Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching (JLLT)

Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 6 (2015) Issue 2

Oral Communication in the Japanese Senior High School:

Communicative Competence and Comparisons of

Textbooks Used for EFL Instruction

Matthew Michaud (Kobe, Japan)

Abstract

Numerous researchers have explored verbal communication within English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Nonetheless, research regarding oral communication in high schools in Japan, together with what can be found in EFL textbooks, needs to be deepened. This study aims to investigate communicative language teaching and communicative competence. It will highlight problems in areas pertaining to Japanese students’ learning methods and their application of oral communication, focusing on communicative competence and textbooks used in Japanese high schools.

Keywords: Communicative language teaching, Communicative Competence, oral communication, textbook analysis 

1 Introduction

Oral Communication within EFL (English as a Foreign Language) has been investigated in many research communities around the world. However, the discussion connecting oral communication to Senior High Schools in Japan, together with the parts that make up EFL textbooks, needs more attention. This study aims to delve into Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), specifically regarding Communicative Competence. The research will look for reasons to how EFL students may gain better English communication skills. The data collected consists of research into both non-approved and Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology in Japan (MEXT)-approved textbooks. Through considering the three communicative competencies in the often referenced Canale & Swain paper (1980) titled: Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing, and by evaluating selected textbooks, it is hoped that correct uses of textbooks in the EFL classroom, specifically relating to senior high school students in Japan may be discovered. Establishing differences between approved and non-approved textbooks is crucial to solving two questions which have been puzzling EFL teachers in Japan for many years:

• Why can’t my students speak better conversational English? and

• Which textbook can I choose to better reinforce proper oral speech?

Therefore, the principal objective of the current study is to demonstrate which of the textbooks under observation are best equipped to develop communicative competence in Japanese EFL learners.

2 Cultural Issues

In Japan, students go to Junior High School for three years (Rapley 2008: 15). By grade nine, the majority of students can identify what career they want to pursue in the future (White 1993: 83). Furthermore, most students in their teens are cognisant of the importance of attending a reputable Senior High School because of all the emphasis on attending a school that has a great reputation and academic standing. Rapley indicates that attending a high level junior high school is just as important. How these students get into these reputable senior high schools is dependent on important tests which are held annually in grade nine.

Regarding oral communication in the Japanese senior high school classroom, there are plenty of issues. One which stands out in particular is that for many Japanese teachers of English, their own English skills may need improvement. This may be problematic for these teachers, as a lack of confidence in one’s English ability may lead them into teaching styles not best suited for the L2 classroom. For example, if a Japanese teacher of English is confident teaching grammar, then grammar is what students may focus on in class. Moreover, if the Japanese teacher of English is confident improvising free speech whereby creating ad lib conversations, then this teacher’s students may practice actual conversation in class. However, regarding actual spoken communication in class, most researchers agree that Japanese EFL students do not or cannot achieve such a task (Gorsuch 2000: 686). If there are moments for senior high school students to practise English communicatively, Japanese teachers of English may impede these chances due to the use of teacher-centered exercises such as yakudoku (grammar translation) (Nishino 2008: 32).

Researchers Kikuchi & Browne (2009) and Rapley (2010) explain that for English in Japan to be used in the classroom alongside a textbook correctly, the overuse of grammar translation methods is the wrong approach. Rapley argues that the main method of instruction in Japanese EFL classrooms remains teacher-centered. Putting any problems aside which the yakudoku approach may bring, Rapley also suggests that four of the given uses for reasons why Japanese teachers of English use yakudoku and teacher-centered styled teaching are as follows:

1) teachers’ low English proficiency,

2) the implementation of yakudoku requiring basic teaching skills,

3) teachers’ fear of making mistakes in English, and

4) teachers’ fear of losing face during lessons.

Hence, the result is that despite the growing emphasis on oral communication in curricula proposed by MEXT, senior high school instruction of English still focuses solely on reading and writing (Butler & Lino 2005: 29, as cited in Stewart 2009: 10).

For decades productive skills and oral approaches have faded in the background compared to receptive skills and the written word (Quock 2002: 12). Furthermore, Quock indicates that the grammar-translation method is used even at the university level. In Japan, too much emphasis is on blind reading by way of MEXT-approved textbooks and or translation of vocabulary, compared to actual teacher-to-student or student-to-student communication (Gorsuch 2001: 28). Finally, Marchand (2010) posits that native English speaking teachers would argue that communication paired with oral communication texts from EFL textbooks is key to promoting English communication. According to Quock (2002: 13) and Gorsuch, however, although Japanese teachers of English acknowledge the value of communicative activities, ultimately in the final analysis, many opt for the control that grammar translation gives them.

3 Statement of the Problem

Many scholars recognize an inability of Japanese to learn English at a usable conversational level (Gorsuch 2000, Yashima 2002). Additionally, scholars comment on Japan having not been successful in its EFL education (Reesor 2003: 57). MEXT arguably has tried to amend English education for Japanese students, after the government had. in the past, stated how important English was as it linked Japan to the outside world. Nevertheless, Japanese students' communicative skills in the field of English have failed to progress (Matsumoto 2008: 18).

Within the realm of EFL education in Japan, the topic of Japanese Students’ of English (JSEs) competence pertaining to communicative skills has remained at the forefront of discourse. Many researchers and educators comment on the respectable levels of grammar skills Japanese students have by the time they enter senior high school. However, it is from this author’s personal teaching experience, that JSEs’ speaking abilities are generally uncommunicative with three exceptions:

1.  students who have lived in an English-speaking country
2. students with a parent who is a native English speaker, and
3. students who are highly motivated and disciplined regarding the learning of English oral communication on their own.

MEXT has a section on its website titled “Improvement of Academic Abilities”, which determines the “broad standards for all schools” and tries to set a standard for education in Japan (Kashihara 2008: 1). One of these relates to what they call “Section 9 Foreign Languages.” The “Overall Objective” is to

develop students’ basic communication abilities such as listening, speaking, reading, writing, deepening their understanding of language and culture, and fostering a positive attitude toward communication through foreign languages (MEXT website – Section 9 (English version), www.mext.go.jp; 15-05-2012).

According to Okuno (2007), in the past, MEXT has introduced many strategies to try to fix problems relating to oral communication, such as the 2003 “MEXT Action Plan”, which had a strong emphasis on practical English skills. The plan stated that senior high school graduates should have the ability to communicate in English, while the exit target for university graduates was for the ability to use English in their work (MEXT 2003, as cited in Stewart 2009: 10). In 2008, MEXT proposed that Japanese teachers of English should teach English classes in English, and leading into 2013, MEXT is aiming at an EFL curriculum change again.

