads/reports/2014/ALTs_as_Solo_Educators_JP.pdf - 日本語
https://ajet.net/downloads/reports/2014/ALTs_as_Solo_Educators_ENG.pdf - English
Brown, J. D. 2013 On the Way to Effective Team Teaching: A model of ICC development within the context of team teaching in Japan. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 33. Retrieved from https://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr33/brown.html
Birch, G. (2008). ALTs’ roles and duties: Official documents versus ALT self reports. Journal of
the Chubu English Language Education Society, 38, 101-108.
Gorsuch, G. (2002). Assistant Foreign Language Teachers in Japanese High Schools: Focus on the hosting of Japanese teachers. JALT Journal, 24. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/jj/articles/2645-assistant-foreign-language-teachers-japanese-high-schools-focus-hosting-japanese-te
Miyazato, K. (2013). Cross-cultural misunderstandings between JTEs and AETs. In N. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2012 Conference Proceedings, Tokyo: JALT.
Miyazato, K. (2009). Power-Sharing Between NS and NNS teachers: Linguistically Powerful AETs vs. Culturally Powerful JTEs. JALT Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/jj/2009a/art2.pdf
Miyazato, K. (2013). Cross-cultural misunderstandings between JTEs and AETs. In N. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2012 Conference Proceedings, Tokyo: JALT. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/proceedings/articles/3241-cross-cultural-misunderstandings-between-jtes-and-aets
A comprehensive list of references on team teaching is here
– if you find something that would support ALTs’ not on this list, email [email protected] and we’ll add it.
– if you find something that would support ALTs’ not on this list, email [email protected] and we’ll add it.
3.0 Introduction
For over 30 years, team teaching has been a feature of English education in Japan’s junior and senior high schools. Both JTEs and ALTs, however, continue to report that they are unsure about what “team teaching” really means and how close their own planning and teaching come to meetings its goals. The goal of this module is to provide both JTEs and ALTs with a team teaching framework that clarifies teacher relationships in lesson planning, materials creation, and in-class teaching, especially in four-skills (listening, reading, speaking and writing) subjects. This framework, which draws on Activity Theory, (Engeström, 1987) and the Four Strands (Nation and Newton, 2009) is concrete, yet flexible enough to be applied in team teaching situations ranging from Junior high English 1, 2, and 3 to Senior high English Communication I, II, and III. The first section of this module, entitled Revisiting Assumptions about Team Teaching: Pitfalls and Potential, introduces ways to shift traditional perspectives of non-native speakers (NNS) and native speakers (NS) of English, as well team teaching’s role in English education at Japan’s secondary schools. The second section, JTE and ALT Roles in Extending a Textbook Unit presents a unit plan and sample materials from each phase of a typical English Communication I textbook unit. This is followed by a checklist designed to help team teachers brainstorm ways to extend units in their own textbooks.
Before starting the module, consider these two reflection questions:
Before starting the module, consider these two reflection questions:
4.0 Section One: Revisiting Assumptions About Team Teaching: Pitfalls And Potential
JTEs and ALTs who are engaged in team teaching face a number of challenges. Some of them are based on traditional perceptions of JTE and ALT strengths and weaknesses. Others are more practical, for example textbooks are designed to be solo taught, have limited ALT teaching schedules, and there are fundamental differences between solo taught four-skills classes and team taught conversation classes. This section of the module will give a brief overview of some of these challenges, then present Activity Theory as a framework within which to meet them.
4.1 Team Teaching: Policy and Practice
A general image of team teaching practices emerges when context-specific needs and conditions are taken into consideration. Sandholtz (2000) identifies three team teaching patterns: 1) allocating responsibilities between two teachers, 2) planning together but teaching independently, and 3) cooperating on all phases: planning, instruction, and evaluation. Tajino and Tajino (2000) differentiate between a “covert team” in which teachers cooperate in planning and evaluation and an in-class “overt team” operating in view of the students. Robinson and Schaible (1995) recognize three varieties of team teaching: 1) “traditional,” in which two teachers actively share instruction of content and skills, 2) “collaborative,” where teachers design and teach a course through discussion in front of the learners, and 3) “complementary/supportive,” in which one teacher is responsible for teaching content and the other for providing follow-up activities on related topics and/or study skills.
In the context of Japan’s secondary education system, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) has long adopted the stance that team teaching is a valuable educational and cross-cultural tool that benefits both counterparts as well as their students. MEXT has never offered, however, a particular framework within which JTEs and ALTs can clarify their teaching relationships.
In the context of Japan’s secondary education system, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) has long adopted the stance that team teaching is a valuable educational and cross-cultural tool that benefits both counterparts as well as their students. MEXT has never offered, however, a particular framework within which JTEs and ALTs can clarify their teaching relationships.