In Japan, only those textbooks which are approved by MEXT are allowed into public school EFL classes from elementary school until the end of senior high school (Langham 2007). However, private school native English speaking teachers and Japanese teachers of English can use non-approved textbooks at their discretion. The current study will explore textbooks in Japan specifically used at the senior high school level. Accordingly, the author will look at a total of eight different textbook titles - four MEXT-approved English communication-level-1 textbooks and four English communication-level-1 non-approved textbooks. The study will yield data from the aforementioned textbooks while highlighting the CLT approach through illustrating communicative competence. A collection of data from oral exercises within each of the eight textbooks, while categorizing them according to the three areas of communicative competence, will be of considerable importance. Furthermore, eight books were chosen which were available from a large selection of textbooks in a staffroom at a senior high school in Japan. Varying points will be touched upon such as issues which resound in textbooks, the use of model dialogues as one example (Sharma 2005) and the lack of proper communicative practice (Bowles 2001). A resounding focal question peering in from the background will ask the question: How can textbooks give EFL learners the appropriate practice they need to be able to speak English in the classroom? (Templin 1997, Rapley 2008).

4 Literature Review

Studies define CLT as an approach to language teaching (Canale & Swain 1980, Kamiya 2006, Kavanagh 2012). Kamiya suggested that its goal was for learners to expand their communicative competence. Thus, besides modeling and linguistic theory, communicative competence has given rise to numerous studies in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), primarily dealing with the role textbooks have in developing communicative competence, which is of importance to this paper (Kamiya 2006, Ogura 2008, Takeda et al 2007, Templin 1997).

The focus of the present study is primarily based on Canale & Swain’s (1980) proposed theoretical model on communicative ability, which was made up of three areas of communicative competence: grammar, sociolinguistic, and strategic competence (Bagarić & Djigunović 2007, Kamiya 2006). Altogether, these three areas of competence denote the communicative use of language in realistic situational conversations (Kamiya 2006: 8). Therefore, learning how to speak in realistic situations is key to an L2 learner. Yet, the question arises, how this ability can be perfected when students cannot leave their native country. EFL educators should ask themselves the following question:

How can I, as the language teacher, ensure that my students have opportunities to practise the second language communicatively, which are as close as possible to those in real-life situations?

Moreover, the research will look at both MEXT-approved textbooks and non-approved textbooks focusing on whether or not they assist L2 students in accessing communicative competence. If they do, then it follows that such textbooks can help teachers use CLT more effectively in the classroom. The following eight literature reviews attempt to demonstrate and support this hypothesis.

4.1 Textbooks in the EFL Classroom

Research in the EFL classroom suggests that the use of communicative competence with EFL textbooks has not been appropriately evaluated. In his paper, Templin (1997) carried out a study at a public senior high school in Japan. He looked into MEXT-approved textbooks and the question of how Japanese teachers of English chose them for their classes. His primary concern during the study’s progression was in finding out how well MEXT-approved textbooks helped teach communicative EFL skills. He used communicative competencies found in research within papers by Canale (1983) and Pennington (1987) as the basis to find out if MEXT-approved textbooks helped Japanese EFL senior high students’ communicative competence progression. Furthermore, his findings looked at communicative skills concerning four communicative competencies found in Canale’s (1983) research: grammatical, discourse, sociolinguistic and strategic competencies.

He used qualitative research to find opinions from selected samples from his research, such as example dialogues found in the MEXT-approved textbooks. He took these samples and objectively assessed them regarding the four communicative competences mentioned above. He also looked at introductions which were or were not found in the textbooks, touched on student motivation, communicative activities, and highlighted intercultural usages in the texts. In Templin’s research, questions were raised, relating to Japanese EFL students’ inabilities to learn conversational English oral communication. The conclusions of his research and examples of textbook data showed in detail that there were no major problems regarding grammar exercises in the textbooks. He briefly discussed that there were issues regarding pronunciation, providing no further explanations. He also stated that examples were found regarding sociolinguistic and discourse competence, but failed to illustrate the data which would have shown the methodology of his research when choosing a few dialogue examples from a couple of the textbooks.

Ogura’s 2008 study examined Japanese public schools’ use of MEXT-approved textbooks. She asserted that not all the selected textbooks contained communicative language activities, even though they were oral communication textbooks. In her study she reviewed ten MEXT-approved oral communication textbooks. She categorized selected speaking activities into five types using Littlewood's (2004) task-based textbook activity communicativeness continuum. The use of this continuum proposed to illustrate EFL student progression from non-communicative speech towards a more conversational communication path.

In Ogura's study, the quantitative results are presented by highlighting the percentage of textbook exercises which fell into each of the five types. Furthermore, she discusses the various action plans issued by MEXT over the years and contends that if MEXT requires schools to use approved textbooks, the communicative language activities within may assist in student growth of communicative competence (Ogura 2008: 2). She concludes that the ten MEXT-approved textbooks in the study did not offer students enough practice in developing communicative competence. Only three examples of “authentic communication” are given in the ten textbooks. Consequently, beyond what was found in the ten textbooks, she states that it was the Japanese teachers’ duty to provide supplementary materials which could give students more authentic communicative activities.

Ogura’s study is valid for the current paper, because her findings indicate that MEXT-approved oral communication textbooks lack sufficient communicative competence practice. Therefore, what types of communicative competence practice might MEXT textbooks provide? In Ogura's study, ten different textbooks were used and five extracts describing the five types of communicativeness were displayed. Regarding limitations, Ogura stated that her research was done by herself alone, which had its limitations. The research illustrated attention to communicative competence examples and the lack of examples found in the MEXT-approved textbooks.

Takeda, Choi, Mochizuki & Watanabe (2006), analysed and compared a selection of two junior and two senior high school EFL textbooks in Japan and South Korea, using William Littlewood's (2004) task-based textbook activity communicativeness continuum. Within their research, they choose to use the senior high school MEXT-approved textbook Crown English I, which remains one of the most frequently used textbooks in English classes throughout Japan. They found that there were differences in teaching philosophies between each of the two countries, specifically concerning the Korean textbooks, which focused on a balance between the practice of reading, writing, speaking and listening. They also found that there were various contexts, issues, and themes which increased “critical thinking skills” (Takeda et al. 2006: 20) within the Korean textbooks examined. In contrast, their research observed that Japanese textbooks had an emphasis on grammar-based practice. The authors stated that the MEXT-approved textbooks put forward interesting contents which “broaden students’ perspectives,” but that since the focus was on grammatical knowledge, the content lacked in expanding students’ ability to think quickly and on the spot, regarding the ability to create realistic conversation (Takeda et al. 2006: 21).

The research also highlighted that Crown English I had a focus primarily on reading skills and noticeably lacked one consistent theme, which the Korean textbooks included. The Japanese textbook also lacked listening and speaking practice, which does not allow for proper communicative competence growth. Additionally, with relevance to the current study, the lack of communicative competence practice found in Takeda et al. was a pertinent claim, as this study examines textbooks to see if the same conclusions can be found. Consequently, Takeda’s el al. research only used four textbooks in total, two of which were from the same Japanese publisher and were both MEXT-approved. For the research to illustrate more breadth concerning examples in other textbooks used in Japan, they might have examined more textbooks.

4.2 CLT in Second Language Learning

Dealing with discussions pertaining to the role of communicative competence in L2 learning, Kamiya (2006) claims that it is a way to teach language teaching in Japan and elsewhere. He discusses features of CLT which enable EFL teachers to impart communicative English in the classroom more effectively.

His research is thorough in outlining CLT and the use of communicative competence by introducing researchers in various fields such as Bachman (1990), Canale (1983), Canale & Swain (1980), and Saville-Troike (1989, 1996), who all have substantially added to the definitions of CLT and shown how it can be used to attain communicative competence. Kamiya’s research found on page 12 regarding the importance of Bachman’s Communication-orientated Framework is also of considerable importance concerning the current study. Kamiya notes in Canale & Swain's 1980 paper on communicative competence, that they “justify the application of CLT by defending it against the claim that the communicatively oriented syllabus tends to be disorganized in terms of acquisition to grammar” (Kamiya, 2006:13). However, Kamiya, agrees with Canale & Swain's assertion that a working and coordinated communicative approach is better than grammar-based approaches, as it helps students with their goals of reaching actual oral communicative competence that is usable in real world conversations through being more “comfortable, confident, and encouraged” (Kamiya 2006:14) in the EFL classroom.

Kamiya furthermore suggests three “extra communicativeness’” the use of audiovisual recordings, role-play, and speech acts (Kamiya 2006:21). He adds that these rather old ideas for L2 teaching help EFL learners to reach appropriateness in the L2. Similar to what he intends to determine in his paper – i.e. the question of how communicative competence is achieved through uses of EFL textbooks in the classroom -, he concludes his study, stating that educators and researchers have a lot of work ahead of them when finding out how to improve students’ EFL communicative competence. Additionally, with regards to his argument, there are three areas of communicative competence in the paper by Canale & Swain (1980), on which Kamiya writes the following:

Sociolinguistic competence was further divided by Canale (1983) into two separate components: sociolinguistic and discourse competence. (Kamiya 2006: 70)

Therefore, discourse competence was only introduced as a competence in its own right by Canale (1983).

Kavanagh (2012), concerned with CLT in Japan, analyses its interpretation and implementation in Japanese secondary schools regarding the relationship between theory and practice. He delves into finding out if CLT works well in the Japanese EFL classroom. He found that there were obstructions in the execution of CLT in Japan (Kavanagh 2012: 4), mainly the abundant use of grammar-based activities (yakudoku) used in oral communication classes, due to the focus on university entrance exams. He states that teachers in Japan generally feel pressured, having to guide their students to pass exams rather than to develop their communicative competence for English communication.

He further states that Japan differs in its culture of learning, compared with methods sought out in CLT and communicative competence, identifying three main factors at the Japanese secondary school level which affect CLTs outcomes. These factors include the cultural appropriateness of the approach, the prevalence of grammar-based university entrance exams, and a multitude of perceptions that Japanese teachers of English hold pertaining to certain difficulties which constrain the success of approaches such as CLT (Kavanagh 2012:1). His research also touches on Gorsuch's (2000) study which brought up the problem that Japanese teachers of English in Japan teach memorization and translation skills for the purpose of testing. He concludes that CLT helps many EFL teachers to use meaningful communicative activities in the classroom (Kavanagh 2012: 8).

4.3 Communicative Competence

Bagarić & Djigunović report that competence is one of the “most controversial” areas in the field of applied linguistics (Bagarić & Djigunović 2007: 1). They, as did Canale & Swain (1980), suggest that Chomsky has been associated with competence since its inception by defining the difference between competence and performance (Chomsky, 1965). This definition, stated from Chomsky, defines competence as the L1 speaker’s cognition of language, and that performance is defined as the use of language in real life communicative exercises.

Bagarić & Djigunović (2007) and Canale & Swain (1980) found that Savignon (1972) had urged for a more communicative response in applied linguistics and rejected the thought of what Bagarić & Djigunović describe as the approach of an exclusively linguistic competence working as a hypothetical base for the approach to communicative language learning and teaching (Bagarić & Djigunović 2007: 2). Savignon furthers her description of communicative competence as being a vigorous and personal - rather than static - approach to communication. Canale & Swain reference Schultz (1977) as having a complementary view on communicative competence. Alternatively, advocates found in Hyme’s (1972) research on communicative competence a sounder take on competence. Canale & Swain list not only Hymes, but also Campbell & Wales (1970) as being some of the first researchers to connect the importance of performance with competence (Canale & Swain 1980: 4). However, they distinguish Hymes as connecting the two, with reference to actual uses in communication.

Bagarić & Djigunović further purport that in the 1980s, more clarification of communicative competence began. This involved Canale & Swain’s (1980) research based on communicative competence being a communicative system made up of various knowledge and skill sets. Bagarić & Djigunović suggest that the knowledge refers to both “conscious and unconscious” aspects of language use and that skills refer to real communication (Bagarić & Djigunović 2007: 3). Regarding Canale & Swain’s theoretical framework, Bagarić & Djigunović examine its “three main components (...) grammatical, sociolinguistic and strategic competence” (Bagarić & Djigunović 2007: 4). Bagarić & Djigunović further suggest that in 1983, Canale transferred parts from strategic competence into a fourth part called discourse competence (Bagarić & Djigunović 2007: 4). Discourse competence was determined to represent a command in understanding and forms used to reach a unification of speech and texts. However, Bagarić & Djigunović indicate that discourse competence is separate from the other three competencies because it is not a “type of stored knowledge” as it includes features of “non-cognitive aspects such as self-confidence ‘(and a)’ readiness to take risks...” (Bagarić & Djigunović 2007: 5).

Finally, Bagarić & Djigunović state that the 1980 model put forward by Canale & Swain has continued to “dominate” in L2, SLA, and testing for a long time. Hence, although other ideas and models have been put forth, some even being more “comprehensive,” Canale & Swain’s model has persisted because of its simplicity of application in the sphere of SLA.

Canale & Swain’s (1980) publication was the beginning of further research. This research was meant to measure the communicative competence of students in French ESL language programmes in elementary and senior high schools in Ontario, Canada (Canale & Swain 1980: 1). The study examined various principles of communicative approaches in ESL, looking for flaws in past research, creating a new, broader and more pedantic framework. The authors contend that their research is meant to form the edges of communicative competence which, in their option, may “lead to more useful and effective second language teaching” (Canale & Swain 1980: 1).

Canale & Swain assume the term communicative competence, asserting that it refers to the interactions and exchanges between grammatical competence and sociolinguistic competence. Furthermore, they separate communicative competence from communicative performance, clarifying that performance is the output through the use of a variety of communicative competence features. Regarding sociolinguistic competence, they highlight the work done by Halliday (1973, 1978) and Hymes (1967, 1968, 1972) as being key to the development of the communicative method which entails grammar, social context and meaning within communicative interactions.

Canale & Swain (1980) list five important principles as a guide to development in L2 programmes: communicative competence, the communicative approach, the opportunity for the L2 learner to have actual communicative practise, using communication skills found in the L2 learner’s native language, and language rules (e.g. setting, registers). Furthermore, they propose their ‘theoretical framework’ of grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic competence (thoroughly discussed in Section 5). This framework was intended to be solely applied to ESL education as its foundations came from communicative approaches starting with Hymes’ (1967) research (Canale & Swain 1980: 29).