MEXT, 2002 |
“The presence of two teachers teaching together ensures increased and better interaction between the teachers and learners, and leads to improvement in the quality of teaching.” |
MEXT, 2008 |
“Team teaching classes conducted in cooperation with native speakers, etc., should be carried out in order to develop students’ communication abilities and to deepen their international understanding.” |
This lack of Ministry guidance, combined with the fact that JTEs and ALTs seldom, if ever, cover team teaching in their pre-service teaching programs, poses an obstacle to team teaching’s inherent potential:
Wada, 1994 (The government employee who initiated the ALT system) |
“It is also a fact that team teaching began without any form of pedagogic research to validate it as an effective educational innovation.” |
Gromik, 2004 |
“There are, surprisingly, no set rules concerning the duties that the ALTs should perform and consequently… the resulting pattern of provision is decidedly uneven.” |
Scholefield, 1997 |
“During their tertiary education, teachers of English receive no formal training with respect to team teaching.” |
Sandholtz, 2000 |
“When responsibilities are simply allocated among teachers, the collaboration dissolves into team teaching in name only with few opportunities for professional growth.” |
Collins, 2012 |
“Paradoxically, while ALTs seem to enjoy a certain privileged status within conversation classes, they may also find themselves marginalized within the overall educational system.” |
4.2 Perceptions Of The NNS and NS
4.2.1 Traditional Perceptions
Many have noted an unfortunate tendency to privilege the native speaker over the non-native speaker in Japan’s English education system, particularly at the secondary school level. This may be based on assumptions dating back over 50 years:
Chomsky, 1965 |
Notes that “linguistic theory is concerned with an ideal speaker-listener in a completely homogeneous speech community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance.” (p. 3). Claims that there is an optimal grammar for each language that represents the ideal speaker’s linguistic competence. As such, the native speaker is the ideal informant regarding grammatical judgments, so is the only one equipped to characterize sentences in grammatical terms. |
For at least three decades, however, numerous educators have objected to Chomsky’s idealized notion of the NS:
Ferguson, 1983 |
Complains about linguists’ tendency to view native speakers “as the only true and reliable source of language data” (p. vii) |
Phillipson, 1992 |
Coins the term “Native Speaker Fallacy” to describe the belief that native speakers are intrinsically better qualified to teach the language. |
Widdowson, 1994 |
Resents the assumption that “native speakers alone can be the arbiters of what is authentic since authenticity can only be determined by insiders.” (p.387) |
Canagarajah, 2006 |
Cites the growing number of multilingual English speakers and challenges the “exclusivist identity” of USA- and UK-centric views of the language. (p.202) |
Geluso, 2013 |
Asserts that the modern world’s dynamism and interconnectedness renders NS stereotypes inaccurate and warns that “such hackneyed representations will only serve to impede one’s own progress in a rapidly evolving international community.” (p.104) |
Trudgill, 2008 |
Proposes that we not dichotomize speakers as either entirely native or non-native, but, instead, place them on a more-or-less continuum. |
4.2.2 Updated Perceptions
This backlash against the traditional notion of the NS has contributed to a gradual expansion of what “nativeness” can, and perhaps should, mean:
Goto Butler, 2007 |
Supposes that, at the individual level, nativeness may include fundamental elements such as linguistic competence and the age of first exposure to a language. |
Davies, 2003 |
Proposes that the native speaker has “access to some kind of language faculty, which may be called Universal Grammar (UG) and which has to operate at a very high level of abstraction.” (p. 209). Calls nativeness “a social construct, a choice of identity and a membership determined as much by attitude and symbolically as by language ability and knowledge.” (p. 9) |
Brutt-Griffler and Samimy, 2003 |
See nativeness as “a non-elective socially constructed identity rather than a linguistic category.” (p.100) |
Medgyes, 1999 |
Argues that “the native/non-native distinction should be established on the basis of self-ascription.” (p.16) |
4.2.3 Recognizing NNS and NS Strengths
One response to the perennial issue of NS privilege has been to identify and enumerate the NNS’s innate strengths:
Medgyes, 1999 |
Notes that non-native teachers bring certain innate capacities to language teaching, especially the linguistic, cultural, and educational heritage they share with students. |
McConnell, 2000 |
Points out that solidarity with JTEs is “a far more powerful force than identification with the goals of the ALT.” (p.216) |
Shimaoka and Yashiro, 1990 |
States that JTEs are knowledgeable about students’ previous learning and levels of understanding, preferred learning styles, psychological states, and first language interference. |
Davies, 2003 |
Reminds us that non-native speaker teachers have a relatively firm grasp of the rules of the target language. |
Takada, 2000 |
Points out that non-native speaker teachers are models of successfully learning the target language. |
Similarly, educators have sought to point out inherent NS strengths:
Locastro, 1996 |
ALTs tend to emphasize communication ability. |
Medgyes, 1999 |
NS teachers
|
Miyazato, 2009 |
NS teachers
|
4.3 Clarifying JTE-ALT-Student Relationship
4.3.1 Revisiting JTE-ALT-S relationship
JTEs and ALTs often report that their team teaching partnerships tend to fossilize quickly, with one teacher as primary instructor (the ALT in Fig. 1 and the JTE in Fig. 2) and the other as assistant. Given the lack of time many team teachers have to prepare truly team taught lessons, these scenarios are, perhaps, predictable. In a third scenario, the JTE and ALT take turns providing instruction and facilitating activities, as seen in Fig. 3. While these lessons may reflect a positive working relationship and a relatively high level of preparedness, it may occur to the team that they are, essentially, sharing the responsibilities of a single, bilingual solo teacher (Collins and Fine, 2013). Students are seldom, if ever, recognized as team members.
Johnston and Madejski, 1990 |
“If two teachers are to be present in the classroom, there must be ways of using that fact to the full, rather than have them just take turns at teaching.” (p.2) |
4.3.2 English as Knowledge
An important early step in forging more meaningful JTE-ALT-S relationships is to revisit the assumptions about English language learning that underpin teaching practices. Activity Theory (Engeström, 1987) is an educational framework recognizing six factors as key to learners achieving their desired outcomes: object, subjects, instruments, community, rules, and division of labor (see Fig. 4). In the traditional classroom (see Fig. 5), the desired outcome is assumed to be socioeconomic, with success defined, at least in part, by such factors as income, material possessions, and social status. For the subjects (here, the students), the most important step toward achieving these outcomes is high scores on university entrance exams; to that end, students’ object, in terms of the English exams, is to acquire massive amounts of linguistic knowledge. The traditional instruments expected to help students pass English entrance exams consist of vocabulary and grammar instruction, carried out almost entirely in Japanese, and English reading passages that are translated into Japanese. (See the blog on ‘washback’ for discussion on the influence of testing on teaching).
The classroom depicted in Fig. 5 reflects the traditional notion of English as merely a body of knowledge to be internalized (Hanks, 1991; Suzuki, 2006). Note that community, rules, and division of labor are grayed out in the traditional approach; these are seldom, if ever, considered in teacher-fronted classes. If pressed, the traditional teacher might define the community as simply a classroom of competitors working individually without regard for their classmates. The rules and division of labor, similarly, are limited to test-taking strategies students need to compete successfully for limited spots at prestigious universities. At the high school level in Japan, this model is particularly resilient in English Communication, I, II, and III, since success on university English exams is perceived to depend most heavily on mastering the linguistic knowledge covered in these four-skills subjects.
Outside the classroom, of course, English is recognized as a tool for communication. One way for team teachers to shift from an English-as-knowledge perspective toward an English-as-communication-tool one is to introduce authentic tasks that assume social practice to be the desired outcome (such as ordering in a restaurant, applying for a job, or going to the doctor). The teaching approach that comes to mind here is Task-based Teaching. This approach (covered in module 8), falls under the umbrella of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), and, as with other CLT, approaches, is relevant at all levels of schooling.
For many students, their only chance to engage in anything resembling social practice is in team taught classes. There are numerous configurations for scheduled team taught classes at the upper secondary level; some schools offer team taught Conversation and/or English Expressions subjects, while others schedule regular or sporadic ALT visits to English Communication I, II, and III. Both scenarios have a tendency to perpetuate at least two dichotomies between solo-taught and team-taught classes. First, the language introduced in four-skills classes is academic, while other classes center on everyday conversational English. Additionally, solo taught classes are often perceived by both teachers and students as painstaking, at best, while team taught classes are seen as entertaining, though of less importance to success on exams (Miyazato, 2009; Collins, 2012).
Outside the classroom, of course, English is recognized as a tool for communication. One way for team teachers to shift from an English-as-knowledge perspective toward an English-as-communication-tool one is to introduce authentic tasks that assume social practice to be the desired outcome (such as ordering in a restaurant, applying for a job, or going to the doctor). The teaching approach that comes to mind here is Task-based Teaching. This approach (covered in module 8), falls under the umbrella of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), and, as with other CLT, approaches, is relevant at all levels of schooling.
For many students, their only chance to engage in anything resembling social practice is in team taught classes. There are numerous configurations for scheduled team taught classes at the upper secondary level; some schools offer team taught Conversation and/or English Expressions subjects, while others schedule regular or sporadic ALT visits to English Communication I, II, and III. Both scenarios have a tendency to perpetuate at least two dichotomies between solo-taught and team-taught classes. First, the language introduced in four-skills classes is academic, while other classes center on everyday conversational English. Additionally, solo taught classes are often perceived by both teachers and students as painstaking, at best, while team taught classes are seen as entertaining, though of less importance to success on exams (Miyazato, 2009; Collins, 2012).
This situation is often exacerbated by a lack of coordination between the content, language, skills, and activities in solo-taught and team-taught classes. Imagine, for example, a solo English Communication II teacher leading students through an English-to-Japanese translation of the reading passage in Unit 6 on the three Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) of waste disposal. On Monday, the class translates Part 2 of the reading passage, but then on Tuesday, the ALT steps in and conducts a mini-debate on school uniforms; interrupting the JTE’s syllabus and creating a lack of continuity in the students’ minds.
(See Caleb Moon’s blog for more insight on solo teaching).