Finally, Canale & Swain explicitly proposed that their theoretical framework was to be used in “syllabus design, teaching methodology, teacher training, and materials development” concerning ESL / EFL (Canale & Swain 1980: 31). Furthermore, their framework lent itself to ESL testing, as the three competencies could be easily taught and tested.

Finding articles which illustrated the discussion of communicative competence in senior high school textbooks, especially dealing with those in Japan is rather a challenging task. The research found pertaining to Japanese schools primarily deals with MEXT-approved oral-communication textbooks for junior high schools. In addition, nothing could be found, dealing with both MEXT-approved and non-MEXT-approved textbooks and the question of how they teach communicative competence. Additionally, no articles could be found, dealing with non-MEXT-approved textbooks while observing the use of communicative competence. Moreover, research found dealing with Japanese textbooks dealt solely with MEXT-approved textbooks.

However, there was a great deal of discussion on communicative competence, CLT and oral communication in much of the published research. This aided the current study’s focus on CLT by way of communicative competence in the selected eight textbooks examined in the current analysis. Moreover, the current study looks at both MEXT-approved and non-MEXT-approved textbooks in the EFL context of senior high schools in Japan, regarding how they help L2 students gain English speaking competence. The study will illustrate the similarities and differences between the two types of textbooks used in Japan.

5 Feature Matrices

The study will assign a feature matrix for each of the three selected communicative competencies, enabling the study to consistently evaluate the various features in the textbooks such as the various textual parts, communicative activities, and exercises. The study will, in each matrix, include the relevant features which make up each of the competencies concerning CLT. Within these matrices, there will be various components from each of the chosen units of the textbooks under examination. These components or features found within selected units will help the study illustrate which textbooks assist students to develop communicative language learning skills. Listed below are the relevant features of each communicative competence found in the matrices in the methodology section:

• Grammatical competence: The material contains tasks which encourage the learner to nurture their competencies for phonology, morphology (inflectional and derivational), vocabulary, syntax, and cohesion:
  • Phonological competence, i.e. the ability to recognize and produce L2 speech sounds.
  • Morphological competence, i.e. the ability to identify and formulate words in the L2. There are two main areas in morphology.
  • Vocabulary competence, i.e. the ability to use lexical items to convey meaning.
  • Cohesion competence, i.e. the ability to connect speech through grammar and vocabulary.

• Sociolinguistic competence: The material comprises tasks which permit the learner to practise and develop knowledge of language usage and its rules such as:
  • The role of participants' competence, i.e. the ability to recognize where the speaker stands in connection to the other speakers and audience. This includes norms of interaction, appropriate attitudes and register.
  • Setting competence, i.e. the ability to contribute to speech in a specific time and place.
  • Coherence competence, i.e. the ability to make speech meaningful.
  • Addressing persons of unknown status competence, i.e. the ability to speak appropriately in the presence of a stranger.
  • Topic competence, i.e. the ability to produce appropriate topics in the L2 and to communicate in the conversation which follows.

• Strategic competence: The material incorporates tasks which promote the learner to acquire compensatory strategies such as:
  • Reduction competence, i.e. the ability to simplify when the L2 speaker avoids uncertain forms or ones in which he or she has forgotten or cannot remember how to convey fully and completely.
  • Appealing-for-help competence, i.e. the ability to turn to the conversation partner for help, either indirectly or directly.
  • Paraphrasing competence is the ability for the L2 learner to monitor their understanding and incorporate new knowledge with what they already know about a topic.

6 Proposed Research

In the relevant literature, communicative competence has not been covered in sufficient depth when paired with EFL textbooks. Thus, it is something worth looking into. Moreover, both in and beyond Japan, there appears to be a lack of appropriate research done on communicative competence and textbook use in EFL classrooms. In the present study, the author will delve into a selection of MEXT-approved and non-MEXT-approved textbooks in the hope that through using communicative competence, the research may be able to gauge the usefulness of MEXT-approved and non-MEXT-approved textbooks employed in senior high schools in Japan. Our research findings will benefit EFL teachers in classrooms anywhere, especially native English speaking teachers and Japanese teachers of English in Japan, in highlighting problems which exist in the EFL teaching domain. Benefits arise as educators will try to find correct ways of getting JSEs to speak out in class, which, in turn, will immediately benefit students in many ways such as: during vacation to a foreign country, during work-abroad programs, and in future professional settings. The ultimate benefits for students will be that proper English oral communication practice in the EFL classroom can give them chances to be more productive in English. Physiologically, this can be achieved through an increase in corrected pronounceability through English vocal tract practice and in helping JSEs ability in conveying their feelings and thoughts in English communicatively (McGregor 2009: 30).

7 Methodology

Regarding methodology, four popular MEXT-approved texts (Table 1) and four other popular non-MEXT-approved textbooks (Table 2) were chosen. Concerning the variable, the eight textbooks are level-1 senior high school EFL textbooks.

The first quarter of each of the eight textbooks was chosen to be examined, using feature matrices from each of the three communicative competencies. This part was chosen after a careful analysis of the content as whole. Consequently, since the units in the MEXT-approved and non-MEXT-approved textbooks follow a similar unit-by-unit pattern, testing selections instead of the entire textbooks will produce meaningful and relevant data. Moreover, the relevant units in each of the selected textbooks contained similar components, i.e. grammar, vocabulary, listening, pronunciation, reading. Furthermore, there are noticeable differences between the two types of textbooks. One such apparent difference is that the non-MEXT-approved textbooks have been primarily created and published by native English speakers. The MEXT-approved textbooks on the other hand have been designed primarily by native Japanese speakers. However, typically one native English speaker is often brought in during the final editing process of each textbook. Finally, since similar patterns are repeated throughout each of the eight textbooks, using data from the rest of the individual textbooks did not prove to be necessary. Therefore, strict sampling was taken only from the first quarter of each of the textbooks involved in the study.

The corpora is characterized by a focus on various speaking activities throughout each textbook and a categorization by the feature matrices which were described in Section 5. In order for non-MEXT-approved textbooks to be genuine textbooks – and not focused textbooks, i.e. reading textbooks - the categories reading, listening, speaking and writing had to be explicitly listed in their tables of contents Additionally, Parallely, MEXT-approved textbooks - just as was the case with non-approved textbooks - were chosen, based on condition that they were genuine textbooks. Furthermore, before a textbook was to be used in the present study, activities in each of the following language learning skills had be found in their pages: listening, pronunciation, reading, speaking, writing, grammar and vocabulary. Finally, through viewing speaking exercises paired with each of the matrices, the reader is able to see which communicative competences the speaking sections of each textbook might be suited best in giving JSEs optimum chances to use communicative discourse as close to realistic English as possible when practising English.