4.3.3 English as Communication Tool
Shifting to a perspective of English as a communication tool is fundamental to closing the gap between four-skills and other courses, regardless of how often and when students experience team teaching. Take the English Communication II example from above. Together, the JTE and ALT may announce on Day 1 of Unit 6, “Two weeks from today we will be creating an English pamphlet with text and explanations for waste disposal in our city. The pamphlet will be copied and made available at our city hall and other places around town.” Alternatively, they may let the students know they will be doing a mini-documentary on waste disposal and posting it online for people in the ALT’s hometown in Canada to watch and comment on.
In this way, team teachers are helping students understand, even before beginning the next unit in the textbook, that their motivation for acquiring the vocabulary, mastering the grammar, and, most importantly, for understanding the reading passage, is to interact with people in the real world about the Unit 6 contents. Rather than seeing the textbook as a necessary, though incomplete, tool for exam preparation, they will ideally see it as a resource of information to people who need it, or are at least interested in the textbook.
In this way, team teachers are helping students understand, even before beginning the next unit in the textbook, that their motivation for acquiring the vocabulary, mastering the grammar, and, most importantly, for understanding the reading passage, is to interact with people in the real world about the Unit 6 contents. Rather than seeing the textbook as a necessary, though incomplete, tool for exam preparation, they will ideally see it as a resource of information to people who need it, or are at least interested in the textbook.
In Fig. 6, the lower half of the Activity Theory framework is no longer grayed out. The nature of the task, whether it be providing foreigners in Japan with a pamphlet or creating a mini-documentary for a Canadian audience, provides enough context so that a community can be defined; it includes the target audience for the students’ message, as well as the students themselves. For the task to be carried out effectively, the teacher and students must negotiate and determine both a division of labor and appropriate rules or guidelines for each student, according to their roles in the project and in the interaction with the target audience. These may be linguistic, communicative, or behavioral rules.
It is important to note that textbook writers, especially for four-skills classes, do not imagine or set communication goals for each unit, leaving teachers to analyze units and brainstorm ways to extend them with tasks. However, a task that extends a textbook unit rather than interrupts it helps avoid the lack of continuity in the students’ minds discussed above. Note that when students understand the communication goal of the unit from the beginning and are reminded of it throughout the unit, the actual task need not take more than one or two days to complete. Significantly, expanding the endeavor from “teaching language” to “using language to communicate” invites students to join and contribute to the JTE-ALT team effort.
Perhaps even more important than the sense of accomplishment students feel when completing their task is the validation they get when they receive a response from their target audience. The JTE may create an email address to which foreigners using the students’ pamphlet can send messages thanking them or asking further questions. Similarly, the ALT can solicit reactions and follow-up questions on the student’ mini-documentary from friends and family and pass them on to the class. When students see that their spoken and/or written English has impacted an audience outside the classroom, their motivation to participate in future communication activities is more likely to be higher (Suzuki, 2006).
It is important to note that textbook writers, especially for four-skills classes, do not imagine or set communication goals for each unit, leaving teachers to analyze units and brainstorm ways to extend them with tasks. However, a task that extends a textbook unit rather than interrupts it helps avoid the lack of continuity in the students’ minds discussed above. Note that when students understand the communication goal of the unit from the beginning and are reminded of it throughout the unit, the actual task need not take more than one or two days to complete. Significantly, expanding the endeavor from “teaching language” to “using language to communicate” invites students to join and contribute to the JTE-ALT team effort.
Perhaps even more important than the sense of accomplishment students feel when completing their task is the validation they get when they receive a response from their target audience. The JTE may create an email address to which foreigners using the students’ pamphlet can send messages thanking them or asking further questions. Similarly, the ALT can solicit reactions and follow-up questions on the student’ mini-documentary from friends and family and pass them on to the class. When students see that their spoken and/or written English has impacted an audience outside the classroom, their motivation to participate in future communication activities is more likely to be higher (Suzuki, 2006).
4.3.4 Updating JTE-ALT-S Relationships
The final discussion point raised above is an important one: how does the practice of extending textbook units with communication activities impact team teachers’ planning and teaching routines at different levels of schooling? For one thing, as seen in Fig. 7, when four-skills classes are team taught, it invites the JTE and ALT to interact with each other for the students’ benefit about the goals and steps of the activity, as well as about the content and language of the passage. Additionally, as Fig. 8 shows, non-Japan-specific topics allow the ALT to take on an “expert” role when introducing or following up on the textbook contents for both the JTE’s and students’ benefit. The JTE’s responsibility, then, is to support the students in understanding the ALT’s message, through restating, simplifying, or, as a last resort, translating it. (Teachers’ may choose to read Gorsuch, 2002 at this point).
Collins, 2009 |
“JTE-[ALT] interaction about activity goals and procedures has the potential to increase the JTE’s credibility with students as an effective communicator in the target language.” |
Brogan, 1994 |
“The role of the teacher will shift… from instructor to modeler to resource to evaluator to monitor to motivator. Beyond these, one of the most critical roles of both teachers is that of learner.” |
MEXT, 2002 |
“The ALT can give firsthand data in the target language and the [JTE] can take care of difficulties stemming from the learners’ cultural and linguistic background.” |
Again, with Japan-specific topics, the relationship is reversed, with students taking on the role of “expert” and the ALT taking on the role of learner with the JTE supporting and confirming Student-ALT communication when necessary, as in Fig. 9. Finally, when the team has extended a textbook unit with a communication task, the JTE, ALT, and students should all have clear roles to play within the context of the task. With the potential for students to interact with an outside community (represented by the letter C in Fig. 10), the stakes are higher; both their message and the language it employs must be appropriate in order to meet the task goals.
Collins, 2009 |
“ALTs may be in a better position than JTEs to realize this pattern, extending lessons communicatively by arranging interactions between students and a non-Japanese community. At the same time, JTEs are more likely to understand protocol for initiating and maintaining student interaction with people outside the school.” (p.20) |
5.0 Section Two: JTE and ALT Roles in Extending a Textbook Unit
5.1 Setting a Communication Goal
One team’s effort at defining teacher roles
The four skills classes at the senior high level, English Communication I, II, and III, are not generally considered to lend themselves to meaningful team teaching: the textbooks are not even accompanied by team teaching manuals in the way most junior high school textbooks are. How, then, can a JTE-ALT team create a unit plan featuring activities and materials that not only invite but require each teacher to adopt specific, meaningful roles at each stage of the unit?
The four skills classes at the senior high level, English Communication I, II, and III, are not generally considered to lend themselves to meaningful team teaching: the textbooks are not even accompanied by team teaching manuals in the way most junior high school textbooks are. How, then, can a JTE-ALT team create a unit plan featuring activities and materials that not only invite but require each teacher to adopt specific, meaningful roles at each stage of the unit?
This section presents a unit plan and sample materials created for Lesson 6: We Are the World in One World Communication 1 (Ito et al, 2013). The author collaborated on them with an English Communication I team of JTEs and an ALT at a public high school in Kanagawa Prefecture. Together, they developed the plan and materials within the Activity Theory framework described above. The motivation for learning the Lesson 6 target vocabulary and grammar, as well as for comprehending the reading passage was to use the language and content in social practice.
The reading passage featured three parts describing the original We Are the World fundraising project in the 1980s and a second project 25 years later for the victims of the earthquake in Haiti. A communication goal with authenticity was set and announced to the students: upon mastering the language and content of Unit 6, they would propose a third We Are the World project to benefit Tibet in the wake of the 2015 earthquake that had hit the country.
The teaching team’s primary concern was not student motivation to achieve the goal, but, rather, their limited vocabulary. Accordingly, the task sequence of the unit drew heavily on Hatch and Brown’s model of vocabulary acquisition (1995). The phases in this model consist of encountering new words receptively, grasping the forms of the new words, grasping the meanings of the new words, consolidating these forms and meanings, and finally using the new words productively. The phases laid out in this section mirror Hatch and Brown’s model.
JTE and ALT roles are suggested for each phase and activity throughout the unit. It should be noted that at this school, ALTs only visit conversation classes; English Communication I is not part of their regular schedule. Thus, for some phases of the lesson, materials creation was the only way the ALT could contribute meaningfully to a four-skills class.
The reading passage featured three parts describing the original We Are the World fundraising project in the 1980s and a second project 25 years later for the victims of the earthquake in Haiti. A communication goal with authenticity was set and announced to the students: upon mastering the language and content of Unit 6, they would propose a third We Are the World project to benefit Tibet in the wake of the 2015 earthquake that had hit the country.
The teaching team’s primary concern was not student motivation to achieve the goal, but, rather, their limited vocabulary. Accordingly, the task sequence of the unit drew heavily on Hatch and Brown’s model of vocabulary acquisition (1995). The phases in this model consist of encountering new words receptively, grasping the forms of the new words, grasping the meanings of the new words, consolidating these forms and meanings, and finally using the new words productively. The phases laid out in this section mirror Hatch and Brown’s model.
JTE and ALT roles are suggested for each phase and activity throughout the unit. It should be noted that at this school, ALTs only visit conversation classes; English Communication I is not part of their regular schedule. Thus, for some phases of the lesson, materials creation was the only way the ALT could contribute meaningfully to a four-skills class.
Phase 1: Encountering new words
The challenge |
Many new words in Lesson 6 fall outside the 2,000 high-frequency words that make up between 80 and 95% of most texts (Nation, 2002). (For more on word frequencies see the Vocabulary module). |
Phases 2-3: Getting new word forms and meaning
The challenges |
|
Meeting the challenges: Days 1, 3, 5
- Choral reading: repeating after the teacher and in pairs
- Key Expressions Worksheets (See Fig. 17 for sample)
- The goals of this worksheet are:
- To support student understanding of new vocabulary through larger, more meaningful chunks, and
- To help students preview and begin constructing the content and message of each part of the lesson as well as the overall lesson.
- Practices
- JTE identifies meaningful chunks.
- ALT confirms the meaningfulness of the chunks.
- Teachers provide the expressions in Japanese in the right-hand column; students skim and scan the text to write the expressions in English, either as homework or in class.
- Teachers then ask students to share the English expressions, either orally or by writing them on the board.
- Teachers allow a certain amount of leeway in terms of what and how much students write for each expression.