Title of Textbook	Publisher	Publication Date	MEXT Approved Date
Genius English Course I Revised (G1)	Taishukan	4/1/2011	3/9/2008
Pro-Vision English Course I New Edition (PV1)	Kirihara Shoten	2/25/2009	3/9/2008
New Edition Unicorn English Course I (U1)	Bun-Eido	2/25/2010	3/9/2008
World Trek English Course I New Edition (WT1)	Kirihara Shoten	2/25/2010	3/9/2008

Table 1: List of MEXT Approved Textbooks: English Level 1

Title	Publisher	Publication Date
Interchange 1 3rd Edition (I1)	Cambridge	2012
Smart Choice 1 2nd Edition (SC1)	Oxford University Press	2011
Top Notch 1 (TN1)	Pearson Longman	2011
World English 1 (WE1)	Heinle/ Cengage	2010

Table 2: List of Non-Approved Textbooks: English Level 1

8 Results

The author's analysis of the eight textbooks shows that there are some very clear differences which define the MEXT-approved textbooks against the non-MEXT-approved ones. However, there are some trends and generalizations which are found throughout all the textbooks as well. Within the non-MEXT-approved textbooks, there are patterns which can be observed evenly, whereas in the MEXT-approved textbooks, they can differ in terms of the different features and their frequencies. Moreover, in the non-MEXT-approved textbooks, there are sufficient exercises concerning grammatical and sociolinguistic competencies such as:

· Pronunciation exercises

· Possessive form

· Adverb suffixation (e.g. -ly)

· Expressions exercises

· Sentence word order correctness

· Prepositions (e.g. at)

· Appropriate topic choice with appropriate conversation

· Function of sharing information

· Topic and setting discussions

· Anaphora

· Introductions

However, relevant to strategic competence, the frequency of the features listed in the matrices are very limited:

· Phrase simplification

· Asking for help

· Synonym usage

In the MEXT-approved textbooks, the frequency of the features regarding the three competencies are scarcely found in the parts analysed for the current study.

The three communicative competencies have been organized to illustrate each of their features, paired with an example. Consequently, the different textbooks have been listed according to the frequencies which show how many times a certain feature was found in each of the analysed textbooks. Examples of textbook features consist of communication, pair- and group-communication practice or drills.

The results presented in Table 3 show that the frequency of features is more prominent in the non-MEXT-approved textbooks than in the MEXT-approved ones. In the non-MEXT-approved textbooks, there are selected deviations respecting frequencies between the four textbooks, whereas in the MEXT-approved textbooks, frequencies of features found within the analysed sections are limited. However, what the eight textbooks have in common is the lack of strategic competence features and drills analysed. Examples of the features will be illustrated below in this discussion of results by taking selected samples and examples of features from the textbooks to show the various kinds of communication drills used:

Communicative Competencies					G 1	P V 1	U 1	W T 1	I 1	S C 1	T N 1	W E 1
	Feature	Example	Feature	Example	Frequency
Gram-matical Compe-tence	Ability to produce L2 speech sounds	Voiced conso­nants	Pronun-ciation exercises	Drill	4	0	3	2	9	8	9	4
	Ability to use inflectional morphology	Present participle (e.g. -ing)	Posses-sive form	Drill	0	0	0	0	3	8	1	5
	Ability to use derivational morphology	Nominal suffixation (e.g. -tion)	Adverb suffixation (e.g. -ly)	Drill	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	5
	Ability to use lexical items to convey meaning	Idioms	Expres­sions exercises	Drill	3	0	0	0	8	5	5	5
	Ability to produce properly constructed sentences	S-V-O	Sentence word order correct­ness	Pair speaking practice	2	2	4	3	9	10	9	9
	Ability to connect speech through grammar and vocabulary	Coordinating conjunctions (e.g. so)	Preposi­tions (e.g. at)	Drill	1	0	0	0	10	3	8	6
Socio-linguistic Compe-tence	Ability to produce appropriate topics	Occupations	Appro-priate topic choice with appropriate conver­sation	Drill	0	0	0	0	8	6	5	7
	Ability to understand speaker-listener relationships	Roles of participants in a conversa­tion	Function of sharing information	Drill	2	1	3	5	22	20	22	18
	Ability to match speech with specific settings	Topic and setting balancing	Topic and setting discussions	Drill	2	2	3	5	10	10	12	8
	Ability to make speech meaningful	Deixis	Anaphora	Drill	0	0	0	0	6	7	8	8
	Ability to speak appropriately to a stranger	Use of formalities	Introduc­tions	Drill	1	0	0	5	8	10	7	11
Strategic Compe-tence	Ability to reduce speech forms	Brevity of speech because of an under-developed lexicon	Phrase simplifica­tion	Drill	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Ability to appeal for help	Asking for clarification	Asking for help	Drill	0	0	0	0	6	3	0	0
	Ability to paraphrase	Clarification of speech	Synonym usage	Drill	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Table 3: Matrix for the Eight Textbooks

8.1 MEXT-Approved Textbooks

Even though MEXT has reportedly claimed to focus more on communicative competence in recent years, what can be found as examples of this in the four selected textbooks is rather limited. They comprise reading passages followed by vocabulary and grammar-based exercises. These pre-communicative exercises are indeed important for students to focus on reading practice, as well as comprehension practice, but nevertheless lack in oral practice, which is important to this study, specifically activities such as: pair work, group work, and role play. However, the general flow of the four MEXT-approved textbooks is generally easy to follow. Additionally, this study looks at the first quarter of each of the four textbooks, and subsequent units follow in replicate organizational patterns as that of the first unit in each of the textbooks regarding unit features with few exceptions. 

One of the MEXT-approved textbooks is Genius 1 (G1). Each unit begins with a short listening exercise, followed by reading passages on a unit’s theme. As is the case with the other MEXT-approved textbooks, the reading passages make up at least 50% of each unit. At the bottom of these reading passages, there are keywords with their phonemes in brackets (Example 1). The addition of phonemes in the MEXT-approved textbooks is of interest to the author as no personal experience has been found concerning Japanese EFL students understanding them at all. Following the reading passages, there are sections on comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and expressions in which instructions are all given in Japanese. Consequently, there are only few activities instructing students to practice speaking with a partner. Example 2 is one of a small number of actual pair speaking exercises. There is much grammar and comprehension checking at the end of the units, but very little actual communication practice is laid out for the student. If there are spots for students to read and repeat, then these are usually pronunciation practice and not that of actual conversation creation, whereby the student could have adequate communication practice. The other three textbook units like those found in Genius 1, follow a similar pattern with roughly 50% of textual reading and checking followed by 50% of grammar, vocabulary and comprehension practice, i.e. pre-communicative English practice.

When viewing these textbooks on their own, it is important to note that they are not very useful for students in a communicative way because the MEXT-approved textbooks lack sufficient communication creation opportunities. However, the pre-communicative language practice found in the MEXT-approved textbooks is useful in that it progresses each the topic of each unit but stops before real communicative competence practice can happen.

8.2 Non-MEXT-Approved Textbooks

Regarding the non-MEXT-approved textbooks, there are considerable activities found throughout all of them to guide and improve students’ English communication abilities. All the non-MEXT-approved textbooks - just like the MEXT-approved textbooks - contain units which follow the same formatting as the previous one, which is important for students in terms of familiarization of activities which can make subsequent units easier to follow.

Just like the MEXT-approved textbooks, the first quarter of each of the non-MEXT-approved textbooks was analysed. In the textbook World English 1 (WE1) for example, each unit begins with a two-page spread which illustrates and lists the theme of the following units and states its objectives. This step illustrates that there are no Japanese translations from the beginning, and also what may be expected in the following unit as far as the topic in concerned. Within each of the chapters of World English 1, there are five goals. The first goal introduces the vocabulary and grammar of the very unit and comes with instructions for students to work with a partner to discuss certain activities and parts found in the relevant unit. This is important, as instead of just reading four or five pages without giving thought to communicative competence, the textbook - like the other three - follows similar patterns. This textbook allows the teacher, when just looking at the first two pages of the first chapter, to recognize that there is already practice in reading, writing, phonology, morphology, and vocabulary as well as speaking. Thus, the major components of language learning are available for practice. Goal two in each of the units adds listening, pronunciation and communication sections. Goal three expands the language by adding a new grammar point and finishes with another communicative activity. Goal four consists of reading and writing activities, finishing off with a speaking activity. Goal five, which is different as compared to the other seven textbooks, adds a video component which offers students a chance to listen to spoken language, followed by further grammar and communication practice.

This textbook - as is the case with the other non-MEXT-approved textbooks - offers teachers the chance to incite their students to practise English orally. On every other page found throughout World English 1, there are directions in English to work with a partner so as to fulfill certain communicative activities. This is contrary to the MEXT-approved textbooks, because the former offer very little communication practice to positively affect student’s communicative growth.

9 Textbook Feature Analysis

9.1 Grammatical Competence

As was mentioned previously, the non-MEXT-approved textbooks show more features of communicative competencies than are found in the MEXT-approved textbooks. For example, pronunciation exercises, adverb suffixation, and anaphora. Therefore, a question remains: if a given textbook offers an L2 student chances to practise a feature, will it allow him or her to communicatively acquire these features through the use of the textbook? The grammatical competence features which exist in the textbooks consist of pronunciation exercises, possessive form drills, adverb suffixation drills, expression exercises, word-order correctness practice, preposition drills, and introduction drills and exercises. These features encompass competencies relating to phonology, morphology, vocabulary, semantics and syntax.

Interchange 1 (I1) (p. 4), Smart Choice 1 (SC1) (p. 6), and especially Top Notch 1 (TN1) (p. 14.) feature sufficient pronunciation exercises, such as Example 1. This is also true for G1 (p. 13), World English 1 (WE1) (p. 5), Unicorn 1 (U1) (p. 20), and World Trek 1 (WT1) (p. 6). Pro-Vision 1 (PV1), however, lacks substance in this area. Possessive form drills, expression exercises, word order correctness practice, and preposition drills (Example 2) are furthermore to be found in all non-MEXT-approved textbooks, whereas the MEXT-approved textbooks on the whole lack substance, except for word order correctness practice. As for adverb suffixation, there were no occurrences except for World English 1 and Smart Choice 1. It is clear that the MEXT-approved textbooks do not offer sufficient practice to L2 students concerning grammatical competence communicative practice. It is important to notice how close the four non-MEXT-approved textbooks are in accordance with the frequencies found within our data.

Example 1:

Smart Choice 1: Pronunciation Exercises

(SC1 - Unit 1, 2011: 12)

Example 2:

World English 1: Possessive Form Exercises

(WE1 - Unit 3, 2010: 29)

9.2 Sociolinguistic Competence

Sociolinguistic competence is very important as it helps L2 learners to practise and develop rules and knowledge of language usage. The sociolinguistic competence features which were analysed in the selected textbooks are: introduction exercises, appropriate topic choice with appropriate conversation drills, the function of sharing information exercises, topic and setting discussion drills and, finally, anaphoric exercises, which is one component that gives speech meaning.

The MEXT-approved textbooks lack substance in the areas of introduction exercises and appropriate topic features. In the present research, no examples which explicitly direct students to speak with a partner or in a group to complete a feature, could be found. On the other hand, the non-MEXT-approved textbooks showed consistent examples in this area (Examples 3 & 4). The goal for the examples are to show the ability to produce topics, and after students have learnt the vocabulary and grammar related to a given topic, they will be ready to attempt communicative exercises in the same semantic field. With the exercises offered in World English 1 are clear and easy to follow for even lower level students.

The setting in which discussions take place is not commonly taught in ESL classrooms but is key to improving L2 learners’ understanding of what constitutes appropriate speech in various settings, and this may vary from language to language. Therefore, practise in this area is of paramount importance in developing communicative competence. Much of the topics and settings matched in the units analysed, but failed to offer appropriate communicative practice.

Lastly, coherence competence deals with the ability to make speech meaningful. Anaphora is one part of this. An example in a conversation is when a speaker begins a statement with a man’s name and in following phrases refers to the man as him or he. Anaphora is an important skill to learn as it makes speech sound more fluent and fluid. The MEXT-approved textbooks failed in this area of sociolinguistic competence, as not one single example for the teaching of communicative competence could be found. However, within the non-MEXT-approved textbooks, there were enough samples to conclude that it is something that editors notice and aim to add into conversation activities.

Example 3:

World English 1 Appropriate Topic Choice Exercises

(WE 1 - Unit 1, 2010: 11)

Example 4:

Interchange 1: Anaphoric Exercises

(I1 - Unit 2, 2010: 10)

9.3 Strategic Competence

Strategic competence is very important for communicative competence as it incorporates features which assist L2 learners in acquiring compensatory strategies. Consequently, strategic competence highlights troubleshooting methods for L2 learners who have certain grammatical skills but lack the necessary questioning power: the ability to ask one's interlocutors for further information or their understanding generally makes up an essential part of communication.

Concerning the frequency of the three features - phrase simplification, asking for help, and synonyms - only two textbooks, both of which were non-MEXT-approved textbooks (Interchange 1 and Smart Choice 1) came up with data pertaining to phrase simplification and asking for help (Example 5). In this study, this feature is characterized as being of special importance for communicative practice as it assists the speaker in checking his or her own comprehension so that he or she is able to understand what has just been said.

Among the eight textbooks analysed, only Interchange 1 offers learners ways to ask for help, thus covering the area of strategic competence (six occurrences: pp. 4, 7, 9, 12, 15, 20. However, compared to subsequent features found in other competencies, six occurrences represent rather a low level.

Example 5:

Interchange 1: Asking For Help Exercises

(I1 - Unit 1, 2010: 2)

It is apparent that non-MEXT-approved textbooks offer satisfactory practice to L2 students regarding communicative, sociocultural, and strategic competencies. The previous examples were given to highlight some of the important language competencies that must be learned when studying English as a foreign language. In contrast, MEXT-approved textbooks do not offer L2 students adequate assistance in the acquisition of communicative competence.