- Follow-up: Teachers ask simple prediction questions regarding the contents and/or message, without confirming whether the students’ predictions are “correct.”
- The goals of this worksheet are:
Phase 3: Getting new word meanings
The challenges |
The traditional grammar-translation (yakudoku) approach sends the misleading messages to students that - all text is equally important. - memorization demonstrates comprehension of the overall text, as well as mastery of the target vocabulary items and grammar structures. (To understand yakudoku in Japanese schools see Hino, 1988 and other teaching approaches in module 8) |
Meeting the challenges: Days 1, 3, 5
Text Comprehension Worksheets (See Fig. 18 for sample)
Text Comprehension Worksheets (See Fig. 18 for sample)
- The goals of this worksheet are:
- To allow the teacher and students to interact with and construct the text.
- To provide teachers and students with enough scaffolding to conduct this phase primarily in English, as recommended by MEXT.
- Practices
- ALT analyzes readings, designs reading / grammar worksheets.
- JTE confirms language levels, consolidates contents and language.
- Together, teachers and students complete worksheets designed to highlight the key information in the reading and how it is organized.
- At the same time, the teachers reconstruct the worksheet on the board.
- The teachers then consolidate the contents and message. Students may adjust or add to the information they have written on their own worksheets.
- Advanced and/or experienced classes may be able to complete the Key Expressions Sheet and the Text Comprehension Worksheet simultaneously.
Phase 4: Consolidating new word forms and meanings in memory
The challenges |
|
Meeting the challenges: Days 2, 4, 6
Pattern practice exercises (See Fig. 19 for sample)
Pattern practice exercises (See Fig. 19 for sample)
- The goals of the exercises are:
- To help students demonstrate comprehension and reconstruct the reading passage’s contents and message to demonstrate comprehension.
- To provide new contexts for target language.
- Practices
- The ALT creates “real-world” texts.
- The JTE confirms language levels and, consolidates contents and language.
- Students can do these in class or at home; individually, or in pairs.
- The textbook content and message are paraphrased; the genre may be different from that of the textbook lesson.
- The teacher asks students for their reactions (in English or Japanese) and shares his or her own reaction.
Meeting the challenges: Day 8
- Extra readings and universal worksheet (See Figs. 20 and 21 for samples)
- The goals of the worksheet are:
- To broaden students’ understanding of each part’s context, contents or both.
- To provide students with
- new contexts for the target language.
- the information and target language necessary to succeed in the activity
- independent, and therefore more authentic, reading experiences.
- Practices
- The ALT researches Nepal and creates readings and a universal worksheet.
- The JTE confirms language levels and supports student note-taking.
- The readings are not “taught;” students read them independently.
- Extra readings are as authentic as possible, with a variety of fonts, layout styles, and relevant illustrations with helpful captions. (See Materials Development module for more ideas.)
- Target language is not underlined, bolded, or otherwise highlighted in the readings. However, new target language may be glossed, if necessary.
- The teacher asks students for their reactions (in English or Japanese) and shares their own reaction.
- In groups, students hear about the extra reading topic choices and choose one.
- Individually, students read and take notes on the chosen extra reading.
- In pairs or groups, students share their notes and reactions with each other.
- The goals of the worksheet are:
Phase 5: Using new words
The challenges |
Students must, in the end,
assume responsibility for their own vocabulary acquisition and need chances to
use the target language for communicative purposes. |
Meeting the challenges: Day 10
Writing Activity Worksheet (See Fig. 22)
Writing Activity Worksheet (See Fig. 22)
- The goals are:
- To allow students to identify and compile key information and expressions from multiple sources (the original textbook passage, comprehension worksheets, pattern practice worksheets, and extra readings) and
- To give students a chance to see the impact their own English writing can have on people outside the classroom by receiving a response to it, rather than an evaluation of it.
- Practices
- The JTE and ALT: provide students with a title for the text, if necessary.
- The JTE and ALT: provide a simple outline for the text, if necessary. The outline should roughly follow the flow of the textbook and extra readings.
- The JTE: circulates and suggests information to be added.
- Ideally, the less the JTE “corrects” the students’ writing in terms of accuracy, the better.
- Students are never required to use specific target vocabulary or structures.
- If possible, the strongest writing samples from each class are collected and passed to an ALT (or other non-Japanese person outside the classroom).
- The ALT: responds, rather than evaluating the students’ writing, emphasizing what they have learned from it and future actions the ALT feels inspired to take.
- The ALT writes a one- or two-paragraph response to the entire class.
- The JTE reads the ALT’s response aloud to the class.
5.2 Analyzing and Extending a Textbook Unit: A Checklist
|
Step 1: Looking at content
|
|
Step 2: Looking at target language
|
Step 3: Looking at the textbook unit’s reading passage discourse
|
Step 4: Identifying a communication goal
|
Step 5: Setting an activity that extends the textbook unit
|
6.0 Final Thoughts
The acronym ESID, or “every situation is different” is one of the most common, yet most maddening answers given to JTEs and ALTs seeking concrete answers to how-to questions. The sample lesson offered here was created by the author and an English I / Communication team of JTEs and ALTs at a public high school in Kanagawa Prefecture. The experience marked some firsts for the team: first time to extend a textbook lesson with a communication activity, first time to integrate the contents and language of a four skills textbook with the functions introduced in a conversation class, and first time to shift away from the perennial yakudoku grammar-translation approach.