10 Discussion

Based on the results of the textbooks studied, a ranking of the total number of features can be tallied (Table 4):

	Grammatical Communicative Competence	Sociolinguistic Communicative Competence	Strategic Communicative Competence	Total
I1	39	54	6	99
SC1	36	53	3	92
TN1	32	54	0	86
WE1	34	52	0	86
WT1	5	15	0	20
G1	10	5	0	15
U1	7	6	0	13
PV1	2	3	0	5

Table 4: Textbook Ranking of the Total Number of Features

When looking at these figures, the critical mind will soon find that in the MEXT-approved textbooks, there are some inconsistencies concerning communicative competence. WT1, G1, and U1 are similar in the amount of features to be found in total. However, PV1 fails as only five features were found. In addition, the features appear to be unevenly distributed even for the MEXT-approved textbooks. As we can see from Table 4, G1 (5) and U1 (6) are quantitatively comparable in terms of sociolinguistic competence, whereas WT1 has double the amount of examples than each of them. Additionally, for grammatical competence, WT1 shows five features, G1, and U1 have ten and seven features, respectively.

The non-MEXT-approved textbooks show between 34 and 39 features for grammatical competence. For sociolinguistic competence, I1 and TN1 have 54 features each, while SC1 shows 53, and WE1 has 52 features. These figures eclipse those found in the MEXT-approved textbooks. Additionally, the non-MEXT-approved numbers are rather uniform, considering the fact that they represent four different textbooks published by four different publishers.

Regarding strategic competence, only features were analysed for I1 and SC1 whereas in the other textbooks, not a single feature of strategic competence could be found in the data researched.

From the present study, it is clear that the non-MEXT-approved textbooks are of high quality with regards to grammatical competence and sociolinguistic competence, but do not show the same level in strategic competence (Figure 4). Subsequently, the eight textbooks fail regarding features of strategic competence. It is also apparent that the MEXT-approved textbooks - unlike the non-MEXT-approved textbooks - show a low number of total features. To illustrate this point, the MEXT-approved textbooks with the highest number of features (WT1) only has a total of 20 features regarding communicative competence, whereas the two textbooks displaying the lowest amount of features out of the non-MEXT-approved textbooks (TN1 and WE1) have a total of 86 features each. Altogether, the four MEXT-approved textbooks make up a grand total of 53 features, far fewer features than were found in the non-MEXT-approved textbooks. Therefore, overall, the four non-MEXT-approved textbooks are best equipped to develop students' communicative competence. In comparison, the MEXT-approved textbooks are of no relevant use for developing students' communicative competence. They can primarily be used as English reading textbooks, at best supplementarily, but considering the amount of Japanese found in them, Japanese teachers of English would be the ones to use them primarily. Subsequently, there is little evidence to show that they represent general language textbooks

11 Conclusion

The two types of textbooks analysed in this article differ greatly with regards to communicative competence. The MEXT-approved textbooks do not seem to sufficiently provide opportunities for students to acquire communicative competence. The non-MEXT-approved textbooks, on the other hand, appear to offer a more appropriate practice of communicative competence.

Considering the differences between the two kinds of textbooks analysed in the research, insight can be found as an answer to the question of how to help students to develop communicative competence. If the MEXT-approved textbooks used for this study are employed in an EFL classroom in Japan, then little or no communication will take place through using them alone. If these textbooks are so unacceptable, then teachers will have to use supplemental materials if communicative competence is to be practiced communicatively. Consequently, the added time and effort for teachers to create these materials represents a considerable problem, as they have many other duties. Therefore, it is clear, not only regarding communicative competence, but also considering the layout and design of the non-MEXT-approved textbooks, that using MEXT-approved textbooks appears to be a limitation in various areas of English education.

Finally, considering the MEXT approach to changing and improving English education in Japan, there are problems which still exist. In late 2015, it is still hard to see a big sweeping change in English education in Japan. Even though MEXT, at the end of 2008, proposed changes, one example being that classes should be taught in English (Stewart 2009:2), it is quite clear that in 2015 this is not happening in every school, especially when looking at evidence of what teachers are using in classes as textbooks. Curriculum guidelines and changes proposed by MEXT cannot be taken earnestly when the textbooks they approve are sub-par regarding communicative competence. If MEXT is serious about inciting students and teachers to use more English in class, then the MEXT textbooks should follow those standards and examples used in the non-MEXT-approved textbooks. After the changes to English education made by MEXT in 2013, It is hoped that MEXT-approved textbooks will soon resemble those which reside in the vast pool of non-MEXT-approved textbooks, communicative competence being an excellent approach to English language learning as it highlights many of the aspects that L2 language teachers need to focus on when teaching EFL.

Stewart posits a very relevant question moving forward: “What does communicative use of the language mean in English classes when nearly all instruction is done in Japanese?” (Stewart 2009: 2). It will be interesting to see what MEXT brings forward during its curriculum reform in 2016. Can it make a sufficient change so as to improve textbooks by refraining from instructions in Japanese and very limited practice of communicative competence and tending towards the approach that non-MEXT-approved textbooks follow? Furthermore, can MEXT convince those Japanese teachers who do not generally use English in their classrooms to change their behaviour and start using the target language? Considering the MEXT track-record in English reform in Japan, the future is unclear for English students who need to acquire communicative competence alongside other English studies. In an article which sums up many of the problems of the English education system in Japan, The Japan Times states:

This conversation from traditional methods to a more active and communicative approach is decades behind the rest of the world. As China, Vietnam, and South Korea have moved ahead, Japan’s English education policies have languished. (The Japan Times Online 2009)

References

I. Primary Sources

Asaba, Ryoichi et al. (2010). World Trek English Course I New Edition. Tokyo: Kirihara Shoten, 6-30. (WT1)

Ascher, Allen & Joan Saslow (2011). Top Notch 1 (second edition). New York: Pearson Education, 2-30. (TN1)

Haraguchi, Shosuke et al. (2009). Pro-Vision New Edition English Course I. Tokyo: Kirihara Shoten, 6-32. (PV1)

Ichikawa, Yasuo et al. (2010). New Edition Unicorn English Course I. Tokyo: Bun-Eido, 7-37. (U1)

Milner, Martin (2010). World English 1. Boston: Heinle, Cengage Learning, 5-37. (WE1)

Richards, Jack C. et al. (2012). Interchange 1 (Third Edition). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2-32. (I1)

Wilson, Ken (2011). Smart Choice 1 (Second Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2-28. (SC1)

Yoneyama, Asaji et al. (2011). Genius English Course I Revised. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten, 8-35. (G1)

II. Secondary Sources

Bachman, Lyle B. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bagarić, Vesna, & Jelena M. Djigunović (2007). Defining communicative competence. Metodika, 8(1), 94-103. (hrcak.srce.hr/file/42651; 15.11.2015).

Bowles, Michael (2001). Problems in treatment of vocabulary in approved Jr. High school textbooks: Informing teachers. ETJ Journal, 2(2), 18-20.

Butler, Yuko Goto & Masakazu Iino (2005). Current Japanese reforms in English language education: The 2003 “Action Plan.” Language Policy, 4, 25-45. (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10993-004-6563-5; 22.12.2015).

Campbell, Robin & Roger Wales (1970). The Study of Language Acquisition. In Lyons, J. (ed.) New Horizons in Linguistics, 242-260. Harodsworth: Pinguin Books Ltd.

Canale, Michael (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J.C. Richards and R.W. Schmidt (eds.) Language and Communication. London: Longman.

Canale, Michael & Merrill Swain (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. (http://ibatefl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CLT-Canale-Swain.pdf; 22.15.2015).

Kavanagh, Barry (2012). The theory and practice of communicative language teaching in Japan. Academic Research International, 2(2), 1-9. (http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.2%282%29/2012%282.2-80%29.pdf; 20.09.2015).

Gorsuch, Greta (2000). EFL educational policies and educational cultures: Influences on teachers' approval of communicative activities. TESOL Quarterly, 34(4), 675-710. (www.jstor.org/stable/3587781; 25.09.2015).

Gorsuch, Greta (2001). Japanese EFL teachers' perceptions of communicative, audiolingual and yakudoku activities: The plan versus the reality. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(10), 1-27. (epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/339; 20.09.2015).

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

Hymes, Dell Hathaway (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. In J. Macnamara, (Ed.), Problems of Bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23, 8-28.

Hymes, Dell Hathaway (1968). The ethnography of speaking. In J. Fishman, (Ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton.

Hymes, Dell Hathaway (1972). On Communicative Competence. Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269-293. (www.homes.uni-bielefeld.de/sgramley/Hymes-2.pdf; 22.12.2015).

The Japan Times Online (2009). English Taught in English. (www.japantimes.co.jp/text/ed20090112a1.html; 15.11.2015).

Kamiya, Masashito (2006). The role of communicative competence in L2 learning. Sophia University Junior College Division Faculty Bulletin, 1-26. (https://www.jrc.sophia.ac.jp/pdf/research/bulletin/ki26/kamiya.pdf; 22.12.2015).

Kashihara, Tetsuya (2006). English education and policy in Japan. 12th OECD-Japan Seminar 2006,1-7. (http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/41521944.pdf; 22.12.2015).

Kikuchi, Keita & Charles Browne (2009). English educational policy for high schools in Japan: Ideal vs. Reality. RELC Journal, 40(2), 1-21. (rel.sagepub.com/content/40/2/172; 22.12.2015).

Langham, Clive (2007). MEXT-authorized English textbooks: The writing and screening of Japanese high school text series. Second Language Acquisition – Theory and Pedagogy: Proceedings of the 6th Annual JALT Pan-SIG Conference, 7-11. (jalt.org/pansig/2007/HTML/Langham.htm; 22.12.2015).

Littlewood, William (2004). The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319-326. (http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/4/319.full.pdf+html; 22.12.2015).

Marchand, Tim (2010). Steps towards improved participation? An analysis of classroom talk and the “ladder of interaction” in the Japanese context. (Master's dissertation, Aston University, 2010), 1-92. (www.asian-efl-journal.com/Thesis/Thesis-Marchand.pdf; 22.12.2015).

Matsumoto, Yasuyo (2008). Investigating classroom dynamics in Japanese university EFL classrooms. (Master's dissertation, The University of Birmingham, 2008), 1-342. (etheses.bham.ac.uk/296/3/Matsumoto09PhD.pdf; 22.12.2015).

McGregor, William (2009). Linguistics: An Introduction. London: Continuum. 13-384.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2003). Regarding the establishment of an action plan to cultivate “Japanese with English abilities.” (mext.go.jp/english/topics/03072801.htm; 22.12.2015).

Naigai Kyoiku (Inside and Outside of Education). (2008). Mar, 28, No. 5811, 8.

Naigai Kyoiku (Inside and Outside of Education). (2009). Jan, 30, No. 5884, 10.

Naigai Kyoiku (Inside and Outside of Education). (2010). Jan, 26, No. 5967, 6.

Naigai Kyoiku (Inside and Outside of Education). (2011). Jan, 28, No. 6054, 12.

Naigai Kyoiku (Inside and Outside of Education). (2011). Dec, 13, No. 6128, 10.

Nishino, Takako (2008). Japanese secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding communicative language teaching: An exploratory survey. JALT Journal, 30(1), 27-50. (http://jalt-publications.org/archive/jj/2008a/art2.pdf; 23.12.2015).

Ogura, Fleur (2008). Communicative competence and senior high school oral communication textbooks in Japan. The Language Teacher, 32(12), 3-8. (jalt-publications.org/files/pdf-article/32.12art1.pdf;  22.12.2015).

Okuno, Higashi (2007). A critical discussion on the action plan to cultivate “Japanese with English abilities.” The Journal of Asia TEFL, 4(4), 133-158. (www.asiatefl.org/main/download_pdf.php?i=281&c=1419313007; 22.12.2015).

Quock, Theodore (2002). Japanese learners of English in the new millennium. 2002 Australian International Education Conference (AIEC), 1-23. (http://aiec.idp.com/uploads/pdf/Quock%20_p.pdf; 22.12.2015).

Rapley, Douglas James (2008).  Policy and reality: The teaching of oral communication by Japanese teachers of English in public junior high schools in Kurashiki City, Japan. (Master's dissertation, Massey University, 2008), 1-111. (mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/794; 22.12.2015).

Rapley, Douglas James (2010). Learning to speak English: Japanese junior high school student views. The   Language Teacher, 34(6), 1-8. (jalt-publications.org/files/pdf-article/art5.pdf; 22.12.2015).

Reesor, Matthew (2003). Japanese attitudes to English: Towards an explanation of poor performance. NUCB Journal of Language, Communication and Culture, 5(2), 57-65. (http://www.nucba.ac.jp/themes/s_cic@cic@nucba/pdf/njlcc052/06REESOR.PDF; 22.12.2015).

Savignon, Sandra J. (1972). Communicative competence: an experiment in foreign-language teaching. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.

Schultz, Richard A. (1977). The recognition of foreign accents in English and its implications for psycholinguistics theories of language acquisition. Paper presented at the 5th AILA Congress, Montreal, Canada, August 1978.

Sharma, Bal Krishna (2005). An analysis of EFL textbooks for the beginners: A study on English textbooks in Japan. Journal of NELTA, 10(1-2), 1-14. (nepjol.info/index.php/NELTA/article/download/3259/2825; 22.12.2015).

Stewart, Tim (2009). Will the new English curriculum for 2013 work? The Language Teacher, 33(11), 1-6. (jalt-publications.org/files/pdf-article/33.11-art2.pdf; 22.12.2015).

Takeda, Aya et al. (2006). Analysis and comparison of the junior and senior high school level English textbooks for Japan and Korea. Second Language Studies, 25(1), 1-30. (http://www.hawaii.edu/sls/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/TakedaChoiMochizukiWatanabe.pdf; 22.12.2015).

Templin, Stephen A. (1997). Mombusho approved textbooks. The Language Teacher. (jalt-publications.org/old_tlt/files/97/jun/templin.html; 22.12.2015).

White, Merry (1993). The Material Child: Coming of Age in Japan and America. New York: Free Press, 76-149.

Yashima, Tomoko (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54-66. (www.jstor.org/stable/1192769; 22.12.2015).

Author:

Matthew Michaud

Program Coordinator and Instructor of English as a Foreign Language

Kwansei Gakuin University

School of Economics

Nishinomiya

Hyogo

Japan

E-mail: mattymichaud@hotmail.com