The teaching team reported that, on the whole, students seemed to appreciate and be motivated by the fact that they were tackling the lesson in order to succeed in a “real-world” communication activity following the comprehension and review phases of the lesson. They were also able to autonomously recycle some of the target language from both the textbook unit and the supplementary readings in their “We Are the World Nepal” webpages and enjoyed seeing the ALT’s responses to their written efforts.
To rephrase another cliché, when it comes to setting communication goals for textbook lessons, shifting away from the traditional perspective of English as a tool for passing an entrance examination, and helping teachers and students see English as a tool in their kit of life skills, practice helps teachers move toward perfect. ETUIS; each textbook unit is different, and will present its own unique pitfalls, but also will reveal its potential when JTEs, ALTs, and students are invited to define their roles within the extended activities. The author has a bank of numerous similar sets of unit plans, lesson plans, and materials and is always willing to sit down with JTEs and/or ALTs to set practical goals, create easy-to-use materials, and hear about whether and how they helped students see English as tool for communication.
The teaching team reported that, on the whole, students seemed to appreciate and be motivated by the fact that they were tackling the lesson in order to succeed in a “real-world” communication activity following the comprehension and review phases of the lesson. They were also able to autonomously recycle some of the target language from both the textbook unit and the supplementary readings in their “We Are the World Nepal” webpages and enjoyed seeing the ALT’s responses to their written efforts.
To rephrase another cliché, when it comes to setting communication goals for textbook lessons, shifting away from the traditional perspective of English as a tool for passing an entrance examination, and helping teachers and students see English as a tool in their kit of life skills, practice helps teachers move toward perfect. ETUIS; each textbook unit is different, and will present its own unique pitfalls, but also will reveal its potential when JTEs, ALTs, and students are invited to define their roles within the extended activities. The author has a bank of numerous similar sets of unit plans, lesson plans, and materials and is always willing to sit down with JTEs and/or ALTs to set practical goals, create easy-to-use materials, and hear about whether and how they helped students see English as tool for communication.
Congratulations on completing module 5!
We really hope you enjoyed and gained from the content and reflection questions.
7.0 References
Abe, E. (2013). Communicative language teaching in Japan: current practices and future
prospects. English Today, 29(2),46-53.doi: 10.1017/S0266078413000163
Brogan, R. (1994). The British Council – Koto-ku Project. In M. Wada & T. Cominos (Eds.), Studies in Team Teaching (pp. 217-226). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Brutt-Griffler, J., & Samimy, K. K. (2003). Transcending the nativeness paradigm. World Englishes, 20(1), 99-106.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 197-218.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Collins, P. (2012). Revisiting assumptions about Team teaching. Educational Development , 5, 59 – 84.
Collins, P., & Fine, G. S. (2013). Situating team teaching in the current literature on English ownership. Educational Development, 8, 63-80.
Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Great Britain: Cromwell Press Ltd.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Ferguson, C. (1983). Language planning and language change. In J. Cobarrubias & J. Fishman (Eds.) Progress in language planning. Berlin: Mouton.
Geluso, J. (2013). Negotiating a professional identity: Non-Japanese teachers of English in pre-tertiary education in Japan. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 92-104). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Goto Butler, Y. (2007). How are nonnative-English-speaking teachers perceived by young learners? TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 731-755.
Gromik, N. (2004). The Implications for ALTs of MEXT’s 2003 Action Plan: A response to Tanabe and Iida. PALE News, 2, 6-11.
Hanks, W.F. (1991). Forward by William F. Hanks. In J. Lave & E. Wenger, Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (pp. 13-24). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hatch, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ito, S. et al. (2013). One World English Communication I. Tokyo, Kyoiku Shuppan
Johnston, B., & Madejski, B. (2004). A fresh look at team teaching. The Teacher Trainer 29, 2-7. Retrieved from http://www.tttjournal.co.uk/uploads/File/back_articles/pdf
LoCastro, V. (1996). English language education in Japan. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the Language Classroom (pp. 40-58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McConnell, D. (2000). Importing diversity: Inside Japan’s JET Program. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Medgyes, P. (1999). The non-native teacher. Germany: Hueber. (Peter Medgyes Publications page http://petermedgyes.com/publications/)
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. (2002). Handbook for team teaching, revised edition. Tokyo: Gyosei Corporation.
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture. (2008). Gengoryoku no ikusei housaku ni tsuite [Policy for the development of language ability]. Retrieved from: http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/036/shiryo/07081717/004.htm
Miyazato, K. (2009). Power-sharing between NS and NNS teachers: Linguistically powerful AETs vs. culturally powerful NNESTs. JNEST Journal, 31(1), 35-62.
Nation, I.S.P. & Newton, J. (2008), Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. London: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, B., & Schaible, R. (1995). Collaborative teaching: Reaping the benefits. College Teaching 43 (3), 57-60.
Sandholtz, J. H. (2000). Interdisciplinary team teaching as form of professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(3), 39-54.
Scholefield, W. (1997). An overview of the teaching & learning of English in Japan since 1945. Babel, 32 (1), 16-21, 37-38.
Shimaoka, T., & Yashiro, K. (1990). Team teaching in English classrooms: An intercultural approach. Japan: Kairyudo.
Suzuki, H. (2006). Restructuring an English language classroom: English as an instrument for communication activity. Educational Development, 2, 39-71.
Tajino, A., & Tajino, Y. (2000). Native and non-native: What can they offer? Lessons from team teaching in Japan. ELT Journal 54(1), 3-11.
Takada, T. (2000). The social status of L1 Japanese EFL teachers. TESOL Matters, 10(3), 23.
Trudgill, P. (2008). Native-speaker segmental phonological models and the English lingua franca core. In K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk and J. Prsetlacka (eds) English pronunciation models: A changing scene (pp. 77-100. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Wada, M. (1994). Team teaching and the revised Course of Study. In M. Wada & T. Cominos (Eds.), Studies in team teaching (pp. 1-16). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Widdowson, H.G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (2), 377–389.
prospects. English Today, 29(2),46-53.doi: 10.1017/S0266078413000163
Brogan, R. (1994). The British Council – Koto-ku Project. In M. Wada & T. Cominos (Eds.), Studies in Team Teaching (pp. 217-226). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Brutt-Griffler, J., & Samimy, K. K. (2003). Transcending the nativeness paradigm. World Englishes, 20(1), 99-106.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 197-218.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Collins, P. (2012). Revisiting assumptions about Team teaching. Educational Development , 5, 59 – 84.
Collins, P., & Fine, G. S. (2013). Situating team teaching in the current literature on English ownership. Educational Development, 8, 63-80.
Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Great Britain: Cromwell Press Ltd.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Ferguson, C. (1983). Language planning and language change. In J. Cobarrubias & J. Fishman (Eds.) Progress in language planning. Berlin: Mouton.
Geluso, J. (2013). Negotiating a professional identity: Non-Japanese teachers of English in pre-tertiary education in Japan. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 92-104). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Goto Butler, Y. (2007). How are nonnative-English-speaking teachers perceived by young learners? TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 731-755.
Gromik, N. (2004). The Implications for ALTs of MEXT’s 2003 Action Plan: A response to Tanabe and Iida. PALE News, 2, 6-11.
Hanks, W.F. (1991). Forward by William F. Hanks. In J. Lave & E. Wenger, Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (pp. 13-24). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hatch, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ito, S. et al. (2013). One World English Communication I. Tokyo, Kyoiku Shuppan
Johnston, B., & Madejski, B. (2004). A fresh look at team teaching. The Teacher Trainer 29, 2-7. Retrieved from http://www.tttjournal.co.uk/uploads/File/back_articles/pdf
LoCastro, V. (1996). English language education in Japan. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the Language Classroom (pp. 40-58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McConnell, D. (2000). Importing diversity: Inside Japan’s JET Program. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Medgyes, P. (1999). The non-native teacher. Germany: Hueber. (Peter Medgyes Publications page http://petermedgyes.com/publications/)
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. (2002). Handbook for team teaching, revised edition. Tokyo: Gyosei Corporation.
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture. (2008). Gengoryoku no ikusei housaku ni tsuite [Policy for the development of language ability]. Retrieved from: http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/036/shiryo/07081717/004.htm
Miyazato, K. (2009). Power-sharing between NS and NNS teachers: Linguistically powerful AETs vs. culturally powerful NNESTs. JNEST Journal, 31(1), 35-62.
Nation, I.S.P. & Newton, J. (2008), Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. London: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, B., & Schaible, R. (1995). Collaborative teaching: Reaping the benefits. College Teaching 43 (3), 57-60.
Sandholtz, J. H. (2000). Interdisciplinary team teaching as form of professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(3), 39-54.
Scholefield, W. (1997). An overview of the teaching & learning of English in Japan since 1945. Babel, 32 (1), 16-21, 37-38.
Shimaoka, T., & Yashiro, K. (1990). Team teaching in English classrooms: An intercultural approach. Japan: Kairyudo.
Suzuki, H. (2006). Restructuring an English language classroom: English as an instrument for communication activity. Educational Development, 2, 39-71.
Tajino, A., & Tajino, Y. (2000). Native and non-native: What can they offer? Lessons from team teaching in Japan. ELT Journal 54(1), 3-11.
Takada, T. (2000). The social status of L1 Japanese EFL teachers. TESOL Matters, 10(3), 23.
Trudgill, P. (2008). Native-speaker segmental phonological models and the English lingua franca core. In K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk and J. Prsetlacka (eds) English pronunciation models: A changing scene (pp. 77-100. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Wada, M. (1994). Team teaching and the revised Course of Study. In M. Wada & T. Cominos (Eds.), Studies in team teaching (pp. 1-16). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Widdowson, H.G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (2), 377–389.
Copyright © 2019 ALT Training Online